Is the SCOTUS decision not to hear appeals on gay marriage rulings good news or bad?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

This http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/06/gay-rights-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage Guardian article clearly thinks it's a good thing, but I'm not convinced it doesn't just mean that the appeal is more likely to be heard after Bader Ginsberg has been replaced with a conservative than before.

[hlthe2b]

1. Would they be cruel enough to reverse the marriages months (or longer) down the line

of tens of thousands of people?

I'd surely hope not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. Are you conflating "hope" and "predict"? N.T.

[hlthe2b]

4. Which word did I use (quite correctly?!)

[valerief]

28. Of course, they would. Look at the damage they've done to America already. nt

[pnwmom]

37. Scalia and Thomas, definitely. Scalia would enjoy it. n/t

[MineralMan]

3. It's outstanding news if you support marriage equality.

It's shitty news if you're a fundamentalist Christian idiot.

That's the bottom line. Let the wedding ceremonies begin!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. You think so?

In the short term, that's obviously true; it's not obvious to me that it's the case in the long term.

As far as I can see, all decisions on the issue by lower courts are potentially irrelevant in the long term; what will matter is the final SCOTUS ruling. I was hoping for a definitive ruling sooner rather than later.

[onenote]

8. The question then is why didn't four of the justices who support marriage equality

vote to take one of these cases now, while it appears that there is a 5-4 majority in support. Or maybe neither side is confident they know how Kennedy (the likely swing vote on this issue) would vote.

[MineralMan]

10. I wouldn't expect any ruling.

The SCOTUS is going to reject any appeals where marriage equality is established by a district appeals court. The only cases that may be heard would be ones where a district appeals court leaves anti-marriage laws standing. The appeals courts are going to see this decision not to hear the appeals as clear precedent. No appeals court is going to want to challenge this. I expect failure of the appeals in the other districts and marriage equality to quickly spread.

I believe this battle is all but over. The next thing will be to apply full faith and credit and require states to also recognize all marriage from other states to be valid. I don't know if any such cases are already in the federal system, but I imagine some are. They will fail if they attempt to deny full faith and credit.

I think the SCOTUS has established a solid precedent here. But, that's just my opinion. I think it will hold, though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Well, I hope you're right. N.T.

[MineralMan]

22. I hope so, too.

I'm basing this on following SCOTUS rulings for years. Refusals to hear appeals are as powerful a message as agreeing to hear them. It's one of the options the court has, and it basically says, "We agree on what the district appeals court ruled and aren't going to listen to arguments to the contrary. The district appeals court ruled correctly."

That has been the case in many, many refusals to hear. In fact, I can't think of one where it wasn't true, and this time they refused to hear multiple cases. It's a pretty clear statement.

[MineralMan]

12. Further, I believe this refusal to consider

is the SCOTUS taking the easy way out. The other circuits, though, will see it for what it is.

[hifiguy]

17. Boom. 110% correct.

[Ampersand Unicode]

40. That's the bottom line

BECAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!

[jberryhill]

6. It will only matter if one of the circuits goes the other way

In the absence of a conflict among the circuit courts of appeal, I can't see a good reason for the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

[hifiguy]

16. Yep.

And I guarantee that no sane Justice - and that includes Kennedy and the CJ, wants to take on the Seventh Circuit opinion.

[RedCappedBandit]

7. Pragmatically it's a good thing afaik

But it does bother me that they won't just decide the issue once and for all in favor of equality. This SCOTUS has proven itself to be worthless.

[JaneyVee]

9. Its good and somewhat not good, but more good.

Some states can still deny as of now but thus non ruling ensures the opposition will most likely crumble.

[CK_John]

11. They reserved their options but...it's not in the constitution yet so the states

can make up laws to repeal or disrupt, and best of all the GOP can still use this issue as a fund money tree.

[Capt. Obvious]

13. Good for the residents of 30 states

Bad for the other 20.

[CK_John]

14. Also maybe they are going to repeal Roe v Wade on the down low, give a little take a lot.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I will be surprised if RvW lasts another 20 years.

All it will take is one period when the conservatives outnumber the liberals.

And of the judges over 75, two are liberals, one is Kennedy who is needed to keep Roe, and only one is Scalia; if any of those three go before Scalia and is replaced by a Republican, America can kiss abortion rights goodbye :-s

[hifiguy]

15. It is a VERY good thing.

Primarily because it leaves the Seventh Circuit's landmark (for its rationale and its dismemberment of the anti-equality arguments) untouched. Yes, it is just one circuit, but there have always been CofA judges that other circuits and judges tend to follow. Posner is certainly one of those judges, and his opinion is, in essence, the brief for anyone challenging anti-marriage equality laws. It is impossible to imagine a better judicial analysis of why these laws must fall.

