|
I remember being cautiously optimistic about Roberts in 2013 after the Obamacare ruling the year before. And then Shelby County happened.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
I feel like Roberts is totally OK with being an awful douche, unless he knows a ruling will be both (a) historic, and (b) he doesn't have the votes for the vile outcome. In these cases he switches to the "good" side so that his appearance in 22nd-century high school textbooks will be even more masturbatory than it would be otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Freudian posted:I remember being cautiously optimistic about Roberts in 2013 after the Obamacare ruling the year before. And then Shelby County happened. Not a lawyer but it looks to me like cert was granted there for a very limited question. The one they're examining here is way more broad it seems, and if Roberts is concerned with his ~~legacy~~ I don't see him having a good way to duck out of this decision. but at least that's what my set of tea leaves reads 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that the best outcome is a surprise Scalia-authored unanimous ruling for the plaintiffs in which he quotes his previous dissent and then blows his brains out in a Bud Dwyer style press conference. Right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Bring on the apocalypse!! AFA edition! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
I just don't think Robert's vote matters much at all, let's pretend for a moment Scalia got his way, it would basically leave tens of thousands of marriages in legal limbo, a patchwork of widely divergent marriage laws and recognition between the states and federal government and there isn't even a major opposition to nationwide gay marriage. Roberts might swing either way but deep down I'm sure he knows that that would be a completely untenable situation regardless of how he feels personally about the issue, if by some insanity Kennedy wasn't the 5th vote Robert would know that just from a practical standpoint overruling the circuit courts at this point would be disastrous and serve no legitimate public interest. Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Bring on the apocalypse!! If God was really that pissy about sin you think he would have done something about all the fat people in the US by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Bring on the apocalypse!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY 🎵Oh!🎵 🎵It's The End Of The World As We Know It 🎵 🎵It's The End Of The World As We Know It 🎵 🎵It's The End Of The World As We Know It 🎵 🎵And I Feel Fine🎵  I'm still gonna post a shitload of Gay Marriage pics from my awesome hometown of San Antonio, because once (mandatory) gay marriage comes down, we're diving in headfirst.  San Antonio, bastion of Awesomeness posted:Republican Bexar County Clerk Gerard C. “Gerry” Rickhoff said in addition to keeping his office open ’round-the-clock, he’s considering setting up tables in Main Plaza to accommodate same-sex couples. Rickhoff said he’s also lined up district judges to waive a 72-hour waiting period before ceremonies can occur, as well as officiants to conduct them. fade5 fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I'm still gonna post a shitload of Gay Marriage pics from my awesome hometown of San Antonio, because once (mandatory) gay marriage comes down, we're diving in headfirst. Didn't we goon out over Rickhoff a few weeks ago too? Seems like a cool dude 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Bring on the apocalypse!! Can it be Ragnarok? That one is way more  then the biblical end times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:Can it be Ragnarok? That one is way more I dunno, Revelation gets pretty drat trippy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I dunno, Revelation gets pretty drat trippy. Sure, but on the other hand with Ragnarok you have multiple gods dying and everything ending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is my favorite part. His wife led a campaign to put thousands of gay people out of a job and out on the street just for existing, barring them completely from their careers, but that's okay because they're icky. But when gay people organize a boycott against the products she endorses, oh well those people are so mean and horrible, that's just not fair. It's even worse than that. At one point during the "Save Our Children" campaign she lobbied the legislature to increase the criminal penalty for homosexuality, already a misdemeanor at the time, back to the previous penalty of a felony with a potential for as much as 20 years of prison time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's even worse than that. At one point during the "Save Our Children" campaign she lobbied the legislature to increase the criminal penalty for homosexuality, already a misdemeanor at the time, back to the previous penalty of a felony with a potential for as much as 20 years of prison time. It's easy to ge confused what with her constant stereotypical conservative whining about how "they don't want to persecute" homosexuals. It's amazing how far back that smokescreen was used, and the insanity of someone pushing jail sentences saying it with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
No no see she only wants to jail them to keep them away from our precious children. That's not persecution: you wouldn't call imprisoning rapists or murderers persecution, would you? Persecution is when you do something bad to someone who doesn't deserve it, like when you don't let a Christian superintendent go on a witch hunt for lesbian teachers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Bring on the apocalypse!! Yeah, gay marriage will be the tipping point. None if that other sinful stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, gay marriage will be the tipping point. None if that other sinful stuff. Seriously, I wish we were a country where COURT-MANDATED HOMOSEX is like the most alarming thing about us
