SCOTUS meets to decide case load for the new session

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2014 2:59 PM GMT
    the court could rule today or this week or some time soon; on if they will hear the marriage equality issue

    and a few other interesting cases too

    I just feel the court is a very random lose cannon in the government but see what happens.


    reference:
    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-meets-consider-taking-gay-marriage-cases-142205079.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2014 4:34 PM GMT
    How many times will the SC rebuke Obama this session?

    Last time, there were four takedowns in a row.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2014 4:56 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ saidHow many times will the SC rebuke Obama this session ...
    was thinking on the marriage equality issue alone for myself.
    such a lack of concern for the greater good
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 29, 2014 5:58 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ saidHow many times will the SC rebuke Obama this session?

    Last time, there were four takedowns in a row.



    Like those decisions were unanimous. They were strict 5/4 party line votes. Kennedy was a Republican appointee. You can't call a 1 vote victory as a "rebuke." If you read the majority opinions, they're the narrowest of victories possible. There were no 9/0 or 8/1 opinions.

    You got some victories. I wouldn't call it a "mandate" or issues of "clear" constitutional/unconstitutional law--like a 9/0 or 8/1 case would indicate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2014 8:37 PM GMT
    I have a feeling they won't take any of the cases up ... it's a close call however.

    The lower courts have been striking down gay-marriage bans routinely, and the liberal wing would risk having that process stopped if SCOTUS holds that there is no fundamental right to gay marriage.

    The conservative branch, on the other hand, may prefer to wait until Ginsberg is gone in hopes that the next President is a Republican who will appoint a conservative justice, giving the conservative branch a stronger majority.

    Given the narrowness of the Proposition 8 decision, and comments by the justices, I also get the sense that both sides feel like there is insufficient national consensus to find a fundamental right at this time.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 29, 2014 8:44 PM GMT
    I agree with SfSwimmer, I'd only add that we could get an odd cert medley. Perhaps the staunch conservatives would want to hold off on the Ginsburg-swap plan, and perhaps staunch liberals (Ginsburg/Sotomayor) might want to wait for more of a consensus, and almost assuredly Mr. Swing vote Kennedy would want to wait, but we could get a weird hodge-podge of 4 conserv/liberal justices wanting to press the issue. Expect the unexpected with the SC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2014 9:51 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI agree with SfSwimmer, I'd only add that we could get an odd cert medley. Perhaps the staunch conservatives would want to hold off on the Ginsburg-swap plan, and perhaps staunch liberals (Ginsburg/Sotomayor) might want to wait for more of a consensus, and almost assuredly Mr. Swing vote Kennedy would want to wait, but we could get a weird hodge-podge of 4 conserv/liberal justices wanting to press the issue. Expect the unexpected with the SC.


    That's a good point ... I had forgotten that only 4 votes are needed for cert to be granted. You're right that there might be a very interesting mix of justices voting for and against (although I'm not sure the identity of who voted to accept or deny cert is ever made public).

    If they have accept cert now Kennedy will no doubt be glad that the Romer v. Evans issue won't be front-and-center as it would have been had they reached the Proposition 8 decision on the merits (thanks to Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit).
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 29, 2014 10:05 PM GMT
    @SfSwimmer....Agreed.

    And regarding cert, my understanding is that there's no way to find out which justices cast a cert vote. Everything at the SC is black boxed. In fact, come to think of it, I don't think they give a reason for their recusal decisions. They simply recuse themselves or not. I don't think I've ever read a "recusal" decision or report.

    I have a good friend who clerked for Justice Scalia. I ask him stuff all the time--not substantive issues since I can find that in any book or online article, but about practical and seemingly trivial issues because that, to me, says a lot. With respect to cert votes, I remember my friend saying that certain Justices pal around with other Justices more than others (just like any group of humans do), and they'll informally discuss cert issues and opinions beforehand, but I don't think there's an informal poll or pandering to "get the cert votes" like in the legislature. Another thing, unrelated, that sticks out is that Ginsburg and Scalia are really good friends, and it's not for show. They take each other soup, and meet to do historical research (for fun) together. Odd, but true according to my friend. And I think he confirmed the SC Justices do have a basketball court "the highest court in the land," but it's mainly the clerks and guests who play on and utilize it.

