When will marriage equality hit the Supreme Court?

[RChildress107]

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.

RJKarl is the only poster i've seen seriously entertain the possibility that the Court might rule against allowing same sex marriage. I'm simply talking about timing. I don't think they hear arguments until the next term. They wouldn't even have to deny cert from the 6th circuit case in order to do so. At minimum I think they wait for the 5th Circuit (hearing arguments in January) to weigh in.

 

[RChildress107]

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.

So then why do you think the court will wait until 2017 to hear the case or issue an opinion?

 

[RJKarl]

As I said earlier, I voted for 2015 due to the rash of lawsuits. As I said I think they would like to wait until after 2016 election if they can to avoid being one of the top few major issues of the election. If they voted to uphold the state bans, they would be an issue. It's been decades since the Supreme Court has intentionally denied Americans equal rights.

I think the combination of the results of their terrible decision on VRA and supporting states' denying one group of people the rights others have would create a groundswell.

Many SC decisions don't impact people as directly those two do. CU may make watching TV a pain in the ass and allow people to buy elections. However, there decision would directly impact millions upon millions of Americans. It wouldn't be six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. i'd guess most Americans would know someone who has been hurt by the SC in no more than two or three steps.

 

[RJKarl]

RJKarl is the only poster i've seen seriously entertain the possibility that the Court might rule against allowing same sex marriage. I'm simply talking about timing. I don't think they hear arguments until the next term. They wouldn't even have to deny cert from the 6th circuit case in order to do so. At minimum I think they wait for the 5th Circuit (hearing arguments in January) to weigh in.

given the make-up of the Court, it is absolutely possible they could rule to allow states' rights.

As CNN says here, "They left the door open". http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/us/same-sex-marriage-ruling/

Two judges here voted to uphold dstate lasw (http://online.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-upholds-marriage-restrictions-in-four-states-1415311653 ), it is possible the SC could as well.

I would like to think they wouldn't, but CJ Roberts effectively told states they could nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the POTUS. By allowing states to opt out of ACA, Roberts at least partially validated nullification.

We can't know what he and others would do after that.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

No chance in 2014 or later SCOTUS rules against it. They may not decide the biggest questions (equal protection) but with the number of victories in states across the country it would be shocking to have laws either struck down or modified to limit rights previously granted.

 

[MysteryMen]

RJKarl is the only poster i've seen seriously entertain the possibility that the Court might rule against allowing same sex marriage. I'm simply talking about timing. I don't think they hear arguments until the next term. They wouldn't even have to deny cert from the 6th circuit case in order to do so. At minimum I think they wait for the 5th Circuit (hearing arguments in January) to weigh in.

The Supreme Court doesn't usually hold cert petitions to await rulings in related cases in lower courts (see: them granting the ACA subsidies case without waiting to see how the en banc DC Circuit rules). Nor would there really be any reason to wait because whatever the 5th Circuit does doesn't change anything. There is still a circuit split.

The Court will decide on the 6th Circuit cert petition before the 5th Circuit rules (and based on the statements of the parties, in time to get the case on the docket this year), and I don't see any way that the decision made isn't a decision to grant.

 

[RChildress107]

The Supreme Court doesn't usually hold cert petitions to await rulings in related cases in lower courts (see: them granting the ACA subsidies case without waiting to see how the en banc DC Circuit rules). Nor would there really be any reason to wait because whatever the 5th Circuit does doesn't change anything. There is still a circuit split.

The Court will decide on the 6th Circuit cert petition before the 5th Circuit rules (and based on the statements of the parties, in time to get the case on the docket this year), and I don't see any way that the decision made isn't a decision to grant.

You may be right. But the decision to hear the ACA subsidies case was probably based at least in part on the inappropriateness of the D.C. Circuit granting en banc review on the first place so that's not the best example. I honestly don't know enough about the Supreme Court's cert granting process to know whether it would be common to delay cert. I also don't know enough about the specifics of the 6th and 5th circuit cases to know whether one of them might present a better case for the court to decide (I would suspect they are largely the same, but again I don't know).

 

[RChildress107]

As I said earlier, I voted for 2015 due to the rash of lawsuits. As I said I think they would like to wait until after 2016 election if they can to avoid being one of the top few major issues of the election.

I would have picked 2017 over 2015 due the SC not wanting itself to be a major issue in the presidential campaign. If they vote against marriage equality in 2016, there could be a Dem landslide in every purple state. I don't think they want that to happen.

