Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[C_Clayton_Jones]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Gay marriage is not a left/right issue it's an authoritarian religious whacko vs gays issue.

so what does this have to do with the constitution?

Those hostile to gay Americans have enacted state measures that violate the civil rights of gay Americans.

 

[Skylar]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Agit8r is spot on. The court leans to the right. On specific social issues like gay rights, Kennedy breaks with the conservatives, having written the Lawernce, Romer and Windsor decisions. But he's with the right wing block like 80% of the time.

Chances are that Kennedy will vote with the left leaning block on gay marriage. And chances are extraordinarily good that Kennedy himself with author the ruling.

 

[Judicial review]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Agit8r is spot on. The court leans to the right. On specific social issues like gay rights, Kennedy breaks with the conservatives, having written the Lawernce, Romer and Windsor decisions. But he's with the right wing block like 80% of the time.

Chances are that Kennedy will vote with the left leaning block on gay marriage. And chances are extraordinarily good that Kennedy himself with author the ruling.

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

 

[Skylar]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

 

[Judicial review]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

Do you know when Roe was almost overturned and why it wasn't?

 

[Judicial review]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

Do you know when Roe was almost overturned and why it wasn't?

I'm aware of the simularities.

 

[Agit8r]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

ANY time a state law is found to violate the US constitution, laws which are alike are automatically invalidated at the same time. That is how judicial review works.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

Do you know when Roe was almost overturned and why it wasn't?

I'm aware of the simularities.

Huh? I was asking a simple question: Do you know when Roe was almost overturned and why it wasn't?

 

[Judicial review]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

ANY time a state law is found to violate the US constitution, laws which are alike are automatically invalidated at the same time. That is how judicial review works.

Not state law but rights granted by the constitution, which could be individual up the federal. Wide range there. The lower you go the more the SC knows it has to be careful and tends to just let them work it out. I know what judicial review is. Why do you think I'm named Judicial Review? Seriously. Why?

 

[Skylar]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country.

No it isn't. The Lawrence decision made sodomy laws invalid throughout the United States. Windsor was a ruling on DOMA, a federal law. And the lower district court decisions were per district. Not per State. There are 10 districts. When the highest district appellant court rules, it apples to te entire district, encompassing on average, 5 states. Not just one.

And the USSC preserved every single lower ruling overturning gay marriage. The district rulings applying to entire districts. The individual rulings like Prop 8 applying to only one State. Every single one, without exception.

The only lower court ruling on gay marriage the Court didn't preserve and allow to stand......was the lone ruling upholding such bans. That ruling they're taking up. That does no bode well for opponents of same sex marriage.

DOMA was partially overturned not fully.

The parts that defined marriage as being only one man and one woman? That was the part that was overturned. It was done so on the basis of State law being supreme over federal law on the basis of marriage. That alone was sufficient.

However....Kennedy used the Windsor ruling as an opportunity to extravagantly, and in detail list and discuss all the ways that gay marriage bans harm same sex couples. All the ways they humiliate children. All the damage that such bans do. Essentially picking up where Romer left off in 1996.

Kennedy didn't have to. As the harm to same sex couples isn't strictly necessary to overturn DOMA. Simply recognizing that State marriage laws trump Federal marriage laws would do it. Kennedy *chose* to elaborate on all the harm same sex marriage bans do.

And there's zero indication that his perspective has changed in the last 2 years.

That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power.

It does so all the time. The McDonald V. Chicago ruling applied to the entire country. The Lawerence v. Texas law applied to much more than Texas, but the entire nation. The Loving V. Virginia ruling wasn't limited to Virginia....but applied to the entire country.

The court has no problem protecting rights across the country when they deem it appropriate. And historically, they've been more than willing to overturn marriage bans from State laws when they see fit. Exactly as they did in the Loving decision.

The issues at hand aren't the court's authority to offer a nation wide ruling. That authority is clearly present. Its the states authority to create law vs the constitutional guarantees of same sex couples. If the courts find that the State authority is supreme, the same sex couples are screwed. If the courts find that the constitutional guarantees. trump the State authority, the State laws are invalid.

You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point.

I've never said it was from 'technical difficulty'. You may be thinking of someone else. I've said that the courts preserving every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage was by design. Just as the court taking up the lone lower court ruling that affirms such bans.

And both are indications of the direction the court is leaning on the issue: toward the preservation of gay marriage.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

from transcript: Tribe speaking

I noticed when the Supreme Court IN 1992 REAFFIRMED THE CORE OF ROE V. WADE IN a CASE CALLED PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA, AGAINST CASEY.

