LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
As you know, the Supreme Court could very easily (and likely will) be charged with making a decision that affects marriage laws in the United States for eternity, thereafter. Therefore, I think we should break the Supreme Court down - one justice at a time - and make reasonable predictions as to their vote.
John Robert: Nay.
Roberts is a devout conservative, which is the primary reason that Bush nominated him for Chief Justice. I'm pretty sure we can count on him when we need a little homophobia.
John Stevens: Yea
Stevens has consistently been impartial throughout his entire career. The president who nominated, Gerald Ford, even went on public record in 2005 to praise Stevens for disregarding partisan concerns.
Therefore, we can trust him to see logic and side with Perry on this one.
Antonin Scalia: Nay
Scalia is regarded as the "intellectual anchor of the "conservative wing." As such, I would be really surprised if he voted in favor of marriage equality when the time comes.
Anthony Kennedy: Unknown
Kennedy tends to be the swing vote. Sometimes he votes liberal, but he tends to vote conservative about 55% of the time. Therefore, while we might can expect him to see reason, I also expect him to require more proof on the liberal side than he would expect from the conservative side. It can be done, but we need to crank out pages upon pages of evidence to do it.
Clarence Thomas: Nay
Thomas tends to interpret laws and constitutional provisions according to how he feels the original intention was. I don't think the writers of the 14th Amendment ever expected it to apply to gay marriage (but, then again, I don't think privacy laws were ever meant to legalize abortion, but I don't think Thomas would have voted yea in Row v. Wade, had he been given the opportunity). Sad to say it, but right now, it's homophobes, three, gay advocates, one, with one person unknown.
Ruth Ginsburg: Yea
Gay advocates are starting to come back in the second half, now. Ginsburg is a feminist, so she knows, first-hand, what it's like to be discriminated by the government. I am sure we can expect some sympathy from her.
Steven Breyer: Yea
Breyer takes a very pragmatic approach to his studies. He believes that a statute should only pass strict scrutiny if it works. We can trust him to understand that, even though reproduction is the official policy for marriage, it is not put into practice outside of gay discrimination. This effectively ties up the whip count vote at 3-3-1.
Sam Alito: Unknown
While Alito is still new to the Supreme Court, throughout his history prior to joining SCOTUS, he has demonstrated a conservative approach, yes, but also a Libertarian one, particularly in the realm of religion, and keeping church separate from state. Therefore, if we can justify that there is no real reason for gay marriage being illegal outside of religious fear (have you noticed that about 90% of homophobes are typically religious? Most atheists tend to realize that homophobia is as retarded as racism), we might have a chance. Until then, the whip count vote stands at 3-3-2.
Sonia Sotomayor: Yea
While she is brand spanking new to the Supreme Court, she was nominated by Obama, who is, himself, supportive of gay rights. Justices tend to support the same political views of the President who elected them.
So, the case of Perry v. Arnold (I can't spell his damned last name) is a swing vote. 4 are likely to vote in favor of marriage equality, 3 are likely to vote in favor of homophobia, and two are likely to vote either way. So far, it looks like marriage equality could triumph, but it's not a foregone conclusion, yet.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by middleagedgamer
