SCOTUSBlog: We Expect News On Prop 8 & DOMA Today
December 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm
SCOTUSblog says "We anticipate orders, including likely in the same-sex marriage cases, this afternoon":
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the petition for certiorari filed on Wednesday by defenders of Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage. Cormac covered the petition, which comes directly from the federal district court, in yesterday’s round-up. JURIST also has additional coverage of the petition. At Buzzfeed, Chris Geidner outlines several reasons why the petitioners might want to bypass the Ninth Circuit, noting that in this case, “people supporting maintaining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman won,” whereas in all ten of the other pending petitions, same-sex marriage supporters prevailed. Finally, at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter explains why he thinks the Court will deny the Nevada petition, including because “the fact that the Nevada case presents the ‘fundamental issue’ of whether same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry actually cuts against immediate review,” as the Court “usually likes to move in a more minimalist fashion, reserving the largest issues for resolution after more development in the lower courts.”
So stay tuned!
13 Comments
The Ninth Circuit has a bunch of leftist wackos on board, but I'd like to see how they would try to dismantle the opinion of the district court in this case.
The petition raises important points that, to my knowledge, have heretofore been unaddressed in other cases, such as the importance of marriage and the huge unintended ramifications that redefining it for homosexuals may have.
The suspense is just...words cannot explain.
All I'm going to say that if traditional marriage, I will gloat to those who oppose traditional marriage, however, if we do lose then I promise to speak out against the sick & perverted lifestyle that gay people want to inflict on those who oppose their agenda & if these people want a war, then we shall give them one.
correction - if the Supreme Court rules in favor of traditional marriage, the I will gloat to the other side, however if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, then I promise to speak out against the sick & perverted lifestyle that gay people want to inflict on those who oppose their agenda & if these people want a war , then we will give them one.
SCOTUS will review Prop. 8
From SCOTUS blog:
"We have the orders now. Prop. 8 is grantred. So is Windsor. Those are the only two marriage cases granted. "
"Per SCOTUSblog, the word is that the Supreme Court has granted review (as it should have) both in the Prop 8 case and in one of the DOMA cases."
Ed Whelan
There is only one reason they would be hearing this case; they mean to slap down the seditious acts of the 9th Circus.
@ Randy E King
They're reviewing the merits ---AND--- the standing issue.
Why aberrant lifestyles are becoming more acceptable is a true mystery!
"For evil to triumph, good men need to do nothing!"
...also, no justices have recused themselves in either of the cases.
I see people here threatening violence or "war" if same-sex marriage becomes legal. You people are evil, hateful, religious heathens. It just proves religion is only a scourge to the earth and needs to be eradicated pronto.
Hatred of religion is just another form of hatred. It's all part of the same religious human nature that wants to 'go to war' because it thinks it is so right.
Quinn's idea of war (#3, #4) "if these people want a war" is promising to "speak out." Speaking out is not violence, and if it is war, it is metaphorical.
Christopher (#11) on the other hand sees violence in Quinn's remark and threatens the "eradication" (!) of religion "pronto." That strikes me as a good deal more threatening than "speaking out."
Both speech and religion are protected by the Constitution. We have courts to resolve these issues without resort to violence, which I trust we all abhor.