IF YOU CAREFULLY READ THE Rehnquist DISSENT YOU CAN TELL FROM THE very FIRST slip OPINION THAT IT WAS A MAJORITY OPINION. IT WAS GOING TO be A MAJORITY OPINION OVERRULING ROE V. WADE.

BUT THAT got PATCHED UP WHEN KENNEDY, SOUTER, AND O'CONNOR AS A GROUP DECIDED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE STABILITY OF THE SOCIETY AND FOR the EQUAL STATUS OF WOMEN that Roe v Wade not be overruled.,, they patched it up. and so lot of students...

. IT TURNS OUT none of my COLLEAGUES TEACHING THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE COUNTRY KNOWS THAT. I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW IT. BUT PEOPLE STUDY THIS DECISION AS THOUGH IT WERE SORT OF ORDAINED THAT THE COURT WOULDN'T GET RID OF ROE V. WADE. BUT IT CAME WITHIN INCHES OF DOING EXACTLY THAT.

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
​

Dante loves when people speak about Roe

 

[Skylar]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

ANY time a state law is found to violate the US constitution, laws which are alike are automatically invalidated at the same time. That is how judicial review works.

Not state law but rights granted by the constitution, which could be individual up the federal. Wide range there. The lower you go the more the SC knows it has to be careful and tends to just let them work it out. I know what judicial review is. Why do you think I'm named Judicial Review? Seriously. Why?

I agree that the courts are reluctant to offer sweeping decisions that make radical changes across the nation. I strongly suspect that's why the USSC simply denied cert for those lower district courts that overturned gay marriage bans. Because these rulings don't create binding nation wide precedent. And they apply only to a lone district. If the districts had all found the same way, that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional....the court would have almost certainly denied cert for every single one of them.

As it allows the injustice of gay marriage bans to be eliminated without creating binding precedent that could further erode State's rights, an issue that Kennedy has clearly demonstrated an interest. But the 6th circuit court fucked that up and forced the USSC to take up the issue and rule explicitly to preserve gay marriage rather than passively by allowing all rulings overturning the bans to stand.

Which is why they denied cert to every ruling that overturned a ban. But granted cert for the lone case that upheld such bans.

 

[Judicial review]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country.

No it isn't. The Lawrence decision made sodomy laws invalid throughout the United States. Windsor was a ruling on DOMA, a federal law. And the lower district court decisions were per district. Not per State. There are 10 districts. When the highest district appellant court rules, it apples to te entire district, encompassing on average, 5 states. Not just one.

And the USSC preserved every single lower ruling overturning gay marriage. The district rulings applying to entire districts. The individual rulings like Prop 8 applying to only one State. Every single one, without exception.

The only lower court ruling on gay marriage the Court didn't preserve and allow to stand......was the lone ruling upholding such bans. That ruling they're taking up. That does no bode well for opponents of same sex marriage.

DOMA was partially overturned not fully.

The parts that defined marriage as being only one man and one woman? That was the part that was overturned. It was done so on the basis of State law being supreme over federal law on the basis of marriage. That alone was sufficient.

However....Kennedy used the Windsor ruling as an opportunity to extravagantly, and in detail list and discuss all the ways that gay marriage bans harm same sex couples. All the ways they humiliate children. All the damage that such bans do. Essentially picking up where Romer left off in 1996.

Kennedy didn't have to. As the harm to same sex couples isn't strictly necessary to overturn DOMA. Simply recognizing that State marriage laws trump Federal marriage laws would do it. Kennedy *chose* to elaborate on all the harm same sex marriage bans do.

And there's zero indication that his perspective has changed in the last 2 years.

That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power.

It does so all the time. The McDonald V. Chicago ruling applied to the entire country. The Lawerence v. Texas law applied to much more than Texas, but the entire nation. The Loving V. Virginia ruling wasn't limited to Virginia....but applied to the entire country.

The court has no problem protecting rights across the country when they deem it appropriate. And historically, they've been more than willing to overturn marriage bans from State laws when they see fit. Exactly as they did in the Loving decision.

The issues at hand aren't the court's authority to offer a nation wide ruling. That authority is clearly present. Its the states authority to create law vs the constitutional guarantees of same sex couples. If the courts find that the State authority is supreme, the same sex couples are screwed. If the courts find that the constitutional guarantees. trump the State authority, the State laws are invalid.

