Comments on: CA Supreme Court: Prop 8 Supporters Can Appeal

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:48:49 +0000

Thomas,

I don’t think we have any reason to believe that “the ninth circuit will clearly” do anything at all.

The Ninth Circuit tossed the Log Cabin anti-DADT ruling out the window without even considering that it addressed issues which the repeal of DADT has not and that, unlike the DADT change, it dealt with constitutionality rather than “what the law is today”. And about the only anti-marriage precedent that anyone can point to comes from the Ninth.

They really are not the Liberal Activist Judges that the right wing likes to paint them as.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:44:49 +0000

WMDKitty, someone should sit Clarence Thomas down and have a frank discussion about Loving v. Virginia. Prior to Loving, Thomas couldn’t have married his wife Ginni in the state for which she’s named.

But, if I were to gamble, I’d bet on Thomas confirming the rights of States to discriminate against gay people. However, I think he’d oppose the ‘no faith or credit’ clauses of anti-marriage amendments.

By: WMDKitty

WMDKitty — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:20:31 +0000

If this goes to the SCOTUS, someone needs to remind them that marriage is a civil right, established in Loving v. Virginia.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:15:15 +0000

This is very good news. The ninth circuit will clearly uphold the lower court decision and probably without much delay. The Supreme Court probably will not waste time on it either and make it a priority. I would not be surprised to see a 6-3 or 7-2 decision in our favor on the court. The Supreme Court is not worried about what people down the road a decade later will say about their decision because it might appear bigoted. However, they ARE worried that it might appear illegal! They are most certainly vested in the appearance of the court and the image they want to uphold is that they governed on a rational basis and in consideration of the spirit of our Constitution. The reality here is that the Prop 8 proponents have no real case. It would be nothing short of astonishing if they ruled against the lower courts on this. In fact, it would be so astonishing it would be worth opening an impeachment inquiry on the justices who voted to uphold it. I’m sure Olsen and Boies will use Scalia’s own words when it comes to the issue: Striking down the sodomy laws leaves no legal barrier to gay marriage. The real question will be to see if Scalia sticks to his own logic.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:13:19 +0000

Well, even Clarence Thomas was somewhat embarrassed by the Texas sodomy law case and declined to go into any anti-gay rhetoric in his very short dissent, unlike Scalia.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:32:52 +0000

Lucrece,

I’m working off the assumption that a court decision on Perry which finds that gay people are not full citizens or entitled to equality under the federal constitution will be considered shocking and bigotry of its worst form within a decade or so.

Some of the justices, Roberts for example, are young enough that such a decision would haunt him for decades.

O’Connor was in the uncomfortable position of having to craft some non-change change of opinion on Bowers / Lawrence. She retired soon after. I don’t think she’s quite forgiven herself.

And this will be – I predict – a much much larger and more important legal precedent.

By: Ben In Oakland

Ben In Oakland — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:30:55 +0000

I know that, Timothy. I just did not like the basic dishonesty of their appeal.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:28:04 +0000

Ben,

Courage Campaign played no role whatsoever in fighting today’s decision or in Perry…

they have, however, been very very useful and informative in providing close following of the court drama and in live blogging everything. Very good work, but they should have taken credit for what they did, not for what AFER is doing.

By: Lucrece

Lucrece — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:15:44 +0000

SCOTUS does not rule on fears of legacy. What’s important to a judge is that they feel they fulfilled their duties properly.

The California SC does not have any trouble sleeping after denying a challenge to Prop 8, simply because the case was weak. A SCOTUS decision against marriage equality is done with no qualms because to the judges, they considered the merits of a case. People will always disagree, and the judiciary isn’t about popularity contests.

The dead can’t bring themselves to care for the posthumous opinion of their work. Unless we’re working off an assumption of a continued existence of consciousness after the fact.

By: Ezam

Ezam — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:12:34 +0000

I hope Scalia croaks and/or Thomas is impeached before this case reaches the Supreme Court.