I mean...

 

[RChildress107]

If they voted to uphold the state bans, they would be an issue. It's been decades since the Supreme Court has intentionally denied Americans equal rights.

I think the combination of the results of their terrible decision on VRA and supporting states' denying one group of people the rights others have would create a groundswell.

Many SC decisions don't impact people as directly those two do. CU may make watching TV a pain in the ass and allow people to buy elections. However, there decision would directly impact millions upon millions of Americans. It wouldn't be six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. i'd guess most Americans would know someone who has been hurt by the SC in no more than two or three steps.

So the decision on the VRA did or did not take away people's rights?

What did that decision say exactly?

 

[RJKarl]

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about those...well other than I wrote them. You so want to "teach me".

The fact you post something along this line immediately makes me not consider it.

 

[RChildress107]

given the make-up of the Court, it is absolutely possible they could rule to allow states' rights.


I can't know what he and others would do after that.

It's possible they could rule 9-0 to allow states' rights. Those with any form of legal education posting on this board seem pretty much in agreement, however, that the Court will not vote against marriage equality. Only you (at least on this thread) are touting it as something that has more than a .1% chance of happening.

 

[RChildress107]

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about those...well other than I wrote them.

Nowhere (until post #43) do you make it clear that you chose 2015, or gave your reasons for doing so.

The VRA decision was decided last year. I'm pretty sure you believe that decision denied Americans equal rights. If so it hasn't been decades.

I'm also interested to see if you can articulate what the VRA decision actually said.

 

[RJKarl]

Forget it. As you've stated publicly and privately. All you want to do is "teach me". Your goal is to study every post I make looking for things you don't like. Then you will arrogantly, smugly and in a condescending manner address me. Enough is enough.

You can't "articulate" my statement above more clearly than you just did in saying:

"I'm also interested to see if you can articulate what the VRA decision actually said."

That's as smug and condescending as one can get.

 

[RChildress107]

Meh i've probably responded to less than a tenth of one percent of your posts on this board. Every post you have made on this thread has expressed the confidence of an expert on the Supreme Court while also revealing that you are a layperson without formal education on the matter.

That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't post about the subject. It just means that when everyone on a thread disagrees with you, and most of those people have more expertise in the area of discussion, then you might want to reevaluate your opinion or at least show some humility in your posts.

 

[RJKarl]

Conservatively 90+% of your posts directly reflect my previous post. You've also stated the same thing privately on multiple occasions. If you had any class and weren't so arrogant and condescending, you'd stop it. But you won't. You truly believe in in your faux superiority.

 

[RChildress107]

Conservatively 90+% of your posts directly reflect my previous post. You've also stated the same thing privately on multiple occasions. If you had any class and weren't so arrogant and condescending, you'd stop it. But you won't. You truly believe in in your faux superiority.

This is false. (I'll stop short of accusing you of blatantly lying, a courtesy you rarely extend others). I can state with extreme confidence that less than 1600 of my posts have been in direct response to yours.

I don't believe I am superior. Not to you, not to anyone really.

I do know that I have a superior knowledge base and education when it comes to the topic of this thread. On topics where I am not as informed I make sure to state as much. It's something you should try.

 

[deacvision7]

add another to rj's pathetic "ignore" list because they made him feel stupid.

 

[RJKarl]

This is false. (I'll stop short of accusing you of blatantly lying, a courtesy you rarely extend others). I can state with extreme confidence that less than 1600 of my posts have been in direct response to yours.

I don't believe I am superior. Not to you, not to anyone really.

I do know that I have a superior knowledge base and education when it comes to the topic of this thread. On topics where I am not as informed I make sure to state as much. It's something you should try.

I made a mistake. It should have read "in 90+% of your posts directed to me".

It shouldn't have been 90% of your total posts. This was my mistake.

 

[MysteryMen]

RJ, just relax. There is no way given the fact that the court has essentially already voted by at least a 6-3 margin to allow federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans to go into effect that that same court will have TWO of those votes switch to ban the gay marriages that they had already permitted. It will not happen

 

[RJKarl]

Mystery, please read what I said not what Childress interpreted it as meaning. I've never disputed my first post. Here's how it ended:

" I believe that seeing the groundswell in state after state Roberts may actually vote for marriage equality to avoid becoming the Supreme Court's Mr. Irrelevant."

What I've said since was would happen IF.

But thanks.