Our View: Supreme Court should settle Prop. 8 now

Nov 29, 2012 Full story: Pasadena Star-News 57

In this Nov. 12, 2012, Karen Golinski, left, and Amy Cunninghis, look over a photo album of their wedding photos in San Francisco.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Nov 29, 2012
While I hope the SCOTUS refuses their appeal, I think it's quitle possible they will simply hold the Prop 8 case until after they rule on the DOMA cases next year.

Get ready to wait some more........
Frank Stanton

Omaha, NE

#2 Nov 29, 2012
saying that for years. ameriKKKa needs to show it's true face.

i'm putting my money on hate.

pathetic ameriKKKa.
Leon

Anonymous Proxy

#5 Nov 29, 2012
Frank Stanton wrote:
saying that for years. ameriKKKa needs to show it's true face.
i'm putting my money on hate.
pathetic ameriKKKa.
Don't like America pack your bag for Uganda you filthy gay POS!

Since: Feb 09

Southern California

#7 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
While I hope the SCOTUS refuses their appeal, I think it's quitle possible they will simply hold the Prop 8 case until after they rule on the DOMA cases next year.
Get ready to wait some more........
Yep, my money is on that also..
Frank Stanton

Omaha, NE

#8 Nov 29, 2012
oh geez... so mean. did you mean to hurt my feelings. it worked, now i have something for you.

it's even a little rusting, consider it iron for your diet.

http://mobile.wallsdl.com/wallpapers/2012/04/...

pathetic ameriKKKa.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#9 Nov 29, 2012
Yet another closet case troll. Come out of that closet you silly Ms Thing.
Leon wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't like America pack your bag for Uganda you filthy gay POS!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10 Nov 29, 2012
I disagree with the paper's view SCOTUS accepting and ruling on Prop 8 would be advantagous. If they hear the case and rule in our favor, they are more likely to narrow the ruling even further than to broaden it. The advantage of having a federal precedent is eliminated by narrowness of the ruling to California's circumstances.

[Such a precedent could have been advantageous to New Hampshire, particularly, in light of the desire to repeal marriage equality here. The recent election, however, has put any such repeal permanently out-of-reach.]

There is no advantage to the community of prolonging this process. There is no advantage to the court. If the court decides to take the case, it should be taken as a warning that the conservatives think they can get the votes to overturn the Ninth Circuit decision.

SCOTUS is better off using the DOMA cases to establish its precedents.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
I disagree with the paper's view SCOTUS accepting and ruling on Prop 8 would be advantagous. If they hear the case and rule in our favor, they are more likely to narrow the ruling even further than to broaden it. The advantage of having a federal precedent is eliminated by narrowness of the ruling to California's circumstances.
[Such a precedent could have been advantageous to New Hampshire, particularly, in light of the desire to repeal marriage equality here. The recent election, however, has put any such repeal permanently out-of-reach.]
There is no advantage to the community of prolonging this process. There is no advantage to the court. If the court decides to take the case, it should be taken as a warning that the conservatives think they can get the votes to overturn the Ninth Circuit decision.
SCOTUS is better off using the DOMA cases to establish its precedents.
Agreed.

If they are going to uphold the Prop 8 ruling then they'd simply decline to take the case and let the lower ruling stand.

The only reason they'd take the case would be to overturn the lower court ruling.

But I can see them just putting this on permanent hold while they deal with the DOMA cases. They have no skin in the game, so what do they care if Californians have to wait another 6-8 months.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
If they are going to uphold the Prop 8 ruling then they'd simply decline to take the case and let the lower ruling stand.
The only reason they'd take the case would be to overturn the lower court ruling.
But I can see them just putting this on permanent hold while they deal with the DOMA cases. They have no skin in the game, so what do they care if Californians have to wait another 6-8 months.
That aspect is unclear to me. Can SCOTUS sit on cases as long as it chooses? Or does it have to decide by the end of the term whether or not to take the case?

That said, there's no incentive to take the case, even for those who wish to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Any such decision would be short-lived as a rematch in California will surely result in overturning Prop 8. The Justices can see this, and they know how silly it would make them.

Justice Roberts in particular is young enough to care what people think of his court in a decade or two or three. He has no incentive to be on the wrong side in the Dred Scott decition of the 21rst century.

It takes four to agree to take the case. The liberals have no incentive if they want to keep the Prop 8 ruling. Kennedy has no incentive to put himself into the hot seat. And Roberts has every incentive to avoid embroiling the court unnecessarily in a futile political battle.

So there you have it: Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will vote to take the case, only if they believe they can convince Roberts and Kennedy to take their side. Everyone else would rather let the sleeping dog lie.

I think the only question is how long they will keep it on life support.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#13 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That aspect is unclear to me. Can SCOTUS sit on cases as long as it chooses? Or does it have to decide by the end of the term whether or not to take the case?
That said, there's no incentive to take the case, even for those who wish to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Any such decision would be short-lived as a rematch in California will surely result in overturning Prop 8. The Justices can see this, and they know how silly it would make them.
Justice Roberts in particular is young enough to care what people think of his court in a decade or two or three. He has no incentive to be on the wrong side in the Dred Scott decition of the 21rst century.
It takes four to agree to take the case. The liberals have no incentive if they want to keep the Prop 8 ruling. Kennedy has no incentive to put himself into the hot seat. And Roberts has every incentive to avoid embroiling the court unnecessarily in a futile political battle.
So there you have it: Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will vote to take the case, only if they believe they can convince Roberts and Kennedy to take their side. Everyone else would rather let the sleeping dog lie.
I think the only question is how long they will keep it on life support.
I agree.

And since the judiciary is a separate branch of government, SCOTUS can do whatever they want with the case, and wait as long as they want with the case. It's totally up to them. They make their own rules.

Since: Jul 11

Los Angeles, CA

#14 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That aspect is unclear to me. Can SCOTUS sit on cases as long as it chooses? Or does it have to decide by the end of the term whether or not to take the case?

That said, there's no incentive to take the case, even for those who wish to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Any such decision would be short-lived as a rematch in California will surely result in overturning Prop 8. The Justices can see this, and they know how silly it would make them.

Justice Roberts in particular is young enough to care what people think of his court in a decade or two or three. He has no incentive to be on the wrong side in the Dred Scott decition of the 21rst century.

It takes four to agree to take the case. The liberals have no incentive if they want to keep the Prop 8 ruling. Kennedy has no incentive to put himself into the hot seat. And Roberts has every incentive to avoid embroiling the court unnecessarily in a futile political battle.

So there you have it: Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will vote to take the case, only if they believe they can convince Roberts and Kennedy to take their side. Everyone else would rather let the sleeping dog lie.

I think the only question is how long they will keep it on life support.
While SCOTUS is defined in the U.S. Constitution, the rules of its behavior are not. They have defined how they handle lawsuits, and their rules are not made public. I did not find any references to lawsuits being held over past the current term in which they reached the court, but that doesn't mean that hasn't happened.

What they decide in the back rooms of the courthouse, how they decide and any conversations they have towards those decisiions are kept secret for enough years that most, if not all, of the justices are deceased by the time that information is made available to the public. All we ever hear about these conversations in the near-time is the result, which usually comes in two flavors, the majority decision, and the opposition's dissension.

I believe it's a 50-year wait before SCOTUS records are released to the public, at least, at this point. As life expectancy grows, so too will this delay, in all likelihood.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15 Nov 29, 2012
IrishmanLA wrote:
I believe it's a 50-year wait before SCOTUS records are released to the public, at least, at this point. As life expectancy grows, so too will this delay, in all likelihood.
Speaking of 50 years, the Warren Commission Report comes out next fall!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#16 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of 50 years, the Warren Commission Report comes out next fall!
It's gonna say Kennedy got killed. Big deal. We all knew that already. Don't they have anything better to do ? Why aren't they looking for Hitler in Argentina anymore ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That aspect is unclear to me. Can SCOTUS sit on cases as long as it chooses? Or does it have to decide by the end of the term whether or not to take the case?
That said, there's no incentive to take the case, even for those who wish to overturn the Ninth Circuit. Any such decision would be short-lived as a rematch in California will surely result in overturning Prop 8. The Justices can see this, and they know how silly it would make them.
Justice Roberts in particular is young enough to care what people think of his court in a decade or two or three. He has no incentive to be on the wrong side in the Dred Scott decition of the 21rst century.
It takes four to agree to take the case. The liberals have no incentive if they want to keep the Prop 8 ruling. Kennedy has no incentive to put himself into the hot seat. And Roberts has every incentive to avoid embroiling the court unnecessarily in a futile political battle.
So there you have it: Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will vote to take the case, only if they believe they can convince Roberts and Kennedy to take their side. Everyone else would rather let the sleeping dog lie.
I think the only question is how long they will keep it on life support.
The SCOTUS can sit on a case forever; a week, a month, a year, a decade. They literally make their own rules.

The only leverage we have is the 9th circuit could go back and say their stay will expire in 6 weeks (or whatever). Of course the anti-gays would just appeal to the SCOUTUS for an emergency stay which would of course be granted.

In the end we can't really do anything but wait.

Maybe the court is hoping people get tired of waiting and put it back up for a vote in California and let them off the hook.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Nov 29, 2012
So we wait until tomorrow, just to wait another 3 days, just to find out we'll likely have to wait another 6-8 months before they find a way to make us wait some more......

Hopefully Scalia & Kennedy both die while we're waiting; at least that would make the wait worthwhile.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
While I hope the SCOTUS refuses their appeal, I think it's quitle possible they will simply hold the Prop 8 case until after they rule on the DOMA cases next year.
Get ready to wait some more........
Except for one little thing:

California now has a Plan B.

Various pundits ( "pundits"?) are certain that if this were put to a "popular vote" again, it would pass this time.

I was very happy to hear it, as it's now rather more believable in light of recent events.

I actually am tending to believe them when they say they have *no doubt* it will pass this time.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Nov 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
So we wait until tomorrow, just to wait another 3 days, just to find out we'll likely have to wait another 6-8 months before they find a way to make us wait some more......
Hopefully Scalia & Kennedy both die while we're waiting; at least that would make the wait worthwhile.
I'm presuming you're talking about what is (by far, I absolutely grant you without quarrel) MOST likely to happen.

There would be ways to force the court to act; you touched upon one. There would be more drastic ones that the state of California or various groups would be *extremely* unlikely to take, so ... yeah, absent all of that, waiting is the only option.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#21 Nov 29, 2012
It really is probably best they not take the Prop 8 case and just move on to the DOMA cases. Californians can get married, if DOMA parts are struck down and the firewall between marriage equality an US law is taken down the rest is a piece of cake, still baking but ready any time the country is hungry enough. Those of us who need federal rules taken down can just head to equality states to get married, come back home and move forward with our lives. States still blocking will lose out on millions in new income and sooner than later get on the bandwagon letting the rest wait till it heads back to the Supremes.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#22 Nov 30, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for one little thing:
California now has a Plan B.
Various pundits ( "pundits"?) are certain that if this were put to a "popular vote" again, it would pass this time.
I was very happy to hear it, as it's now rather more believable in light of recent events.
I actually am tending to believe them when they say they have *no doubt* it will pass this time.
That "plan B" has always been available to them, but they chose to rely on the courts instead.

They could have put it on the ballot this year and it would have been all over now.

Instead they're stuck waiting for the SCOTUS.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#23 Nov 30, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm presuming you're talking about what is (by far, I absolutely grant you without quarrel) MOST likely to happen.
There would be ways to force the court to act; you touched upon one. There would be more drastic ones that the state of California or various groups would be *extremely* unlikely to take, so ... yeah, absent all of that, waiting is the only option.
Actually there is basically NOTHING that can be done to force the SCOTUS to act.

If the 9th circuit ever got the balls to lift their stay, the SCOTUS would just grant their own stay.

There is NOTHING we can do to force the SCOTUS to act. But we COULD have negated them by putting it on the ballot in 2012.

Oh well, it was their choice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Church boots AA group over gay weddings 9 min Wondering 44
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 13 min Wondering 131
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 36 min KiMare 641
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 39 min KiMare 50,064
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 43 min Just Think 56,248
Beck: Liberals Won't Condemn Islam Because of '... 1 hr Thinking 14
Two Lesbians, one Gay man elected to Belfast Ci... 2 hr rock white 28
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr cpeter1313 696
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,277
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 5 hr Pietro Armando 1,033
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 8 hr WeTheSheeple 165

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE