Prop. 8: Supreme Court may redefine gay rights

Judged:

2

2

2

WeTheSheeple wrote:

Obviously Justice Kennedy is the deciding vote.
If the 4 liberals feel they have him on their side, they'll vote to take the case. If the 4 conservatives feel they have him on their side, they'll vote to take the case.
I'm betting NEITHER side will risk it, and therefore the SCOTUS will NOT take this case.
Of course that could all change if the en banc panel of the 9th circuit decides to take the case and expands or overturns the current ruling.

Judged:

2

2

2

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>I've been reading a great deal of speculation on a number of sites, that given the proponents attitude towards the 9th Circuit, the appeal is going to go straight to the Supremes. Like you said, the possibility that an en banc panel could expand the ruling exists as a very real possibility and that is something they'd really rather avoid. I guess we'll know soon what's next for our persistent adversaries of equality.

Judged:

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>I've been reading a great deal of speculation on a number of sites, that given the proponents attitude towards the 9th Circuit, the appeal is going to go straight to the Supremes. Like you said, the possibility that an en banc panel could expand the ruling exists as a very real possibility and that is something they'd really rather avoid. I guess we'll know soon what's next for our persistent adversaries of equality.

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
We'll know in about 10 days. They have to decide by the 21st whether to request an en banc hearing.
Let's hope their overconfidence causes them to forgo an en banc request and appeal directly to the SCOTUS. Anything else and this drags out for another 2 years.

Judged:

2

2

2

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with ya, I think the proponents will go straight to SCOTUS and I believe that SCOTUS will probably not hear it at this time.......UNLESS the Conservatives on the Court are guaranteed Kennedy will be on their side......and in this case particularly which is similar to the Romer case and Amendment 2 from Colorado......I don't see them taking this case at this time......HOWEVER, they will be taking the DOMA cases when they arrive on SCOTUS's doorstep.......but I believe by then......things will have changed a bit more from what they currently are now!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

Kagan said in her hearing that the Constitution contains no right to marriage equality. It will be interesting to see what word game that was, if she's pro marriage equality as I hope and as everyone here seems to be assuming.
For now I hope the narrowness of the CA ruling - having to do with the equal protection issue of removing a right that was already granted from just one segment of the population without a rational basis for doing so - will result in SCOTUS just refusing any appeal from CA sent its way, thus allowing the narrow ruling to stand.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
And keep in mind those DOMA cases are also narrowly targeted cases. They only challenge the federal recognition portion of the law, and once again won't stike down any existing state marriage bans. That makes them much more likely to be successful as well.
One brick at a time.

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:

I agree with ya, I think the proponents will go straight to SCOTUS and I believe that SCOTUS will probably not hear it at this time.......UNLESS the Conservatives on the Court are guaranteed Kennedy will be on their side......and in this case particularly which is similar to the Romer case and Amendment 2 from Colorado......I don't see them taking this case at this time......HOWEVER, they will be taking the DOMA cases when they arrive on SCOTUS's doorstep.......but I believe by then......things will have changed a bit more from what they currently are now!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Kagan was referring to the current law- i.e. there is currently no federal right to marraige for same-sex couples.
No one believes she was giving her opinion about an issue which most certainly would come before the court. If that WAS the case, then she should never have been confirmed, because that would mean she had her mind made up before hearing the evidence- not exactly impartial.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>From what I've read, an appeal to the Supremes is really the only shot they have left and since the Appeals Court took just about anything that would interest them out of their ruling, their only shot isn't all that likely. I think they'll be more than happy to sacrifice California's amendment in order to wait for the next challenge to a state's marriage amendment. You're right about the DOMA cases, those they can't duck, there's too many of them and they're all going the same way. Depending on when the appeals in the cases where it's already lost finally take place, it could be on the menu as soon as next year.

Judged:

1

RnL2008 wrote:

I believe that with DOMA, SCOTUS will probably rule that Section 3 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, while leaving the rest in place......but a lot will depend on what question is presented before them.
I've been hearing some stuff about Kragan that bothers me......is she really anti-gay or just afraid to take a stand?

Judged:

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Section 2 of DOMA isn't even at question in the current round of cases, mainly because the general consensus is that is constitutional for Congress to grant waiver of Full Faith and Credit. The only way to kill that off is for Congress to repeal it and even if the Dems take over again this year, I really can't see that happening for awhile. Section 3 on the other hand has always been on questionable ground and all that was really needed was the right case to come along to do it in and now there's a lot of them.
As for Kagan, she was pressed to say that there was no "constitutional right to gay marriage" during her confirmation, but I don't really know enough about her to form an opinion as to what she might do for against us when push comes to shove. Besides, the DOMA cases aren't really about a right to marry, but about Congress infringing on states rights and when it comes to issues like that, we like conservatives.

nhjeff wrote:

A couple of points of procedure:
If the proponents skip the en banc hearing and go directly to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS declines, do they get a second chance at an en banc panel?
Also, if one of the judges recuses, doesn't a 4-4 split uphold the appeals panel?

Adam in AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
On what conceivable grounds would a justice recuse in this case?

nhjeff wrote:

A couple of points of procedure:
If the proponents skip the en banc hearing and go directly to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS declines, do they get a second chance at an en banc panel?
Also, if one of the judges recuses, doesn't a 4-4 split uphold the appeals panel?