Aug 18, 2010 6:13 PM GMT
Which Supreme Court Justices Will Uphold Judge Walker's Ruling?
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/08/which_supreme_court_justices_will_uphold_judge_wal.php
Which Supreme Court Justices Will Uphold Judge Walker's Ruling?
-
Aug 18, 2010 6:13 PM GMT
Which Supreme Court Justices Will Uphold Judge Walker's Ruling?
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/08/which_supreme_court_justices_will_uphold_judge_wal.php -
Aug 18, 2010 6:36 PM GMTviveutvivas saidIt all comes down to Kennedy. Given his recent record of coming down on the right of various issues, it would be naive to be optimistic. I think we are fucked.
I agree. If this goes to the US Supreme Court we lose.
The best thing I have heard is that the 9th Circuit might deny standing to the right-wing groups that are appealing Judge Walker's ruling. The State of California is not officially appealing his decision, neither the State Attorney General nor the Governor.
If the 9th Circuit rejects the appeal of these groups, and doesn't have to actually rule on the case, it's not clear if those groups can appeal to the US Supreme Court.
A refusal to consider a challenge to Judge Walker would only apply to California's Prop 8, and not establish a national precedent, but it would be better than nothing. And better than an appeal to the conservative US Supreme Court, which is likely to uphold Prop 8.
My hope is that the 9th Circuit will deny standing to the private groups appealing Judge Walker, meaning that Prop 8 is overturned. -
Aug 18, 2010 6:38 PM GMTI wish that we could find a way to change Scalia and Thomas opinion of this:
"Justices Scalia and Thomas, however, would definitely love to strike down Judge Walker's ruling with lighting and thunder. Not because they hate gays, but because they don't believe in using the Constitution's Due Process clause to invalidate laws unless it involves gun restrictions." -
Aug 18, 2010 6:45 PM GMTmetta8 saidI wish that we could find a way to change Scalia and Thomas opinion of this:
"Justices Scalia and Thomas, however, would definitely love to strike down Judge Walker's ruling with lighting and thunder. Not because they hate gays, but because they don't believe in using the Constitution's Due Process clause to invalidate laws unless it involves gun restrictions."
Clarence Thomas is the most extreme example of an Uncle Tom the US Supreme Court has ever had. He will go down in history as the most anti-Black Black who has ever been in government. He is the tool of Whites, and a disgrace to his race. More than that, he is regressive and oppressive to all minorities, and to the rights of ordinary Americans. His skin may be dark, but he wears a pointy white hat. -
Aug 18, 2010 9:25 PM GMTviveutvivas saidThomas always follows Scalia.
Uncle Tom that he is. And he's never delivered a reasoned opinion, even his clerks failing to find the words for him. The most incompetent Justice who has ever sat on the Supreme Court in modern times, -
Aug 19, 2010 12:38 AM GMTNo, I disagree. I think we've got a very good chance if this goes to the Supreme Court. Assuming we have the four moderate judges -- Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan -- then yes it comes down to Kennedy. He's certainly no liberal, but on our issues he's been very good.
He wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans which struck down an anti-gay amendment to the Colorado constitution. This amendment prohibited any city or local government from enacting non-discrimination laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Here are some excerpts from his opinion:
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
He also wrote the majority opinion in the 2003 case Lawrence & Garner v. Texas which struck down Texas' anti-gay sodomy law. His opinion in that case is so beautiful and moving.
Thomas is too lazy to write much of an opinion -- he'll probably just sign on to whatever Scalia writes. And you can definitely count on Scalia for a mean-spirited, snarky attack! I'm sure Alito and Roberts will also uphold Prop 8, but I'm not sure if they'll write their own dissent or sign on to Scalia's. -
Aug 19, 2010 2:38 AM GMTtennsjock saidNo, I disagree. I think we've got a very good chance if this goes to the Supreme Court. Assuming we have the four moderate judges -- Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan -- then yes it comes down to Kennedy. He's certainly no liberal, but on our issues he's been very good.
I have to agree with you. Having read Walkers decision I would be surprised if Kennedy would not vote in our favor. As you stated he has made some vital decisions in our favor. If he decided against our side it would be shocking in light of his previous decisions. My personal predictions that we will have nation wide marriage equality in the next 2-3 years. *fingers crossed*
He wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans which struck down an anti-gay amendment to the Colorado constitution. This amendment prohibited any city or local government from enacting non-discrimination laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Here are some excerpts from his opinion:
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.
He also wrote the majority opinion in the 2003 case Lawrence & Garner v. Texas which struck down Texas' anti-gay sodomy law. His opinion in that case is so beautiful and moving.
Thomas is too lazy to write much of an opinion -- he'll probably just sign on to whatever Scalia writes. And you can definitely count on Scalia for a mean-spirited, snarky attack! I'm sure Alito and Roberts will also uphold Prop 8, but I'm not sure if they'll write their own dissent or sign on to Scalia's. -
Aug 19, 2010 2:59 AM GMTIf the case gets elevated to the SCOTUS, I'd say its about odds are fairly good that it Judge Walker's decision will be upheld.
As others opined, the four liberal justices would likely support SSM (with the impact that SSM would effectively become national law), and the four conservative justices accordingly against.
Justice Kennedy would be likely to opine in favour of Judge Walker's decision, considering his previous record of judging in favour of gay rights issues.
The chances are more likely that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may refuse to hear the case, effectively rendering it a regional issue, and failing to apply a national mandate to SSM.
-
Aug 19, 2010 3:41 AM GMTjprichva saidJustice Thomas??
I thought his name was Justice Long Dong Silver.
Hahaha, amazing.
I for one am pretty optimistic about the whole thing. I don't see national marriage equality in the next 2-3 years, but I do see at least Walker's decision being upheld by the Supreme Court, which is a big step in the right direction. I can't wait... -
Aug 19, 2010 4:27 AM GMTalphatrigger saidThe chances are more likely that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may refuse to hear the case, effectively rendering it a regional issue, and failing to apply a national mandate to SSM.
That is what I think to be the most likely outcome, the parties appealing Walkers's decision not really having standing, based on the original case. The State of California is not participating in the appeal of a ruling against their own State constitutional amendment, which is significant. These parties are bringing the appeal on the basis of personal harm, which will be hard to prove, and their legal standing before the court is questionable. -
Aug 19, 2010 4:38 AM GMTjprichva saidJustice Thomas??
I thought his name was Justice Long Dong Silver.
and the case of the stray pubic hair.