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
gatesealer posted:So how do we think this will go? Are we looking at 5-4 in favor of SSM? Who do we think will be the important vote and why? I am curious as my knowledge of the supreme court is not great. By far the most likely decision is 5-4 (with Kennedy as the deciding vote) in favor of marriage equality. It's possible, though extremely unlikely, that Roberts or Kennedy flips. However if Roberts wanted to flip he had his chance previously and I don't see what would change now, and I can't see Kennedy, given his career of writing every major gay rights decision, voting against marriage equality. Basically anything other than the 5-4 in favor decision would be a huge surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Master troll Scalia authors the 6-3 majority, citing his own dissents in Lawrence and Windsor, and concluding with a smug flourish that legalizing marriage was his secret plan all along.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Does the fact that it's the one dissenting circuit court that's getting reviewed mean much? Was it just the only one up for appeal just now, or should it be read as that one, specifically, being more likely to be reversed than the previously dismissed circuit court cases?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:Does the fact that it's the one dissenting circuit court that's getting reviewed mean much? Was it just the only one up for appeal just now, or should it be read as that one, specifically, being more likely to be reversed than the previously dismissed circuit court cases? Basically, the Sixth Circuit created a circuit split by concern trolling about Baker v. Nelson, and there was no way the Supreme Court was going to punt as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Didn't we goon out over Rickhoff a few weeks ago too? Seems like a cool dude Also it's really telling that rather than hoping for some sort of upset or a final showdown, most/all of the anti-Gay Marriage assholes are adopting a "welp, this is the end, the US is hosed" attitude. Even they know the Supreme Court ruling in June is gonna be legal Gay Marriage nationwide, with the only question being if the ruling is 5-4 or 6-3 in favor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
I could see 6-3 with Roberts not wanting to join a sinking ship and by being chief justice, assigning the opinion to himself to write it as narrowly as possible
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Probably hinges on Roberts and Kennedy. I can't imagine how Kennedy could be against it. Even if it went with that dumb States Rights quip quoted earlier it'd still be outright discrimination and extremely illegal so the twisting to validate it would be something to behold. Roberts, OTOH, I could see flipping just so he gets to write the decision (narrowly as possible) instead of letting Kennedy write yet another decision that sides with gays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I could see 6-3 with Roberts not wanting to join a sinking ship and by being chief justice, assigning the opinion to himself to write it as narrowly as possible While he could write a narrow opinion, and it's 6-3, the four liberal justices could just not sign off on it and write their own/sign on to Kennedy, making that the majority opinion and making Roberts' the concurring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
I have to wonder, though, what if this doesn't pass? Would it just be bouncing things back to a state by state basis, or is it possible that the SCOTUS might make a decision that gay marriage is entirely illegal in the country?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I could see 6-3 with Roberts not wanting to join a sinking ship and by being chief justice, assigning the opinion to himself to write it as narrowly as possible What narrowing could he do? It's the end of the line, either the 14th requires marriage equality or it doesn't. There's not really anything to decide beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What narrowing could he do? It's the end of the line, either the 14th requires marriage equality or it doesn't. There's not really anything to decide beyond that. Are laws restricting marriage subject to scrutiny, or laws restricting the rights of people based on sexual orientation? What level of scrutiny? I'm just a layperson, but those seem like important elements of the court's reasoning, and up for grabs here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I have to wonder, though, what if this doesn't pass? Would it just be bouncing things back to a state by state basis, or is it possible that the SCOTUS might make a decision that gay marriage is entirely illegal in the country? Well several states have legalized gay marriage legislatively so the SCOTUS wouldn't overturn those, they could overturn the district court decisions that the SCOTUS already let stays expire on which thousands of gay marriages have already commenced under. Seriously, overturning the district courts at this point would be such a clusterfuck that it is pretty much inconceivable. I think worst, worst case is a ruling that says that states have to recognize all gay marriages that have legally commenced out of state or in-state by court order but they are not obligated to perform gay marriages. Which would be an idiotic ruling but there are other relatively minor discrepancies in marriage law between states (Cousins, etc) that could give them a minor out. A stupid one, one that makes no major practical difference besides possibly being a undue burden on gay couples but it's the only way that I could see them rolling things back at all without complete legal mayhem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What narrowing could he do? It's the end of the line, either the 14th requires marriage equality or it doesn't. There's not really anything to decide beyond that. *twenty pages of old man grumbling* "The case against icky gays marrying doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. THERE, I SAID IT." *twenty more pages of old man grumbling.