USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
When CJ dissents, how does the majority decide who writes the majority decision?
When CJ dissents, how does the majority decide who writes the majority decision?
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Next up is the hotel registry case. Sotomeyer writes for a 5-4 court declaring a rule requiring them to turn over their registries to cops on demand is unconstitutional. It was an ideological split, with Kennedy joining the liberals
Next up is the hotel registry case. Sotomeyer writes for a 5-4 court declaring a rule requiring them to turn over their registries to cops on demand is unconstitutional. It was an ideological split, with Kennedy joining the liberals
unofan
Well-known member
Most senior judge in the majority assigns it. Same with dissents.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Last up is a takings clause case involving raisins. Roberts writes for the court in a 5-4 split at least in part, this time with the conservatives winning. Can't tell whether parts were 8-1 or not.
Government must compensate owners of personal property just as it does real property.
Last up is a takings clause case involving raisins. Roberts writes for the court in a 5-4 split at least in part, this time with the conservatives winning. Can't tell whether parts were 8-1 or not.
Government must compensate owners of personal property just as it does real property.
unofan
Well-known member
So it appears it was 8-1 at that point, but then the liberals broke off and did not join the last part dealing with what damages, if any, are present. Sotomeyer dissented in full, the other three only in part.
unofan
Well-known member
Waiting to hear if there will be more this week - I would expect yes with 7 to go, especially the five big ones still out there.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
So we can presume the following based on what's left: Kennedy is writing the fair housing act case, Scalia has the clean air act case, and between RBG, Roberts, and Kennedy, two of them will cover the ACA and AZ redistricting cases.
I would presume Kennedy is writing the gay marriage case, too, but that's based on his history writing the major gay rights cases and not on the current year's stats.
So we can presume the following based on what's left: Kennedy is writing the fair housing act case, Scalia has the clean air act case, and between RBG, Roberts, and Kennedy, two of them will cover the ACA and AZ redistricting cases.
I would presume Kennedy is writing the gay marriage case, too, but that's based on his history writing the major gay rights cases and not on the current year's stats.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Thanks again for giving these insights; they're great.
Is there any chance the gay marriage decision will be "clean" -- i.e., establish gay marriage as a right in all 50 states, period? Or will we still be looking at a few more years and a few more cases until all the obstacles are finally gone?
Thanks again for giving these insights; they're great.
Is there any chance the gay marriage decision will be "clean" -- i.e., establish gay marriage as a right in all 50 states, period? Or will we still be looking at a few more years and a few more cases until all the obstacles are finally gone?
Kepler
You and I will disagree. States have the right to restrict who can and cannot get married in their state. They must also recognize a legal marriage from the other several states.
There is no doubt in my mind that same sex marriage is here to stay. But I would prefer to have the ratification done legislatively or via the ballot box rather than by judicial decree.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
It's a states rights issue, 14th Amendment be dammmed? What happened to the good old miscegenation laws?
It's a states rights issue, 14th Amendment be dammmed? What happened to the good old miscegenation laws?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
So if a state bans interracial marriage you're cool with that?
So if a state bans interracial marriage you're cool with that?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
As the other two posters said, on civil rights the 14th supersedes the states, so it comes down to whether this is a civil right. In my opinion, gay marriage is about to "graduate" to a civil right. I would think the case would wind up being explicitly decided on the 14th.
As the other two posters said, on civil rights the 14th supersedes the states, so it comes down to whether this is a civil right. In my opinion, gay marriage is about to "graduate" to a civil right. I would think the case would wind up being explicitly decided on the 14th.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
People always seem to forget about that pesky precedent and what it means to this case. I don't know how they forget, but they always do.
People always seem to forget about that pesky precedent and what it means to this case. I don't know how they forget, but they always do.
unofan
Well-known member
Considering that the official issue in the case is along the lines of "Does the 14th Amendment require states to license same sex marriages?" - yes, we will get a clean answer in that one. It only gets murky if the answer is "no."
Now some states have already had the derps set in motion things to counter a "yes" ruling. One set proposes to limit marriage to the religious by stripping powers from judges and other secular officials, something which would instantly fail a 1st Amendment challenge.
Others have threatened to pull their state out of the marriage business altogether, otherwise known as the "taking their ball and going home" defense. That might be legal though it would have a flurry of challenges since marriage is recognized as a fundamental right. I also don't believe the political will to actually go through with that exists. Are you really gonna tell millions of people they can't get married out of spite towards the gays?
- Status