Comments on: SCOTUS deliberates

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:57:50 +0000

Thank you, Robert

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:12:13 +0000

pretty good analysis, Timothy. I saw that Jim posted an article from the Scotus Blog, I think this review is a good one as well (it’s one of a series and the others are good too, all from Scotus Blog):

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/same-sex-marriage-iv-the-courts-options/

Mark F:

While it might not be apparent at first glance, the Supreme’s are Human Beings, and as such, are sometimes swayed by Public Opinion. Read Jim’s article on the fromt page about Justices decide case of lifetime….

And yes, it might seem silly to call them, but hey, even the smallest chance of affecting the outcome is better than no affect, not to mention the other side is calling, so it might be prudent to do so ourselves and be represented.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:11:32 +0000

customartist:

Why are you giving out the number of Scotus? You seriously can’t believe the justices are influenced by phone calls, do you?

By: markanthony

markanthony — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:28:06 +0000

I believe all of the current justices use whats called defensive voting when granting certi, which is what Rob is referring to. Its easy to imagine that the liberals and conservatives being so uncertain about Kennedy’s (and Robert’s) vote in these cases, that they decline to hear all of them.

A little far fetched, but its certainly possible.

By: customartist

customartist — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:55:18 +0000

SCOTUS: 202-479-3000

By: Hunter

Hunter — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:39:21 +0000

Maggie Gallagher made essentially the same argument in response to an article at NRO that Roman Catholic priests should just refuse to sign civil marriage licenses — in her eyes, it’s OK for gay couples to live without the protection of the law, but not straight women and children.

I pointed out in the comments that it was obvious her concern was not preserving marriage, but pushing anti-gay bias.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:35:10 +0000

You assume that if the Court refuses to grant certiorari, it means that the Court agrees with the decision below. That is not necessarily the case. Some justices may believe the Prop 8 case has too unique a fact pattern and may want to wait for another case. Some justices may be uneasy about the way the other justices might rule. The Court hears only about 1 percent of the cases before it. It’s refusal to hear a case doesn’t indicate agreement with that 99 percent.

Also, if the Court refuses to hear the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, the statute would not be held unconstitutional nationwide, but only in the circuits that have already ruled. This would create a regional patchwork of differing federal law and a bureaucratic nightmare for federal officials. If for no other reason than this, the Court is likely to hear one or more of the DOMA challenges.

By: DN

DN — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:22:41 +0000

On the topic of “gay couples should pay higher taxes than straight couples,” a NOM supporter made that argument (with a straight face) on their facebook page in the days after the most recent election.

I pointed out to him that what he was suggesting was having an underclass of citizens who are required to shoulder a heavier tax burden so he could have a lighter one. Shortly thereafter, I was banned from posting at NOM. I didn’t swear, and I was never impolite or uncivil. For all the bleating they do about free speech, they sure love to shut down dissenters. PS I know that moderating a facebook page comes nowhere near the land of free speech – just pointing out their contradiction.