December 7, 2012

Waiting for an order granting Supreme Court review in a same-sex marriage case. [UPDATE: Granted!!]

They're live-blogging the anticipation over at SCOTUSblog.
The Conference is over for today; that was some time ago. What's going on now is composing orders, if any are to be released today. Simple grants are easier to write than, say, consolidated grants among several picked cases....

I expect the Court to act today on the gay-marriage petitions for two reasons. First, it has to rule on the petitions at this Conference if they are going to be argued in March. Otherwise, it has to wait until April. And the Court would prefer to have more time between the argument and when the Court ends the Term in late-June.
UPDATE:  "Prop. 8 is grant[d]. So is Windsor. Those are the only two marriage cases granted."
Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.
In Windsor, the government petition (12-307) is the one granted. In addition to the petition question -- whether Sec. 3 of DOMA violates equal protection under 5th Amendment, there are two other questions: does the fact that government agreed with the 2d CA decision deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and whether BLAG (House GOP leaders) has Art. III standing in this case.
AND: "The Court... has agreed to take up virtually all of the key issues about same-sex marriage, but has given itself a way to avoid final decisions on the merits issues."

54 comments:

edutcher said...

Madame, you can grow very old waiting for the Court to get it right.

Regardless of your particular definition of right.

MadisonMan said...

I was in San Fran last week, and my oldest friend was eagerly awaiting this. All sorts of tweets/txts sent to her partner when nothing happened.

I'm sure it's agonizing, or something, but since when has waiting for the Govt to do something not been so?

Mitchell the Bat said...

The Court should announce that any forthcoming order will be wrapped up with a Wonka Bar.

X said...

It's also time to review the rational basis for marriage benefits. Why should the unmarried get treated like second class citizens?

chickelit said...

Were there huge sighs of relief and flurries of tweets released?

whoresoftheinternet said...

No surprise here. Obama promised his child-molesting base that he'd force through their fake marriage.

And now that he's got John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts in his back pocket, he will do so.

Honestly, Thomas should just resign now, and give a blistering speech upon his resignation, in prime time on all the networks, explaining 1) his judicial philosophy; and 2) how the court (through Roberts) has finally abandoned all pretext of and applying and protecting the constitution.

He would shock some people into waking up, and would leave a record for posterity that would shame the quislings and turncoats and commies now on the court.

As Shakespeare had Caesar say, "The die is cast." No amount of judicial appointments or textual arguments can save us now. Thomas is better saving his soul than working in the sullen chained darkness that is Obama's Supreme Court.

mccullough said...

With only 9 states permitting gay marriage, some by judicial fiat, I can't believe the Court will say that the 14th Amendment prohibits gay marriage bans. It would ignite another culture war.

Bob Ellison said...

BLAG!

jimbino said...

Right on, X.

Now that we singles are in the majority, we should turn the tables and deny:

1. SS benefits to spouses
2. Medicare benefits to spouses
3. Immigration privileges to spouses
4. Tax-free inheritance to spouses
5. Hospital visitation to spouses

Next we can work on denying special benefits to the breeders.

MadisonMan said...

Blagojevich?

Alex said...

John Roberts is the modern Earl Warren. A Trojan horse.

Alex said...

Right on, X.

Now that we singles are in the majority, we should turn the tables and deny:

1. SS benefits to spouses
2. Medicare benefits to spouses
3. Immigration privileges to spouses
4. Tax-free inheritance to spouses
5. Hospital visitation to spouses


Typical insane wingnut, nobody on the left is talking about denying anything to married straight couples.

X said...

Alex, why should the unmarried get treated like second class citizens?

Alex said...

X - they shouldn't. We shall all have equal rights. Married, straight, single, bi, transgendered, circus freak, etc...

X said...

exactly Alex.

gay marriage is about getting in on a racket, not about equality.

Andy R. said...

It would ignite another culture war.

Yeah, and the anti-gay bigots would lose.

X said...

Andy, are you an anti-single bigot? or would you extend all the benefits to the unmarried as well?

sunsong said...

Gay marriage is inevitable. Disliking gays is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it.

X said...

I'm on your side Andy.

are you on mine?

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Inevitable goals are usually considered to be downhill.

edutcher said...

I have to agree (shudder) with Alex on the subject of Roberts.

sunsong said...

Gay marriage is inevitable. Disliking gays is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it.

Sweetie, nothing is inevitable.

Andy R. said...

It would ignite another culture war.

Yeah, and the anti-gay bigots would lose.


Only if you don't look at the results of all the referenda.

PS What do you mean another?

X said...

I assume by his silence Andy doesn't support Human Benefits for singles even though it doesn't affect his gay marriage.

Andy R. said...

Andy, are you an anti-single bigot? or would you extend all the benefits to the unmarried as well?

What benefits? Can you be more specific?

Crunchy Frog said...

transgendered, circus freak,

Redundant.

Look, I get being gay. You can't choose what you are attracted to, no more than you can choose to like brussels sprouts. (Seriously, who eats those?)

But the whole "man in a woman's body" or vice versa? Bullshit. It's your brain chemistry that's fucked up, and no amount of tinkering with body parts is going to fix it. Fix the head.

Shouting Thomas said...

Glad you got what you want, Althouse.

Hope it turns out in your favor.

As I said, it's not of any importance to me.

In such cases, it's always best to wish that your friends get what they want.

Crunchy Frog said...

transgendered, circus freak,

Redundant.

Look, I get being gay. You can't choose what you are attracted to, no more than you can choose to like brussels sprouts. (Seriously, who eats those?)

But the whole "man in a woman's body" or vice versa? Bullshit. It's your brain chemistry that's fucked up, and no amount of tinkering with body parts is going to fix it. Fix the head.

Shouting Thomas said...

Andy's back for another battle against the bigots.

The biggoty-biggoty bigots!

Fat white spoiled brats to the ramparts! You have nothing to lose but your artisan chocolate bars!

X said...

What benefits? Can you be more specific?

all marriage/spousal benefits. pretty much everywhere the word spouse is used, person of my choice or cash equivalent substituted. such as, spousal health insurance benefits etc, immigration benefits, estate taxes, community property, survivor benefits, etc. everything equal.

I'm willing to consider a rational basis for treating singles differently. But second class status requires a compelling reason and I can't think of one.

YoungHegelian said...

@edutcher,

Only if you don't look at the results of all the referenda.

No longer true, ed. The three states that put SSM to the ballot (Washington, Colorado, and Maryland), it won fair & square.

I can't speak to WA & CO, but in my home state of MD, it won because the rich liberal white people in my very populous Montgomery County voted so overwhelmingly for it that they dragged the rest of the state, including the black population of Baltimore & Prince George's counties kicking & screaming over the finish line.

Nomennovum said...

It would ignite another culture war

What culture war? It's over. We conservatives lost. Didn't you hear?

The sooner we accept that, the sooner we get to the rebooting.


Besides, Modern Family is pretty damn good. I, for one, welcome our cultural overlords.

Sometimes.

Bob Ellison said...

X, society benefits from pro-creation in nurturing families.

n.n said...

Normalizing homosexual behavior is not a primary concern. The progress of evolutionary dysfunction can be tolerated when constrained to a minority of the population, and through immigration of men and women who suffer less confusion. Even the misallocation of tens of billions of dollars annually to compensate for homosexual and promiscuous heterosexual born diseases is tolerable, since the squandered wealth can be compensated through a general devaluation of currency, and subsequently a general devaluation of labor.

Anyway, the constitution does not restrict the status of couplets. That restriction was imposed to comply with natural law (i.e. evolutionary fitness).

The real problem is with the men and women who exploit this minority behavior to defend and normalize their own dysfunctional behaviors.

Of all the natural, human, and civil rights violations perpetrated, the truly intolerable behavior, which poses an imminent threat to humanity and civilization, is the elective abortion of sentient human life in the womb, which is the premeditated murder of a human being who literally possesses no means to defend its right to life; and, in America, is an illegal practice under our law.

The marketing skill which repackaged eugenics (i.e. involuntary generational suicide) as "Roe vs Wade" (i.e. voluntary generational suicide), and eventually the euphemistic "reproductive rights" (i.e. elective genocide) is remarkable, and the individuals and cooperatives which achieved this transformation should be noted for their superior ability to exploit people's base nature.

There is clear evidence that progressive corruption is approaching conclusive corruption. This is evident with the largely successful effort to normalize involuntary exploitation, denigration of individual dignity, and a progressive devaluation of human life.

There is an inherent paradox which is worth noting. The establishment of civilization enables and motivates individuals to engage in dysfunctional behaviors which were initially proscribed in order to establish the civilization. The normalization of dysfunctional behaviors engenders progressive corruption which becomes conclusive corruption. Then the civilization either disintegrates from internal pressures or is conquered by another people with a superior grasp of reality. Once the original order is marginalized or eviscerated, then the cycle will begin anew.

Alex said...

n.n. - very interesting theory of civilization. However I submit that the rapid pace of technological progress will render that cycle moot.

Nomennovum said...

Yeah, and the anti-gay bigots would lose. -- Andy R.

Andy, you are a bore. A one-trick pony. A phoney baloney.

I really cannot stand bigots who are forever calling others bigots. By God, you are so un-self-aware.

I know this is hard, but not everybody who disagrees with you is a bigot ... even those who are on the right or who are -- gasp! -- Christiansits.

chickelit said...

Andy R is a Sullivanist--flipside bigotry.

Nomennovum said...

Andy R is Andy S? Andy'S Andy?

Andy R U S?

Andy R. said...

"Why are you so bigoted against bigots?"
-dumb bigots

chickelit said...

Nomennovum said...
Andy R is Andy S? Andy'S Andy?

No. Andy R's argumentative skills are too subpar.

Nomennovum said...

"Why are you so bigoted against bigots?"

It's nice to be able to set your own definitions. This is why there are so many liberals and why they are too fucking stupid to recognize their own stupidity. Being a liberal is just too easy to pass up. You take the easiest position on any number of things and call anyone who disagrees with you bad. You don't like affirmative action because it's self-defeating and unfairly discriminating? You're a racial bigot. You think the TSA should not be strip searching retired nuns? Your're anti-Muslim bigot. You think it's absurd for gays to marry? You're a anti-gay bigot.

