What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[Kulindahr]

Okay, let's be silly: what if they just sit and ignore it once again?

 

[DonQuixote]

You mean 2015 right? Cases which they grant cert to by January are generally heard and decided by the following summer.

They don't have to hear it this session. They may very well delay the year - buys them the time they want for vox populi to be heard - more importantly, for all those states who currently have to allow SSM to experience the non-eventness of it, aside from the economic benefits.

 

[Kulindahr]

They don't have to hear it this session. They may very well delay the year - buys them the time they want for vox populi to be heard - more importantly, for all those states who currently have to allow SSM to experience the non-eventness of it, aside from the economic benefits.

That's the only reason I can think of for delaying -- so that when they finally decide, the great majority of Americans will go, "Well, duh! What took you so long?"

 

[scream4ever]

That's the only reason I can think of for delaying -- so that when they finally decide, the great majority of Americans will go, "Well, duh! What took you so long?"

It's highly unlikely to happen given what Ginsburg has recently hinted at. We now have an official circuit court split, which is what they seem to have been waiting for.

 

[Ninja108]

They don't have to hear it this session. They may very well delay the year - buys them the time they want for vox populi to be heard - more importantly, for all those states who currently have to allow SSM to experience the non-eventness of it, aside from the economic benefits.

I'd rather they hear it now. Another year means another chance of losing the five likely votes that we have on the court to overturn these bans.

 

[T-Rexx]

So what happens if we - God forbid - lose the SCOTUS vote? Is the case for marriage equality lost for good?

Frankly, I'm amazed that this is still such an issue in an advanced country such as the US, and almost baffling that 4 SCOTUS judges are considered sure to vote against it. When did it go from the US bravely leading the world to the US being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future?

Yes, exactly.

It's almost unbelievable that half of the Supreme Court will rule against us, given the extraordinary weight of scientific evidence in our favor. This court seems determined to introduce a religious authority into American law. An authority which our founding fathers struggled mightily to prevent.

In that unlikely but possible event all hell would break loose. Every ban struck down in federal court would be reinstated, Proposition 8 in California, Measure 36 in Oregon, etc. Quite simply we would have to go to initiative referendum in all those states that allow it. I reckon we could win everywhere now except the Deep South. It would be a costly and exhausting campaign, but one which would benefit from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

I think we would win the northeast and the extreme west. I don't think the midwestern states or the south will pass marriage equality. (Ohio, for example, still opposes marriage equality, and that is typical of midwestern attitudes).

If SCOTUS rules against us, I suspect that less than half of America will have marriage equality at any time within the next generation.

I'd rather they hear it now. Another year means another chance of losing the five likely votes that we have on the court to overturn these bans.

I think this is true. There is probably a slightly greater chance of succeeding now than there is within the near future. But it is stunning that the possibility of failure is so high.

 

[hotatlboi]

You mean 2015 right? Cases which they grant cert to by January are generally heard and decided by the following summer.

No I mean 2016. It's unlikely this case will be completed in the current term imo.

SCOTUS has made it clear they do not want to issue a final ruling this year.

 

[JackinSea]

What does this development mean for the circuits that are still out?

 

[hotatlboi]

What does this development mean for the circuits that are still out?

It means their rulings are effectively irrelevant since SCOTUS will have to decide a final outcome soon. More favorable rulings would help to isolate the 6th in their error though.

 

[Ninja108]

No I mean 2016. It's unlikely this case will be completed in the current term imo.

SCOTUS has made it clear they do not want to issue a final ruling this year.

IMO,SCOTUS is going to be hearing gay marriage this term. We now have a split and waiting for other circuits to rule is a moot point now.

 

[hotatlboi]

IMO,SCOTUS is going to be hearing gay marriage this term. We now have a split and waiting for other circuits to rule is a moot point now.

I'll have to disagree then. SCOTUS has made it clear they do not want to issue a final ruling this year. They are not going to fast track the briefings for cert and can employ plenty of additional delays to push it off until next year.

 

[scream4ever]

I'll have to disagree then. SCOTUS has made it clear they do not want to issue a final ruling this year. They are not going to fast track the briefings for cert and can employ plenty of additional delays to push it off until next year.

I have not once heard this implied from any members of the court.

 

[hotatlboi]

I have not once heard this implied from any members of the court.

The ruling speaks for itself.

If they were open to making a final ruling this term and were simply waiting for a circuit split they would have waited on the other cases rather than issuing denials. This was in fact widely expected by many people. They knew the 6th's ruling was imminent. By disposing of those cases completely, the pretty clearly indicated their preference to wait on this issue a bit longer.

 

[JackinSea]

For the Legal Eagles here ..... assuming the very worst (which I doubt), is a second bite at the apple via Full Faith & Credit a possibility?

 

[Alnitak]

For the Legal Eagles here ..... assuming the very worst (which I doubt), is a second bite at the apple via Full Faith & Credit a possibility?

Can't retry a case that is decided. That's res judicata, and we are running out of open cases.

 

[JackinSea]

I wasn't sure whether Full Faith and Credit re: recognition of other states' licenses might be a separate legal point, but thanks!

 

[Kulindahr]

It's highly unlikely to happen given what Ginsburg has recently hinted at. We now have an official circuit court split, which is what they seem to have been waiting for.

She hinted they were going to take a case soon, too.

 

[hotatlboi]

Ginsberg indicated that the Court would have to step in sooner, if the 6th created a split, than they otherwise would have. But that was already common sense. She offered no specific on whether their final ruling would be this term or next in the event of such a ruling from the 6th.

 

[Ninja108]

We'll just have agree to disagree Hotalboi.
There is no point in SCOTUS delaying now that there is a split.

 

[Alnitak]

Kansas stay expires tomorrow evening at 5 PM