View Poll Results: How will SCOTUS rule?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • States can ban SSM and not recognize them from other states

    2 3.33%
  • States can ban SSM but have to recognize them from other states

    8 13.33%
  • States cannot ban SSM but do not have to recognize them from other states

    1 1.67%
  • States cannot ban SSM and have to recognize them from other states

    45 75.00%
  • No ruling, lack of standing

    1 1.67%
  • Something else

    3 5.00%
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 178

Thread: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

  1. #11
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,527

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    My guess is something along the lines of option 4. Aside from being the right result constitutionally, social mores have changed and with it attitudes towards homosexual relationships and the court, for better or worse is influenced by, and a part of, society.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  2. #12
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,857

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    The court will rule like it did in Loving vs. Virginia.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #13
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,988

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I picked 4 because I don't think Chief Justice John Roberts wants the legacy of being anti-gay in his court. I see a possible 6-3 decission.
    The only real question is whether it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision. There is no question that the court is going to find that bans violate the Constitution, Justice Kennedy pretty much signaled that in the DOMA case which is what set Scalia off on his vitriolic dissent. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are likely to be the 3 dissenters.

  4. #14
    Educator Helvidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Good ol' US of A
    Last Seen
    01-31-17 @ 11:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    735

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Certainly states won't be able to ban SSM. That's the only rational outcome. Then the only way to get the laws to make sense is to have homosexual marriage protected the same as heterosexual, so states won't be able to pick and choose whose they recognize. What I'm interested to see if what level of constitutional scrutiny laws relating to sexual orientation will warrant.
    Given that marriage and sexual-orientation are considered fundamental rights, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage should be held to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny generally requires the law to be absolutely necessary and narrowly tailored to fit the need in order to pass judicial scrutiny.

    However, if you extensively read enough SCOTUS majority opinions, you come to realize they just bend and twist the Constitution to fit their political goals... So who knows
    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  5. #15
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    05-23-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    55,635

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    My guess is something along the lines of option 4. Aside from being the right result constitutionally, social mores have changed and with it attitudes towards homosexual relationships and the court, for better or worse is influenced by, and a part of, society.
    We have a governing mechanism for capturing that, when it occurs. It is called "A Legislature".

    That being said, I'm fairly pessimistic about it - Option 4 is the most likely. Kennedy has been clear before that States have the right to define marriage for themselves (US v Windsor, ironically):

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice Kennedy
    “Regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. . . . The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities... [and] there is no federal law of domestic relations.”...
    Quotes taken from the argument that Kennedy will choose Option #2

    ....but I think is probably willing to subordinate the Constitutional to the Political here.
    “In America we have a two-party system,” a Republican congressional staffer told a visiting group of Russian legislators. “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called: bipartisanship."

  6. #16
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    90,556
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvidius View Post
    Given that marriage and sexual-orientation are considered fundamental rights, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage should be held to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny generally requires the law to be absolutely necessary and narrowly tailored to fit the need in order to pass judicial scrutiny.

    However, if you extensively read enough SCOTUS majority opinions, you come to realize they just bend and twist the Constitution to fit their political goals... So who knows
    Clarification: orientation is not a right, it is just a state of being. Currently under the law, orientation does not put one in a protected class.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,527

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    We have a governing mechanism for capturing that, when it occurs. It is called "A Legislature".

    That being said, I'm fairly pessimistic about it - Option 4 is the most likely. Kennedy has been clear before that States have the right to define marriage for themselves (US v Windsor, ironically):



    Quotes taken from the argument that Kennedy will choose Option #2

    ....but I think is probably willing to subordinate the Constitutional to the Political here.

    In theory. In reality SC justices are people and many, if not all, are going to bring their biases to the table and those are informed by the world they live in. Do you think Loving v Virginia would have been decided the way it was in 1860?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  8. #18
    Educator Helvidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Good ol' US of A
    Last Seen
    01-31-17 @ 11:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    735

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Clarification: orientation is not a right, it is just a state of being. Currently under the law, orientation does not put one in a protected class.
    We may just be arguing semantics, but sexual activity between homosexuals is in fact a protected liberty interest under substantive due process. Thus, a law banning such activity must pass strict scrutiny in order for the court to uphold it as unconstitutional. See Lawrence v. Texas

    When I meant sexual-orientation, I meant the right to engage in sexual activity between homosexuals. However, you are correct, homosexuals are not currently a protected class.
    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  9. #19
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    90,556
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvidius View Post
    We may just be arguing semantics, but sexual activity between homosexuals is in fact a protected liberty interest under substantive due process. Thus, a law banning such activity must pass strict scrutiny in order for the court to uphold it as unconstitutional. See Lawrence v. Texas

    When I meant sexual-orientation, I meant the right to engage in sexual activity between homosexuals. However, you are correct, homosexuals are not currently a protected class.
    Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. However, that is pretty irrelevant to the issues before the court. That sodomy laws are unconstitutional does not make orientation a factor is determining a protected class at this time. It is possible that orientation could put some one in a protected class, however currently that is not the case and would probably be done without reference to sodomy laws. Probably a more likely outcome is the court would rule as some of the lower courts have that SSM bans are a form of gender discrimination(ie men can do something women cannot, marry women, and women can do something men cannot, marry women) which would place it under heightened(intermediate) scrutiny. Also possible is that the courts will rule that since marraige is a fundamental right, it would fall under strict scrutiny. Level of review is going to be one of the biggest issues the court has to determine, and will probably take up a significant amount of the hour and a half the court has set aside to review SSM bans(the other hour is looking at the question of whether states have to recognize those married in other states).

    Does that clear things up a bit? I have spent a great deal of time over the last 3ish years studying the legal aspects of the case, reading all the rulings and alot of the interpretations of the rulings...plus I am very anal about the details on these things as you may have noticed.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The only real question is whether it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision. There is no question that the court is going to find that bans violate the Constitution, Justice Kennedy pretty much signaled that in the DOMA case which is what set Scalia off on his vitriolic dissent. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are likely to be the 3 dissenters.
    Sad...to hold such "principles" and (should) know that they will go down in history viewed much like anyone that still supported slavery in the modern era.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •