Court Declines to Hear Gay Marriage Case

[rainbow4321]

http://tinyurl.com/4c9aj


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court sidestepped a dispute over gay marriage on Monday, rejecting a challenge by conservative groups to the status of Massachusetts as the only state that sanctions same-sex marriages.
Justices had been asked to overturn a year-old decision by the Massachusetts high court that legalized gay marriage. They declined, without comment.

[tk2kewl]

1. The wingnuts must be freaking out!

They must be dying for a couple of right wing appointments. I wouldn't be surprised to see junior make a recess appointment to tip the scales if the opportunity arises in the next four years. Such an appointment would certainly be timed with challenges to gay marriage and Roe.

[skooooo]

2. I don't think they will be able to accomplish this...

Call it a hunch or intuition, but I don't see Bush getting a full-fledged wingnut on the Supreme ct.

[tk2kewl]

3. if he does it as a recess appointment

the nut can do the dammage before any confirmation hearings ever take place

[jayfish]

13. I Don't Think A Pres. Can Use Recess Apptointments...

to install Supreme Court Justices. I think they can only be used in appellate courts. Someone will correct me if I am incorrect.

Jay

[tk2kewl]

14. POTUS is all powerful!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/16/bush.pickering/

Two Supreme Court justices received recess appointments. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put William Brennan and Earl Warren on the high court that way. And Justice Thurgood Marshall worked his way to the Supreme Court after President John F. Kennedy used a recess appointment to place Marshall on the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

[jayfish]

15. Man, I'm Wrong All Over...

the place today. The POTUS appointments are pretty rare though. How do you think it would fly today?

Jay

[tk2kewl]

17. it doesn't seem to bother the pukes to stomp on every

democratic tradition. eliminating the minority voice has been at the top of their agenda

the house has stated that it will not bring bills up for a vote if there is not a majority of republicans in support.

the senate is considering doing away with filibuster.

why wouldn't junior flip the senate the bird to get a few wingnuts on the court even if just for little while?

[comsymp]

16. Interestingly, the first Prez to make a recess appointment to SCOTUS

was Washington.


Under the Constitution's so-called "Recess Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2), the president has the power to temporarily fill any official "vacancy" without approval of the Senate when Congress is not in session. Anyone so appointed sits in office until the Senate votes on their confirmation—or until the Senate's next session expires.

That special power has been construed by many presidents to extend to vacancies in the Supreme Court. The first recess appointment to the court occurred in 1795 when President Washington appointed John Rutledge chief justice while the Senate was in recess. Since then, 11 Supreme Court justices have been put on the bench in the same way—including Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was appointed by President Eisenhower in 1953.
(http://www.cato.org/research/articles/moller-041028.html - yeah, it's Cato...)

[jayfish]

12. Well They Sure Can't Accuse The Supremes...

of legislating from the bench on this one. Actually they should be quite pleased. :evilgrin:

Jay

[Toucano]

4. I wonder what the vote was. n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

5. kick

[silverpatronus]

6. the SC is avoiding this case...

and all cases of its nature, because once the issue is heard, the unconstitutionality of DOMA and gay marriage bans will come into play, and if they want to maintain any kind of credibility whatsoever, they will have to strike them all down. and the conservative backlash resulting from that will divide this country even more. they're scared shitless of this issue.

[iamjoy]

11. Conservatives Are Right On One Thing - IANAL -

(I am not a lawyer) but the way I see it, gay marriage is very much a federal issue. It has to do with the Fourteenth Amendment (all persons born or naturalized...are citizens...) Furthermore, Article IV, Section 2: the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all priveleges and immunities of citizens in several states.

SO - DOMA is really unconstitutional. States can't really refuse homosexuals the right to marry. This is where the Conservatives are correct - this is a federal issue.

Now, as for SCOTUS - my theory is the Conservatives on the court don't want to hear the case, because they know (constitutionally speaking), they might uphold the Massachusetts law. The Liberals don't want to force the issue because it could backfire and whip up support for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (and in effect, denying citizenship to gays)

But, it's just a theory.

[silverpatronus]

19. doesn't DOMA also violate the 'full faith and credit' clause?

isn't it part of the constitution that states have to recognise contracts from other states? and isn't marriage a contract?

[iamjoy]

20. I Would Think

but then, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a Civics professor or anything like that.

I'm just an average citizen who read the Constitution for the heck of it.

[AlCzervik]

7. Gee i thought the righties were all for "States rights"

[Rose Siding]

8. I wish they'd call it a "marriage equality" case

But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

[420inTN]

9. .. or be trampled. n/t

[Left Brain]

10. That would take

open-mindedness, Rose. And we know the likelihood of that cropping up in the mainstream media on this issue.

I hope I live to see the day when it's just plain old "marriage." Not man-woman marriage, gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, etc., just marriage. Between two people who love each other, want to make the committment, and choose to call themselves a family. With all rights and privileges therein.

[Technowitch]

18. A small bright spot in my day...

[Lu Kang]

21. Excellent news - this pretty much seals the deal

From what I have heard the Mass legislature isn't going to vote the 2nd required time to amend the state constitution. Now with this I can't see any reason the ruling of the mass court will be reversed.

In other words, gay couples should have full rights in Mass for as long as the state exists. And I now know which state I will be moving to.

[TayTay]

22. I think Gay Marriage is here to stay in MA!

I have a friend who gave testimony before the Great and General Court (MA Legislature) a year and a half ago about permitting Gay Marriage in MA. I hugged him last August when the Republican Supreme Court issued their ruling. As a voting citizen of the Commonwealth, I am pleased that this ruling will stay in effect.

I'm not Gay, but the freedom of my fellow citizens of the Commonwealth is my concern and I am pleased that we all have the same rights, at least on the state level. Freedom for one should be freedom for all. That's equal protection under the law. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to move here for that protection under law, then come on over. It's a free state.