The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[unofan]

Thomas could flip. My (extremely superficial) understanding of his opinions is that "state's rights" does not conjure good associations for the man. I think he may fall in with the phobes on the pure question of whether to be nice to gays or not, but then flip on the procedural question of whether a right recognized in one state means Arkansas has to put down the fire hoses and whips.

I won't say that's an impossibility, but you'd get pretty big odds on that if you took it to Vegas. He's voted with Scalia on all major gay rights cases, don't see that stopping now.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I knew I could count on your for a good bit of exaggeration and hyperbole today and you're delivering.

I'm going to be nice to you today, Bob, because I know this is tough for you. It's not every day that Simon Legree sits down to orange juice and toast, opens the paper, and sees this.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I won't say that's an impossibility, but you'd get pretty big odds on that if you took it to Vegas. He's voted with Scalia on all major gay rights cases, don't see that stopping now.

See, there you go being factual and ruining my theories.

 

[unofan]

I absolutely defer to your judgment on this. I suspect our relative knowledge on con law is around a 1:20 ratio.

The really interesting question that may never be answered is why the first round of cases weren't granted cert in August. It only takes four votes to hear a case, so presumably the conservative wing could've gotten them there at that point. Either some of them played the odds that the ruling would go the other way and denied cert strategically, or they don't have four votes at all.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

He's having a conversation with Kepler. Seriously, you should just take him off ignore if you're going to obsess over when he's posting in the same thread as you. Most of his posts are in conversation with someone else that you really just look foolish.

Actually not usually. If once in awhile a post right after mine happens to be to Kepler, I'm pretty sure that's not the typical case. But, hey, keep badgering me if you want. This badgering of yours was pretty quick, though not quite six minutes.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'm going to be nice to you today, Bob, because I know this is tough for you. It's not every day that Simon Legree sits down to orange juice and toast, opens the paper, and sees this.

Not a hard day really. It's been in the cards for quite a few years now, as I've noted a number of times in recent years. Really it's surprising that the Supreme Court dodged the issue as long as they have. They could have saved a lot of yammering in recent years if they would have acted more quickly. Not a hard day, but still a bit sad to see what our nation is becoming, not that many people can grasp such things anymore. Thankfully the peace and joy I find in life isn't fundamentally based on any Court ruling or government policy, as apparently many people think theirs are.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Saw a good article that referenced someone calling this case the "Roe v. Wade" of our time. Good analogy in many ways.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Yeah, but there's job security in knowing what The Current Thing is and knowing that it'll continue for a while.

I don't think any of the nine SCOTUS justices are worried about job security...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Saw an interesting article about how Ginsburg and Kagan should recuse themselves, as they both have recently officiated at gay marriage ceremonies, calling into obvious question whether they can rule on this case in an unbiased way. I can just imagine the uproar we'd hear if conservative justices had compromised themselves so obviously.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Saw a good article that referenced someone calling this case the "Roe v. Wade" of our time. Good analogy in many ways.

Other than your opposition, in what ways?

This isn't Roe. It's either Brown or Loving, depending on whether your emphasis is on civil rights or equal protection. And this will not be continuously re-litigated like Roe has been. Once you stop demonizing people it's hard to start up again. Heck, we're even still accepting of the Irish.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Saw an interesting article about how Ginsburg and Kagan should recuse themselves, as they both have recently officiated at gay marriage ceremonies, calling into obvious question whether they can rule on this case in an unbiased way. I can just imagine the uproar we'd hear if conservative justices had compromised themselves so obviously.

You don't follow Scalia very closely, do you? There's one or two cases every term where he doesn't recuse himself despite obvious conflict of interest. Thomas has had them, too. Try again.

