Buoyed by wins in other states, California gay marriage activists...

John Lewis, right, talks as his husband Stuart Gaffney watches during a rally for the Proposition 8 ruling at the LGBT Center in San Francisco on Feb.

[snyper]

This author doesn't understand the Law.

His editor should have required the author to get knowledgeable input and perhaps commentary.

[JohnInToronto]

He does seem to be confused between legalization of SSM vs. lack of recognition of state performed marriages by the federal government, etc..

I am a bit pessimistic about California unless a nuclear weapon were to be dropped on Orange County.

[snyper]

JohnInToronto wrote:

He does seem to be confused between legalization of SSM vs. lack of recognition of state performed marriages by the federal government, etc..
I am a bit pessimistic about California unless a nuclear weapon were to be dropped on Orange County.

I think you mean "the Central Valley".

Inland Empire isn't much of a problem anymore. Most of it has been foreclosed as a result of the policies of the people they voted into office. Orange County fared about the same.

Poor duped puppets.

[WeTheSheeple]

The SCOTUS is scheduled to decide on whether to take the Prop 8 case on 20 Nov; we'll find out if they rejected the appeal on 26 Nov.

Everyone expects the SCOTUS to reject the appeal.

[hi hi]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

The SCOTUS is scheduled to decide on whether to take the Prop 8 case on 20 Nov; we'll find out if they rejected the appeal on 26 Nov.
Everyone expects the SCOTUS to reject the appeal.

A sane response! Should I be rubbing my eyes?!

Jokes or sarcasm aside, I thought there was widespread agreement that the court was UNlikely to take Prop 8. Suddenly, in the past two months or two, pundits and others are opining, as if with one voice, that they WILL.

I was repeatedly wondering: Where went this certainty that they won't?... Why the sudden conviction that the opposite now holds true?

And then I saw your response, and for a brief moment, everything seemed right again with the world.

[nhjeff]

hi hi wrote:

<quoted text>
A sane response! Should I be rubbing my eyes?!
Jokes or sarcasm aside, I thought there was widespread agreement that the court was UNlikely to take Prop 8. Suddenly, in the past two months or two, pundits and others are opining, as if with one voice, that they WILL.
I was repeatedly wondering: Where went this certainty that they won't?... Why the sudden conviction that the opposite now holds true?
And then I saw your response, and for a brief moment, everything seemed right again with the world.

In view of last week's election, it is now clear that Prop 8 would not pass if the election were rerun today. Therefore, SCOTUS has no incentive to embroil itself in the California controversy.

Prop 8 actually had slightly lower support than Maine's 2009 Question 1 (52.75 and 52.25%, respectively). By 2012, Maine opinion had turned around with only 47.11% voting against this year's Question 1. That represents a change of 5.64% over three years, consistent with some estimates that pro-gay opinion increases 2% annually.

Prop 8 is a year older than Maine's Question 1, and any rematch at the ballot box will be delayed one or more additional years. But even if California opinion turns around only the same amount as Maine's, we might expect a Prop 8 repeal to pass by 54%. The win might be even bigger when we account for the additional years of change. Even if opinion in California has changed only HALF as much as Maine, we still get to 51%.

One way or another, Prop 8 is going away. And SCOTUS has no incentive to insinuate itself into the process.

[hi hi]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
In view of last week's election, it is now clear that Prop 8 would not pass if the election were rerun today. Therefore, SCOTUS has no incentive to embroil itself in the California controversy.
Prop 8 actually had slightly lower support than Maine's 2009 Question 1 (52.75 and 52.25%, respectively). By 2012, Maine opinion had turned around with only 47.11% voting against this year's Question 1. That represents a change of 5.64% over three years, consistent with some estimates that pro-gay opinion increases 2% annually.
Prop 8 is a year older than Maine's Question 1, and any rematch at the ballot box will be delayed one or more additional years. But even if California opinion turns around only the same amount as Maine's, we might expect a Prop 8 repeal to pass by 54%. The win might be even bigger when we account for the additional years of change. Even if opinion in California has changed only HALF as much as Maine, we still get to 51%.
One way or another, Prop 8 is going away. And SCOTUS has no incentive to insinuate itself into the process.

I don't always follow these matters closely, and you have pointed out something which never occurred to me: Yes, of course, with changes in opinion, marriage equality would be likely to pass today in California. This is also wonderful news, I am sure, for everyone who stands for equality.

Thank you for this post. I agree, based on what I have read, that it would be exceptionally strange if the supreme court got involved in the California case. In fact, I would be highly suspicious if they did.(I say this, among other reasons, because Scalia is blatantly, publicly and viciously antigay.)

[snyper]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
In view of last week's election, it is now clear that Prop 8 would not pass if the election were rerun today. Therefore, SCOTUS has no incentive to embroil itself in the California controversy.
Prop 8 actually had slightly lower support than Maine's 2009 Question 1 (52.75 and 52.25%, respectively). By 2012, Maine opinion had turned around with only 47.11% voting against this year's Question 1. That represents a change of 5.64% over three years, consistent with some estimates that pro-gay opinion increases 2% annually.
Prop 8 is a year older than Maine's Question 1, and any rematch at the ballot box will be delayed one or more additional years. But even if California opinion turns around only the same amount as Maine's, we might expect a Prop 8 repeal to pass by 54%. The win might be even bigger when we account for the additional years of change. Even if opinion in California has changed only HALF as much as Maine, we still get to 51%.
One way or another, Prop 8 is going away. And SCOTUS has no incentive to insinuate itself into the process.

UNLESS, some of our opposition on the Bench want to task some of Walker's findings or rulings.

They are a strange bunch, the Justices, living in an odd semi-bubble.

"Citizen's United"?

I mean REALLY!

[nhjeff]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
UNLESS, some of our opposition on the Bench want to task some of Walker's findings or rulings.
They are a strange bunch, the Justices, living in an odd semi-bubble.
"Citizen's United"?
I mean REALLY!

I would think that SCOTUS would use the other DOMA cases to clarify. The Ninth Circuit has already clipped Walker's ruling so that it would be difficult to apply to new cases. At this point, they would have to revisit Romer to further curtail Perry.

I do not, however, put it past the more venal members of the court to make such an opportunity for themselves. But I don't think their colleagues will be sufficiently compliant.

[snyper]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I would think that SCOTUS would use the other DOMA cases to clarify. The Ninth Circuit has already clipped Walker's ruling so that it would be difficult to apply to new cases. At this point, they would have to revisit Romer to further curtail Perry.
I do not, however, put it past the more venal members of the court to make such an opportunity for themselves. But I don't think their colleagues will be sufficiently compliant.

It only takes 4.

[WeTheSheeple]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
It only takes 4.

True, but they need 5 for a majority opinion.

It comes down to Kennedy once again. If the 4 conservatives think they have Kennedy, then they might vote to take the case. If the 4 liberals think THEY have Kennedy, then THEY might vote to take the case.

Considering the narrow ruling from the 9th circuit and the recent votes in Maine, Maryland, Washington, & Minnesota, I don't see any reason for EITHER side to want to take the case.

[WeTheSheeple]

If the SCOTUS does take the Prop 8 case I think the only reason would be to overturn the 9th circuit and uphold the state's right to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

That would be a devastating precedent which would mean we settle for whatever states we can get and hope for federal recognition.

It would likely mean 15-20 states max with marriage equality for the next decade at least.

[snyper]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
True, but they need 5 for a majority opinion.
It comes down to Kennedy once again. If the 4 conservatives think they have Kennedy, then they might vote to take the case. If the 4 liberals think THEY have Kennedy, then THEY might vote to take the case.
Considering the narrow ruling from the 9th circuit and the recent votes in Maine, Maryland, Washington, & Minnesota, I don't see any reason for EITHER side to want to take the case.

Not if Kagan recuses.

[snyper]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

If the SCOTUS does take the Prop 8 case I think the only reason would be to overturn the 9th circuit and uphold the state's right to ban same-sex couples from marrying.
That would be a devastating precedent which would mean we settle for whatever states we can get and hope for federal recognition.
It would likely mean 15-20 states max with marriage equality for the next decade at least.

13+ to block a Constitutional Amendment.

[nhjeff]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Not if Kagan recuses.

Tie vote leaves the Ninth Circuit ruling in effect.

[nhjeff]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
It only takes 4.

So you've got Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. My guess is Roberts prefers to avoid unhelpful entanglement. Anyone who wishes to hear the case runs the very real risk of setting the opposite precedent that they intended.

That probably leaves only Thomas and Scalia voting to take the case.

[WeTheSheeple]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Not if Kagan recuses.

Without Kagan that leaves 8; they'd STILL need 5 votes for a majority. Without her, the best we could hope for is a 4-4 tie.

[snyper]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Without Kagan that leaves 8; they'd STILL need 5 votes for a majority. Without her, the best we could hope for is a 4-4 tie.

Consider again how many constituted the majority in "Citizens United".

[WeTheSheeple]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Consider again how many constituted the majority in "Citizens United".

Yes, it was a 5-4 majority.

What's your point?

[snyper]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it was a 5-4 majority.
What's your point?

None.

Just trying to get people to talk intelligently about the topic, to essay on the issues, at least in a stuttering piecemeal fashion rather than merely opine.

Ring 'n Run gets old.

That said, I've gotta run. Packing to do.