Scalia
Thomas
Breyer
Alito
Roberts
Does anyone else have alternative guesses. Or are you to es-scared to venture a guess?
OR perhaps more likely, the Court will not rule at all on whether our Constitution protects gay marriage, but WILL strike down the federal DOMA.
In this scenario, I predict the majority will include Kennedy, Roberts, any of the above that I listed who are State’s-Righters, and any of the liberal justices who want to salvage something meaningful from the decision.
Sorry, the Supreme Court is not my forte. But I am interested in how the Justices finagle this one.
The prominent forecast is that those voting against gay marriage will the same as those that voted to up hold DOMA. So your list is right except for Breyer. I think gay marriage bans by states will be deemed unconstitutional.
If the court rules against it, it won’t be gay marriage they are ruling against. It will be whether all citizens are to the receive equal rights and equal protection of the constitution or will there continue to be sectors of the population who are denied them because some justices don’t want all citizens to have them.
Lois
I’m sure I’m not saying anything new, but I really have come to believe that the SCOTUS is far more pragmatic then we think. And by that I mean they lift their fingers to the political and societal winds first, and adjudicate second. There’s a movie out about SCOTUS and Muhammad Ali. Very interesting, and if it can be believed at all, it seemed like the judges really did put societal winds first and foremost.
Oh, and my point is, I cannot see them voting again gay marriage. Maybe they’ll finagle something that is pretty meaningless, but that won’t come out flat and make it illegal.
I'm sure I'm not saying anything new, but I really have come to believe that the SCOTUS is far more pragmatic then we think. And by that I mean they lift their fingers to the political and societal winds first, and adjudicate second. There's a movie out about SCOTUS and Muhammad Ali. Very interesting, and if it can be believed at all, it seemed like the judges really did put societal winds first and foremost. Oh, and my point is, I cannot see them voting again gay marriage. Maybe they'll finagle something that is pretty meaningless, but that won't come out flat and make it illegal.I think that they could get away with not declaring that gays have a Constitutional right to marriage, if they make it a state's rights argument. This is what I think they will do. They leave gay marriage up to the states, but appease public sentiment for the gay cause, by striking down DOMA.
I'm sure I'm not saying anything new, but I really have come to believe that the SCOTUS is far more pragmatic then we think. And by that I mean they lift their fingers to the political and societal winds first, and adjudicate second. There's a movie out about SCOTUS and Muhammad Ali. Very interesting, and if it can be believed at all, it seemed like the judges really did put societal winds first and foremost. Oh, and my point is, I cannot see them voting again gay marriage. Maybe they'll finagle something that is pretty meaningless, but that won't come out flat and make it illegal.I think that they could get away with not declaring that gays have a Constitutional right to marriage, if they make it a state's rights argument. This is what I think they will do. They leave gay marriage up to the states, but appease public sentiment for the gay cause, by striking down DOMA. But they have refused to rule on cases from states where the bans were struck down as unconstitutional, even when the state argued states rights. A states rights approach is irrelevant at this point.
I appreciate your discussing this, as I am not very knowledgeable about the topic (even though I started it). From the little I have paid attention to this SCOTUS, since Roberts took over, my general impression is that they seem to fit their arguments to their ideology. (Perhaps that is a bit paranoid on my part.) But it also seems to me, that they are influenced, to some extent by societal and political “winds”, just not as much as by ideology.
Justices are only human and have “always” fitted their arguments to their ideologies. They were each placed on the court by a sitting president who chose them specifically because of their ideologies. There is no objective ideal Supreme Court. It’s all relative.
Justices are only human and have "always" fitted their arguments to their ideologies. They were each placed on the court by a sitting president who chose them specifically because of their ideologies. There is no objective ideal Supreme Court. It's all relative.Yeah, I guess, theoretically, Carrot-top could be appointed to be a SC Justice. In fact, if he replaced Clarence Thomas, he could just shave his head, get a really deep tan, get all of his info from Fox News, and keep his mouth shut, then no one would notice the difference.
Here’s my take on this:
Note: The oral arguments are available to listen to: First Case], Second Case]
The court is considering two cases, with somewhat different questions:
1> Does the constitution require states to treat same-sex couples equally for purposes of issuing marriage licenses?
2> Does the constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered into in other states, DC, the territories, and foreign countries?
Listening to the arguments, it appeared to me to be clear that the 4 liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan), are clearly in the yes side on both questions. It also sounded like Justice Kennedy was leaning in that direction, as well, which would probably mean a 5-4 yes vote on the first question.
Both sides in the second case agreed that the second question would be moot, if the first question was decided in the affirmative. So the court may not even issue a ruling on the second case (other than something along the line of “Pursuant to our ruling in [the first case], this case is moot.”). If it does get to the second question, there was clearly a 5-4 majority for requiring states to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. The five justices, mentioned above, all seemed inclined to decide this on equal protection grounds, which would make it applicable to foreign marriages, as well as domestic marriages.
Roberts and Scalia both seemed inclined to require recognition on “Faith and Credit” clause grounds, which would apply to marriages entered into in other states, (probably) DC, and (possibly) the territories, but would not apply to foreign marriages.
Alito seemed completely opposed to all of it. And Thomas was, as usual, completely silent, and a likely no vote on both questions.
So, in conclusion, I think there’ll be a 5-4 yes vote on the first question, and thus, they won’t get to the second question (but if they do, that will be a yes).
Here's my take on this: Note: The oral arguments are available to listen to: First Case], Second Case] The court is considering two cases, with somewhat different questions: 1> Does the constitution require states to treat same-sex couples equally for purposes of issuing marriage licenses? 2> Does the constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered into in other states, DC, the territories, and foreign countries? Listening to the arguments, it appeared to me to be clear that the 4 liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan), are clearly in the yes side on both questions. It also sounded like Justice Kennedy was leaning in that direction, as well, which would probably mean a 5-4 yes vote on the first question. Both sides in the second case agreed that the second question would be moot, if the first question was decided in the affirmative. So the court may not even issue a ruling on the second case (other than something along the line of "Pursuant to our ruling in [the first case], this case is moot."). If it does get to the second question, there was clearly a 5-4 majority for requiring states to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. The five justices, mentioned above, all seemed inclined to decide this on equal protection grounds, which would make it applicable to foreign marriages, as well as domestic marriages. Roberts and Scalia both seemed inclined to require recognition on "Faith and Credit" clause grounds, which would apply to marriages entered into in other states, (probably) DC, and (possibly) the territories, but would not apply to foreign marriages. Alito seemed completely opposed to all of it. And Thomas was, as usual, completely silent, and a likely no vote on both questions. So, in conclusion, I think there'll be a 5-4 yes vote on the first question, and thus, they won't get to the second question (but if they do, that will be a yes).I like your thinking. And, I hope your right, but the Hobby Lobby case made me very skeptical about the logic of the court.
Here's my take on this: Note: The oral arguments are available to listen to: First Case], Second Case] The court is considering two cases, with somewhat different questions: 1> Does the constitution require states to treat same-sex couples equally for purposes of issuing marriage licenses? 2> Does the constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered into in other states, DC, the territories, and foreign countries? Listening to the arguments, it appeared to me to be clear that the 4 liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan), are clearly in the yes side on both questions. It also sounded like Justice Kennedy was leaning in that direction, as well, which would probably mean a 5-4 yes vote on the first question. Both sides in the second case agreed that the second question would be moot, if the first question was decided in the affirmative. So the court may not even issue a ruling on the second case (other than something along the line of "Pursuant to our ruling in [the first case], this case is moot."). If it does get to the second question, there was clearly a 5-4 majority for requiring states to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. The five justices, mentioned above, all seemed inclined to decide this on equal protection grounds, which would make it applicable to foreign marriages, as well as domestic marriages. Roberts and Scalia both seemed inclined to require recognition on "Faith and Credit" clause grounds, which would apply to marriages entered into in other states, (probably) DC, and (possibly) the territories, but would not apply to foreign marriages. Alito seemed completely opposed to all of it. And Thomas was, as usual, completely silent, and a likely no vote on both questions. So, in conclusion, I think there'll be a 5-4 yes vote on the first question, and thus, they won't get to the second question (but if they do, that will be a yes).Thanks for the perspective. I also hope you are right. But I don't trust this Court to be logical, either. ("Corporations are people", my ass.)
I'm sure I'm not saying anything new, but I really have come to believe that the SCOTUS is far more pragmatic then we think.We sure saw that when the pigs made Bush II President. And then they doubled down by deciding your Free Speech Rights are commensurate to the amount of money you can spend to buy off elections. >:-(
To me it is almost entirely ideology.
Scalia and Alito are now making preposterous statements that sound more like Huckabee than something from a judge. They are claiming that clergymen will go to jail if they refuse to conduct a gay wedding in whatever church they represent. Several lawyers and Law School professors have pointed out how blatantly untrue that is. They have always been and will continue to be protected by the separation of church and state. Just as a military chaplain can refuse to marry a couple based upon religious beliefs, so too can civilian clergy. It’s just more Republican fear mongering.
One would like to think Supreme Court Justices are above that. Scalia has always been and will always be nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Justice be damned.