You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point.

I've never said it was from 'technical difficulty'. You may be thinking of someone else. I've said that the courts preserving every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage was by design. Just as the court taking up the lone lower court ruling that affirms such bans.

And both are indications of the direction the court is leaning on the issue: toward the preservation of gay marriage.

Like i said here the cases you presented listed 1 state even though it affected the nation. We are talking multiple states here who have banned it, and many states that have allowed it. This is not something that started in 1 state and will affect them all. It was started on PARTIALLY overturning DOMA to allow benefits to gay couples that married people get. However, like i said due to the being split by sections of states against sections of states as an entire country. Look for the SC to think twice about interfearing and we haven't seen anything like this since Roe vs Wade. This ois how big this is. Way bigger than the cases you mentioned. This is why I suspect the SC will be way more cautious with their 1 power and simply let the states decide on their own.

 

[Agit8r]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country. DOMA was partially overturned not fully. That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power. You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point. Like I said this would be a huge show of power one in which the it hasn't shown since Roe Vs Wade. I don't think it's good for the court to go there, but we will see if the SC agrees. You know where i stand and history proves this to be true dating back to it's inception. It's not about the case as much as it is in not showing to much power and respect state rights.

ANY time a state law is found to violate the US constitution, laws which are alike are automatically invalidated at the same time. That is how judicial review works.

Not state law but rights granted by the constitution, which could be individual up the federal. Wide range there. The lower you go the more the SC knows it has to be careful and tends to just let them work it out. I know what judicial review is. Why do you think I'm named Judicial Review? Seriously. Why?

A state law may violate an individual rights, or it may conflict with national sovereignty, or it may interfere with the powers of other states within the Union. In each case, what is constitutionally impermissible for one state is also impermissible for the other states without exception.

 

[Skylar]

There's a difference as a SC justice between believing in gay rights and staying true to you branch of governement, which he knows was supposed to be the weaker of the three. Another words overruling the states on a large scale. This is a huge use of power. This will make him think twice before making whatever decision he makes and could very well be the deciding factor. Meaning let the states work it out.

the SC could have taken up this case to put an end to the federal gov involvment in marriage. Making it a state issue. Just like it is now.

This same justice overturned State laws outlawing sodomy in Texas. And overturned State laws targeting gays for a denial or rights in Colorado. This same justice overturned key provisions of DOMA that forbid gay marriage, lamenting how such a lack of recognition of marriage harms both the same sex couples and their children.

Kennedy has zero problem overturning laws that violate constitutional guarantees. And its clear that he recognizes immediate legal harm to same sex couples and their children caused by same sex marriage bans. Most indications point to him continuing in this perception.

Further, the USSC has preserved every single lower federal court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans, denying cert to 6 different appeals from such district court decisions. Without exception. Prop 8, individual districts, there are no exceptions. Allowing gay marriage to become legal in 36 of 50 States.

However.....the first and only time an appeals district affirms such bans, and the USSC takes it up. If the courts wanted to affirm the constitutionality of such bans, they could have done so at any of the previous rulings that overturned them. If the courts wanted to overturn such bans they would take up the first case that affirms them.

Exactly as the USSC just did.

Everything you mentioned was on a state by state basis. Not effecting every state and making 1 thing legal through the entire country.

No it isn't. The Lawrence decision made sodomy laws invalid throughout the United States. Windsor was a ruling on DOMA, a federal law. And the lower district court decisions were per district. Not per State. There are 10 districts. When the highest district appellant court rules, it apples to te entire district, encompassing on average, 5 states. Not just one.

And the USSC preserved every single lower ruling overturning gay marriage. The district rulings applying to entire districts. The individual rulings like Prop 8 applying to only one State. Every single one, without exception.

The only lower court ruling on gay marriage the Court didn't preserve and allow to stand......was the lone ruling upholding such bans. That ruling they're taking up. That does no bode well for opponents of same sex marriage.

DOMA was partially overturned not fully.

The parts that defined marriage as being only one man and one woman? That was the part that was overturned. It was done so on the basis of State law being supreme over federal law on the basis of marriage. That alone was sufficient.

However....Kennedy used the Windsor ruling as an opportunity to extravagantly, and in detail list and discuss all the ways that gay marriage bans harm same sex couples. All the ways they humiliate children. All the damage that such bans do. Essentially picking up where Romer left off in 1996.

