When will marriage equality hit the Supreme Court?

[RChildress107]

Idk must be another? I just read two articles that said there's no split but the articles could be wrong. Tbh I haven't been following this line of lawsuits.

Went and looked it up. There is kind of a circuit split. Panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against ACA subsidies but the Court decided to rehear the case en banc. The decision to re-hear is somewhat unusual given that this is essentially just a statutory interpretation case and some have argued that it is politically motivated to prevent SCOTUS from getting involved on the subject.

 

[WFFaithful]

They allowed voter suppression. We won't know people didn't vote because of them for a while and until after 2016.

We also saw how much money was spent on these elections by outside groups of unnamed donors.

I was speaking to court decisions overturning bans on same sex marriage being a driving force for conservative turnout.

 

[RChildress107]

I was speaking to court decisions overturning bans on same sex marriage being a driving force for conservative turnout.

#rjkomprehension strikes again

 

[RJKarl]

I was speaking to court decisions overturning bans on same sex marriage being a driving force for conservative turnout.

You weren't specific. All you asked for were decisions.

 

[WFFaithful]

You weren't specific. All you asked for were decisions.

context clues.

would like your thoughts

 

[RJKarl]

It's not just about gay marriage. Their other decisions mattered.

 

[WFFaithful]

It's not just about gay marriage. Their other decisions mattered.

Yes, but on a thread about gay marriage....

Still, how much of an impact did the recent decisions on gay marriage have on conservative turnout?

 

[RJKarl]

I don't think it had much of any impact. The insanity about Ebola had more impact.

However, IF (read the word Childress) the SC makes a decision against equality before the 2016 election it will have an impact. It could be the last nail not the ONLY nail.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

Lack of a definitive ruling before mid-2015 is problematic for the GOP and Christie and Walker in particular. Christie and Walker declined to fight court rulings, but Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, and Carson with go full Japanese soldiers on deserted Pacific islands until the bitter end. Once the primary debates start, social conservative zealots and relative "moderates" will be at each others' throats. If it's still undecided going into the 'Pub convention, there's no way the platform position will be neutral on marriage equality, positions that Nevada and Indiana GOP party platforms have already taken quietly. Their official position will be pushing for a constitution amendment ban, even though support for marriage equality will be in the low to mid 60s by 2016.

 

[RChildress107]

I don't think it had much of any impact. The insanity about Ebola had more impact.

However, IF (read the word Childress) the SC makes a decision against equality before the 2016 election it will have an impact. It could be the last nail not the ONLY nail.

They won't. That's the point. Thus no incentive to avoid 2016 (not that there was one the court would actually worry about anyways).

 

[MysteryMen]

With the 6th Circuit ruling yesterday and both parties statements that they want to get this to SCOTUS ASAP, it's pretty much a guarantee it will be heard this term. No chance that the four liberals at least don't vote to grant cert because that would mean leaving gay marriage bans in place in the 6th Circuit

 

[RChildress107]

With the 6th Circuit ruling yesterday and both parties statements that they want to get this to SCOTUS ASAP, it's pretty much a guarantee it will be heard this term. No chance that the four liberals at least don't vote to grant cert because that would mean leaving gay marriage bans in place in the 6th Circuit

The four liberals won't vote to grant cert until they are sure that one of Kennedy or Roberts will side with them. My guess is that Kennedy is undecided (his opinion in Windsor suggests as much) and Roberts would prefer to not go on record one way or the other (His dissent in Windsor, though skeptical in tone, avoided any hint at an answer to the ultimate question the court will have to decide).

I'm optimistic that Roberts will side with Kennedy when the time comes just to avoid a 5-4 split on such an important decision. I do think, however, that at the very least both of them will wait until the 5th circuit weighs in and the en banc process wraps up in the 6th circuit.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

The only way to interpret the quoted sentence is that you think the Supreme Court will wait until 2017 to decide this issue because the Supreme Court believes that if they vote against marriage equality in 2016 it will favor Dems in the election.

Setting aside the ridiculousness of assigning this thought process to the Supreme Court, the only reason for the Court to wait until 2017 under this logic is if they actually intended to vote against marriage equality. As Cav pointed out, this logic makes no sense because the Court is almost certainly not going to vote against marriage equality.

