• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Ockham said:
My overall point is clear though no? I don't want the SCOTUS making a ruling for all 50 states.
Click to expand...

So instead you'd prefer the Federal Circuit courts do it in their stead? All right then. As long as the states aren't deciding for themselves I'm comfortable.
 
CriticalThought said:
That has already happened. Until there is a split in the appeals circuits, which is likely when the 6th circuit of appeals finally makes their ruling, there is nothing to push SCOTUS to take up the appeals. And if the unlikely event occurs that there is never a split in the appeals circuits, meaning that every appeals court rules the same way, then SCOTUS could theoretically never take up the issue.
Click to expand...


That's what I find mind blowing. If anyone had asked I'd have given the following odds: 70% defer to a later conference waiting on the 6th Circuit to issue a ruling, 25% chance accept one of the current writs, 5% deny all writs (thereby adding - IIRC - 11 states those with legal SSCM).



>>>>
 
Ockham said:
My overall point is clear though no? I don't want the SCOTUS making a ruling for all 50 states.
Click to expand...

...

Fine, but the way you should characterize that is "allow the lower federal courts to decide it" not "allow the states to decide it." Every single one of those 11 states are going to be pissed that SCOTUS did not pick this up and rule in their favor to have a ban.
 
CriticalThought said:
...

Fine, but the way you should characterize that is "allow the lower federal courts to decide it" not "allow the states to decide it." Every single one of those 11 states are going to be pissed that SCOTUS did not pick this up and rule in their favor to have a ban.
Click to expand...

I see it as a compromise.
 
Ockham said:
The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....
Click to expand...

While there is a chance this broad perspective is accurate, it's difficult to know right now. There were three appeals decisions in question, all of which overturned state restrictions on same sex marriage. The narrower interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the cases is that the Appellate rulings are consistent with the Constitution's "equal protection" clause. Therefore, no new constitutional issues arise and it is unnecessary for the Supreme Court to hear those cases.

A test of sorts would arise if a future Appellate ruling strikes down or reaffirms a prohibition of same sex marriage. If the Supreme Court declined to hear that case, then one might have evidence of a broader "states rights" approach. My guess, given the combination of earlier Supreme Court rulings related to same sex marriage, is that the Supreme Court took the narrower approach. Hence, its choice not to hear the appeals is a further step toward marriage equality.
 
Fletch said:
Bravo. This is exactly what they should have done.
Click to expand...


IMHO of course - I disagree.


What they should have done is deferred accepting or rejecting the writ until the pending cases in the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts are issued. (9th not being relevant as we all know they will rule against the ban.) Those cases have already be "tried", appeals submitted, and oral arguments complete - and both the 5th and 6th could issue their rulings at any time.

If they ruled to deny the ban - no problem, deny the writs and we are at the same point we are now.

If they ruled to uphold the ban - now we have a problem as there is a split in the Circuit Court decisions. This **AFTER** the SCOTUS allowing SSCM in an additional 11 States.



Should have delayed the decision to accept or reject.



>>>>
 
this should have been taken up by the SCOTUS. it is their job to ensure equal protection under the law.
 
Ockham said:
I see it as a compromise.
Click to expand...

I am sure at least one conservative justice on SCOTUS must have seen it the same way, but if there is no circuit court split then it is only a matter of time before the federal government effectively legalizes same sex marriage nationwide without a SCOTUS ruling. Hm...that makes me wonder if the SCOTUS justices are already aware of how the 6th circuit will rule.
 
WorldWatcher said:
IMHO of course - I disagree.


What they should have done is deferred accepting or rejecting the writ until the pending cases in the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts are issued. (9th not being relevant as we all know they will rule against the ban.) Those cases have already be "tried", appeals submitted, and oral arguments complete - and both the 5th and 6th could issue their rulings at any time.

If they ruled to deny the ban - no problem, deny the writs and we are at the same point we are not.

If they ruled to uphold the ban - now we have a problem as there is a split in the Circuit Court decisions. This **AFTER** the SCOTUS allowing SSCM in an additional 11 States.



Should have delayed the decision to accept or reject.



>>>>
Click to expand...

This decision only makes logical sense in two scenarios...

1. SCOTUS is highly likely to legalize same sex marriage nationwide anyways and so it kicked the ball down the road so it would not become a huge election issue.

2. SCOTUS is trying to force a circuit split before it takes up the case.
 
Sherman123 said:
Err... but the ruling upholds the Federal courts decisions and rejects the states efforts to seek remedy for those decisions. That is the opposite of what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
There was no ruling. They didn't uphold or reject anything. They simply refused to consider the issue because there was no issue to resolve given no split.
 
iacardsfan said:
There is no precedent for a SCOTUS ruling. There is not circuit conflict as of yet, which is generally why they would take up a case like this. In the case that circuit conflict arises, it would be shocking to see them not take it up.
Click to expand...