    Scalia smokes Marlboro Lights in the building (against rules), and most of them drink if they're there late. Perhaps not surprising, but interesting somewhat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2014 11:57 PM GMT
    pellaz said
    Jack_NNJ saidHow many times will the SC rebuke Obama this session ...
    was thinking on the marriage equality issue alone for myself.
    such a lack of concern for the greater good


    True, I hope you've learned something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 5:28 AM GMT
    I must admit that the Supreme Court's reputation has been in the toilet since the George W. Bush decision from 2000, but this is the first case before this very political court in the history of the United States that I will be paying attention to because it is as important as the decision regarding black people's right to vote in this country and be equal citizens that was rendered initially by Chief Justice Earl Warren and his court on separate but equal. I never thought, having grown up in African American culture, I would be watching a decision from this political court this closely. I'm wondering are they capable of being impartial judges instead of representatives of the political ideologies and politicians that placed each of them on the court. If my suspicions are correct, we no longer live in the age of legal Justices who make decisions based on the principles of the Constitution but rather on their political puppet masters who control them outside of the court. I'm curious to see what their decision will be. I'm rarely wrong in guessing how each of these Justices will vote on a legal issue.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 01, 2014 2:24 PM GMT
    declansloan saidI must admit that the Supreme Court's reputation has been in the toilet since the George W. Bush decision from 2000, but this is the first case before this very political court in the history of the United States that I will be paying attention to because it is as important as the decision regarding black people's right to vote in this country and be equal citizens that was rendered initially by Chief Justice Earl Warren and his court on separate but equal. I never thought, having grown up in African American culture, I would be watching a decision from this political court this closely. I'm wondering are they capable of being impartial judges instead of representatives of the political ideologies and politicians that placed each of them on the court. If my suspicions are correct, we no longer live in the age of legal Justices who make decisions based on the principles of the Constitution but rather on their political puppet masters who control them outside of the court. I'm curious to see what their decision will be. I'm rarely wrong in guessing how each of these Justices will vote on a legal issue.


    I agree with the sentiment, but without turning into a Supreme Court apologist I'd say this: there's really no such thing as following "principles of the Constitution." When you get down to it, there are interpretive methods (textual, historical, evolutionary, practical), but even employing the same interpretive approach two reasonable and intelligent people can come to different conclusions. Just look at Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, they're both (from a cynical standpoint), conservative and Republican, and they both employ textual and historical interpretive means, but their opinions differ widely. For example, Justice Thomas does not think that the 14th Amendment applies to the States, and accordingly nearly EVERY piece of federal legislation is null and unenforceable, whereas Scalia calls this absurd.

    I think it's less an affirmative "I'm a Democrat/Republican and I'm going to vote the way my party likes" dynamic, and more the dynamic that when you press the "principles of the Constitution" you can glean what you want to a large extent. Literally, 9 people are looking at the SAME text and history and facts and seeing wildly different things. That is appreciated in art, but such disagreement is apparently lamentable in jurists. All I can say is that I do not think the jurists are OVERTLY and CONSCIOUSLY manipulating the vote and "being political," rather I think that their fundamental and core ideologies are spilling out and bleeding onto their opinions. The former is condemnable, the latter is merely a natural upshot of being human.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2014 6:35 PM GMT
    Interesting, so is there an immediate lift on bans except for 20 states?


    Supreme Court Takes No Immediate Action On Gay Marriage
    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-takes-no-immediate-action-gay-marriage-134524235.html

    The justices meet again in private on October 10 to consider new cases, and decisions about what to hear could be announced then or on October 14


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_5912950.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

    Same-sex couples in 11 more states would win the right to marry, but the issue would remain unsettled nationwide if the Supreme Court were to surprise everyone and decline to take up gay marriage right now.

    A decision by the justices to reject calls from all quarters to take up same-sex marriage would lead to gay and lesbian unions in 30 states and the District of Columbia, up from 19 states.