While the rest of your post cites reasons why Roberts might vote for marriage equality, your opening statement and the post overall express that you believe that the Supreme Court might actually vote against it. This belief is not absurd or unreasonable.

But as Cav pointed out, it is not very likely.

I don't see an argument for 2017. Roberts cares too much about his own/courts' legacy that he's never going to vote against marriage equality. If somehow he left the court, GOP can but won't filibuster multiple replacements during an election year and the numbers would be 6-3. It's at worst 5-4 now for marriage equality and will likely be 6-3 by 2016.

 

[RJKarl]

Justices are human. I don't think many are so egotistical that that don't care how they are seen by history. I think the conservative bloc would like nothing more than not to have to make a definitive decision on marriage equality.

Unless they are totally blinded by their own ego, they understand that if a Dem become the next POTUS many of their biggest rulings will be overturned. I don't think Roberts wants to be seen as the Chief Justice who had so many major rulings overturned. If they are forced to rule on marriage equality and rule against it, Roberts will go down in history as a CJ who voted to limit civil rights twice and had both overturned while he was CJ.

I don't see any way that a ruling against ME wouldn't be overturned. I also think there are groups out there looking to bring cases that would overturn the VRA ruling.

I don't think Roberts wants that to be his legacy.

 

[RChildress107]

I don't see an argument for 2017. Roberts cares too much about his own/courts' legacy that he's never going to vote against marriage equality. If somehow he left the court, GOP can but won't filibuster multiple replacements during an election year and the numbers would be 6-3. It's at worst 5-4 now for marriage equality and will likely be 6-3 by 2016.

I agree. I wasn't making such an argument, just explaining the only context such an argument would make sense in (i.e. one in which the person making the argument honestly believed Roberts AND Kennedy would vote against allowing same sex marriage).

 

[RChildress107]

Justices are human. I don't think many are so egotistical that that don't care how they are seen by history. I think the conservative bloc would like nothing more than not to have to make a definitive decision on marriage equality.

Unless they are totally blinded by their own ego, they understand that if a Dem become the next POTUS many of their biggest rulings will be overturned. I don't think Roberts wants to be seen as the Chief Justice who had so many major rulings overturned. If they are forced to rule on marriage equality and rule against it, Roberts will go down in history as a CJ who voted to limit civil rights twice and had both overturned while he was CJ.

I don't see any way that a ruling against ME wouldn't be overturned. I also think there are groups out there looking to bring cases that would overturn the VRA ruling.

I don't think Roberts wants that to be his legacy.

Roberts cares about his legacy, but for none of the reasons you just cited.

Barring unforseen health complications the make up of the court will be unchanged for the next 5+ years (Ginsburg is probably most likely to retire, but she would likely be replaced by an equally liberal justice).

The VRA ruling is far more likely to be overturned by Congress by reenacting §4 based on something other than voting practices in the 1960's and 70's. There have been several reasonable proposals (some that would require preclearance for essentially the same districts as the original §4 and others that would require more widespread preclearance) towards that tend.

When Supreme Court cases get overturned (especially controversial ones) it generally takes at least 20 years. For example, the speed with which the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (17 years) was considered noteworthy. Most of the time, when an opinion is overturned several, if not all, of the justices who voted for it are dead (and thus don't give a shit that their opinions were overturned).

 

[WFUtoUSC]

When Supreme Court cases get overturned (especially controversial ones) it generally takes at least 20 years. For example, the speed with which the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (17 years) was considered noteworthy. Most of the time, when an opinion is overturned several, if not all, of the justices who voted for it are dead (and thus don't give a shit that their opinions were overturned).

Expanding on this thought, it also takes the right case (factual scenario, issue(s) presented, etc.) to lead to a previous Supreme Court decision being overturned.

 

[RJKarl]

Roberts cares about his legacy, but for none of the reasons you just cited.

Barring unforseen health complications the make up of the court will be unchanged for the next 5+ years (Ginsburg is probably most likely to retire, but she would likely be replaced by an equally liberal justice).

