Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   John Robert's gay cousin to sit in on the Prop 8 hearings. There's a joke about Scalia in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know what it is   (politico.com) divider line 175
    More: Interesting, Scalia, hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts, Defense of Marriage Act, cousins, good directions  
•       •       •

1303 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 8:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 09:32:14 AM  

hinten: roadmarks: hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?

What's more likely:
You reading TFA?
Or you having a knee-jerk reaction?

FTFA:
Podrasky went through Roberts' sister, Peggy, and the justice's secretary to get the tickets.

Strange way of using the word "guest". Apparently, she is his guest, independent of whether he actually invited her or not.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/25/john_roberts_jean_ po drasky_chief_justice_s_lesbian_cousin_will_attend_prop.html


Goal posts successfully moved!
How is Roberts giving anything away if he did not invite her? Yeah, she is his guest in that she is sitting in his section, but I doubt he had any say in it.
 
2013-03-25 09:32:21 AM  

xanadian: FTFA: I believe he sees where the tide is going

On one hand, it's not a justice's job to be populist. They're supposed to weigh the elements of the case and make a decision based off of their interpretation of the Constitution (and precedent).

On the other hand, only a brain-dead monkey wouldn't see that Prop 8 tramples on people's 1st and 14th amendment rights. What's funny is the NOM people are claiming that gay marriage tramples on THEIR "freedom of religion" rights. Well, what about everyone ELSE'S rights?


I'm sure it's something easy like. 'Well, they have the right to not be icky gay and be good christian folks like us'
 
2013-03-25 09:42:30 AM  

grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.


Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.
 
2013-03-25 09:45:33 AM  
I agree completely about Roberts's motivations, but I think he's going to unequivocally strike it down.  Upholding prop 8 would be overturned, and soon.  There will be a historic decision, and it will be either be The Roberts Court upholding equal rights with regard to marriage equality, or it will be a court 15 years down the road that upholds marriage equality.  I think Roberts will side with Ginsberg, Kagen, Bryer, and Sotamayor.  Of course Scalia, Thomas, Alito will vote to uphold prop 8.  I don't think Prop 8 is the hill Roberts wants to die on.  I think this will be a clear, historic decision.   This won't be the hill Roberts is going to die on.
 
2013-03-25 09:46:59 AM  

phenn: 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.


Could you imagine the collective head explosions if that actually happened though? Oh man, that would be amazing

/8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what
//9-0 maybe on DOMA with Scalia striking it down solely because it's an overreach of federal power
 
2013-03-25 09:47:49 AM  

hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


I think it's more likely he didn't invite her at all
 
2013-03-25 09:48:53 AM  

phenn: grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.

Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.


I honestly think it will be 7-2
 
2013-03-25 09:50:41 AM  
I'm predicting Roberts going the popular way on this, not so much because it is the popular way as because he actually seems to swing small-c conservative in his assessments rather than party-line, so "there is no valid reason for this law outside of religious arguments which are not permissible" is actually an argument he's likely to buy into, Republican-nominated or not.

That said, that's just my personal guess based on how he's behaved in office so far.  His decision regarding the ACA case, particularly, pretty well reeked of barely-restrained sarcastic disapproval with politicking bullshiat over practical concerns.

//My overall guess is going to be something like 7-2 or 6-3 upholding the lower court's decision to strike down the amendment, though I suspect the reasoning is going to be pretty divergent in the assent and the majority opinion isn't going to be outright in favor of gay marriage as stating firmly that you can't pass a law limiting something that you've previously declared an un-limited civil right on grounds of gender.
 
2013-03-25 09:54:41 AM  

somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what


Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.
 
2013-03-25 09:54:59 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: The Gay Mafia strikes again.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 361x328]



Dammit, I was gonna post that pic
 
2013-03-25 09:57:57 AM  
This is groundbreaking.

Gay people haven't been allowed to see the court in session before.
 
2013-03-25 09:58:39 AM  

phenn: somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.


That's what happens when you put an Originalist on the court. He interprets the law based on what the imaginary Constitution in his head says.
 
2013-03-25 09:59:43 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.



I wouldn't be surprised if a rash of gay marriages broke out in the courtroom.
 
2013-03-25 10:01:37 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


Pretty sure this is a troll post, but just to make sure everyone understands that the decision for a gay couple to wed will likely result from the same factors that lead a straight couple to wed: they feel that they want to form a stable lifelong bond with, and want to have that partnership recognized by the community at large.

