Prop 8 - Federal Lawsuit

I would avoid this at all costs, we are making inroads elsewhere, this might backfire and hurt the process.

 

yeah it is. I mean the supreme court should be involved only if our movement for civil rights comes to a hault for some reason. We can't change what happend. Legally it worked out how it was supposed to. The issue we have is the morallity and justifalbility (is that a word) of the whole issue. If they for what ever reason strike their case down, we could be in a world of hurt and the movement will suffer badly. Im all for being optamistic but in a situation like this, we need to be realistic/rationalistic.

 

This is it.
Taking it to the federal court is the ONLY way that the LBGT community will be granted equal marriage rights. State by state is not working. While some states are passing laws, how long can we sit around and wait for progress? Can we afford to wait ten years to allow each state to legalize it? Southern states with a high conservative population will never change.
It has to be tackled on a national level. And furthermore, this is not a state issue. This is a human rights issue.

I say take it to the federal courts. Work every avenue.
(This might not be the perfect time to do it since the Supreme Court is still populated by crazies.)

 

Cross out "Supreme Court" and stick in "Country"

 

If it was just any two random lawyers I would be seriously worried but I'm all for going for it considering the profile of the lawyers representing our side. I mean Olson was one of the individuals considered by Bush as a potential Supreme Court nominee. I'm sure these two know what they are getting into.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Boies#Professional_history

 

The supreme court is heavily conservative at this point. If we show that more states want it, the better chance we have to sway them. If we get more states to pass same sex marriage, there will be no doubt on which side the gavle will fall when the supreme court makes their final decision. Right now even if they do rule in favor, who is to say that the issue will be resolved. We could end up with a california ruling where our marriages are defined by only's, and's, but's and if's. Leading to another battle over the case.

In the end the supreme court doesnt have to take this case. As far as I know they pick and choose what cases they want to take on and which ones they dont.

 

I like it. While I do think we will lose it is exactly what we need IMHO.

Like I mentioned in my recent what are you thinking post, Americans want to be pissed off at something. Let give them something to be pissed off about. A conservative court that is stepping on the rights of every American.

 

That is what will likely happen. The SCOTUS has clearly indicated that it does not want to deal with the issue. Can't say I blame them. No matter what they chose they will have a bunch of pissed off people.

Can't say I envy their position. If they rule for us, they risk alienating themselves and a political backlash. If they rule against us, they know we won't stop there and it will only strengthen our cause. Which will end up in the courts again with a likely reversal. People that that level are very concerned with their legacy, and nothing makes you look like an idiot better than having your decision overturned.

Maybe I am just in a confrontational mood today.

 

Yah, but most of the time, the people who always have to be pissed off about something are pissed off about things that have no effect on their life or their ability to live their lives... but what they are pissed off is people being given the right to live their lives also.

 

Yep you got it. That is why this issue needs to not be about the LGBT community, but about everyone as Americans.

 

Remeber, they arent elected by the people. once they are on the bench, they serve until they die, or they choose to retire. I dont think you can impeech a supreme court justice... maybe you can, but I dont think it has happened before. Dont remeber anything from social studies or history on the subject.

They are probably used to political backlashes.

 

The impeachment process of a Supreme Court Justice is the same as the one for the President. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being accused by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

 

what is the likelyhood of that happending?

 

Very unlikely. There has only been one Justice who has been impeached (remember this only means accused) in 1805, Samuel Chase, but he was failed to be convicted because those who tried to impeach him only disagreed with his decisions and that was not enough to get rid of him. It is really hard to convict a Justice because there is no standard for determining impeachable offenses.

 

I disagree.
Just because the majority of certain states are in favour of same-sex marriage, does not mean that the majority of the country is. This will most likely backfire.

 

This is a very, very bad choice. The risk is huge. We have four justices who are definite 'no' votes (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) and only three definite 'yes' votes (Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer). Sotomayor is a likely 'yes', but Kennedy is a likely 'no'. That would be a 5-4 ruling against us, which would set a precedent that could last for decades. If this lawsuit fails(which has a better than 90% chance of happening, if it gets to the SCOTUS at all) marriage equality at the federal level could be set back 20+ years.

The only good thing that can be said about this lawsuit is the that it has two experienced and very skilled lawyers leading it. Maybe they believe they can get Kennedy to vote in favor of marriage equality.

Of course, if I put on my tin foil hat, I would argue that a conservative like Ted Olson is up to no good and is doing this because he knows it will backfire.

 

Bowers v. Hardwick lasted less than 20 years, so 30 years or more seems excessive.

As for hoping the conservative wing of SCOTUS will retire or die in "a couple years:" are you kidding? They're all super-young (for SCOTUS) and have given NO indication of retirement. Roberts is what? 50? It's the liberal members who are in danger of dying or retiring, and Obama is hardly going to nominate actual hardcore liberals to replace them.

[Okay, I looked it up, and granted Scalia at 73 is not young, but you know someone like him will live forever (like Strom Thurmond) and never retire.]

I don't really see this as having a major downside. If the US Supreme Court even takes it (unlikely), it seems like a negative ruling would just be that marriage is not a fundamental right (which would reverse the mixed-race ruling from 1967... not that SCOTUS doesn't reverse itself but it's usually more hesitant to reverse precedents than set them) which would essentially mean that the federal government wouldn't force the issue on the states, which is pretty much the status quo there is now. True, a negative decision would declare marriage is not a fundamental right (which would kinda be a weird argument to make) but it seems like it is considered a fundamental one in the context of race right now and that's not doing us any good.

But given the conservative majority of the court is unlikely to change in the next 20 years (barring some happy accident which kills Roberts, Scalia, Alito, etc.), it might be better to have them rule on it now, rather than later, when the argument could be made (once the composition of the court has potentially changed significantly) that it is "too soon" to reverse the ruling.

 

MOVE TO CANADA ALREADY!

We love you (*hug*)

And we have fine cheese and wine.

Oh, and we love you (*hug*)