• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

When will marriage equality hit the Supreme Court?

?

  • 2014

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • 2015

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • 2016

    Votes: 6 25.0%

  • Later/never

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • Total voters
    24
If the Court were truly concerned about election outcomes they would have passed on an Obamacare ruling in 2012. Also don't see how they could conceivably keep slow playing a decision until 2017. The court's been spooked about the reaction to Roe vs Wade for more than 40 years. Was a 7-2 decision and support for abortion rights in 1973 (~52%) was lower than support for marriage equality (~58%) is now. Kennedy and Roberts will vote with the majority in the end, but that doesn't mean that they (and potentially a few of the liberal justices) don't want public support to be higher when they finally issue a definitive decision.
 
Just realized that the reason I'm probably the only person that voted for 2014 is because people were going by the actual year it would be heard and not the term. It will be heard in October Term 2014, but obviously not until after the new year (docket is already full through December)
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
If the Court were truly concerned about election outcomes they would have passed on an Obamacare ruling in 2012. Also don't see how they could conceivably keep slow playing a decision until 2017. The court's been spooked about the reaction to Roe vs Wade for more than 40 years. Was a 7-2 decision and support for abortion rights in 1973 (~52%) was lower than support for marriage equality (~58%) is now. Kennedy and Roberts will vote with the majority in the end, but that doesn't mean that they (and potentially a few of the liberal justices) don't want public support to be higher when they finally issue a definitive decision.
Click to expand...

That's the main reason I think they will find a way to delay until the next term. Mysterymen makes some good points though as to why such a delay is unlikely.
 
RJKarl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would i make a post directed towards you that was not a direct response to your post? The number is surely almost 100%.

Why would that be upsetting to you?
 
MysteryMen said:
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
Click to expand...

RJKarl said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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. " - RJKarl's first thought on this thread

Your first post on this thread was read by most as: "There is a very real possibility that the court will vote against marriage equality but they wouldn't want that decision to have an impact on the election so they won't decide the case in 2016. Ultimately the court will likely vote for marriage equality but there is a real worry that it might not"

Every response to that has been that there is virtually no possibility that the court will vote against marriage equality. Most people would respond to that info by saying "Thanks for the information, i was unaware. That's awesome news." You took a different approach.
 
It's the style and content. I've had 100s of interactions with each of ELC, GO, Numbers, 71 and dozens more, yet none of them have the tone or or the consistent idea of "teaching me". or being better than me on every subject as you do routinely.

We agree. We disagree. We cajole each other. Yet none have the level of arrogance and condescension that you proudly exhibit.

In fact you brag about this being your purpose. You say so in PMs and on the threads.
 
Here is the thing: these justices are all concerned about their legacy and they can see the way that this is going. None of them want to write the modern Plessy v. Ferguson and say that separate but equal is fine only to have a future justice issue the equivalent of separate but equal is inherently unequal.

At most a few of them will say that it is an issue for the state legislatures.
 
06. which is what I've said. Childress is trying to obscure this fact, but I have said legacy does matter to them.
 
RJKarl said:
It's the style and content. I've had 100s of interactions with each of ELC, GO, Numbers, 71 and dozens more, yet none of them have the tone or or the consistent idea of "teaching me". or being better than me on every subject as you do routinely.

We agree. We disagree. We cajole each other. Yet none have the level of arrogance and condescension that you proudly exhibit.

In fact you brag about this being your purpose. You say so in PMs and on the threads.
Click to expand...

Typically my purpose when responding to your posts is to call you out for blatantly making things up, directly contradicting yourself, or disagreeing with the consensus view of experts on a topic (see this thread). You do this on a regular basis. You hide behind typing mistakes, unclear sentence structure, and sheer volume of posts.

Any personal attacks I have made are generally in jest and made out of frustration and I apologize for those. However, on the whole I try and limit my responses to the words you have actually posted and only to the extent necessary to either understand or what exactly you are asserting or to rebut that assertion.

It would certainly be more convenient for you if you could post whatever you want without criticism, but on the other hand it would be more convenient for the rest of us if your posts were routinely clear and accurate.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
06. which is what I've said. Childress is trying to obscure this fact, but I have said legacy does matter to them.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
Roberts cares about his legacy, but for none of the reasons you just cited.
Click to expand...

No attempt to obscure. Just tried to point out that I disagreed with the reasoning you assigned to Judge Roberts.

Judges don't want to issue the next Plessy v. Ferguson because that decision was awful, not because that decision later got overruled. There are plenty of cases that were never explicitly overruled but that were just as awful as Plessy. Judges don't want to issue the next Slaughterhouse for example.
 
Another thread that RJ has made about himself?

Shocking.
 
Sotomayor issues a stay on the decision requiring Kansas to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Will this be like the stay that Kennedy granted Idaho and then removed a couple days later, or will they leave this in place until same-sex marriage makes it to the court?

This is the issue with the way that the Court has handled the same sex marriage cases so far. You have the Attorney General of Arizona saying that appealing the same sex marriage decision against them would be borderline sanctionably frivolous because the Supreme Court's actions in denying cert in the other cases indicate they won't take the case, and then all of a sudden a few weeks later Justice Sotomayor comes and issues a stay out of nowhere, indicating that SCOTUS is apparently interested. Massive confusion in the legal system on this issue as a result of SCOTUS's opaqueness and mixed messages

Edit: After reading more, it appears that this Kansas case may be different because it had to do with the fact that a federal court ruling may have interfered with proceedings that were already underway in the state supreme court.
 
Last edited:
Because he does it on so many dawn threads it can't be avoided?
 
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”


― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emerson in His Journals
 
deacvision7 said:
Why doesn't he stop being such an e-self-important assbag?
Click to expand...

You got me. But we all know he's not going to stop.

I understand that some people get their entertainment here from poking the bear and watching him react. That's fine. Just acknowledge that that's what's happening. He makes multiple threads about himself... sometimes with the help of the people who respond over and over to him knowing exactly how he'll react.
 
If people wouldn't start anything, there wouldn't be any problems with me. I'd love that to happen, but I'm not going to be a pinata.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top