LGBT News SCOTUS unlikely to take up gay marriage this term (AP)

Well that means that gay marriage becomes legal permanently and finally in the 12 states that have had their bans struck down, Michigan included. That also begs the question of the circuit court rulings applying to every state in their jurisdiction, meaning we may not need the Supreme Court to rule on it for it to be legal everywhere.

 

That's a shame. I never thought I'd see such a complex fight for marriage.

 

If the Supremes take up the issue it instantly gains national attention and runs the risk of becoming a rallying point for conservative fundraising and get out the vote activities in the November elections. So far, the lower court rulings don't seem to be generating that much noise, comparatively speaking. Meanwhile, the longer that gay marriage is just sort of quietly spreading or is just there, the less of an issue it seems to become for people and the more support for it grows. Compared to the rhetoric that was flying around before the end of DADT and DOMA, things are fairly quiet on this front.

I recall reading somewhere that the court really doesn't want to generate another Roe v Wade situation. Which sucks if you're in a state w/o marriage equality, of course. But looking at the way the court rulings keep coming down, and the way the poles are reading, this may not even be an issue by 2016. At least not one anyone outside the conservative base cares about.

There is one more Supreme Court session after this one before a hypothetical conservative President could win election. Perhaps they will take it up then.

It will be interesting to see what happens with any further court cases and the current ones in terms of stays.

Todd

 

It is actually more likely that they decline to hear the case, because by declining to hear the case they've effectively upheld the lower court rulings.

Also them delaying to hear the case may just extend the stays issues on the lower court rulings.

Really until a case is ruled in the opposite direction, there is no reason for a S. Ct. ruling as the circuit courts have already made the ruling the same creating Case Law.

Basically until a case arises where a state can prove a reason not to follow the existing case law set by the now 3 or 4(don't really follow this anymore) federal circuit courts, there is no reason for for them to hear the case. Just a waste of everyone's time and money.

As far as the Roe V. Wade situation. It'd be hard to have something similar to that occur. If I recall correctly the big issue over that case was that they didn't define a hard line of what was acceptable to abort, but left it to a broad term of "able to survive on it's own..." with the aid of medical equipment. Thankfully with gay marriage all that really has to be done now is a few more Federal law suits against states in which most will probably follow the existing case law which will be to permit people to be gay married. Unless some state manages to provide reasonable evidence to not follow the case law. In which case is where we'd see S. Ct. step in to make a ruling.

 

What he was referencing when he mentioned Roe was that the court is now more hesitant to make a sweeping ruling on a social issue. When they handed down Roe V. Wade in 1973, it changed American politics forever and caused abortion to become the extremely divisive wedge issue that it is today. That's why they didn't legalize gay marriage across the country last summer, as it was still a volatile issue among social conservative groups, though in all fairness, they still went apeshit over the Windsor decision.

 

Ahhh, but the S. Ct. is not supposed to be a court of public opinion or of a political party. :dry: Just of fact and law.

 

Good. The Roberts Court is a fucking human rights disaster.

We need to leave this in the circuit courts of appeal.

 

Until the makeup of the Supreme Court changes (a.k.a one or more of the Roberts 5 retires from the bench and Obama or his predecessor (hopefully a Democrat) appoints more liberals), I'm okay with this.

FWIW there are now more Democratic appointees to circuit and district courts overall than by Republicans.

 

I predicted this would probably happen. The SCOTUS basically took a knife to the soft underbelly of the anti-marriage equality movement, and dumped the body at the feet of the lower courts with their Windsor decision. They effectively made it possible to legalize marriage equality nation wide in a way that they never have to officially get their hands dirty. So long as the lower courts continue the trend, the SCOTUS doesn't have to touch the issue.

 

As much as it pains me as a Texan, we need to have the 5th Circuit rule adversely to the marriage equality cause. That way, the circuit split sort of forces SCOTUS to take the case. Hopefully, the New Orleans-based court will schedule oral briefings soon. The icing on the cake will be if we get the most homophobic and discriminatory panel of judges that makes an ass out of themselves in their opinion that is an embarrassment to the legal community.