Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage
The decision on whether to hear the case could be a hard call for both the court’s conservatives and liberals.
Usually, the justices are inclined to vote to hear a case if they disagree with the lower court ruling. The most conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — almost certainly think the 9th Circuit’s ruling was dubious. Scalia, for example, says the “equal protection” clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as “equal protection.”
If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case…
Still, the court’s liberals also may hesitate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though a leading women’s rights legal advocate, has said she thought the court made a mistake in the 1970s by moving too fast to declare a national right to abortion.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
You’re not “restricting” marriage. The union of a heterosexual couple is simply what marriage is. It’s like saying the government has restricted pregnancy to women and that it’s inconsistent with the 14th amendment. In neither case is the government restricting anything. It’s simply acknowledging what is.
Shump on November 26, 2012 at 9:21 AM
It simply is true. Sure not everyone in the GOP is thrilled with that idea either. But Bush came out in support of them while president. Long before Obama ‘evolved’. If you weren’t more interested in using the issue as a political wedge than accomplishing a goal, you could have utilized that.
MechanicalBill on November 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Actually, it’s not true and you’d know that if you followed the history of all this as well as what each of these amendments state along with what its proponents were pushing. Bush may have expressed support for civil unions, on a state level, but never did anything about them on the Federal level nor did he do anything about his own party which pushed efforts to ban them in most of the states which have adopted these amendments. As for Obama, he’s a tool and just like Romney would say or do anything if he believed it were politically advantageous to him.
I’m not certain whether to be more stunned or amused at the audacity of your statement here in light of how the GOP has exploited this for political purposes since at least 2004 – not to mention how gays in general have been one of their favorite boogeymen for most of my life.
JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Brilliant comparison.
The bottom line is that government can no more deem pervert unions ‘marriage’ than it can deem a dog’s tail to be a leg, to borrow from an old joke. ‘Civil unions’ were an attempt to meet them halfway, but that wasn’t good enough for the rainbow mafia.
MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2