Utah's Marriage Fight Continues

[scream4ever]

I have to agree. The stay was a slip of judgment plain and simple. It does good to nobody and just makes a complicated legal matter even worse. Thankfully, it should be over quickly as per the appeals order.

I think the only reason they issued it was to avoid "tipping their hat" and indicating how they will eventually rule on the issue.

 

[scream4ever]

On a separate but related issue, Utah is getting closer to passing a statewide non-discrimination law, but it's not entirely clear if the latest developments help or hinder it.

Same-sex marriage debate could impact proposed Utah nondiscrimination bill

The article notes that Utah was the first state to issue marriages without having such legal protections statewide, although 43% of Utahans live in a county/city with a non-discrimination ordinance. A bill was cleared by a Senate committee and that's as far as it got last year.

Until Congress passes ENDA, the next stage will be for Republican controlled states to pass such protections. The beginning of this stage has already begun, with Corbett having announced his support for the bill pending in Pennsylvania, Snyder moving towards supporting Michigan's bill, and Wyoming's Senate nearly approving the bill last year.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the only reason they issued it was to avoid "tipping their hat" and indicating how they will eventually rule on the issue.

I could buy that.

 

[T-Rexx]

I think the only reason they issued it was to avoid "tipping their hat" and indicating how they will eventually rule on the issue.

They cannot possibly know how they will eventually rule on the case, as they have not heard the arguments yet.

You guys keep trying to attribute to this court all sorts of cleverness to explain decisions which seem inexcusably stupid.

I would submit that the decisions are just inexcusably stupid. Period.

 

[Kulindahr]

They cannot possibly know how they will eventually rule on the case, as they have not heard the arguments yet.

You guys keep trying to attribute to this court all sorts of cleverness to explain decisions which seem inexcusably stupid.

I would submit that the decisions are just inexcusably stupid. Period.

At least four of them -- covering both sides of the issue -- don't care about arguments, they'll rule according to their prejudices.

 

[Alnitak]

I think the only reason they issued it was to avoid "tipping their hat" and indicating how they will eventually rule on the issue.

What for? How does that serve them or anyone?

 

[Alnitak]

They cannot possibly know how they will eventually rule on the case, as they have not heard the arguments yet.

They did hear them in Hollingsworth v. Perry and I'm pretty sure that they've made up their minds.

 

[Kulindahr]

What for? How does that serve them or anyone?

Ask Roberts.

 

[T-Rexx]

They did hear them in Hollingsworth v. Perry and I'm pretty sure that they've made up their minds.

If they've made up their minds and already know how they are going to rule, why have they refused to do so?

Do they think America cannot handle their wisdom?

 

[Alnitak]

If they've made up their minds and already know how they are going to rule, why have they refused to do so?

Do they think America cannot handle their wisdom?

Look at the majority in Hollingsworth... Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. I mean WTF is that all about? Do you think Scalia really wanted that outcome for the prop 8 crew? I don't think so.

Something was going on behind the scenes that had nothing to do with how they really felt about the merits on marriage equality or standing, and Kennedy was pretty disappointed in his dissent. What I think happened, which has been echoed elsewhere on the net, Scalia engineered the majority opinion to provide Ginsburg an easy exit for her jitters, leaving Kennedy holding the bag because he really had the votes to overturn all state bans. The others were just pawns in the schemes of both sides.

 

[Kulindahr]

Look at the majority in Hollingsworth... Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. I mean WTF is that all about? Do you think Scalia really wanted that outcome for the prop 8 crew? I don't think so.

Something was going on behind the scenes that had nothing to do with how they really felt about the merits on marriage equality or standing, and Kennedy was pretty disappointed in his dissent. What I think happened, which has been echoed elsewhere on the net, Scalia engineered the majority opinion to provide Ginsburg an easy exit for her jitters, leaving Kennedy holding the bag because he really had the votes to overturn all state bans. The others were just pawns in the schemes of both sides.

And if that's the case, then my scenario that there's vote-trading going on is entirely plausible.

 

[scream4ever]

Look at the majority in Hollingsworth... Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. I mean WTF is that all about? Do you think Scalia really wanted that outcome for the prop 8 crew? I don't think so.

