Discussion for article #228716
And the RW, christofascist merde is about to hit the wood chipper!
In 1…2…3.
LD
3 Likes
This is Kennedy’s Circuit. It was simply a stay. Nobody can “dissent” to something like this. TPM really needs to hire a lawyer to consult on this stuff.
1 Like
Actually you’re wrong. It is Kennedy’s circuit but he has the option of taking the matter to the full court. He probably did that and everyone agreed to let it go.
3 Likes
As I said at the time, Kennedy simply wanted all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted.
1 Like
Have you ever seen a “dissent” to an order vacating a stay?
So why the “Rush to Unjudgement”?
Cleaning up loose ends. The Idaho case was already in the works. This temporary delay gave the process a chance to play out, and stopped further appeals from Idaho.
5 Likes
The good news: You can finally marry the person you love.
The bad news: You’re still living in Idaho.
4 Likes
The northern part of the state is quite pretty, and quite a pleasant place to visit. The southern part of the state, where the vast majority of people live, is zzzzzzzz farmland.
For those of us in Utah, Idaho is where we go when we want to play Powerball.
1 Like
Eric, the people at SCOTUSblog wrote the exact same thing as TPM did. Look it up!
1 Like
This is actually just the Supreme Court version of the word “Whoops.” His original order was screwed up, and when he reversed it he neglected to include both states. This fixes that. On the other hand, it also sets things right for equality, not that the GOP will see it that way. Sucks to be them.
1 Like
Otter just admitted defeat: (19 minutes ago)
“I disagree with the court’s conclusion, which negates the 2006 vote of the people of Idaho, is contrary to the values of most Idahoans, and undermines fundamental states’ rights,” Otter said in a written statement. "But we are a nation of laws. Idaho now should proceed with civility and in an orderly manner to comply with any forthcoming order from the 9th Circuit.”
3 Likes
As an Idahoan, there are few phrases sweeter to my ears.
1 Like
Bottom line: For opponents of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, it’s “game over” – and they’ve lost. They now join in the trash can of history the racist bigots who fought against interracial marriage a half-century ago and who lost in the Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).
To be sure, some opponents – namely, the so-called National Organization for Marriage – have vowed to keep fighting by pressing Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. But there’s no chance that such an amendment will garner the two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress required for passage – even if the Republicans take control of the Senate in November’s midterm elections.
In fact, when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate in 2005, they tried to pass such an amendment – and sure enough, it failed to muster anywhere near the two-thirds majorities required.
The fact is, when the Supreme Court fully decriminalized same-sex sexual relationships (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), conservative Justice Antoinin Scalia read the handwriting on the wall in his bitter dissent, arguing that by striking down the last remaining anti-sodomy laws, the court had removed the last legal justification for gay and lesbian couples to be prohibited from marrying.
That the court refused to hear the appeals of the five states that sought to reinstate their bans on same-sex marrage was a concession by the court’s four most conservative justices that they did not have the votes to prevail and that it would have been an exercise in futility to agree to hear the states’ appeals, knowing that there was a solid five-justice majority who would rule against them.
That was made quite evident in the court’s 5-4 decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and letting stand the 9th Circuit Court’s decision that struck down California’s Proposition 8.
I had predicted after the court’s DOMA/Prop. 8 ruling that gay and lesbian couples in all 50 states would win the right to marry by the time the LGBT community celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising in June 2019. I called it “50 by 50.”
But I’ve been flabbergasted by the speed in which the state bans on same-sex marriage have been falling like dominoes since the DOMA/Prop. 8 decision. I never expected those dominoes to fall so quickly and it now appears likely that my prediction will become a reality much sooner than 2019.
3 Likes
There are some nasty looking people in the Supreme Court.
You may be correct but, I came across a quote yesterday, contained in the Court’s decision regarding the voter ID laws struck down in TX and WI, which suggests there just might have been unanimous agreement to reject those appeals from the five states:
"The Supreme Court gave no reason for its ruling, but Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that they cannot block an appeals court unless it 'clearly and demonstrably erred in its application of accepted standards.'”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/10/09/voter-id-law-struck-down-in-tx-wi.html
If that quote is anywhere close to being what the three Justices truly believe, it might explain why they are so desperate to have a decision from the 5th or 6th circuits (presumably against marriage equality) which will counter the decisions of the other Courts.
Late Friday the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay
I’ve been saying this for a while, dudes and dudettes, and you know what’s coming…
With two exceptions, SCrOTUS DOES NOT CARE whom we shag. More important to them, and to their corporate masters, is the complete deregulation of business and paving the way to privatize or eliminate all public services.
As long as the middle class becomes the servant class, Roberts and his bully boys are throwing progressives a bone, socially speaking. No pun intended.
1 Like
They are NOT going to go on record about this. The conservative 5 know they don’t have a leg to stand on legally, but they are not going to say so publicly.