Skip to comments.Justices signal they may not take Prop. 8 case
Posted on 03/26/2013 10:38:49 AM PDT by South40
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court is suggesting it could find a way out of the case over California's ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a major national ruling on whether gays have a right to marry, an issue one justice said was newer than cellphones and the Internet.
Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts Tuesday that the case was properly before them. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.
Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
They always try to duck ruling on the tough cases.
They could roll this one all the way back ~ simply state it’s a state matter. Frankly the Supreme Court has wasted entirely too much time focusing on pudenda.
Given that the chief justice has proved himself to be a liberal this country would be better off if the court were to skip this one.
Actually, such a ruling would also vacate the 9th Circuit decision. If the SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction, then neither did the 9th Circuit.
If they take the case, all Obama has to do is look sternly at Roberts, and he’ll change sides.
There is no such thing as gay "marriage". It's more a bunch of gays pretending they have altered the meaning of the word.
so in other words they’re attempting to let the repeal of Prop 8 stand without getting their fingerprints on it. Cowards, the entire lot of them.
I think we should devise a method for gays to PROVE they’re gay: if any of them ever got some with the opposite sex, then they disqualify as gay, now they’re just ‘experimenting’.
Should winnow their numbers quite a bit.
He already changed sides and to my knowledge he has never come back. The chances of this going the direction of sanity are slim given that his lesbian cousin will be in the courtroom.
Why is this a tough case? Seems to me there is nothing in the US Constitution that says anything about marriage at all. This is a state issue. The ninth circuit should have returned the issue the the people of CA.
They didn’t duck Obamacare or abortion. Why start now?
If SCOTUS doesn’t hear the case I suspect it means they believe the public needs more conditioning before they will peacefully accept a pro-Gay decision.
Then why did they take the case in the first place? They took the case, had attorneys for both sides (and countles amici) present brief, scheduled a hearing .. and NOW they suggest they may not make a decision on this case?
They could have just refused to take the case when it was initially brought to the Court.
Mr. Soros sent her there to make sure he behaves himself.
You are assuming he is on the conservative side to begin with. I think that them stating there is no legal standing to take the case would be the best outcome we could hope for... even if it means CA gets gay marriage. They can have it.
This would be a huge loss for the LGBT, their strategy all along has been to push this to the federal level and force the judicial branch to declare gay marriage a right throughout the land. If this approach fails watch for a military member( ie federal employee ) to sue up to the feds for denial of benefits in state X when they were legally married in state Y. This is not over by a long shot.
Rust - and evil - never sleeps.
You can hear/read this morning’s argument here:
Seems to me it will be tough for them to say the Prop 8 supporters don’t have standing, when the California Supreme Court said they do in a unanimous ruling. In the past, the US Supreme Court has deferred to the state to determine standing in a case like this - and the California Supreme Court gave a detailed discussion of that in their ruling.
Thanks or the link!
I would like to know how many gays really want to get married - considering they can already become hooked up in civil unions.. and that doesn’t please them.
This entire thing is about overriding States rights. They do not like that we can have a represenative government- because they all want to be sumissive little girls and have a big strong government ruler whisk them away into slavery where they can play with their wang doodles all day in SandM heaven.
I mean serioulsy they are such freaks.
I am seriously so sick of these people.
What weasels. The case IS properly before them because they took it.
Legalese be damned.
Does the federal government have the right to overrule the legal vote of the people or not?
The 9th circus says that they do. The people say no, you do not: we ammended our constitution to say what we want it to say.Butt out.
Thats the question before the court: strike down the ruling that ruled the ammendment unconstitutional.
After that you and go back to skeet shooting with each other.
Refusing to hear implies the 9th had no jurisdiction. Thus you both are right.
The question: Are we a government of, by and for the people, or a dictatorship in which any branch of the government can thwart the will of the people?
It’s simply NOT a civil or constitutional right. When civil rights are denied, it is generally a case of denying rights based on immutable characteristics, such as in the case of discrimination against blacks or women. In the case of “gay marriage”, that represents a behavioral choice. Society is not required to accept or sanction every behavioral choice or form of behavior.
No,the state of CA appealed prop 8 to the 9th circus.
A attorney for prop 8 supporters appealed to the USSC.
Hasn't been a question for a long time, we are the latter.
Yes, how’s that ‘it’s a state issue’ working out for us so far?
No, no, it’s not. It’s a federal issue.
“even if it means CA gets gay marriage. They can have it.”
They advance, we retreat.
CA rejected Gay marriage. They should rule on this, if the SCOTUS sanctions judicial activism - the gay marriage folks will simple do this to strike down EVERY gay marriage ban in the united states through the judiciary and the people will have no say.
Yes, CA would get queer marriage but it wouldn’t effect normal states.
The thing is if they rule on this Roberts will side with the liberals and we will have mandated acceptance of gay marriage in every state and at every federal level. I am not 100 percent happy with this outcome but as I said it may be the best we can hope for right now...
SCOTUS will not rule in favor of prop 8...mark my words. It does not mean I don’t wish it was so, it just is not going to happen.
Yes it most definitely would effect “normal” states. They are following a strategy mapped out in the early 1990’s. It’s a game of chess not checkers and they are making long term strategic moves with great success.
No, the state of California did not file a lawsuits in federal court; the two homosexual parties did.
And it matters not which parties appealed at the next stage of the appellate process. If the SCOTUS dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction, it will mandate that the entire federal case be dismissed.
IOW, Prop 8 will stand as passed by the people of California.
They should simply invalidate the interference of all federal courts on the issue, as its a state matter. Prop 8 is part of the Constitution of the State of California, and neither 9th circuit nor the Supreme Court nor any other federal court or agency has any business ruling on it.
SCROTUS strikes again.
Oh, that’s right, they don’t have any, so they’ll duck ‘n run like they always do. Unless there’s money to be made by the blood-sucking government. Like killing babies and forcing crappy healthcare onto people who don’t need it.
The state of CA don't want prop 8, so they are happy as a clam with the 9th circus ruling.
What standing do prop 8 supporters have to appeal to the USSC?
Once the state refused to defend what CA voters had passed they were screwed when it went to the 9th circus. They can't show how they are harmed.
“Yes, CA would get queer marriage but it wouldnt effect normal states.”
But what about the rest of the 9th Circuit? Wouldn’t that ruling also affect Alaska and Idaho, among others?
The gays want us to think it's about 'lub'
Parties that support Prop 8 were allowed to intervene to represent the interests of the voters.
A simple decision, really. Prop 8 was overturned by a federal judge who said that the majority of the voters in the state could not change their state constitution, with the ridiculous excuse that a non-existent federal law prohibited them from doing so.
And his decision was further diminished by his not recusing himself, though he had a profound conflict of interest.
As such, the clear opinion of the SCOTUS should be that if the people of California want to hold a referendum to change their constitution to permit homosexual marriage, they are free to do so. But until then, their opinion cannot be overruled by whimsical judicial decisions.
That is only true if they dismiss the case for lack of standing. In that case, they should also vacate the District court decision. How could a party have standing to defend the law at trial, but not have standing to pursue an appeal? And if there was no one with standing to defend the law at trial, there could be no trial, and thus, no ruling overturning Prop. 8.
However, if they dismiss the case for some other reason (lack of ripeness, etc), then in that case the 9th Circuit ruling would remain in effect.
A attorney for prop 8 supporters appealed to the USSC.
Wrong. The state refused to appeal the district court ruling, which is why the 9th Circus asked the CA Supreme Court if the initiative proponents had standing to pursue the appeal on behalf of the state. The CA SC ruled unanimously that they had standing.
They don’t have to all they have to do is overrule the 9th Circus once again.
They aren’t going to extend this to all the states - but if they do let the 9th do this - then the gay marriage folks will try to ram this against every single gay marriage ban. Find a justice willing to rule against it and go from there.
Civil marriage is, by definition, a federal issue. Always has been. Look up Reynolds vs the US for the last time SCOTUS ruled on this issue.
Remember, the court, when it feels uncomfortable ~ because a particular case isn't dealing with situations that are well ripened (which has nothing to do with how much it's talked about) will almost always take the easy way out.
Dred Scott was such a case, then, when it ripened, the South attack the Union and the war was on.
The USSC is not designed to be 'smart' ~ just to sit in judgment on particular cases.
The easy way out is to simply decide the 9th, and the district, had no jurisdiction which kicks it back to California. They can decide if they are still happy with their public referenda on this and that system.
What is a good explanation of ‘ripened’? Haven’t heard that one yet. tia
Gay marriage has a lot of discussion but actually little in the way of litigation. This California thing is a tiff between courts ~ more or less ~ and it involves California's almost unique public referenda system.
Whereas maybe gay marriage is a national issue we have 30 states that've already outlawed the practice. Justices concerned for the USSC's reputation for proper consideration of cases is on the line here ~ which, the theory goes, is how Roberts sees all the cases. He wants to make sure they don't run off half cocked against the national will or interest. Fur Shur that'll be the beginning of a campaign to depose them one way or the other (and by depose I don't mean that we just impeach them ~ more like displacing the USSC from the national dialogue).
Going through Robert's decision in ObamaKKKare vs. the people of the USA he made a simple judgment ~ go with Congress, but change the basis of the system to screw up the Democrats because they will never figure out how to use it as just a tax ~ then any later court can knock their more outrageous nonsense out of the air like wiffle balls.
He'll lean that way here ~ so will 5 or maybe 6 others.
I covered that in post #34.