SCOTUS: Place your bests Prop 8 and DOMA (Kennedy, Canada, carry)

[Little-Acorn]

Chief Justice Roberts had no problem rewriting the Obamacare law, changing a penalty into a "tax" to declare if constitutional.

I don't see where it would be any more trouble for him to change a union between two men into a "marriage", and similarly pretending the term covers such non-marriages. And the other four Court wishful thinkers will happily fall into line.

Calif Prop 8 will be "found" unconstitutional, as will DOMA, by 5-4 votes.

Not until conservatives get appointed to the Court, who believe its role is to judge laws and longtime customs rather than rewrite them, will we see these travesties (and other such as Kelo, West Coast Hotel, and Miller) righted.

[jazzy jeff]

Originally Posted by juppiter

I am highly anticipating these being decided. I'm working myself into a bigger lather than I was awaiting the Arizona Immigration Law / Obamacare outcomes last year. This just seems bigger.

Re: Prop 8
Brain - Overturned in California only
Heart - Same-sex marriage legalized
Gut - Overturned in California only

Re: DOMA
Brain - Dismissed
Heart - Fully invalidated by court
Gut - Section 3 only invalidated by court

If DOMA is dismissed and no decision reached I believe the lower court (9th circuit) that ruled in favor of Windsor would stand, and the government would have to refund the taxes she paid on her inheritance. But in the future there would be more court cases challenging DOMA but not really sure where it would go from there. Obama could simply by executive order decide not to enforce DOMA, if the lower courts would be ruling it unconstitutional.

[texdav]

I think they will leave it a state issue on recognizing what marriage is. Many thing that recognizing will change things but that is not likely in reality of life.No more than abortion has solved the issue now after all these eyars.

Re: Prop 8
Brain - Overturned in California only
Heart - Same-sex marriage legalized
Gut - Overturned in California only

The Ca-only cop-out might be a likely outcome, but I don't think it's as close to a guarantee as people seem to think. If they issue a Ca-only ruling, they'll just have to address the issue again down the road. Maybe they think that's preferable to just ending the issue once and for all, but I think there's at least a non-zero chance that they don't want to do this again in a year or two or three.

[Gidgetsmidget]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Section 2 isn't even part of the case being heard, so I doubt they will do anything in regards to it. There will be a case very soon after dropping section 3, as I know many people who will be having destination weddings, myself included.

Hopefully you will be able to! Santa Barbara is a beautiful place for weddings....

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Not until conservatives get appointed to the Court, who believe its role is to judge laws and longtime customs rather than rewrite them, will we see these travesties (and other such as Kelo, West Coast Hotel, and Miller) righted.

The real travesty will be Scalia's snide, sarcastic, faith-based dissent that will somehow find a way to tie same-sex marriage to polygamy, incest, etc., just as you'd expect an Opus Dei acolyte to do.

[An Einnseanair]

DOMA: Clearly unconstitutional, and should be struck down. The issue becomes whether marriage licenses will act more like driving licenses (doesn't matter where you get it, it's valid in all 50 states plus federal areas, and would require also striking Section 2) or like handgun carry permits (some states don't recognize other states' licenses). In the short term I predict it'll be like handgun carry permits with Section 2 intact. Most states will recognize other states' licenses, but there will be a few hold-outs that refuse to play well with others. Most importantly, licenses from any state would be recognized federally, so the IRS would have to pay back the illegal taxes they collected.

Prop 8: More complicated because it's a states' rights issue instead of federal. Still, the ONLY reasoning I've ever heard or read that defends outlawing same-sex mariage is based on religion, and the 1st amendment says the states cannot make laws that force people to abide by other people's religion.

[jazzy jeff]

If you really want to be confused read what happens if SCOTUS rules there is no standing on DOMA.

it would create an absurd situation where DOMA is unconstitutional in the First and Second Circuits -- and possibly soon the Ninth Circuit -- and legal everywhere else. Administration of that result would be exceedingly hard: If you lived and married in New York, you get federal benefits and the IRS, immigration authorities, and others would treat you as married. If you lived down the highway in Maryland, you can get married, but since you're in the Fourth Circuit, where DOMA is still viable, you're strangers in the eyes of the federal government.[LEFT]
Read more: Gay Rights After SCOTUS: What If There's No 'Standing' or 'Jurisdiction'?| Gay News | Towleroad
[/LEFT]

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by jjrose

No decision on DOMA or prop 8 today.

I'm guessing they'll wait until Monday so they can have the car engines running and get out of town.

[GCharlotte]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Completely wishful thinking. There is absolutely no valid legal argument to uphold DOMA.

For another thread but if they strike it down by a wide margin (in other words they validate the common sense some of us think we have) then the next discussion should be why is Congress passing laws they should know are unconstitutional?

We have a government on our coast that passed an ordinance saying the Supremacy clause doesn't apply to them. That makes me think of them as nutcases.