Isn’t the SCOTUS completelty autonomous? How are sitting politicians going to effect the outcome of the courts decision? Presumably, to not lose the “Nay sayers” votes?
It matters because it keeps the issue in the public eye, pisses off a good portion of the electorate on both sides, and pissedness increases likelihood of voting.
The president nominates the Supreme Court justices, and are rarely denied. This is the lasting effect of a presidency. People tend to forget about this, but a major decision in an election year can have a big effect.
It would take special politiking among the sitting justices to have a decision handed down in 2012. Earliest decision would be in 2013 without special advancement of the case.
This. I think there was speculation in CA that Prop 8 and Obama on the same ballot helped create the current situation. Speaking in generalities, the African American voters, who generally are against gay rights, came out to vote in droves for Obama, and for Prop 8. Again, just my recollection.
Not that it is headed for the ballot now, but a contentious issue like this could sway people to come and vote where they would not have otherwise voted. And as stated, the President has the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices.
Yes, and if Prop 8 were repealed at the ballot box in November then SCOTUS would almost certainly drop the case for lack of an actual controversy.
Are we due to appoint a new judge any time soon?
Bader-Ginsburg looks like she could drop dead at any moment. I rather think she’ll survive past this year, but who knows?
Of course, she’s super liberal and Obama shouldn’t have too much trouble putting a liberal in to replace her.
That’s a pretty popular myth. African American voting increased nationally by about 2m from 2004 to 2008 (14.0m to 16.1m). (I can’t find CA-specific numbers for voter turnout, so I’ll use national numbers.) In 2004, the AA vote accounted for about 11.1% of the vote. In 2008, it was 12.3%.
In California (2008), 13.4m people voted on Prop 8, and it passed by about 600k votes (7.0m to 6.4m). If we assume that 12.3% of CA voters were African American (using the national numbers), that comes out to 1.64m voters. Polling suggested that support for Prop 8 was high in the African American community - about 58%. Even if we round that up to a very generous 60%, that accounts for about a 113,000 pro-Proposition 8 boost from increased turnout. If for some reason only half the African Americans who voted in CA stayed at home, Prop 8 would still have passed by 100k votes.
And this is why it matters in 2013, since a Republican would probably put in a conservative, and since so many decisions are decided on a 5-4 basis, that would completely alter the output of the court.
I don’t understand your methodology. All that tells you is that there was an insufficient number of African American voters overall to rock the vote. If 94% of Yugoslavian-Indonesians were against gay marriage and half of the, oh, 24 of them stayed home, the result would still be the same. But that doesn’t at all conflict with the statement that most Yugoslavian-Indonesian voters were against it. Likewise, if there were a larger AA turnout, that 58% percent would’ve amounted to a lot more.
The useful number is the one you already stated – the percentage of African American voters who voted yes to Prop 8 (58% to 70%, depending on methodology) – vs percentage of overall voters who voted yes (52%). Thus, the data in California reflects snowthx’s statement that “African Americans [or at least their voters] are generally against gay rights.”
Yup. And I was arguing against the common myth that it was the African American voter turnout due to Obama being in the election that pushed Prop 8 over the top.
Ah.
Nobody (at least here) claimed they single-handedly changed the vote. snowthx said they “helped”, and they did, even according to your estimates (600k margin down to a hypothetical and forgivingly low 100k).
Maybe the population overall put blame entirely on the AA, but the population overall is pretty darn fickle and silly like that.
nm
Just a quick nit: That’s only if 1/2 of the entire California African American vote stayed at home in 2008.
I’ve lost you here. Are you saying if half of the entire AA population stayed home or if half of those AAs that came to vote stayed home?
Supreme Court Justices serve for life.
So, the president isn’t “due” to appoint any new Justices until one or more of the current Justices dies or retires.
Why is that? I tried to look up the SC sessions and I got a site that said its from the first Monday of October to the next first Monday of the following October. So shouldn’t they be in session right now?
Those that voted in California in 2008. The argument is typically “Prop 8 passed because support was really strong in the black community, and they went to the polls in droves to vote for Obama, and that’s what tipped Prop 8 to being passed”.
Justice moves slowly. That’s not the only thing on their plate.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ (see the calendar)