Does he know you can’t filibuster in a dissent? What the hell was that?
As near as I can tell, he thinks the court needs more poor black lesbians from Texas.
Or rationality.
Apparently that the ruling was the product of Eastern Ivy Leaguers, and didn’t reflect Real American Values, because they were unable to properly appreciate the butthurt of bigots with a different background.
Roberts’ dissent was disappointing in that it gave credence to the old “opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots!” crap.
He had previously accused the rest of the court of appointing itself as a super-legislature. So then he was complaining that the court was poorly constituted to fill that role since it’s full of east coast non-protestant ivory tower elites.
I assume the irony of Scalia complaining about any group being a representative cross section of society is self-evident. But in case it isn’t…
From my quick reading, I’m, once again, not a fan of Kennedy’s rationale and expression of that rationale in his judicial opinion. It seems, so far, to be another mishmash of different thoughts and concerns and, while it reaches the correct legal outcome, it does so in a meandering way with little regard to the standards of legal analysis from prior Supreme Court cases. For once, I would love it if one of the other judges who agreed with Kennedy would write the opinion if, for no other reason, than to limit the fodder Kennedy’s opinions give to the dissenters.
The dissents appear (again, quick reading) to be the typical “judicial usurpation” and “Substantive Due Process!!” bogeyman creation that usually fills their pages in cases like these. They do strike some very good points about the problems with Kennedy’s opinion, they do with some nice rhetoric. I found myself smiling at Robert’s “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” Zing!
A tiny part of me is gleefully wondering how the Phelps clan is taking this.
I entirely agree on all points. I have to wonder if writing the majority opinion in a 5-4 is part of the price, perhaps unspoken, he exacts in exchange for his vote.
Eh. Yeah, zing. But I think he’s wrong.
So I skimmed the decision, and one point that Roberts discusses really grabbed my attention. In my lowly opinion, the main argument for same sex marriage is that laws forbidding gay people from getting married on the same basis as straight people seems to be a straight-up denial of equal protection, for which there’s no rational justification for why it should be that way.
Roberts points out that the majority opinion is pretty much silent on that one issue. Can anyone illuminate why the majority may have avoided making this the centerpiece of its decision?
Because that’s how Kennedy wants it, for reasons nobody understands. Possibly because he painted himself into a corner with his earlier LGBT decisions by refusing to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny.
The weird part is that there’s absolutely no cogent reason to twist oneself into all those pretzels. Just find that sexual orientation is the type of classification that should receive intermediate scrutiny and call it a day.
Does this ruling, and Windsor, make up a different, parallel standard of scrutiny, or perhaps up-end that system entirely? Or will scrutiny simply be inferred in any future gay-rights case, the way most circuits did after Windsor?
Yeah, I really want to know how all the anti-gay marriage people are taking this. I’m at work right now, I wish I was home and I could turn on Fox News and see what they’re doing.
I did check on Twitter and Texas governor Greg Abbott said something about how he would continue to fight. I don’t know what that means, if a gay couple registered for a marriage license today if they’d get it or not. I imagine that some of the politicians in other states are thinking the same thing, I’d like to know what will happen.
Fuck if I know. Kennedy blithely refused to say what level of scrutiny he was applying (again.)
I read somewhere that the States in the 6th Circuit will have to issue licenses immediately. This is OH, KY, MI and TN. The other states where it is illegal could take time. They can start immediately or they can wait for a court challenge based on today’s decision to overturn the ban. It could be days or weeks for some hold outs.
Rectally, is my sincere wish.
The same Greg Abbott that just appointed a homeschooler to chair the state Board of Education? I’m shocked!
While I didn’t like the ACA decision, this one, though not masterfully written, was a good outcome. If I could only pick one of these cases to go the way I chose, I would choose this one.
The ACA is primarily about statutory construction specifically and more broadly about allocation of resources. This decision is more fundamental than that. No one should be denied their fundamental right to marry.
The Clown Car Channel (Presidential candidates)weighs in.
Fuck me running, Carson has the most reasonable republican response.
Wait, California doesn’t count as the west? WTF is he talking about? We’re like 80% of the west!