Something was going on behind the scenes that had nothing to do with how they really felt about the merits on marriage equality or standing, and Kennedy was pretty disappointed in his dissent. What I think happened, which has been echoed elsewhere on the net, Scalia engineered the majority opinion to provide Ginsburg an easy exit for her jitters, leaving Kennedy holding the bag because he really had the votes to overturn all state bans. The others were just pawns in the schemes of both sides.

I suspect Kennedy and Sotomayor were/are ready to issue a sweeping, 50 state opinion, but as you said Ginsburg and Co. decided to punt on the question at that point. Actually, I believe had it not been for the standing issue, the Supreme Court would've denied cert in Perry.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suspect Kennedy and Sotomayor were/are ready to issue a sweeping, 50 state opinion, but as you said Ginsburg and Co. decided to punt on the question at that point. Actually, I believe had it not been for the standing issue, the Supreme Court would've denied cert in Perry.

Yep. Contrary to some here who seem to think it's all done by flow charts and they don't have choices, the Supremes are perfectly able to just tell the country, "We're not going to even listen to that yet".

 

[palbert]

The morphing of Utah's position.

Utah, in Opposing Gay Marriage, Finds Three Arguments Are Better Than One [Link, NYTimes]

Or perhaps it will return to the candor of Stanford E. Purser, a lawyer with the state attorney general’s office. Judge Shelby asked him on Dec. 4 whether letting same-sex couples marry was of “any relevance at all” to the state’s interests in encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry.

“It may end up that there is no difference,” Mr. Purser said. “It may end up that there is. We just simply don’t know.”

(Not a very persuasive position.)

"Responsible procreation" to "preferred arrangement" to "gender diversity."

Where is equal protection and the 14th Amendment?

No wonder they've asked for volunteer outside counsel.

 

[Ninja108]

I think the 10th will uphold Shelby's verdict and the Supreme Court will simply deny cert.
They really want to want until it's down to 16 or 17 states with marriage bans but I just don't see how they will be able to keep punting forever.

 

[Alnitak]

I think the 10th will uphold Shelby's verdict and the Supreme Court will simply deny cert.
They really want to want until it's down to 16 or 17 states with marriage bans but I just don't see how they will be able to keep punting forever.

We can get it down to 16 by winning the 10th, 9th, and 4th Circuits, or 20 just by winning the 9th and 10th this year.

 

[mightbe]

Look at the majority in Hollingsworth... Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. I mean WTF is that all about? Do you think Scalia really wanted that outcome for the prop 8 crew? I don't think so.

Maybe I'm just daft (and that's entirely possible), but why on earth did Kagan, of all people, join that side? Actually, can somebody quickly outline why what justices were on what side of that decision?

I can't wrap my brain around it. Thomas and Sotomayor on the same side, for completely different reasons, and then the mystery as to Scalia's reasoning? What were they up to?

Sorry for the utter cluelessness, but I really don't understand the why and wherefore of the Hollingsworth decision.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe I'm just daft, but why on earth did Kagan, of all people, join that side? Actually, can somebody quickly outline why what justices were on what side of that decision?

I can't wrap my brain around it. Thomas and Sotomayor on the same side, for completely different reasons, and then the mystery as to Scalia's reasoning? What were they up to?

Sorry for the utter cluelessness, but I really don't understand the why and wherefore of the Hollingsworth decision.

I took that as a statist decision, saying that regardless of whether a state says someone can legitimately represent them on an issue, the federal government can tell them to take a hike. If a state says someone can represent them, that should be the end of it. Basically, SCOTUS told states that if the politicians don't like a law, all they have to do is get someone to challenge it and then refuse to defend it.

 

[mightbe]

But are Ginsburg and Kagan that wishy-washy? I at least took Kagan as the one not to pussyfoot her way out of offering a real ruling--I'm sure Sotomayor and Kennedy could've wrangled the necessary vote to offer a full-on, nationwide verdict had Kagan and Breyer not been so obstinate.

Do you not see the details as suspiciously jumbled? Like they purposefully tried to make the ruling seem as off the wall as possible?

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know about Ginsburg, but Kagan strikes me as one who likes authority, and would happily vote for a move that increased federal authority.