Even though he dissented, Roberts says this is a great day.

[MoonRiver]

Huh, why didn't he vote with the majority? Did he feel the need to appease scumbag Scalia?

[jberryhill]

1. Because he is not a cartoon caricature?

[MoonRiver]

2. What the hell does that mean?

[stevenleser]

10. I'm only guessing but it is possible to want LGBT marriage but think the Constitutional arguments

were inadequate. I think that is to what jberryhill was alluding.

At this point I don't care about Roberts' vote. I just care that it's done and marriage equality is the law of the land!!!

[MoonRiver]

13. Of course I agree. But aggressive statements like that are just inflammatory.

[jberryhill]

33. Aggressive?

After a tennis match, when the loser congratulates the winner, how often do we say, "WTF? Why is the loser now congratulating the winner?"

I don't read minds. I assume that Roberts does not believe application of the Constitution requires the result reached today. He rendered his opinion, and his opinion was - fortunately - the minority opinion. I don't think he is a rabid ideologue who is incapable of recognizing that there is a lot of joy, celebration and relief at this outcome, and to also feel happy for them, even if he does not believe the law dictated this outcome. He doesn't believe that.

There were people who did not vote for Barack Obama and adamantly opposed his election, but who were also not so blind as to recognize the significance of his election to our history.

I simply meant to suggest that constantly characterizing political figures as pure angels and pure demons is very rarely an accurate way to look at other human beings. Was he an "angel" yesterday, having written the majority opinion to the effect of "statutory construction which eats the statute is wrong" - an opinion with which we all agreed; and a "demon" today because he didn't agree with us on this one?

We won. He congratulated us. I see no reason to bust on him for being gracious.

[cstanleytech]

34. All 4 dissenters made some wacked out claims though and frankly it surprises me

that any of them ever was able the pass the bar let alone get into law school.

[mmonk]

3. Maybe because he didn't have to decide the outcome to appease the right.

[MoonRiver]

5. That's my guess too.

Still, it seems from his statement that he was really with the majority.

[mmonk]

6. My thoughts as well.

[Snotcicles]

11. Thou shall protest just enough. nt

[Robbins]

7. He probably decided

he needed to throw the right wing a bone since he voted to keep ACA intact.

[Betty Karlson]

9. When did constitutional law become a matter of political expediency?

Oh right: 1980.

[SoCalMusicLover]

22. I Think You Meant To Say 2000

nt

[Betty Karlson]

26. That hardly does credit to the late Mr. Reagan

And his efforts to infuse the court with the likes of Robert Bork.

And besides: who appointed the great minds that came up with the 2000 ruling that denied democratic outcomes, while they themselves were keen to stress it should not create precedents?

I'd say the seed of 2000 was planted in 1980. Expediency has deep roots sometimes.

[joeybee12]

16. My first thought, too...

If oush came to shove, he would have changed his mind..

[Adrahil]

21. agreed....

He knew he was going to take a hit in the ACA opinion. It's quite possible that with Kennedy going for marriage equality, he felt he could afford to hold back.

I get the feeling Roberts, despite being a conservative, actually does try to reason through his positions, unlike Fat Tony, Thomas, and Scalito.

[still_one]

4. Isn't that interesting. Makes me wonder if Kennedy and Roberts had an agreement that one of them

would take the heat from conservatives on this. Obviously, I have no idea, but his comments are sure puzzling

Both Kennedy and Roberts voted for Citizens United, so there is no doubt where they stand on corporate issues.

The right to privacy, or a woman's right to choice is definitely going to be brought up before the court. With the current make up of the court, it is going to be very close I suspect.

[Chan790]

14. Why would either of them need to make such an agreement?

They have lifetime appointments.

John Roberts could stand in the middle of Judiciary Square and shout his undying hatred for Phyllis Schafly, Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley; how much he despises modern conservatism; and end by yelling "suck it, conservatives!" and it wouldn't change a thing regarding his SCOTUS seat. That's very much the point of lifetime appointments...it insulates them from political pressure and arm-twisting.

[still_one]

20. I was just speculating, and on the basis of taking heat from the right wingers. I am not saying

that is what happened, and fact based on most of their decisions it probably didn't

[Adrahil]

23. Roberts still needs to hold the court together....

He probably wants at least some connection to the Dastardly Three.

