Skip to main content

With Obama's re-election, several states legalizing the freedom to marry by popular vote, and public opinion, Justice Kennedy's favorable LGBT leanings will definitely be pushed for a big leap towards sanity.

All the lower court opinions have been striking down DOMA. Justice Kennedy sided with liberals on most LGBT issues. He has the slightest bit of sanity on social issues at least. That is why conservatives do not trust him. That is also why conservatives have not yet tried to overturn Roe vs Wade in the courts. They do NOT trust Kennedy, who has always maintained the slightest upholding of Roe even while chipping at its sides.

America dodged a HUGE bullet on election day. The Supreme Court's rightward drift has hit a huge thud. President Obama's re-election, his filling of the remaining vacancies with sane judges in the new senate, and grassroots organizing of leftward pressure for public opinion, and progressive government building from the bottom up (local governments/councils and state governments/legislatures) should eventually pave the way for a liberal supreme court aided by another two-term Democratic President after Obama.

The conservative supreme court justices will not retire under Obama. They will not give in right way. However, the ground has shifted such that the court will flip in the long-term, provided that the left is vigilant, aggressive, and persistant. That is how the right got so powerful.

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

  •  the fact that 4 states voted in favor of marriage (13+ / 0-)

    equality in the recent election has to be a strong signal to the Court how the nation is heading.  3 states' voters voted in favor of marriage equality and 1 state's voters voted not to approve a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.  

    Will this become the modern day "Dred Scott Court"?  

    The Court typically does not prefer to take a position that appears to be contrary to the direction the nation is heading.  We will know in the coming months or year.

    •  Interesting point. (6+ / 0-)

      Theoretically, at least, supreme court justices aren't swayed by public opinion, at all. They are supposed to make decisions from the judicial ivory tower, above the legislative fray. They have lifetime appointments for this reason. In practice, I believe you're absolutely correct--legal precedent aside--the more realistic justices know which way the "wind" in society blows, and they factor that in to their decisions.

      It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

      by karmsy on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:21:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who Said This? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Throw The Bums Out, codairem, akze29

        Was it Mr. Dooley who said "Th' Supreme Court follows the illiction results"?

        Roberts and Kennedy know that their job is to keep the plutocrats in power. Anything that diminishes their ability to do that will be discarded as a necessary sacrifice. And there is an easy "strict constructionist" way to go about this: simply say that the Constitution and practice over 225 years have left the issue of marriage to the states, and the federal government is bound to respect the actions of the states which have legalized marriage.

        That's all they'll do on this suit. The question of whether states must recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states under the "full faith and credit" clause will be left to another day.

      •  The key words here are "supposed to" (0+ / 0-)

        It is akin to someone saying "in theory".

        You don't have to look back very far to see an instance of the court being persuaded by non-judicial thinking, it just happened when Roberts came to his senses and let the politics surrounding the ACA change his decision.

        Roberts name is associated with this court.  After Citizens United, had he gone done the path with the other righties on the court he would have forever been tarnished as the court that took away health care from the American people.

        There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the recent election victories will weigh on the minds of the justices in making these decisions.

  •  Excellent background on same sex (7+ / 0-)

    marriage cases pending at the SCOTUS.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:09:59 AM PST

  •  The F'n conservatives sre fighting a loosing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sreeizzle2012, raincrow, Tam in CA


    Its inevitable folks will live with, and marry whomever they wish, however many they want and whenever.

    Also, these dammed cons will not stop health care law from advancing. If the so called small businesses are whining, then they should support public option at least. They cant have it both ways - no public option AND no implementation of the ACA. That is NOT tenable

  •  SCOTUS will overturn DOMA on (7+ / 0-)

    10th Amendment grounds.  They will let state bans on same sex marriage stand, but couples will be eligible for Federal benefits.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:21:13 AM PST

  •  Legal ? and political note (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If DOMA is overturned, isn't the next step having lawsuits filed that legal gay marriages have federal status (for taxes and immigration), although likely that would be announced by the administration right away (leading to lawsuits challenging that).
    And then, isn't the precedent that if someone has a legal marriage in one state, other states need to recognize them (Love vs Virginia), even if those states don't issue licences?
    I'd like a lawyer to speak about this, but this seems logical.

    Then the political side - the best thing for the Repubs is for this issue to be settled, since it is an albatross for them. But shortterm, if this does lead quickly to legal gay marriage, it will bolster the secessionist (very minor) movement, or at least some states saying they will totally fight any acceptance, and if forced, still try to defy.

    The rightwingers on the court (somewhat less Kennedy) are very politically) astute. I could see Roberts, maybe even Alito thinking about this. A 7-2 vote overturning DOMA would have a much more dramatic effect than 5-4.

    •  Not a lawyer but I follow this issue closely (7+ / 0-)

      Overturning DOMA would be done most likely on the basis that it affirmatively does something impermissible (recognizing some but not other state-sanctioned marriages/infringing on the right of states to determine who they will permit to marry and who they will not permit to marry).

      Overturning DOMA would mean that any state-sanctioned marriage would have to be recognized for federal purposes. No further lawsuit would be necessary as that is precisely the point of the current group of suits: to require that legal sex-marriages be recognized by the federal government when it comes to providing benefits and rights.

      All of the current suits address Section 3 of DOMA, the purpose of which was to give the federal government to ignore same-sex marriages legally permitted by states. Section 2, which has NOT been challenged, provides the states with cover for not recognizing marriages performed in other states. There is already a legal basis for that to happen anyway, regardless of the type of marriage involved. The basis is (approximately) that while states will generally recognize  marriages performed elsewhere they are not required to do so if it would offend some important public policy. Such exceptions are rare at the moment but given that we are soon to reach a point where over 20% of Americans will be living in states where marriage equality prevails, the legal implications, it will undoubtedly be necessary at some point to litigate the issue separately. There is a difference between what DOMA allows, which is for states to say, in effect, we won't recognize your marriage because we don't feel like doing so. From this point going forward (assuming that Section 3 of DOMA is overturned), I presume that states would be required to give more compelling reasons for not recognizing a particular class of marriages legally performed in other states.

      There has been some thought given to the idea that, were the Supreme Court to take on the California Prop 8 case and rule in favor of the plaintiffs, the case would become the equivalent of the Loving vs Virginia case which struck down all state laws regarding interracial marriages. I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would be willing to go that far. By not hearing the Prop 8 case, Prop 8 will be struck down in a way that affects California exclusively.

  •  If DOMA were struck down... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and a same sex couple got married in New York, presumably they would be able to enjoy all the Federal rights that go along with marriage. What would happen if that couple then moved to a state that didn't recognize SSM? Would they no longer be married in the eyes of the Feds or would it only be their new state that considers them unmarried. Would there be any difference if a same sex couple residing in a state that does not recognize SSM traveled to a SSM state to get married then returned to their state of residence? Because if they remain married in the eyes of the Feds, that goes a long way in making it worth marrying for couples even in states with a SSM ban.

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:46:04 PM PST

  •  Kennedy does use public opinion sometimes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In the case of (don't know the name of the case) a few years ago where Louisiana was going to execute a child rapist (2nd time raping someone), Kennedy said that was unconstitutional and part of his argument against it was that there were only like 3 states that did that.

    So in his mind, there was majority of states that didn't agree with it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site