Sex and marriage aren't the same thing: gay guys who are only interested in hooking up with each other aren't going to be getting married on a whim any more often than a guy and a girl who had a one-night stand after last call. Plus you need to study up on no-fault divorce and monogamy as a necessary factor in marriage today anyway. "Open marriages" are fairly normalized among straight couples: in the minority, but definitely something that exists. To say that gay people are inherently less committed to their partners has very little firm evidence, comes from observing a society where there is little benefit to commitment for gays, assumes the people getting married would include those not interested in commitment, and assumes that sexual monogamy is integral to modern civil marriage.
 
2013-03-25 10:06:53 AM  

somedude210: Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what


Is the opinion Scalia writes going to be an embarrassment to history the same way his opinions to AZ immigration and ACA were?
 
2013-03-25 10:09:25 AM  

Muta: somedude210: Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Is the opinion Scalia writes going to be an embarrassment to history the same way his opinions to AZ immigration and ACA were?


Oh, it'll be an embarrassment to history, the Court, the legal profession as a whole...  Typical Scalia opinion, in other words.
 
2013-03-25 10:09:33 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' ...

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !



So ... gay men are exactly like straight men, then?
 
2013-03-25 10:10:20 AM  

Muta: somedude210: Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Is the opinion Scalia writes going to be an embarrassment to history the same way his opinions to AZ immigration and ACA were?


Book it.  Done.
 
2013-03-25 10:11:33 AM  

verbaltoxin: phenn: somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.

That's what happens when you put an Originalist on the court. He interprets the law based on what the imaginary Constitution in his head says.


I'd almost make the argument that an originalist would side with me on this one. It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes and that, I think, is precisely what Prop 8 did.

Irrespective of what he may think about same-gender marriage, it can't be debated that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Traditionalist. Maybe that's the proper description for him as opposed to originalist. Either way, the boy makes me quite angry.
 
2013-03-25 10:14:32 AM  

xanadian: Harvey Milk was right.


No shiat.  It's why coming out is (still) so vitally important.
 
2013-03-25 10:16:41 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: //* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !


Ah, anecdotal evidence, the best kind of "fact."
 
2013-03-25 10:19:40 AM  

hinten: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?


What's more likely:
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the horrible news in person?
He invited his gay cousin to ensure she can hear the good news so she can stop bugging him at every single family meal?


How, exactly, did he invite her?

HotWingConspiracy: mrshowrules: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

There was a gay on the city bus today and I felt compelled to tidy my office this morning.

I started wearing a buttplug just in case I encounter them. I don't want to offend anyone.


I saw a gay guy at the grocery store last week so this weekend I hid pastel colored plastic eggs filled with pastel colored M&Ms all over the office this weekend.
 
2013-03-25 10:21:29 AM  

Hobodeluxe: phenn: grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.

Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.

I honestly think it will be 7-2



Agreed--- Alito is a conservative, but even in spite of that, I don't think he's dumb(Scalia) and he's no lapdog Thomas)
 
2013-03-25 10:23:01 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: If I was in Law school I would be boning up on contracts and marriage/divorce laws.

In a few years there be big money, as the young dudes leave with 1/2 the family money and ancestral estate.

Sure I know it happens all the time with gold diggers and old men.

Just think there will be a whole new set of conditions given the " *infidelities and hook ups among gay men ' and the whole but "we're married and he cheated on me your honor."
Lesbians will just continue to be pissed off regardless.

Think you're Dad was a little disturbed when you came out in HS.
 Imagine the look on his face when Antonio gets the Summer House in the settlement.

//* based upon gay friends talking about weekend conquests and drive by's encounters !
///. Welcome to the club..it ain't all about the wedding.


So is it your opinion that equal rights for gays is just too complicated for our legal system?
 
2013-03-25 10:23:25 AM  

phenn: Irrespective of what he may think about same-gender marriage, it can't be debated that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.


Eh, it  can, the arguments in question just aren't very convincing in their analogies and logic to most people raised with the standard Hobbes/Locke mashup philosophy that the constitution and supporting documentation (federalist papers, etc) sort of embody.

But that doesn't mean such arguments can't be made and turned into formal votes on the court.  Just look at the last time marijuana came up-- a couple judges blatantly ignored their  own precedents and used arguments they'd explicitly derided in previous opinions in order to go with the "drugs bad" ruling.

//Albeit I apparently need to specify that I include the anti-federalist papers in "federalist papers", since they argue from the same philosophical underpinnings and the two are generally published in the same volume as "the federalist papers" nowadays, dissenting and assenting alike.  Been called out for using the term inclusively before.
 
2013-03-25 10:24:15 AM  

phenn: It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
 
2013-03-25 10:25:59 AM  
If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:42 AM  

phenn: verbaltoxin: phenn: somedude210: /8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what

Very sad. A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you. Maybe that's just me.

