At this point do you think the Supreme Court could reverse everything?

  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Jan 12, 2015 12:02 AM GMT
    There is a very good chance of the Supreme Court taking up a gay marriage case this term. However do you think there remains a chance for them to actually reverse the progress we have made in the past two or there years?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 12:14 AM GMT
    No, I think its been a long time in correcting a wrong, into making it right from the 80's era, conservative detour


    Supreme Court faced gay rights decision in 1958 over 'obscene' magazine
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-gay-magazine-20150111-story.html#page=1

    750x422
  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Jan 12, 2015 12:18 AM GMT
    scruffLA saidNo, I think its been a long time in correcting a wrong, into making it right from the 80's era, conservative detour


    Supreme Court faced gay rights decision in 1958 over 'obscene' magazine
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-gay-magazine-20150111-story.html#page=1

    750x422



    Something I've been thinking of a lot is that Germany had a very vibrant gay movement before the war and we know how that turned out
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 1:49 AM GMT
    At this point do you think the Supreme Court could reverse everything?

    Of course gay marriage could be reversed. This is what the Right is banking their hopes on. And if it is not, the new Republican Congress will produce a US Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage & unions, and invalidating those already performed. The President plays no part in this process, he cannot veto it, then it goes to the States for ratification. States which are currently largely Republican.
  • Inque

    Posts: 517

    Jan 12, 2015 1:51 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidOf course it could be reversed. This is what the Right is banking their hopes on. And if it is not, the new Republican Congress will produce a US Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage & unions, and invalidating those already performed. The President plays no part in this process, he cannot veto it, it then it goes to the States for ratification.


    There is very little hope that could pass. They would need a supermarjority
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 1:53 AM GMT
    Inque said
    Art_Deco saidOf course it could be reversed. This is what the Right is banking their hopes on. And if it is not, the new Republican Congress will produce a US Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage & unions, and invalidating those already performed. The President plays no part in this process, he cannot veto it, it then it goes to the States for ratification.

    There is very little hope that could pass. They would need a supermarjority

    Watch a number of spineless Dems in "battleground" States cave.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 2:37 PM GMT
    Inque said
    ... I've been thinking of a lot is that Germany had a very vibrant gay movement before the war and we know how that turned out
    than dont vote republican next time.
  • Sakura

    Posts: 188

    Jan 12, 2015 3:36 PM GMT
    No, I think there will be a split court decision in favor of marriage equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 4:07 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidAt this point do you think the Supreme Court could reverse everything?

    Of course gay marriage could be reversed. This is what the Right is banking their hopes on. And if it is not, the new Republican Congress will produce a US Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage & unions, and invalidating those already performed. The President plays no part in this process, he cannot veto it, then it goes to the States for ratification. States which are currently largely Republican.


    I think the Supreme Court really wants to punt on the issue, fearing the same sort of unending controversy that was set off by the Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion. I don't think that they'd invalidate gay marriage - rather I think they'd not rule, or punt it back to the states. On federal regulations regarding married gay couples, I think they'd rule that "married means married" whether for gay or straight couples, and would invalidate federal anti-gay discrimination on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

    Getting an amendment to the US Constitution passed is an enormously difficult process. Both 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate must pass it. It must then be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

    There are a couple other paths involving superconventions at both the state and federal level, but again they're terribly difficult.

    A lot of the anti-gay sentiment is dying off, literally of old age as social mores change among younger people. The religious crazies are being marginalized, and I see growing embarrassment within the younger members of GOP about having them around.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Jan 12, 2015 5:50 PM GMT
    They are on their way to reversing Roe V Wade so they can do it with anything else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 6:07 PM GMT
    Koaa2 saidThey are on their way to reversing Roe V Wade so they can do it with anything else.


    Latest Gallup shows that only 20% of people think that it should be illegal under all circumstances. 28% think it should be legal under all circumstances, and 50% think it should be under certain circumstances.

    Do you think that it'll be overturned entirely? I think that some restrictions may be allowed by further rulings, but I don't think that it would ever become entirely illegal.

    We are going off the topic of gay marriage, so if we want a lot of discussion, we might open a new topic.

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 12, 2015 6:08 PM GMT
    No. The same 5 justices that wrote the majority opinion are the same 5 justices that will hear the marriage equality case. Why would Kennedy, knowingly, craft jurisprudence favoring the equal treatment of LGBTs, and then rule against the direct and inexorable upshot of that jurisprudence? It would be schizophrenic. Kennedy crafted Windsor very carefully and to let lower courts create precedent for LGBT equality. Why would he take his carefully cultivated fruits and then smash them?