* Meanwhile Scalia keeps his Dissent as simple as possible to keep from getting trolled again: "BAH! HUMBUG!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What narrowing could he do? It's the end of the line, either the 14th requires marriage equality or it doesn't. There's not really anything to decide beyond that. A narrow ruling means equal marriage, a broad ruling could lead to protected class/group status.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I could see 6-3 with Roberts not wanting to join a sinking ship and by being chief justice, assigning the opinion to himself to write it as narrowly as possible The grant of cert literally says that the Court has been asked the question of whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment and it will answer that, and Kennedy's opinions going as far back as Lawrence say that there's no viable argument against SSM under 14th Amendment grounds -- and the 14th is incorporated against the states. There is absolutely no room for the Chief Justice to narrow the opinion, the question before the Court is a binary yes / no question. Pasco posted:A narrow ruling means equal marriage, a broad ruling could lead to protected class/group status. Kennedy, for as much as he has done to advance gay rights over the past few decades, does not appear to have any interest in establishing homosexuality as a suspect class. His tact in this opinion is almost certainly going to be along the lines of saying that SSM bans fail rational basis review, and he'll cite the 14th -- I fully expect his opinion to cite large portions of Judge Daugherty's dissent in the Sixth Circuit ruling. Timby fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Gonna enjoy linking this song a lot. thanks for posting the lyrics for all 2 people in this thread who have never heard the song.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:thanks for posting the lyrics for all 2 people in this thread who have never heard the song.  I try to label any Youtube link I make, since I have a personal tendency to avoid clicking on random, no-description Youtube links. It's partially because I hang around in the Middle East thread, and you absolutely do not want to start randomly clicking on unlabeled Youtube links in that thread. Or sometimes even labeled Youtube links. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2015/01/17/did-supreme-court-telegraph-its-ultimate-ruling-on-gay-marriage/ Here's a Forbes article. Seems the author thinks the questions SCOTUS agreed to indicates they're likely to let states do what they want while dodging questions about scrutiny. It's Forbes so I take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2015/01/17/did-supreme-court-telegraph-its-ultimate-ruling-on-gay-marriage/ That would be really irresponsible of scotus
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:It's Forbes so I take it with a grain of salt. It's an external blogger who "contributes" to Forbes -- not an article by Forbes' editorial staff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
I'm highly skeptical that Kennedy would destroy the legacy he spent 19 years building, with probably too little time left in his career to really cement a new one other than his other current legacy of being a pro-corporate shill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I could see 6-3 with Roberts not wanting to join a sinking ship and by being chief justice, assigning the opinion to himself to write it as narrowly as possible Evil Fluffy posted:I can't imagine how Kennedy could be against it. Even if it went with that dumb States Rights quip quoted earlier it'd still be outright discrimination and extremely illegal so the twisting to validate it would be something to behold. If the outcome is 'legal gay marriage in the US', how could he write that 'narrowly'? I mean, they either legalize it in all fifty states, or they don't, right?. What shade of grey am I missing here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
richardfun posted:If the outcome is 'legal gay marriage in the US', how could he write that 'narrowly'? I mean, they either legalize it in all fifty states, or they don't, right?. What shade of grey am I missing here? It's always possible they could rule that states have to recognise same sex marriages carried out elsewhere, but don't actually have to perform the ceremonies themselves. Make it a strict contract recognition thing instead of recognising and rights against discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Senor Tron posted:It's always possible they could rule that states have to recognise same sex marriages carried out elsewhere, but don't actually have to perform the ceremonies themselves. Make it a strict contract recognition thing instead of recognising and rights against discrimination. That's basically how it works already. States only recognize marriages for taxes and a few legal matters like adoption. Marriages are handled at the county level, usually at the register of deeds or county clerk's office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:00
|
|