That's what happens when you put an Originalist on the court. He interprets the law based on what the imaginary Constitution in his head says.

I'd almost make the argument that an originalist would side with me on this one. It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes and that, I think, is precisely what Prop 8 did.

Irrespective of what he may think about same-gender marriage, it can't be debated that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Traditionalist. Maybe that's the proper description for him as opposed to originalist. Either way, the boy makes me quite angry.


"Crank" is the word you seek. He's proof that you can, in fact, know the right fools to put you in a powerful place. Scalia is a huge black mark on the integrity of the Supreme Court.
 
2013-03-25 10:29:59 AM  

Theaetetus: phenn: It's not within the purview of government to create separate and unequal classes

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


True.
 
2013-03-25 10:35:52 AM  

meat0918: If the courts overturn Prop 8, the loudest bigots among us are going to say she tainted the proceedings and they aren't valid.

Oh, and what's that going to do to places like Oregon that have banned it?

//Last I knew, Oregon is primed to repeal their ban.  Enough old farts have died off I guess.


It all depends on how the Supremes structure their rulings on the two cases in front of them, but if they overturn Prop 8, they overturn ALL anti-same sex marriage state laws and amendments.  And if they do that, they have to rule DOMA unconstitutional as well, I believe.
 
2013-03-25 10:38:48 AM  

somedude210: phenn: 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.

Could you imagine the collective head explosions if that actually happened though? Oh man, that would be amazing

/8-1 maybe, Scalia isn't gonna rule against Prop 8 no matter what
//9-0 maybe on DOMA with Scalia striking it down solely because it's an overreach of federal power


Honestly, heard very compelling arguments from both opponents and supporters that the Supreme Court overruling Prop 8/DOMA is the best result for opponents of gay marriage. Oh, the conservatives on the court will try to vote against it, but they might want it to win because it allows Republicans to avoid legalization of gay marriage as a potential cudgel against them now that it has public support while still raising money off of opposing it with "activist judge" campaigning. It also cuts off the grassroots campaigning for it at the knees: history will remember it as a way the judiciary shifted public opinion rather than the other way around.

This sounds more like peoples egos than real complaints and I don't think it would end up playing out like Roe V. Wade like some Republicans hope it would, but it's technically possible.
 
2013-03-25 10:41:31 AM  
Someone on the news this weekend suggested a strong likelihood the cases would be decided on something procedural and the Supreme Court would even reach the merits of Prop 8 or DOMA, choosing instead to send it back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. I'm not sure what this "procedural" issue is, but if it exists, you can bet your sweet ass the Supreme Court will use it as a way out if at all possible.

And Scalia will still say something mind-numbingly stupid.
 
2013-03-25 10:46:18 AM  
There are plenty of gay rumors about Roberts himself. I have no idea if there's any truth to them.
 
2013-03-25 10:48:41 AM  

tnpir: Someone on the news this weekend suggested a strong likelihood the cases would be decided on something procedural and the Supreme Court would even reach the merits of Prop 8 or DOMA, choosing instead to send it back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. I'm not sure what this "procedural" issue is, but if it exists, you can bet your sweet ass the Supreme Court will use it as a way out if at all possible.

And Scalia will still say something mind-numbingly stupid.


Highly unlikely. SCOTUS picks the cases they want to here and it would be just plain stupid of them to grab a hot potato like Prop 8 just to bounce it back to a lower court for additional review.

A lot could happen with this ruling. The court could quash every Federal/State law as well as the numerous state amendments in a single ruling. That is unlikely, but still possible. My guess is either a 9-0 or 6-3 (if Alito, Scalia, and Thomas can't get over their homophobia). Prop 8, DOMA, and the other ilk are just bad law and only there out of spite.
 
2013-03-25 10:50:18 AM  

phenn: grchunt: I'm handicapping the decision at 6-3 in favor of marriage equality.  Anyone else?
I think C.J. Roberts has a pretty keen sense of the fact that he'll live to see his decision overturned if he votes otherwise and I don't think he wants that to happen.  I'm guessing he might advocate for a more limited, but still positive, ruling.

Seems like 5-4 has been a bit of a trend lately. Because Prop 8 is so horribly flawed, 9-0 would be more appropriate, but that's hoping for too much from the court.


It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting).  I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Let Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissent on this.  They can be seen in recorded history as the justices that ignored the constitution and decided to slobber on Taney's crusty cock instead.
 
2013-03-25 10:52:41 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-25 10:56:03 AM  

Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.


I'm guessing 7-2.  What people forget is that as conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual rights.  This is (basically) the same Court who finally struck down state sodomy laws.
 
