Will the Supreme Court hear Perry v Brown (Prop 8 case)?

[scream4ever]

As you may have heard, the 9th Circuit just decided to not rehear the trial en banc. That means the case can now be appealed to the Supreme Court. They can either agree to hear it or they can refuse, in which case the ruling from the 9th would stand. The lawyers for our side (Olsen and Boise) are going to push for the refusal. I think it's likely that will happen. The rulling was very narrow, and with the First Circuit case now expected to be heard during the next term, they may want to avoid the possibility of contradicting themselves.

What do you guys think they will do?

 

[hotatlboi]

I think they will refuse as well. I don't think they are ready to mandate that gay marriage be the law in all 50 states yet, but allowing CA to start it again will be a big step forward.

Either way I'm glad the 9th refused the rehearing, that will make the case proceed much quicker to a final resolution.

 

[Rolyo85]

I actually expect they will hear it. No particular reason, just a feeling. I am sure they will strike down prop 8 though.

 

[Benvolio]

I doubt they will grant certiorari in this case because the actual holding only applies to couples one married, then deprived of that right. If they took the case they would very likely affirm without needing to get to the broader question of whether the equal protection clause prohibits denial of same sex marriage. I think eventually they will strike the prohibition of same sex marriage, but this is not the case.

 

[Rolyo85]

The case actually already strikes down the prohibition if the Supreme Court doesn't take it up or takes it up and holds the 9th's decision.

 

[MassRuss]

I think they will hear it.

Too juicy to pass up.

It will be a 4-5 decision to take the case, however, and definitely it will be the conservative wing. They luv luv luv to slam the 9th circuit court. Old Scallywag will no doubt get into a private room with Kennedy and try to jerk him off.

Nah, he'll get Thomas or Roberts to blow him!

 

[scream4ever]

I think they will hear it.

Too juicy to pass up.

It will be a 4-5 decision to take the case, however, and definitely it will be the conservative wing. They luv luv luv to slam the 9th circuit court. Old Scallywag will no doubt get into a private room with Kennedy and try to jerk him off.

I'm not sure. Roberts does have a past affiliation in support of Romer v Evans, and he did refuse to stay the DC marriage law (and later likely voted to decline to hear the case when it was appealed to the Supreme Court).

The 9th Circuit ruling was very narrow for a reason, as is now basically just a re-affirmation of Romer v Evans. Also, the Supreme Court may want to avoid the possibility of ruling on the constitutionality of same sex marriage just yet.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ oh god I love 3eb.

 

[scream4ever]

This article explains some points as to why it's unlikely the Supreme Court will take the case:

Just where is the Prop. 8 case? | LGBT Weekly

 

[Benvolio]

I think they will deny certiorari, in effect, affirming without a decision. In the 9thCircuit it was decided in the narrow ground that gays had previously been given the right to wed and the constitutional amendment purports to take it away. Taking away an existing right is ordinarily invalid, without regard to the specific right involved, and that is sufficiently established to need no consideration by the USSC. Deciding it would not decide the broader question of a constitutional right to marry. Eventually the court will hold that right but probably not in this case because the court usually does not decide issues they do not need to reach. They do not give advisory opinions.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've come to think they won't hear it.

But if they do, I still think that the decision will be that once a state has gone with marriage equality, it can't go back -- nothing more. I see Roberts going for that, and Kennedy would go along, though probably with a separate opinion..

 

[hotatlboi]

Given the health care decision, it's clear that Roberts is not an automatic vote for the conservative side, and views his decisions very carefully through a perspective of their historical significance. That's a good sign for the gay marriage question.

 

[Kulindahr]

Given the health care decision, it's clear that Roberts is not an automatic vote for the conservative side, and views his decisions very carefully through a perspective of their historical significance. That's a good sign for the gay marriage question.

He's also a little more into nuance than I expected.

I like the somewhat unpredictable ones. That's one reason I despise Obama's SCOTUS picks: I expect them to be boringly , very much like liberal versions of Clarence Thomas.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sounds about right. That appears to be the general consensus right now as well. That is why I believe Washington's vote this November will be irrelevant to the legal question, and that Hawaii's hybrid constitutional and statutory derogation of its own court decision will be held invalid as well if challenged.

Hawaii's situation sickens me. They're supposed to give high respect to native traditions and customs, and those customs include male-male bonding. There should have have even been a question about it.

My Hawaiian sister-in-law regards it as just a continuation of the "missionary imperialism" determined to exterminate all traces of native "heathen" culture.

Sometimes she slips into advocating that the state bring back its king, though with the heir chosen by election. I kind of like it. Oh -- the king (or queen's) main power would be to strike down any law infringing on native culture.

 

[T-Rexx]

Scotus will hear it, and uphold Prop 8 in a 5-4 decision.

This is a very activist court intent on promoting a conservative agenda.

We need to focus our efforts on getting Prop 8 repealed at the state level.

 

[Kulindahr]

Scotus will hear it, and uphold Prop 8 in a 5-4 decision.

This is a very activist court intent on promoting a conservative agenda.

We need to focus our efforts on getting Prop 8 repealed at the state level.

If they hear it, I see a 6 - 3 striking down 8 as I described above. Kennedy will go that way for obvious reasons, Roberts for states' rights reasons.

 

[Kulindahr]

Diversity in culture is wonderful, so why should Hawaiians be at the mercy of autocratic determination over which culture influences which laws? There very well may be some cultural Hawaiian institutions that conflict with Enlightenment principles we consider sine qua non in a fair society as much as the reverse is true. Good topic for more research...

Considering that the U.S. basically stole their country from them, the native Hawaiians deserve every consideration.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are human rights subservient to cultural sovereignty?

Cultural sovereignty IS human rights.

 

[hotatlboi]

Good grief the petition is 497 pages.

 

[Kulindahr]

We're going to SCOTUS people!

That's a bit premature. The justices may read that and say, "Is this all you've got?" and decide not to hear it.