December 3, 2012

"Again, no gay marriage orders."

"The Supreme Court on Monday released additional orders from its Friday Conference, but the list did not include any action on the ten cases dealing with the same-sex marriage issue. It now appears that those cases will be rescheduled for the Conference this Friday morning."

10 cases. They've got to resolve this, no?

13 comments:

Tim said...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

edutcher said...

No.

It's a state purview.

Leave it there.

EDH said...

"Again, no gay marriage orders."

Waitress: You want me to hold the gay marriage, huh?

Bobby: I want you to hold it between your knees.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's a state purview. Leave it there."

Since there are lower court cases already taking it out of the state's purview, Supreme Court review would be needed to return it there. Thus, you should have said "yes," not "no."

Richard Dolan said...

"10 cases. They've got to resolve this, no?"

Sounds like there is some dissension on that point, since there would have been no need to relist if the petitions already had the four votes to grant certiorari. Perhaps there were procedural issues about some of the cases that one or more of the justices wanted to explore before they dispose of the ten petitions.

As for the idea that "It's a state purview. Leave it there," that will be one of the issues that the SCOTUS will have to decide, since the cases raise a federal Equal Protection claim.

edutcher said...

I was speaking of the original intent of the founders, but point taken, Madame.

Matthew Sablan said...

They don't have to resolve it, but it would be nice if they would.

Sam L. said...

Let it ride.

sunsong said...

If they don't take it - does the 9th Circuit hold?

n.n said...

If we normalize homosexual behavior, then we must also normalize other consensual behaviors. There must be objective standards or they cease to be meaningful. A selective standard is unproductive and needlessly discriminatory.

mccullough said...

They definitely have to take the DOMA case because a number of courts have struck down a federal law.

The California case is a bit different because the federal court of appeals decision was on the narrow ground that once California allowed gay marriage they couldn't take it back. So it's specific to California.

Granted, California is the largest state, and the gay marriage ban was passed by a plebiscite to overturn the California Supreme Court's decision, but if the Court denied cert. it would leave California and the 10 other states with gay marriage. That might be better than getting invovled in the culture wars.

Baron Zemo said...

My dear lady I know it is hard to believe but it is not all about the gays all the time.

There is plenty of time for it to mature. The conservatives don't want to do it because they might lose and the liberals don't want to do it because they figure to get more justices as Obama's term continues.

So it is a waiting game.

Bender said...

Maybe someone can explain here, but it is my understanding that the Friday conference is 100 percent confidential -- completely secret as to not only what is said, but what is even on the agenda.

So how is it that it is reported that the Court will take up this case or that on any given conference day?