2013-03-25 11:00:24 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: The Gay Mafia strikes again.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 361x328]


douggoff.com
 
2013-03-25 11:04:40 AM  

phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.


Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?
 
2013-03-25 11:05:05 AM  

Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.


I think you're exactly right. Kennedy has already shown where he is on this issue by shooting down Colorado's Amendment 2 15 years ago (Romer v. Evans).  Roberts tends to look at social issues through more of a traditional conservative lens and will not vote to uphold a limitation of rights (he also won't buy the horseshiat freedom of religion argument).  Scalia and Thomas will definitely dissent, and the only question there is whether or not Thomas has the stones to author his own opinion or just hook onto Scalia's garbage.  Alito, well, that's anyone's guess.
 
2013-03-25 11:07:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.


It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1
 
2013-03-25 11:08:21 AM  

CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?


Equal protection clause is the obvious answer.
 
2013-03-25 11:08:50 AM  

raatz01: There are plenty of gay rumors about Roberts himself. I have no idea if there's any truth to them.


Facially he's a DILF but I gotta see more than a face and a black robe; need to see much more bod before I can decide if I would hit or not.
 
2013-03-25 11:12:24 AM  

USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1


"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?
 
2013-03-25 11:16:44 AM  

dumbobruni: USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1

"
Yes--it is to destroy Freedom of Religion--make religion meaningless-without sexual morality in religion--there can be no morality in religion.
With anal sex = Good, there is no Christian Ethics allowed. Just paganism/Atheism/Islam, since sodomy is fine in that religion.
This will normalize sodomy for children like in Afghanistan, even if they are Christians--because whatever is legal becomes "normal" to young kids. It takes an Amish-type society to keep kids protected from accepting evil ideas that are generated inside a culture. Toxic athiest/pagan cultures-like the Weimar Republic creates a hell on earth."

ok, which farker troll account is this?


I hope it's not a troll, I'm quite looking forward to this anal sex filled hellscape.
 
2013-03-25 11:17:28 AM  

CrackpipeCardozo: phenn: A think Prop 8 is so obviously unconstitutional, a child could point it out for you.

Why is Prop 8 "so obviously unconstitutional"?


Well, it created three separate classes of people. Heterosexuals can marry, divorce, remarry, etc. Homosexuals who were already married could stay married, but not remarry after a death or divorce. Unmarried homosexuals could not marry, period.

So, I could be wrong. But, that sounds like a law that creates separate and unequal classes of people. Someone already corrected me that the government slipped that into the 14th, so my argument may be invalid.

Even if it's not unconstitutional, I would assess any rational individual would call it immoral.
 
2013-03-25 11:19:13 AM  
9-0 striking down DOMA as an overreach of federal power.  Expect a socially liberal result with from conservative reasoning which pulls all 9 on-board.

9-0 vacating the ruling on prop 8 and remanding the case for consideration in light of DOMA being struck down.  With discrimination at the federal level being banned, and with CA state officials refusing to enforce prop 8, the trial court is then free to dismiss the prop 8 case for lack of standing.  Prop 8 will be left intact on a technicality, but be functionally meaningless.

SCOTUS doesn't like to decide thorny issues unless they have to, and if the judges get a chance to punt part of a case on a technicality, I think they will.  Remember the first Bush v. Gore type ruling was a 9-0 "we don't have to decide this right now, so we won't" ruling...I'm betting on the same on prop 8.
 
2013-03-25 11:19:56 AM  

USCLaw2010: HotWingConspiracy: Satanic_Hamster: hinten: Thank you Judge Roberts for pre-announcing how the Supreme Court will rule on this case.

How, exactly, did he announce anything....?

His mere proximity to gay will sway his legal reasoning.

It's funny, but freepers actually believe that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3000403/posts?page=1


A comment from the forum:

And to utterly destroy the natural family, which in turn utterly destroys the fabric of normal society. It means total ruin.

This poster may be issuing a valid warning, if the smoking wasteland that was once Canada is any indication.
 
2013-03-25 11:20:25 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Rann Xerox: It will be either 6-3 (Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) or 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting). I don't think Roberts wants to be linked to the kind of decision that reminds people of Chief Justice Roger Taney.

I'm guessing 7-2.  What people forget is that as conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual rights.  This is (basically) the same Court who finally struck down state sodomy laws.


Good point.  In Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia and Thomas, along with Chief Justice Rehnquist, were the dissenting votes for the 6-3 decision.  I still think Alito will join them.
 
2013-03-25 11:26:33 AM  
My bet is DOMA is struck Down and same sex marriage bans will be deemed unconstitutional
/ straight ally
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report