Kennedy didn't have to. As the harm to same sex couples isn't strictly necessary to overturn DOMA. Simply recognizing that State marriage laws trump Federal marriage laws would do it. Kennedy *chose* to elaborate on all the harm same sex marriage bans do.

And there's zero indication that his perspective has changed in the last 2 years.

That's because the federal SC refused to show that much power.

It does so all the time. The McDonald V. Chicago ruling applied to the entire country. The Lawerence v. Texas law applied to much more than Texas, but the entire nation. The Loving V. Virginia ruling wasn't limited to Virginia....but applied to the entire country.

The court has no problem protecting rights across the country when they deem it appropriate. And historically, they've been more than willing to overturn marriage bans from State laws when they see fit. Exactly as they did in the Loving decision.

The issues at hand aren't the court's authority to offer a nation wide ruling. That authority is clearly present. Its the states authority to create law vs the constitutional guarantees of same sex couples. If the courts find that the State authority is supreme, the same sex couples are screwed. If the courts find that the constitutional guarantees. trump the State authority, the State laws are invalid.

You can say it was due to a technical difficulty in the wording, but you get the point.

I've never said it was from 'technical difficulty'. You may be thinking of someone else. I've said that the courts preserving every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage was by design. Just as the court taking up the lone lower court ruling that affirms such bans.

And both are indications of the direction the court is leaning on the issue: toward the preservation of gay marriage.

Like i said here the cases you presented listed 1 state even though it affected the nation. We are talking multiple states here who have banned it, and many states that have allowed it. This is not something that started in 1 state and will affect them all.

Interracial marriage bans weren't solely in Virginia. But across 15 other States. Such bans were ludicrously popular across the country, with support in the last 60s in the low 80 percentile.

Yet the Courts had no problem throwing those bans out on their ass. And their ruling was unanimous. It was a sweeping change, and a very unpopular change. Yet the courts did it because constitutional guarantees trump state powers.

With gay marriage the issue is far less severe. The public already supports gay marriage, with a solid 55% or so in favor. Interracial marriage in contrast had to wait 30 years until the late 90s before it reached that level of support. Gay marriage is already legal in more states than interracial marriage was in the 60s.

The only significant difference (and its a big one) is that in the case of interracial marriage, those states that legalized it (or more accurately, decriminalized it) did so legislatively. Only 11 states have done so on gay marraige. The remaining 25 have been forced to by the federal judiciary.

However......these states have collectively issued hundreds of thousands of marriage certificates for same sex couples. Overturning the lower court rulings would create legal chaos in for millions of Americans and dozens of states. So on the stability front, affirming gay marriage is highly favored. As overturning such bans won't invalidate a single marriage certificate.

. Look for the SC to think twice about interfearing and we haven't seen anything like this since Roe vs Wade. This ois how big this is. Way bigger than the cases you mentioned. This is why I suspect the SC will be way more cautious with their 1 power and simply let the states decide on their own.

I think they've thought twice about it. Most of the denials of cert were done on a 7 to 2 basis. With Scalia and Thomas wanting to grant cert, and all other justices saying no. When Kennedy has spoken about the issue (a grand total of once) he framed it as a contest of States rights vs. the immediate legal harm done to gays and their children.

I strongly suspect that Kennedy didn't want to rule on this issue for many of the same reasons you've cited. But I just as strongly suspect that if forced to, he'll side with gay marriage. As his previous 3 rulings on gay rights issues apply just as thoroughly to overturning gay marriage bans as they did the specific issues they addressed.

Not only do I think gays are going to win this case, I don't think its even going to be close. I see a 6 to 3 ruling as most probable. With a 7 to 2 unlikely, but plausible. As you've noted, this case is significant. And I don't see a justice like Roberts wanting to be on the wrong side of it.

 

[thanatos144]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

 

[rightwinger]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Agit8r is spot on. The court leans to the right. On specific social issues like gay rights, Kennedy breaks with the conservatives, having written the Lawernce, Romer and Windsor decisions. But he's with the right wing block like 80% of the time.

Chances are that Kennedy will vote with the left leaning block on gay marriage. And chances are extraordinarily good that Kennedy himself with author the ruling.

For the sake of posterity, I think Roberts will also side with the left

 

[rightwinger]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

It is conservatives who are petty in passing cruel and vindictive legislation targeting gays

 

[thanatos144]

This is a travesty and it shows hiw petty progressives are. When they lose they use judicial tyranny to fix the game and we all lose.

It is conservatives who are petty in passing cruel and vindictive legislation targeting gays

What laws are those?