Skip to main content

This will be very quick because it is just now showing up at SCOTUSblog.com (which is liveblogging the day's conference).

Certiorari has been granted (meaning the Supreme Court will hear the case) on the Prop 8 question as well as on the Windsor challenge to DOMA.

I'll be able to follow this and update for a while; then I have to have lunch and go to the doctor (at neither of which will I have web access).

With respect to Prop 8:

Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop.. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.
With respect to Windsor
In Windsor, the government petition (12-307) is the one granted. In addition to the petition question -- whether Sec. 3 of DOMA violates equal protection under 5th Amendment, there are two other questions: does the fact that government agreed with the 2d CA decision deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and whether BLAG (House GOP leaders) has Art. III standing in this case.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is this is good news? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    Given the current composition of the court

  •  Here's a handy reference (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamar, bythesea, apimomfan2

    to the confusing plethora of marriage equality cases wending their way towards SCOTUS.

    Lamda Legal:  What you need to know about the DOMA cases

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:33:25 PM PST

    •  I think the interests of WEALTHY gays (0+ / 0-)

      is actually a fairly promising way to test the law.

      Windsor v. United States

      This is a case brought by the ACLU representing a widow who had to pay more than $300,000 in federal estate taxes that she would not have had to pay had her marriage to another woman been treated the same way as the federal government deals with a marriage between a man and a woman. The federal District Court for the Southern District of New York held Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional without reaching whether or not courts should apply heightened scrutiny to laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. The ACLU has asked the Supreme Court to hear that case without waiting for a decision from the Second Circuit, to which it has been appealed. The case was argued to the Second Circuit on September 27. The Solicitor General’s office has asked the Supreme Court to hear this case if the Court does not take the Gill, Golinski, or Pedersen cases.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:37:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for the link -- very helpful. I thought (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp

      I was familiar with the cases but now realize I know only a little bit about a couple of them.

      We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

      by Tamar on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:38:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Once more according to SCOTUSblog.com (3+ / 0-)
    The arguments very likely will be March 25-27, and a decision is very likely around June 27.
    I presume this applies both to the Prop 8 case and to Windsor.
  •  Decison possibly June 27... (4+ / 0-)

    3 days before Pride marches in NYC and SF. Choose wisely SCOTUS.

    Disappointed they took Prop 8. :-/

    I expected at least one DOMA case. Kinda glad it's the lovely Edie Windsor. She'll make an awesome media star. (She already is.)

  •  I would not expect anything good out of SCOTUS (2+ / 0-)

    The only reason ACA was upheld was that Obama threatened to run against the court and so undermine its respect and credibility, and Chief Justice Roberts realized this would seriously harm his legacy. But Roberts is unlikely to cave on his catholicconservative principles again.

    Pray that one of the conservative 5 drops dead before this case is decided.

    •  I'm not entirely sure that's true (0+ / 0-)

      The LGBT cases will also be legacy-defining issues, I think. I don't think CJ Roberts wants to find himself in the position of J Potter, enshrining bigotry into the law and then regretting it as history passes him by. And I think he's far too smart to ignore the trend lines.

      I think DOMA will fall 7-2, with even J. Thomas siding with the good guys. It's a fairly blatant encroachment by the federal government into traditional state territory.  (This would, cynically, preclude federal legislative action to expand same-sex marriages.)

      The Prop 8 case is much harder to call, because it rests partly on how the justices will see the initiative process in general, and how they balance populist vs legislative vs executive powers. Also, too, is the fate of Washington -- a decision to uphold 9CA cements the recent gains in Washington. A decision to restrict Prop 8 to CA leaves Washington vulnerable to additional challenges.

      And if the conservative wing of the court is wearing their "I Like Mitt" hat, they may want to limit additional discussion on LGBT issues since they are certain to see the anti-equality side wind up losing more and more as time wears on. So they may want to cut that off at the knees and eliminate the social rhetoric, now that the maximum gains by the GOP have been realized. It's all downhill from here. In fact, if the anti-equality side is to get any more traction out of this issue at all, it will be via blowback from the usual suspects in the event of a pro-LGBT decision.

      So I expect that come June we will see a net win for the pro-equality side, but I'm not yet sure whether it will be a minimalist win or a more widespread win.

      ad astra per alia porci

      by harrije on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 07:22:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site