Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court puts Utah marriage equality on hold for now (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for this (0+ / 0-)

    This commenter in particular is helpful:

    I believe that the SCOTUS probably granted a stay in the interest of "The Greater Good". Don't get me wrong, I think it was incorrect to allow the stay to be granted. However, we are talking semantics here. Our side of the argument just got a big, if not the biggest win we could have hoped for getting marriage equality in one of the most conservative, Mormon-dominated states in the country. The point of a stay is to prevent the actions of a lower court going into effect before the losing party has a chance to appeal. Similar to Prop 8, or Windsor v Perry, there is plenty of reason to believe that a SCOTUS, who most also think about popular opinion, would not slow this case down. It knows it will likely be appealed to its Court in the near future as the lack to grant a stay from the 10th Circuit is highly indicative to me of a favorable outcome for us in next round. Not knowing fully the reason for granting the stay, it is safe to assume that the SCOTUS wants to appear as though it is being even handed towards conservative groups in addressing this issue. The only real claim the power the Judicial Branch has is the respect and prestige it holds. It is only by tradition that losing parties go on to accept the decision of the SCOTUS as valid. They must keep this in mind when deciding a case that will likely have implications that affect the entire country this go-around.

    Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

    by Phoenix Woman on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:32:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I just don't get this part here: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA

      "The only real claim the power of the Judicial Branch has is the respect and prestige it holds."

      Huh?

      "It is only by tradition that losing parties go on to accept the decision of the SCOTUS as valid"

      Huh?

      What about the constitution?

      •  The courts don't have much power ... (0+ / 0-)

        to compel parties to accept their decisions.  They can use contempt, but that's a cumbersome vehicle, and it's hard to apply in certain cases.

        For example, if Harry Truman had decided to thumb his nose at the Supreme Court's ruling that he had unlawfully seized those steel mills, I'm not sure what the Court would have done to force him to give them back.  Presidents have ignored Supreme Court orders in the past (as Lincoln famously did during the Civil War), and there wasn't much the Supreme Court could do about it.

        So in the end, the Court's power comes down to the respect it commands among the American people and among those in the political branches of government.  If the latter ever decided to tell the courts to piss off, we'd have a real constitutional crisis, because the courts have few means to enforce their decisions.  They could send the U.S. Marshals to arrest the president, but I wouldn't count on that succeeding.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:04:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site