    Here's how it will play out, JUST LIKE THE WINDSOR case:

    Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito AGAINST a fundamental right to marry.

    Kennedy (swing vote, the one to watch), Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsburg, and Brayer FOR a fundamental right to marry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 6:23 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidNo. The same 5 justices that wrote the majority opinion are the same 5 justices that will hear the marriage equality case. Why would Kennedy, knowingly, craft jurisprudence favoring the equal treatment of LGBTs, and then rule against the direct and inexorable upshot of that jurisprudence? It would be schizophrenic. Kennedy crafted Windsor very carefully and to let lower courts create precedent for LGBT equality. Why would he take his carefully cultivated fruits and then smash them?

    Here's how it will play out, JUST LIKE THE WINDSOR case:

    Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito AGAINST a fundamental right to marry.

    Kennedy (swing vote, the one to watch), Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsburg, and Brayer FOR a fundamental right to marry.


    Senescent fruits - especially those from poisoned trees -aside, I agree w/ you, except that CJ Bobs would make it 6-3, if not 7-2 w/ Alito also befuddling his detractors.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 12, 2015 6:44 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Svnw688 saidNo. The same 5 justices that wrote the majority opinion are the same 5 justices that will hear the marriage equality case. Why would Kennedy, knowingly, craft jurisprudence favoring the equal treatment of LGBTs, and then rule against the direct and inexorable upshot of that jurisprudence? It would be schizophrenic. Kennedy crafted Windsor very carefully and to let lower courts create precedent for LGBT equality. Why would he take his carefully cultivated fruits and then smash them?

    Here's how it will play out, JUST LIKE THE WINDSOR case:

    Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito AGAINST a fundamental right to marry.

    Kennedy (swing vote, the one to watch), Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsburg, and Brayer FOR a fundamental right to marry.


    Senescent fruits - especially those from poisoned trees -aside, I agree w/ you, except that CJ Bobs would make it 6-3, if not 7-2 w/ Alito also befuddling his detractors.


    I've actually thought slightly on the issue. I know it's almost impossible to predict what they do, but I admit I've dreamed of the Chief Justice writing an opinion "concurring in part and dissenting in part" so he could be on the "right" side of history while assuaging the political right and his conservative fan base. Pure speculation, but it'll be interesting to see what he does.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 10:03 PM GMT
    Here's the latest SCOTUS inaction, from today's National Law Journal:

    The justices did deny review in one of five marriage-equality cases pending before them: Robicheaux v. George, in which a Louisiana federal district judge upheld that state's ban on same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, sought review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit could rule in their appeal. The state also had urged the high court to take the case. [Not the smartest or most efficient move by either party. (Italics added.)]

    A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit heard arguments in the Louisiana appeal, as well as appeals from Texas and Mississippi, on Jan. 9. Some high court experts had predicted a quick denial of review in the Louisiana case because the justices would not want to interfere with the appellate court's review. [Which makes perfect sense and most likely explains the cert denial; it doesn't take a "high court expert" to call that one. (Italics added.)]

    The denial still leaves four cases pending from the Sixth Circuit's November decision upholding state bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Those cases were on the justices' conference list for consideration on Jan. 9. The justices may take a second look at them during their next conference, scheduled for Jan. 16.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 11:05 PM GMT
    The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. Any "right" granted by a state must be equally granted to all citizens. Now more than once the high court has limited the 14th to race. Not sex. Not age. Not disability. Race. The high court is looking at marriage equality as a 14th Amendment issue. The court could have stuck with precident and refused to hear these cases. That it is hearing these cases indicates there is some disagreement amongst the supremes. History suggests that the court typically follows public opinion. Marriage equality wiIl soon be the law of the land unless Uncle Thomas can convince 2 others. I don't think he's that convincing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2015 2:04 AM GMT
    JimiB saidThat it is hearing these cases indicates there is some disagreement amongst the supremes.


    Actually, there's some disagreement amongst the Appellate courts. That's why the Supreme Court has taken it. Up until this point federal courts were all going one direction. Then, a counterpoint popped up. I think a Reagan appointee, if I recall.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2015 4:39 PM GMT
    JimiB saidThe 14th Amendment is pretty clear. Any "right" granted by a state must be equally granted to all citizens. Now more than once the high court has limited the 14th to race. Not sex. Not age. Not disability. Race. The high court is looking at marriage equality as a 14th Amendment issue. The court could have stuck with precident and refused to hear these cases. That it is hearing these cases indicates there is some disagreement amongst the supremes. History suggests that the court typically follows public opinion. Marriage equality wiIl soon be the law of the land unless Uncle Thomas can convince 2 others. I don't think he's that convincing.



    The huge problem about gay marriage is that it is not technically an unalienable "right" . Marriage is a legally binding contract . That is why it's so different than race rights where there are no legal contracts. When a state legalizes marriage it technically changes every existing marriage contract because it changes the terms of the contract and it does so without consent of the contractees. Gay marriage needed to be a legal instrument separate from straight marriage.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Jan 13, 2015 6:14 PM GMT
    Koaa2 saidThey are on their way to reversing Roe V Wade so they can do it with anything else.
    They should reverse the Nebraska State Supreme Court's decision allowing the Keystone Pipeline.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2015 1:27 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Koaa2 saidThey are on their way to reversing Roe V Wade so they can do it with anything else.
    They should reverse the Nebraska State Supreme Court's decision allowing the Keystone Pipeline.


    SCOTUS will stay out of that as it's a state law issue decided by NE's highest court. And, any commerce clause argument would be a stretch and not yield a federal claim or jurisdiction. So, Obama can strike that from his list of reasons for dawdling on this issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2015 4:26 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidNo. The same 5 justices that wrote the majority opinion are the same 5 justices that will hear the marriage equality case. Why would Kennedy, knowingly, craft jurisprudence favoring the equal treatment of LGBTs, and then rule against the direct and inexorable upshot of that jurisprudence? It would be schizophrenic. Kennedy crafted Windsor very carefully and to let lower courts create precedent for LGBT equality. Why would he take his carefully cultivated fruits and then smash them?

    Here's how it will play out, JUST LIKE THE WINDSOR case:

    Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito AGAINST a fundamental right to marry.

    Kennedy (swing vote, the one to watch), Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsburg, and Brayer FOR a fundamental right to marry.


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

    Jan 14, 2015 4:09 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Svnw688 saidNo. The same 5 justices that wrote the majority opinion are the same 5 justices that will hear the marriage equality case. Why would Kennedy, knowingly, craft jurisprudence favoring the equal treatment of LGBTs, and then rule against the direct and inexorable upshot of that jurisprudence? It would be schizophrenic. Kennedy crafted Windsor very carefully and to let lower courts create precedent for LGBT equality. Why would he take his carefully cultivated fruits and then smash them?

    Here's how it will play out, JUST LIKE THE WINDSOR case:

    Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito AGAINST a fundamental right to marry.

    Kennedy (swing vote, the one to watch), Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsburg, and Brayer FOR a fundamental right to marry.


    Who?


    LOL, good eye! His opinions can be asinine at times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2015 4:49 PM GMT
    The OP's question was whether the US Supreme Court COULD reverse all the progress on gay civil rights and gay marriage that has been achieved to date. The answer is yes.

    The Supreme Court can essentially do anything it likes. It functions virtually without any restraints. And as it demonstrated with the Citizens United decision, this particular court operates without regard to its own legal precedent of many decades. Although in the case of gays, that could be to our advantage.

    The question then becomes WILL the Court reverse gains for gay rights achieved in lower courts? I can't say. We know who the homophobes on the court are, some of whom have already expressed their anti-gay opinions speaking before homophobic organizations, even before the relevant cases were heard.

    And when will these cases be decided? The health of some of the liberal Justices, who might be expected to be pro-gay, is not good. Whereas the conservative homophobes on the Court are in better health. There are still wild cards at play here.

    The most depressing thing is that we are largely discussing the personal politics & ideology of some of the Justices. Not the Constitutional merits of these cases.

    This Court has let politics & ideology supersede interpreting the Constitution. And ideologues like Scalia gleefully proclaim as much to Right Wing groups. So I dunno what's gonna happen regarding these gay civil rights issues before the Court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    "Reversing everything" won't happen. But what may well happen is that SCOTUS declines to find a fundamental right to gay marriage in the Constitution, and that the lower courts have stretched the Windsor decision too far in this regard. This would leave us with some states that allow gay marriage and some that do not, which would reflect the fact that the country is a republic of individual states, and the federal government recognizing gay marriages performed in states that allow them.

    I think the odds of the above happening are about 50/50.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2015 12:25 AM GMT
    Whenever I read "SCOTUS" I always think to myself "SCROTUM". Not sure why.