What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[Ninja108]

The average decision time passes today.

They are stalling.
IMO, it's a 2-1 ruling against us but they don't want to create the split that would require the Supreme Court to step in until the deadline for SCOTUS to hear cases has passed.
We'll just have to wait and see. If there is nothing by mid-November, then it will be clear they are stalling.

 

[Alnitak]

They are stalling.
IMO, it's a 2-1 ruling against us but they don't want to create the split that would require the Supreme Court to step in until the deadline for SCOTUS to hear cases has passed.

There really isn't a deadline. Cases appealed after January generally don't make it by June.

 

[Ninja108]

There really isn't a deadline. Cases appealed after January generally don't make it by June.

That's what I meant. It's why the 5th dragged their feet on the gay marriage cases there. They and other bigots are hoping for something to happen to one of the Windsor Five.
With the very (sad to say) strong chance Republicans will take back the Senate next week, they know there is almost no way Obama could get a progressive judge put on the bench to replace one of them.

 

[T-Rexx]

**Apologies for the hijack (but there's no thread about this)**

With the very (sad to say) strong chance Republicans will take back the Senate next week, they know there is almost no way Obama could get a progressive judge put on the bench to replace one of them.

I've been watching this. I expected the various close Senate races to break Democratic in the final week and the outcome to be a tossup. Instead, the opposite is happening. They are breaking Republican.

This is going to be a bloodbath.

I think we can hope to take the Senate back in 2016, but the next two years (at least) are lost. There will be no legislation passed nor any judges appointed for some time to come.

**End of hijack**

 

[Ninja108]

**Apologies for the hijack (but there's no thread about this)**



I've been watching this. I expected the various close Senate races to break Democratic in the final week and the outcome to be a tossup. Instead, the opposite is happening. They are breaking Republican.

This is going to be a bloodbath.

I think we can hope to take the Senate back in 2016, but the next two years (at least) are lost. There will be no legislation passed nor any judges appointed for some time to come.

**End of hijack**

That is what happens in a six year itch. The party in power will get clobbered. I honestly won't be shocked to see us lose eight to ten seats.
As for judges, Democrats dropped the ball on that when they had 60 votes.
They should have been putting as many young and progressive judges on the bench as possible.
Instead they dragged their feet and then put judges in their 50's and 60's onthe various circuits, thus ensuring Obama's legacy on the courts will be miniminal at best.

 

[Alnitak]

That's what I meant. It's why the 5th dragged their feet on the gay marriage cases there. They and other bigots are hoping for something to happen to one of the Windsor Five.
With the very (sad to say) strong chance Republicans will take back the Senate next week, they know there is almost no way Obama could get a progressive judge put on the bench to replace one of them.

How many seats do they need? We know Biden breaks a tie on things.

 

[T-Rexx]

That is what happens in a six year itch. The party in power will get clobbered. I honestly won't be shocked to see us lose eight to ten seats.

Neither will I.

But this isn't *just* a "six year itch." This is about Obama. Democrats are in trouble everywhere because of Obama. Everyone hates him. Republicans hate him because he is black, and Democrats hate him because he is a Republican.

 

[Ninja108]

Neither will I.

But this isn't *just* a "six year itch." This is about Obama. Democrats are in trouble everywhere because of Obama. Everyone hates him. Republicans hate him because he is black, and Democrats hate him because he is a Republican.

Same thing happened in 06 and 08 because of Bush.
Democrats simply don't want to admit the same thing can happen to them even though we all know these things go in cycles.

 

[Ninja108]

How many seats do they need? We know Biden breaks a tie on things.

They need six and they are very likely to get that number at least and if polling keeps going the way it is, they could easily get eight to nine which would be among the worst of all time.

 

[T-Rexx]

They need six and they are very likely to get that number at least and if polling keeps going the way it is, they could easily get eight to nine which would be among the worst of all time.

I agree.

What concerns me is that 8 or 9 would be very hard to overcome in 2016. We may be looking at a Republican Senate for quite a few years.

 

[JackinSea]

So ... the 5th Circuit has scheduled its two cases for January 5th, which isn't too bad, considering that the Thanksgiving-Christmas holiday period is basically upon us.

 

[Ninja108]

I agree.

What concerns me is that 8 or 9 would be very hard to overcome in 2016. We may be looking at a Republican Senate for quite a few years.

Right now, the number in the Senate is 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 2 Independents who side with the Democrats.
Thus even an eight seat win will only give the Republican 53 seats, certainly not a hard number for Democrats to overcome in 2016 with the number of Republicans up in purple and blue states.
Anything beyond that though and it will get ugly.

 

[palbert]

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

Lewis Carroll, The Walrus and The Carpenter

And with apologies, of Baker v. Nelson, Puerto Rican Plaintiffs/Appellants, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals: The Head to head Conflict

Five Puerto Rican same-sex couples and a gay rights advocacy group on Tuesday began an uncertain trip to a federal appeals court, where a potential obstacle to their marriage plea may await them. Their lawyers filed a formal notice that they are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, to challenge a ruling a week ago by a judge upholding Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Two years ago, the First Circuit said flatly that it was still required to follow the Supreme Court’s summary, one-sentence ruling in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson. That ruling, it said, is “binding precedent” which bars an argument that there is “a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” And, it noted, the Supreme Court has not overturned that ruling in more recent gay rights decisions. The Baker decision said without elaboration that a plea for a right to marry a same-sex partner did not raise “a substantial federal question.”

Lyle Denniston, Testing the status of Baker v. Nelson, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 28, 2014, 4:50 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/testing-the-status-of-baker-v-nelson/

It is interesting that the First Circuit rules also on appeals from New England states, all of which have endorsed marriage equality.

So, does the First Circuit constitute a greater obstacle than, say, the Fifth or Sixth?

Will it read into Windsor the same exception that the other Circuits have read.

 

[Ninja108]

Keep in mind when the First Circuit made its ruling, it was still a Republican dominated court.
That has changed so there is a very good chance Baker V Nelson will get ignored.

 

[JackinSea]

A highlight from today's Kansas federal hearing (a REAL doozy!):

The state offered many other arguments, notably that the State of Kansas marriage system differs from Oklahoma and Utah in that the state of Kansas offers Common Law Marriage. When questioned on whether or not Oklahoma or Utah had common law marriage, the State of Kansas attorneys were "unsure" but "didn't think so".

 

[Ninja108]

Sad to say but come Nov 4th, Democrats are going to lose the Senate.
Let's hope we can get as many judges as possible confirmed before then.

 

[T-Rexx]

A highlight from today's Kansas federal hearing (a REAL doozy!):

The state offered many other arguments, notably that the State of Kansas marriage system differs from Oklahoma and Utah in that the state of Kansas offers Common Law Marriage. When questioned on whether or not Oklahoma or Utah had common law marriage, the State of Kansas attorneys were "unsure" but "didn't think so".

One of the remarkable things about this entire gay marriage debate has been the incompetence of the opponents of gay marriage. At every level, they have failed miserably. They haven't researched evidence to support their arguments, because they have yet to come up with arguments.

Their Keystone Cops machinations would be comical if it were not obvious that their only real intent is to try to stop the world from becoming a better place. Because that would require them to act civilized.

 

[Ninja108]

One of the remarkable things about this entire gay marriage debate has been the incompetence of the opponents of gay marriage. At every level, they have failed miserably. They haven't researched evidence to support their arguments, because they have yet to come up with arguments.

Their Keystone Cops machinations would be comical if it were not obvious that their only real intent is to try to stop the world from becoming a better place. Because that would require them to act civilized.

They haven't come up with valid arguments because there aren't.
These bans come down to Religious disapproval, something not allowed in this country.

 

[scream4ever]

In Missouri a ruling should be handed down soon as the request by plaintiffs to skip oral arguments was granted.

 

[Ninja108]

In Missouri a ruling should be handed down soon as the request by plaintiffs to skip oral arguments was granted.

Same in Kansas and hopefully South Carolina as well.