I only support states rights when it comes to legalizing it
US Supreme Court to weigh Prop 8 Against 14th Amendment
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
The oral arguments are available for listening and reading:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144
Very interesting. The first issue is actually, "Do the petitioners have the right to represent the state of California, where the governor has instructed the state's attorney general to not defend the case?"
Then they discuss the actual issues - is denying marriage a form of discrimination prohibited under the equal protection clause.
The respondents (ie, people supporting gay marriage) are joined by the US attorney general, and the discussion between the justices and the US counsel brought up an interesting point I hadn't realized:
States that deny all partnership/union rights to gay citizens are safe from a certain set of rulings the Justices could make. In effect, by providing some of these rights, but not all, to LGBT citizens, states are demonstrating clear-cut discrimination. They already admit that they are a protected class, and thus should be afforded rights, but once they provide some rights they essentially have to provide them all. It's all or nothing, and it's quite possible that the justices will rule in a way that would force those states recognizing any form of same sex union to fully provide marriage benefits to them without restriction, while at the same time telling states that provide no rights that they are permitted to continue to discriminate in this manner.
It was something I didn't expect.
Most of the arguments are waffling on whether the ruling should be broad or narrow. No one is suggesting to the justices that they should rule in a way that affects anyone other than California. California is in a peculiar enough position that they could easily rule in a way that wouldn't affect any other state, and they could rule in either direction and still keep it narrow.
It's very interesting to read the back and forth about whether the petitioners have a right to bring the case to court. At one point a justice suggested to the respondents, "Well, if the people enact the amendment, and the state chooses not to enforce or defend it, then shouldn't the people be allowed to defend it?" Suggesting to me that California is treading on thin ice in regards to being considered a democracy if the leadership can pick and choose which parts of the state constitution apply at any given time.
Note that the oral arguments only present a very narrow view into the whole case. The briefs need to be read to understand everything that's being said on all sides, the oral arguments are a few pages compared to the hundreds of pages of other case documentation.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144
Very interesting. The first issue is actually, "Do the petitioners have the right to represent the state of California, where the governor has instructed the state's attorney general to not defend the case?"
Then they discuss the actual issues - is denying marriage a form of discrimination prohibited under the equal protection clause.
The respondents (ie, people supporting gay marriage) are joined by the US attorney general, and the discussion between the justices and the US counsel brought up an interesting point I hadn't realized:
States that deny all partnership/union rights to gay citizens are safe from a certain set of rulings the Justices could make. In effect, by providing some of these rights, but not all, to LGBT citizens, states are demonstrating clear-cut discrimination. They already admit that they are a protected class, and thus should be afforded rights, but once they provide some rights they essentially have to provide them all. It's all or nothing, and it's quite possible that the justices will rule in a way that would force those states recognizing any form of same sex union to fully provide marriage benefits to them without restriction, while at the same time telling states that provide no rights that they are permitted to continue to discriminate in this manner.
It was something I didn't expect.
Most of the arguments are waffling on whether the ruling should be broad or narrow. No one is suggesting to the justices that they should rule in a way that affects anyone other than California. California is in a peculiar enough position that they could easily rule in a way that wouldn't affect any other state, and they could rule in either direction and still keep it narrow.
It's very interesting to read the back and forth about whether the petitioners have a right to bring the case to court. At one point a justice suggested to the respondents, "Well, if the people enact the amendment, and the state chooses not to enforce or defend it, then shouldn't the people be allowed to defend it?" Suggesting to me that California is treading on thin ice in regards to being considered a democracy if the leadership can pick and choose which parts of the state constitution apply at any given time.
Note that the oral arguments only present a very narrow view into the whole case. The briefs need to be read to understand everything that's being said on all sides, the oral arguments are a few pages compared to the hundreds of pages of other case documentation.
I really don't see how they can't overturn all the apple carts at this point.
GasBandit
Staff member
Quite easily. By saying that the case has been brought before them improperly (the "standing" bit) and refusing to rule at all, thus leaving the 9th circuit's decision in place, thus keeping gay marriage legal in California while having no bearing on the situation in any other state.
If they decided they didn't have jurisdiction, or the plaintiffs can't represent California, then the ninth court ruling stands, and nothing else changes nationally. This would result in the fewest tipped carts, IMO.
However, there's another option which results in few tipped carts, but not as many as specifically ruling for or against either party:
The US Solicitor General put forth the following Federal government position in the matter, completely paraphrased (read the last few pages of the oral arguments to get the exact arguments used):
So yes, they can very selectively rule in a way that helps and hurts both sides: they can continue to associate marriage with childrearing and family, and force states to allow marriage wherever childrearing is present, without taking the rights away from states to determine whether they will recognize same sex marriage or not.
That would turn over the fewest apple carts, but it's still a lot of carts. At that point once states have to start using the word "marriage" then other states and the federal government have to recognize those marriages as valid, and the problems cascade. Problems the states were desperately trying to avoid by using "union" and "partnership" so the M word, which is contained in very specific interstate and federal treaty language, wouldn't necessarily apply.
In essence, once that word applied, every state would have to recognize same sex marriage, because anyone could get married out of state, then move back in and force the state to recognize the marriage due to the various interstate treaties. The states would be taking a serious look at treaty modifications.
Hey now
Good.
And a corporation buying out and owning another corporation is technically in violation of the thirteenth amendment.
They just announced that part of the Voting Rights thing was unconstitutional. Looks like Jim Crow is back in the house!
Well, at some point those states will have to live by the same voting rules as all the other states in the union.
I think it's far more likely we're going to get national standards sooner rather than later than the minority community is going to take this sitting down.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf[DOUBLEPOST=1372257120][/DOUBLEPOST]
[DOUBLEPOST=1372257289][/DOUBLEPOST]So they basically said, "The California Supreme Court's order that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional remains in effect."
Interesting.[DOUBLEPOST=1372257637][/DOUBLEPOST]How about that, states rights (or in this case states judicial rights). If I'm reading this correctly SCOTUS is stating that the situation was handled correctly at the state level and by the state judicial system and that there was no convincing reason ("case or controversy") for the Federal Supreme Court to get involved and make a ruling?
It's not the slam dunk that gay marriage advocates wanted - they were hoping for a ruling that would pave the way for all states to accept it.
However, it does keep marriage as a state right, and also shows people that if the state itself is unwilling to defend a constitutional amendment, the federal government isn't going to step in.
The federal government, therefore, does not interpret state constitutions, nor police state enforcement of them. This is clearly a state matter.[DOUBLEPOST=1372257870][/DOUBLEPOST]
However, it does keep marriage as a state right, and also shows people that if the state itself is unwilling to defend a constitutional amendment, the federal government isn't going to step in.
The federal government, therefore, does not interpret state constitutions, nor police state enforcement of them. This is clearly a state matter.[DOUBLEPOST=1372257870][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think that it's possible that they would intervene if a valid petitioner - that of the state itself - came forth to appeal the ruling.
- Status