[Horse with no Name]

29. Roberts has upheld the ACA twice

I don't like him...but...I am starting to think that he does have SOME concern about how history will view HIS court.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Whatever he meant, it won't rain on my Pride parade.

Celebration is here and if Mr. Roberts wants to celebrate, he may join us. And we'll snap a pic of him doing so. And spread it across the Internet like the plague. And then celebrate that too.

[MoonRiver]

12. I hope he joins you!

[Lurks Often]

15. I skimmed the first page or two of Robert's dissent

and while I am thrilled with the 5-4 win, to a degree I understand where Roberts is coming from.

The impression I got is that Roberts feels that this should have been handled either in the various state legislatures or by Congress.

Essentially 5 judges fundamentally changed how the laws in the United States are applied to a specific group of people, overriding how the various states choose to handle the issue.

To put it a different way, the 5-4 SCOTUS decision created new Federal law as opposed to interpreting existing Federal law and then applied it to all 50 states.

That is something should always be a concern, even if we agree with the decision, because if this had been a 5-4 decision the other way, it could have opened an avenue to repeal all the same sex marriage laws that have been passed after so much effort.

[joeybee12]

17. Yeah, I think he didn't want to say it's a right

from the Constitution...although how you can make sure it's across the board without saying so boggles me.

[Lurks Often]

19. I'm not sure marriage, of any sort, is addressed specifically in the Constitution

I don't claim to be a expert on the Constitution, but a brief skim of all the amendments indicates that none of them specifically address marriage, which was a religious ceremony when this country was founded.

[joeybee12]

27. Neither is abortion for that matter...

Lots of things are not mentioned...but equal protection is, and that applies to a great many issues/matters.

[Lurks Often]

30. Shrug, I'm as happy as everyone else with the ruling

[Adrahil]

25. I understand his position.... I disagree with it.

The fundamental rights of people should not depend upon the whims of the legislatures.

And I don;t agree with the position that the court CREATED a law. It found that laws were not permitted under the 14th Amednment. NOT THE SAME THING.

[Lurks Often]

28. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically regarding marriage of any sort

so the 14th Amendment did not create the law regarding marriage, however it is the justification for the ruling we got.

As to whether or not SCOTUS created new law today is a gray area and certainly open to differing views. I happen to think it created new law.

[Adrahil]

36. <sigh> no it doesn't mention marriage specifically, but it DOES say...

That no state shall deny equal protection of the laws. All kinds of laws benefit married couples. Inheritence law, family law, tax law are just a few examples. Denying the benefit of those laws to gay couples without a compelling state interest is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

You reasoning would have meant that Loving would have not prevailed in Loving v. Virginia.

[Lurks Often]

37. We're both happy with the decision

Where we disagree is whether SCOTUS arguably exceeded it's authority and possibly created new law, which is a function accorded to Congress.

As to the ruling, it may have upheld the equal protection clause, but it can also be considered a violation of the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Regardless we are both happy with the decision. My concern is what legal precedent it might create for other issues down the road.

[edhopper]

18. Tip ONeal

used to free up Dems to vote against a bill when he had enough votes to pass, so they wouldn't get in trouble if their district was conservative.

My feeling is Roberts knew Kennedy would vote for and did it to keep his conservative creds.

[Orsino]

24. Because he's a fucking liar.

There is no justification for dissent here. None.

A few quiet words in the party have probably established the same policy as with ACA decision: whine a lot while secretly rejoicing over this hot potato being removed from the '16 campaign.

[6chars]

31. He says he just calls balls and strikes

With his baseball knowledge, he must realize that a 5 to 4 win counts as much as 9 to 0.

Congratulations, Chief Justice Roberts, on presiding over the court that has made marriage equality the law of the land!

[DonViejo]

32. Here's the CJ's full quote:

The Chief Justice has the principal dissent, which is 31 pages long. Toward the end of it, he says, "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."

[hunter]

35. Roberts has always pegged my creep-o-meter past 100%, well beyond run away.

If Justice Roberts had an internet porn stash (I think he's too smart for that) it would be something worse than Justice Thomas's Coke can fantasies or Justice Scalia's Rule 34 right wing Catholic rivets-and-leather-and-hair-shirts stuff.