The VRA ruling is far more likely to be overturned by Congress by reenacting §4 based on something other than voting practices in the 1960's and 70's. There have been several reasonable proposals (some that would require preclearance for essentially the same districts as the original §4 and others that would require more widespread preclearance) towards that tend.

When Supreme Court cases get overturned (especially controversial ones) it generally takes at least 20 years. For example, the speed with which the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (17 years) was considered noteworthy. Most of the time, when an opinion is overturned several, if not all, of the justices who voted for it are dead (and thus don't give a shit that their opinions were overturned).

Kennedy and Scalia will each turn 81 yo within a couple of months of the next inauguration. Men don't live much longer than that. by the end of the first team of the next POTUS, each will be nearly 85 yo.

It's very, very likely that one or both of them will be gone by then.

Further ME is different than most issues. It's a civil rights issue. Plus the federal government recognizes the same sex marriages of their employees. Over the past three years, many states have passed laws affirming marriage equality.

This is an issue unlike most others. It's also one that has more momentum than any major issue that I can remember. Marriage equality is moving much faster than civil rights did.

 

[Wakelaw2006]

The four liberals won't vote to grant cert until they are sure that one of Kennedy or Roberts will side with them. My guess is that Kennedy is undecided (his opinion in Windsor suggests as much) and Roberts would prefer to not go on record one way or the other (His dissent in Windsor, though skeptical in tone, avoided any hint at an answer to the ultimate question the court will have to decide).

I'm optimistic that Roberts will side with Kennedy when the time comes just to avoid a 5-4 split on such an important decision. I do think, however, that at the very least both of them will wait until the 5th circuit weighs in and the en banc process wraps up in the 6th circuit.

Maybe it was just one person's thoughts, but I seem to remember a fair amount of talk that Kennedy wanted to write a stronger opinion in Windsor (i.e., go all the way and say classifications based on sexual orientation are entitled to strict scrutiny), but he didn't think he could get better than a 5-4 decision and didn't want his legacy on this issue to be so easily changed with a change in the makeup of the court. I thought there was also some concern that Ginsburg wanted more consensus among the states on the issue before going all the way. There was some issue in the past (I can't remember what it was right now) where she indicated that the Court pushed something too fast and there was concern that she may have felt the same way at the time Windsor was decided.

 

[MysteryMen]

The four liberals won't vote to grant cert until they are sure that one of Kennedy or Roberts will side with them. My guess is that Kennedy is undecided (his opinion in Windsor suggests as much) and Roberts would prefer to not go on record one way or the other (His dissent in Windsor, though skeptical in tone, avoided any hint at an answer to the ultimate question the court will have to decide).

I'm optimistic that Roberts will side with Kennedy when the time comes just to avoid a 5-4 split on such an important decision. I do think, however, that at the very least both of them will wait until the 5th circuit weighs in and the en banc process wraps up in the 6th circuit.

First of all there will be no en banc in the 6th Circuit, the parties challenging the law have said they are going straight to SCOTUS.

Second, the liberals will almost definitely vote to grant cert because they don't want their legacy to be ones who allowed same-sex marriage bans to stand in four states.

And, I don't think there is much risk for them, because I can't see any possible way that the court doesn't rule in favor of same sex marriage after their actions in denying cert in the other cases allowed same sex marriage to start in a bunch of states. This is a bell that won't be unrung.

Keep in mind that it took at least six votes to deny cert for the ssm cases. And while they weren't rulings on the merits, because of the stays that were in place pending the appeals to SCOTUS, the at least six justices that voted to deny cert were fully aware that by doing so they were going to allow hundreds of gay marriages to take place before they ever had a chance to consider the issue again.

Assuming that Scalia, Thomas and Alito voted to grant cert in those earlier cases, you cannot possibly convince me both Kennedy (a reliable vote in favor of gay rights) and Roberts (a young justice who is keenly aware of not being on the wrong side of history) after voting to deny cert earlier and allow gay marriages to start will turn around and vote against same sex marriage, leaving all of the people who were married in the interim in limbo. If the court was going to rule in favor of the same sex marriage bans, it would have taken one of the first batch of cases, rather than allowing same sex marriage to start, waiting for a circuit split (that may never have come) and then turning around and ruling against same sex marriage later.