Too fucking easy. Why argue with a bigot? He's a bigot! Shun him!

Mick said...

So what happened to the statutory construction principle that acts of congress should be considered Constitutional (DOMA). I guess the criminals only use that one to their advantage.

ALP said...

@ 3:44 -

No longer true, ed. The three states that put SSM to the ballot (Washington, Colorado, and Maryland), it won fair & square.
*******
RE: concept of winning "fair & square".

Here in WA state, charter schools won as well as SSM. However - the local press can't bring itself to apply the "fair & square" criteria to that win.

It so interesting to see how the press thinks democracy is a great thing - until it gives them a result they don't like. Thus, the fight against the charter school win is a noble one. Any fight to overturn SSM - not so much.

Birches said...

Colorado did not legalize same sex marriage. They legalized marijuana.

YoungHegelian said...

@birches

You are correct. The third state that legalized SSM was not CO.

It was Maine.

n.n said...

Alex:

And yet it hasn't. Both Europe and the United States are evidence that the human ego does not override, but reconciles with the natural order. The constraints imposed by reality in the form of finitely accessible resources still establish an upper bound on our potential in both time and space. The problems associated with unmeasured immigration and converged migration related to density and resources are a problem for several reasons, including: displacement, planning, etc. The principles of evolution may be denied in the short-term, but are inviolable in the long-term.

While we occasionally operate through revolutionary change, the natural order constrains our development to evolutionary change. When we ignore this basic truth, then we experience problems such as murder, rape, redistributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation), authoritarian monopolies, monopolistic practices, etc., which are elements of progressive corruption.

With respect to behavior, it is imperative to classify them for rejection, tolerance, and normalization. The last is reserved for behaviors which contribute to evolutionary fitness. The second is reserved for behaviors chosen by individuals for personal interest, but do not qualify for normalization. The first is reserved for acts of involuntary exploitation, elective termination of human life (e.g. murder), fraud, etc.

It is a dissociation of risk which sponsors corruption. It is dreams of instant gratification which motivates its progress.

Howard said...

n.n

Please use more of those fancy 10-dollar words when you ripoff Toynbee.

chickelit said...

STFU, Howard: Toynbee loved hippies and what they stood for, including, I suppose, freedom from copyright: link

n.n said...

Howard:

Who or what is Toynbee?

Inga said...

I'm watching a documentary called Ressurect Dead, the Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles, strangely.

AlanKH said...

One hypothetical ruling woudl be:

a) The government has no authority to expand the definition of marriage. Governments have the authority to define only those institutions that it owns. Marriage is a social contract predating formal governments, and is therefore not the property of said governments.

b) Government has every authority to extend the same sets of privileges to nonmarried cohabiting couples that it extends to married cohabiting couples - and per the 14th Amendment is legally obligated to do so.

Steve Koch said...

n.n,

It was exhilarating to read your big picture critique of a slice of our culture.

Toynbee was a very influential British historian who compared the great civilizations throughout history in an attempt to determine, among other things, what made civilizations thrive and what caused them to decline.

bpm4532 said...

No government should have an interest in marriage or making any law that encourages it or discourages it. People should be able to live how they wish as long as it doesn't harm any one else. There should be no tax penalty for being married or not being married. You should be able to leave your stuff to whomever you want with no inheritance tax. you should be able to give your stuff to whomever you want with no gift tax. There should be no price discrimination for being married or not being married (insurance) except that which reflects the underlying cost of delivering that service.

This means there should be a flat federal tax with no deductions or exemptions. No distinction between long term and short term gains. This way, the more you make the more you will pay. No inheritance taxes and no gift taxes, taxes have already been paid on these.

We can reflect a subsidy for the poor with the negative income tax concept, where people below a certain income level, get payments from the government. As poor people earn more, they keep it, but the negative income tax payments lessen until people earn up to the cross-over threshold, where they start to pay taxes.

Corporations should pay no federal income taxes and they should receive no subsidies. They can spend what they want, how they want, to maximize their efforts. This will spur massive growth create jobs, and eliminate government induced distortions.

This will create a much better world and society without government trying to engineer how people should live.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Steve Koch:

I am far from being omniscient. Thanks for supplementing my knowledge.

My analysis is directed principally, but not exclusively, through inductive reasoning.

There are two known orders (i.e. causal): natural and conscious, where the second is subordinate or reconciles with the first.

I have identified to axiomatic principles: individual dignity and sanctity of human life, which are universal and therefore must be mutually reconcilable.

The objective is to design a system which exploits the second order in order to maximize preservation of the principles while recognizing the constraints imposed by the overriding first order.

For example, I do not oppose elective abortion because of a concern for any individual human life, but from a concern for the general devaluation of human life.

While I may ultimately reach the same conclusions as Toynbee, and others, the paths we follow to reach them are structurally different.

My perspective can be best described as pragmatic idealism.