[jmowreader]

20. How can an anti marriage person gain standing?

You have to show harm first. Hobby Lobby showed harm - they were being required to spend their money in a way that conflicted with their beliefs. Anti marriage says "our feelings are hurt so this has to be banned." Freedom from Hurt Feelings is nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Why is that relevant?

The SCOTUS is a political, not a legal, institution; if the majority of the judges are politically opposed to gay marriage then they are likely to find an excuse to rule against it.

[jmowreader]

25. It would be a huge stretch to say the Fourteenth applies to everyone but gays

My bet: if the Supremes want to "rule against it" they'll just decide it's a matter for the states and leave it at that.

[tammywammy]

21. They take cases that have opposing circuit decisions.

So far all the circuit courts have agreed. If/When the 5th circuit rules differently and upholds the Texas ban, then SCOTUS would take it.

[blogslut]

39. Intriguing

That case is up for appeal in February. Greg (not a very good lawyer) Abbott won't be the one arguing it. If Sam Houston were to become TXAG would he abandon the case? Is Ken Paxton any kind of a decent lawyer?

[samsingh]

23. anything they touch turns out worse for the good side in the world

[elleng]

26. Its good news,

as its not just 'an' appeal, but seeking review of decisions in 3 Circuit Courts of Appeal, the confluence of which is not likely to occur again, surely not soon. Of course the Supremes may change their minds down the road, but they have to have decisions about which to do it. THESE decisions are finished.

'Monday’s orders let stand decisions from three federal appeals courts with jurisdiction over six other states that ban same-sex marriage: Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming. Those appeals courts will almost certainly follow their own precedents to strike down those additional bans as well, meaning the number of states with same-sex marriage should soon climb to 30.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=BannerSubHedSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[MohRokTah]

27. I'd call it mixed.

The SCOTUS is waiting for there to be contention amongst the Circuits.

And where did you hear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is stepping down?

[TBF]

30. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

announced recently that there's no way she's stepping down. Repugs are still trying to convince her to do so of course. They think they are clever by saying "oh we don't want her replaced by someone more conservative". My response to that is to GOTV in 2016.

[MohRokTah]

32. Yeah, that's what I heard, too.

The fact of the matter is, it will be very difficult for the Republicans to win a national electoral race in 2016, and it's about the best year in recent memory for the Democrats in the Senate. 24 GOP seats will be up and 10 Democratic seats. 8 of those GOP seats will be competitive while only 2 Dem seats will.

[TBF]

29. Given the make up of the court right now I'd prefer

they not hear most cases. I think it's a win for now.

[uppityperson]

31. Thank you, I have been trying to figure this out also. I want a federal thing for marriage equality,

not state by state. But this seems really good for states that have passed legislation.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. It's a mixed bag, which is what I expect from America, no courage to just make equality a fact

just more passing the ball. It would be wonderful to see just once a full act of unmitigated support for equality from some segment of the government. I've never even been able to vote for a candidate for President who has not in the past smeared and trash talked my community. But they never say anything really good. First they speak hate, then they 'evolve' and then they say nothing, ever.
I expect to live my entire life and still be asked to vote for people with a history of open bigotry against me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. That's very much *not* the attitude I want from the SCOTUS.

I don't want the SCOTUS to think about making the world a better place, because "making the world a better place" depends on what the politics of the individual judge are.

The SCOTUS should focus purely on interpreting the law & the constitution as accurately as possible, and leave decisions about whether the law and the constitution are just to elected politicians.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. If the Constitution allows discrimination and unequal treatment under the law then it is worthless

I want the SCOTUS to uphold the 14the Amendment. Equal treatment under the law. I said nothing about making the world a better place. But you know that. You used that phrase twice, with quotation marks as if I had said that. I said no such thing. Speak for yourself.

[m-lekktor]

36. all the gay rights activists/bloggers on my facebook are happy as hell over it.

JoeMyGod, Toweleroad etc. I personally haven't studied the isssue closely.

[TeeYiYi]

38. It's an historic day for gay and civil rights in America...

...and especially here in Utah.

<snip>

Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill said marriage licenses would be immediately issued to same-sex couples.

"Not to issue one would be a violation of the 10th Circuit’s mandate and a violation of these couples’ constitutional rights," Gill told The Salt Lake Tribune. "We’ve given the go-ahead to begin issuing [marriage] licenses right away."

Gov. Gary Herbert said at a news conference that he sent a letter to his cabinet members ordering them to recognize all legally performed marriages, that gay couples can follow the same process as everyone else to get benefits.

"We are a nation of laws and we here in Utah, we’ll uphold the law," Herbert said.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58492286-78/utah-court-marriage-sex.html.csp

TYY