The conflict is when the SCOTUS refused to consider Baker v Nelson, essentially ruling that marriage a state issue not a federal one. The SCOTUS cant say that there is no constitutional issue with a same sex marriage ban and also say that it violates the constitution.
 
Taylor said:
There was no ruling. They didn't uphold or reject anything. They simply refused to consider the issue because there was no issue to resolve given no split.
Click to expand...

Semantics. The decision not to take the appeal has a practical effect and had a conscious object behind it.
 
Ockham said:
I see it as a compromise.
Click to expand...

There can be no compromise, either sexual orientation is a protected class or it isnt. This affects a lot more than just gay marriage.
 
Helix said:
this should have been taken up by the SCOTUS. it is their job to ensure equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
Why bother having lower courts if you're going to question their findings where there is no conflict?
 
Sherman123 said:
Semantics. The decision not to take the appeal has a practical effect and had a conscious object behind it.
Click to expand...
Not at all semantics. The action today did not affirm or reject anything. That will come later, if at all.
 
Taylor said:
Why bother having lower courts if you're going to question their findings where there is no conflict?
Click to expand...

what? the SCOTUS can't decide every single case in the US. but it can, should, and must rule when an entire protected class of people are being denied a fundamental right in some states.
 
Crovax said:
The conflict is when the SCOTUS refused to consider Baker v Nelson, essentially ruling that marriage a state issue not a federal one. The SCOTUS cant say that there is no constitutional issue with a same sex marriage ban and also say that it violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions". It did not rule that marriage was a state issue. That is an odd argument to try make given the federal government ruled in Loving versus Virginia against state interracial marriage bans and the federal government declared marriage a "fundamental right" which seems a pretty clear example of the federal government treating marriage as a federal issue. There has also been several subsequent developments which have voided Baker, including the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling which struck down sodomy laws, United States versus Windsor decision which struck down sections of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the legalization of same sex marriage in about a dozen states. There is now quite a compelling set of "federal questions" which SCOTUS will have to consider.
 
Helix said:
what? the SCOTUS can't decide every single case in the US. but it can, should, and must rule when an entire protected class of people are being denied a fundamental right in some states.
Click to expand...
That is the job of the court system, not the SCOTUS. This is not an oligarchy.
 
CriticalThought said:
This decision only makes logical sense in two scenarios...

1. SCOTUS is highly likely to legalize same sex marriage nationwide anyways and so it kicked the ball down the road so it would not become a huge election issue.

2. SCOTUS is trying to force a circuit split before it takes up the case.
Click to expand...



RE #2

Which is why I don't understand why they didn't defer the accept/reject appeals from the 5-states until they find out what the rulings of the 5th and 6th are. Delaying the ruling for 30-60 days would maintain the current status quo pending those decisions. Then decide.

Denying cert now, means SSCM will be able to start in more states taking it up to 30 (+DC). If the 5th or 6th (or both) generate a new case with a split then it will be even harder for the SCOTUS to issue a ruling against Marriage Equality.



>>>>
 
Ockham said:
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg



The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....
Click to expand...

A couple problems with your post. First, your first sentence should contain the word "now". The Supreme Court will not now, at this time, take up the issue. They very well may at another time when there is a split in circuit courts. Secondly, as others have pointed out, this does not leave things up to the states. In fact, circuit courts that have ruled have been clear that federal law(in this case the constitution) trumps state law. And "near future" should probably be changed to "in the next year". Looking any further out and it gets very uncertain.

Nothing has been left up to the states, and this is not a "compromise" as you suggest later in the thread. While I think most SSM advocates would have liked to see a ruling from SCOTUS(I know I would like to get it done and over with), this still is nothing short of a significant gain for SSM, with a large number of states now, by the court not taking action, going to be compelled to allow SSM, with about 60 % of the country living where SSM is legal.
 
Crovax said:
The conflict is when the SCOTUS refused to consider Baker v Nelson, essentially ruling that marriage a state issue not a federal one. The SCOTUS cant say that there is no constitutional issue with a same sex marriage ban and also say that it violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

The justices acknowledged that there was no precedent set by not taking that case.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Denying cert now, means SSCM will be able to start in more states taking it up to 30 (+DC). If the 5th or 6th (or both) generate a new case with a split then it will be even harder for the SCOTUS to issue a ruling against Marriage Equality.



>>>>
Click to expand...
Yes, to reverse these decisions a year from now, thereby invalidating scores of same sex marriages, seems very unlikely (though not impossible).
 
I would have preferred that the Supreme Court take up the case. In an odd way, this is a blessing for the anti-marriage equality crowd because now, Marriage equality will only be the law (for now) in 30 of the 50 states, delaying the inevitable. It does, allow the right-wing the opportunity to try to stack the Supreme Court with some more activist judges to implement their right-wing social agenda including defeating marriage equality....which is exactly why the next Presidential election is extremely important in order to protect the Constitution.
 
I would have preferred the Supreme Court take up the court cases as well. We'd have marriage in 50 states much quicker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom