IntenseDebate

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 0 replies · +5 points

I see Feldman also headed off the "this only applies to the actual plaintiffs" issue quite smoothly.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · +3 points

If necessary, a new lawsuit could be filed specifically relating to the current denial of (now) constitutionally required benefits and services, and an end around the hold-up.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · +10 points

Robert's dissent was pretty much unhinged. In the contexts of some of his other rulings, claiming that the Supreme Court has no right to make unpopular rulings, and in the context of his own status as an adoptive parent, stating that marriage only exists to keep biological parents together, he might as well have been frothing at the mouth.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · +14 points

Anyone else note that while the dissenters are very vivid in their outrage, they're all exceptionally light on anything resembling legal analysis?

They're really clear THAT they don't like the ruling. Far less so on legal reasoning why.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · +7 points

He also - as the parent of adopted children - all but states that the only purpose of marriage is raising the kids that a man and a woman produce together.

What the hell was he smoking?

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Supreme Court to relea... · 0 replies · +1 points

They'll try to pull something, no doubt - that attempt to selectively defund issuing licenses to any same-sex couples, for example. But it's incredibly unlikely that it will fly in federal court once SCOTUS declares a 14th Amendment right to equal treatment.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Supreme Court to relea... · 0 replies · +1 points

It would in part depend on the nature of the ruling on Q1. If the ruling clearly states that under the 14th Amendment, states cannot single out same-sex couples and/or LGBT citizens for disparate treatment, and must apply the same laws, procedures, benefits and responsibilities to all, then a state could not get away with singling out gay couples for needing to remarry in the state to get recognition without requiring that of straight couples as well.

Since the Court specifically framed this as a 14th Amendment case, it's hard to imagine a ruling that says the requirement to treat all citizens equally mandates marriage but still allows non-recognition of only same-sex marriage.

It might allow a state to refuse to recognize ANY out of state marriages, but any state administration or legislature that applies that to straight people is one that isn't going to last long. If nothing else, the backlash by major industries would make the backlash about LGBT inequality look like a candle next to a nuclear explosion.

It's vaguely possible that the Court could write some sort of sloppy opinion that left that loophole open, but it's nearly inconceivable that any analysis in our favor would do so.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Supreme Court to relea... · 0 replies · +2 points

I want to see how (and if) Scalia weasels his way out of the hard line he took in his Lawrence dissent. He stated flatly that if the Lawrence decision stood, there was no remaining justification for withholding marriage equality.

I don't for an instant believe he'll hesitate to ignore his own statement, but it will be interesting to see if he even tries to justify his own reversal on the matter.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Supreme Court to relea... · 6 replies · +2 points

I'd think so, even if they simply said that it was moot as a paragraph in the main opinion. Seems unlikely they'd specifically include the question in the scope of the case and then not address it.

But if any of the Justices feel that, for example, the Constitution does not require marriage equality, but it does require equal recognition of out of state marriages, they might "Concur in part and dissent in part" and end up specifically addressing the two questions separately.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Supreme Court to relea... · 0 replies · +5 points

May his dissent in Obergefell lay the groundwork for the next round of litigation, too. If the majority doesn't rule for heightened scrutiny, I hope Scalia pouts that there's no remaining justification for denying it.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Lymis

People I'm following

Lymis