Supreme Court, in surprise move, declines to hear gay marriage cases

[Baitball Blogger]

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-supreme-court-gay-marriage-20141006-story.html

[MohRokTah]

1. It would now take a District Court upholding anti-marriage equality to stop it.

My bet would be the 5th District if any would uphold the gay marriage bans. If that happens, the SCOTUS has to take it.

[former9thward]

4. They don't have to take it.

They may want to let it be handled on a state by state basis.

[MohRokTah]

6. But it's already been handled at the federal level.

If they wanted it handled on a state by state basis, they would have taken one or all of the appeals.

This demonstrates clearly that at least five justices believe it is unconstitutional to limit marriage equality, but that the court simply does not want to take it up. If the court can wait it out and all of the Districts agree, it becomes a de facto SCOTUS ruling as the precedent would stand in each of the districts. As it is now, marriage equality is the law of the land in 30 states.

[riqster]

2. They appear to realize that their partisan agenda has been exposed.

Trying to hide it, methinks.

[PeaceNikki]

7. no, it means the cases against equality have no merit and don't even deserve to be heard.

[riqster]

8. That usually doesn't stop the Roberts court.

[hifiguy]

10. No judge in his or her rght mind

would want to try and rebut Posner's opinion. Better not to even try.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. I wonder what Pam Bondi, AG from Florida is going to do.

She said she wanted to sit on her hands and wait to see what the Supremes decided.

[shenmue]

5. Sue, fail, be seen at some tacky religious right crap, fail

[hifiguy]

9. I am surprised that the WI and IN cases had already been appealed

to the SCOTUS. Must have been an expedited or emergency appeal. Which means Posner's masterpiece of an opinion stands. The logic behind this is interesting. It may be that Roberts, like all CJs, is concerned with his legacy and wants to be on the right side of history; no one wants to be the next Taney, the CJ who wrote the Dred Scott opinion. Not taking the cases lets the pro-marriage equality decisions stand w/o the SCOTUS having to face the issue.

There is some third-dimensional chess behind this decision, methinks.

[Scuba]

11. Fighting marriage equality is a campaign platform for Republicans here in Wisconsin.

Despite losing, it'll help make sure their base shows up Nov 4th.

[hifiguy]

13. That may explain the platform - rile the animals. There is absolutely zip, zero,

el zilcho that WI can do in the face of the Seventh Circuit opinion. They may as well try and outlaw ghosts. Posner's opinion is The Last Word now that the SCOTUS has declined to review it. WI is gonna get marriage equality whether the Pukes like it or not.

[Scuba]

15. The R's only care about it as a voter manipulation issue. That's why the SCOTUS declined ...

... to hear it. Now they can still use it in future elections.

[hifiguy]

16. Even I am not quite that cynical.

There are legit reasons for not reviewing a decision. And agreeing with the lower court's reasoning is a big one.

[Scuba]

18. SCOTUS could have heard it, agreed, and put it to rest forever. They did not.

I guess I am cynical.

[hifiguy]

19. So far, every appeals court has struck the anti-equality laws down.

There's no conflict among the Courts of Appeal, which is a very significant thumb on the scales when the SCOTUS decides to take a case. It also leaves those CofA decisions as the leading opinions on the subject, and that is a good thing.

[calimary]

12. He's right to be concerned about his "legacy."

After all, the EPIC disaster that is Citizens United hangs around HIS neck. And frankly, THIS won't do anything to remove it.

[MineralMan]

14. Biggest Story of the Day!

This essentially ends any chance of any anti-marriage laws or state amendments surviving. It's all but over now, and that's the best news I've heard for some time.

A big Hurrah! is in order.

[hifiguy]

17. I think you are correct, MM.

Posner served it up on a tee for the SCOTUS in an "I dare you to overrule this" ruling and they apparently do not want to touch that opinion with a ten-foot law clerk and I can't blame them. It's too airtight an opinion to mess with. My guess is that only Uncle Ruckus, Soapy Sam and Fat Tony voted to grant certiorari and four votes are needed.

[dsc]

20. It is mostly good

First, any state within those circuits (Richmond. Chicago, and Minneapolis) will have marriage equality after a mere formality. that will add 11 states immediately. Second, any appellate court will likely take this into account and not rule against. Third, marriage equality will spread. The downside is that without a SCOTUS opinion it would be theoretically possible for a SCOTUS to rule that the marriages are invalid but it would be rather unlikely.