I assumed you were going to say Kagan because AHHHHHH OBVS DYKE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

To me it's fascinating that The Next Thing isn't obvious. Religion, ethnicity, women and minorities were all really obvious. Gays were obvious during the latter stages of those other fights (once you have Three's Company, it's obvious). But here we are near or at the end of gay discrimination, and I at least don't even really know who the nominees are for The Next Thing. AI is a long way away. Animal rights seems to be its own separate track. So who do we still give the shaft, legally?

The gays are the last... wait for it... low-hanging fruit.

I wanted to negrep you for that terrible pun, but alas, I must spread rep.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

They could have saved a lot of yammering in recent years if they would have acted more quickly. Not a hard day, but still a bit sad to see what our nation is becoming, not that many people can grasp such things anymore.

We agree on saving the yammering, but this Court doesn't exactly lead from in front.

Oddly, despite being fully appreciative of the disaster of what our nation is becoming (hyper-commercial, selfish, militarist, ever more inane), on this issue I'm joyful. An arbitrary, hurtful stigma, born of superstition and fed by cynical electioneering, could be about to end. This is a good day for equal protection under the law. We are on the verge of being just a little less like the Taliban.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Other than your opposition, in what ways?

This isn't Roe. It's either Brown or Loving, depending on whether your emphasis is on civil rights or equal protection. And this will not be continuously re-litigated like Roe has been. Once you stop demonizing people it's hard to start up again. Heck, we're even still accepting of the Irish.

I'm pretty sure that the comparison was made, not based on whether it would be relitigated, but on the shoddy reasoning and lack of factual basis. Again, one of those we just see fundamentally different.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

We agree on saving the yammering, but this Court doesn't exactly lead from in front.

Oddly, despite being fully appreciative of such things as what our nation is becoming, on this issue I'm joyful. An arbitrary, hurtful stigma, born of superstition and fed by cynical electioneering, could be about to end. This is a good day for equal protection under the law. We are on the verge of being just a little less like the Taliban.

Now there's some of your classic sloganeering. Funny how even your Justice Kennedy, who will likely help put you over the top, recognized it's quite a thing for nine people to change something that's been unquestioned for millennia.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

1. Unsure of how I'd go on this, but I lean heavily towards no. I could see it going either way in the court*.
2. No

* But I think Kepler's right in that Roberts probably wants to write and probably wants to be on the right side of history.

 

[unofan]

Now there's some of your classic sloganeering. Funny how even your Justice Kennedy, who will likely help put you over the top, recognized it's quite a thing for nine people to change something that's been unquestioned for millennia.

And as the Notorious RBG noted, marriage has hardly been unchanged that entire time. I think most women and people of color would note it has changed dramatically over time.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

You don't follow Scalia very closely, do you? There's one or two cases every term where he doesn't recuse himself despite obvious conflict of interest. Thomas has had them, too. Try again.

I assumed you were going to say Kagan because AHHHHHH OBVS DYKE!!!!!!!!!!!

Your dislike of conservative justices hardly compares to the obvious conflict of interest Ginsburg and Kagan have. But, hey, a little more undermining of the Court's credibility is ok, as long as they rule the way you want them to. If you can show me something as obviously conflicting regarding conservative justices, I'd say the same thing. But, I'm pretty we'd be hearing about it regularly around here if it existed, with all the acrimony directed toward conservative justices around here.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I'm pretty sure that the comparison was made, not based on whether it would be relitigated, but on the shoddy reasoning and lack of factual basis. Again, one of those we just see fundamentally different.

We don't disagree on Roe. It's infamous for how terrible the reasoning was, and that in large part has been why it continues to haunt the Court. From what I have been told (uno I'm sure can explain it better), Roe should have been decided on equal protection rather than privacy. The decision was bungled, and that has kept alive the myriads ways in which women's rights have been clawed away, instead of it being accepted as settled law.

IWe can't know whether Obergefell will have a similar problem because the decision hasn't been written yet, so it sounds like your article is a case of wishful thinking by an opponent of gay marriage, not an actual assessment of the legal arguments.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Oh, and three minutes this time, cutting it in half.