ad_facebook
ad_facebook_468

3 responses to “Toobin predicts: Yes-Gill, No-Prop 8”

  1. ChuckGG

    I heard the Prop-8 case was “narrowly defined” and thus would apply only to California even if SCOTUS decided to hear the case and regardless of how they ruled. Clearly, if SCOTUS opts not to hear the Prop-8 case then the 9th Circuit’s ruling stands thus making SSM legal in CA.

    DOMA is a dead-duck. Few believed it Constitutional when it was signed into law. We finally have cases that test its Constitutionality.

  2. Francois

    ChuckGG In “I heard” the earth is only 6,000 years old. Some credible authority might be nice in support of an opinion. SCOTUS does not decide cases on a state by state basis but as as matter of federal law.

    In any event Scalia already said in his dissent in Lawrence that it can not be reconciled with denial of marriage equality. Ergo he is in a position in which he must respect stare decisis and follow precedent he has already admitted controls. That alone tips the balance. Still the gay rights decisions in which two more conservative justices came out in out favor point to a 7/9 decision in our favor so I really don’t know why they should not take the case.

  3. ChuckGG

    Francois – The “I heard” was all over the news when the Ninth found against Prop-8 some time ago. Here is what I believe to be a credible source, just for your edification: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/category/prop-8-trial/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals/

    It will be interesting and I am optimistic SSM eventually will be the law of the land. Probably, because I see no valid argument against it.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more


Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more