(Tom Toles via GoComics.com)
Maureen Dowd, in the NYTImes, on “Courting Cowardice“:
…Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy grumbled about “uncharted waters,” and the fuddy-duddies seemed to be looking for excuses not to make a sweeping ruling. Their questions reflected a unanimous craven impulse: How do we get out of this? This court is plenty bold imposing bad decisions on the country, like anointing W. president or allowing unlimited money to flow covertly into campaigns. But given a chance to make a bold decision putting them on the right, and popular, side of history, they squirm…
Donald Verrilli Jr., the U.S. solicitor general arguing on the side of same-sex marriage, told the justices, “There is a cost to waiting.” He recalled that the argument by opponents of interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 was to delay because “the social science is still uncertain about how biracial children will fare in this world.”
The wisdom of the Warren court is reflected two miles away, where a biracial child is faring pretty well in his second term in the Oval Office…
Apart from seeking justice, what’s on the agenda for the day?
Baud
This image via reddit is also nice.
http://i.imgur.com/HMTWe0y.jpg
Schlemizel
Funny, I see little JR as the swing vote on this issue.
He is smart enough to know that a vote against equality will put his name clearly on the wrong side of history and that is important to him as he showed on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
But, if he does vote on the side of justice those people will make trouble for him and point out its him being weak because he has an openly gay relative.
The poor little guy is in over his head
Baud
I’m not a big Dowd fan, but she is spot on with this.
@Schlemizel:
Pity the Chief. It’s not easy when your legal training and your conservative ideology pull you in opposite directions.
Linda Featheringill
Maureen is right this time. The court seems afraid. I wonder if any of the right wing group will meditate on the question of whether loyalty to the Conservative Cause is consistent with observing the constitution?
@Baud:
Nice image! :-)
raven
Tree work that begins our addition project. We still have to go through the historic preservation process so we can’t break ground until late April.
arguingwithsignposts
Here’s a weird one for you. New York Times article by Adam Liptak. The headline on the story reads: “Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case.” But the browser window reads: “Supreme Court Struggles With Gay Marriage Case – NYTimes.com” The print edition mirrors the one on the story. The browser window header is actually a more neutral headline.
SFAW
First up on my agenda: Praying to FSM that Scalia goes full-bore nutzoid, and is dragged away by the men in white jackets.
Of course, there are a few flaws in my “brilliant” plan:
1) Given his current (and past, as well, I guess) behavior and “arguments,” how could anyone tell that Scalia has gone ’round the bend NOW, unless he pulls a Jack Warden. Even then …
2) It’s Passover, and the First Question would be invoked. Not correctly, of course, but legitimacy of argument never bothered the Rethugs in the past.
3) He’d still be on the Court, and he’d never get impeached. Well, not while there are still enough wingnuts/teabaggers in Congress.
After his little stunt about same-sex-parents-harming-the-children, I half-expect him to find the Strict Constitutionalist basis for “labor” camps for gays, and for him to start muttering “Voegel raus!”
undand “Arbeit machtfreigerade” or some such.The guy is a fucking menace to the American ideal – or at least, what the ideal used to be.
WereBear
This is simply what happens after decades of Mammon worship and “winning is the only thing!” and shrugging off sociopathic behavior as “boys will be boys.”
It’s not that we have more damaged, deranged, and soulless people that any other society (perhaps.) It’s that we allow them to get their slimy hands on the levers of power because our side is busy listening to such firebagger cowardice as “Power Corrupts, don’t have any!” and “This is not pure enough for me, burn the place down.”
So we have someone like Scalia as an emblem of our Highest Legal and Moral Arbiter.
I don’t care if Congress wouldn’t let us impeach. We should ASK FOR IT ANYWAY.
SFAW
And in answer to Nino’s idiotic “when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?”
1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, asshole.
Your soulmate (in a manly-man way, of course) Henry Billings Brown did his best to repeal the 14th.
Anti-Constitutional Judicial Activism, it’s what’s for Rethug dinner, baby.
chopper
@SFAW:
gotta say, ted olsen had an immediate answer to nino’s rhetorical question, which was ‘well when did it become unconstitutional to exclude interracial couples from marriage?’.
Scott S.
@chopper: Of course, one gets the impression that Scalia would kinda like to get rid of that, too…
SFAW
@chopper:
Yeah, to which the Greatest Legal Mind of This or Any Time in American History responded by telling him not to answer a question with a question.
SFAW
@Scott S.:
Nino’s laundry list of decisions to be overthrown:
Griswold
Loving
Brown
plus a raft of others.
Linda Featheringill
Rant of the morning:
Why do medical specialists cost so much? As it happens, I’m fine and it’s also true that I can now afford all those copayments, etc. But six months ago I could not have afforded to even go see the doc. Even with rather good insurance.
But then we all know that poor people don’t have physical problems or any legitimate need to see a specialist. I guess I forgot that.
JPL
I’m still trying to figure out why Scalia brought up Strom during the debate.
Lurking Canadian
@WereBear: Did you really just, in the same post, blame the presence of Scalia on the court on “firebaggers” AND recommend a futile attempt to impeach him because trying was the right thing to do? You know, the kind of thing firebaggers are always saying?
kindness
I am uncomfortable using Maureen Dowd as my own weather vane but she was OK there. Just don’t pull a Sully and start using Megan McDowell please.
WereBear
@Lurking Canadian: Har! Good point. But firebaggers are not what put Scalia on the court; they don’t do much but cause despair, really.
Politicians risk when they ask for things they cannot have; they dilute their power that way.
However, We the People only have the power to ask. We MUST demand things; how else do they hear our voice?
I guess my point is that it is not a useless gesture for people to get fed up with poor representation and demand better. The fact that Congress isn’t working the way it should is not something that should be accepted.
SFAW
@JPL:
I think it was in response to the idea that if procreation is the main reason for marriage (which was one of the key arguments made by Cooper), then why shouldn’t marriage of couples beyond child-bearing years (and infertile couples, as well) be prohibited?
I imagine Nino pointed out that Studly Strom sired a kid when he was 67. Of course, his wife was just a bit younger, so it’s an apples-and-
horncorn-dogs comparison.JPL
@SFAW: That position would promote old, rich, white men marrying but not older females.
What wasn’t brought up is whether or not Strom had to use the little blue pill to get it up.
the Conster
If Maureen Dowd stayed away from writing about Democratic presidents, fully revealing her Mean Girl With Daddy Issues, I’d like her a lot better. That line about Martha and George Washington not being able to marry under Cooper’s Rules for Marriage since they only procreated a country is full of win.
Todd
If we’re into definitions, I’d say they split the baby and find Prop 8 to be constitutional while smacking DOMA as violating the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Don’t get me wrong – as a family lawyer, I’d love to see nationwide gay marriage because of all the straight marriages that would break up as a direct result, but there’s a real likelihood that a rational judge could hang up on the very definition of marriage.
Todd
@SFAW:
It is rather a shame that they didn’t get into a sanctity argument, where Olson could have remarked on the sanctity of Newt Gingrich’s 3 marriages, or the sanctity of Rush Limbaugh’s 4 marriages.
debbie
@SFAW:
When Scalia mused over whether same-sex marriage might be harmful to children, where was Olsen? He should have come right back with the fact that countless children have been harmed in heterosexual marriages. That would have squashed that argument immediately.
Schlemizel
@kindness:
Yeah, I think MoDo wins the “Blind Squirrel” award for finally finding an acorn. But she is still just a blind squirrel so I would not count on her ability to turn up many of these beauties.
Randy P
@SFAW:
I guess an opinion with “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn” scrawled all over it in crayon might work.
I’m not getting the Jack Warden reference though. Google tells me he was in 12 Angry Men. Was there a meltdown scene I don’t remember?
Is it my imagination or has this week’s Supreme Court discussions on BJ brought out unusually high troll activity? Even the perpetual T & H seems to have switched into a higher gear, like it’s mating season or something.
amk
so dowd finally has her epiphany moment ?
Sly
Talk about overgeneralizing…
Kennedy is timid on the question of whether or not homosexuals qualify as a quasi-suspect class:
That’s it. Pope Antonin isn’t at all timid about homosexuals being a quasi-suspect, because he doesn’t think quasi-suspect class is a useful tool for examining equal protection cases. And he’s not timid about them being a full-blown suspect class, because he’s an irredeemable bigot.
The question of standing is an important one, and shouldn’t be dismissed merely because it leads to a less than favorable outcome for proponents of marriage equality and thus seems like an “out” for the “fuddy-duddies” on the court. For one, it is not an ideal scenario for anyone; the lower court ruling would be upheld and banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional, but only in the 9th Circuit.
Second, and more importantly, is Sotomayor a fuddy-duddy? Is Kagan? Is Ginsberg? Those three were the most skeptical of the petitioner’s argument to grant standing… are we then to determine that the same Justices who made the most definitive statements about homosexuals being a suspect class want an “out?”
Dowd can’t even be right about something when she’s right about it.
Chris
@WereBear:
Quoted for truth.
Feudalism Now!
Umm the climax of 12 Angry Men is a meltdown. The facts don’t matter, he’s guilty dagnabit! It is the same Colonel Jessup moment with ” you’re damn right Iordered the Code Red!”
Scalia just needs to have a coronary event at some point. He too shall pass. Thomas is the one to watch. He is a dogma only type of guy. Same with Alito. Kennedy is a coward, looking for any lifeline not to make any decision. Roberts knows what’s right, but is too unsure of himself to follow the Constitution. They will punt, no decision on Prop 8 citing lack of standing. DOMA will get punted to the congress.
Chris
@Feudalism Now!:
Has anyone ever seen a wingnut do this in real life? Those I can think of are far too given to mewling and equivocating for me to picture them actually honestly having that kind of meltdown that the guy in 12 Angry Men had. Or maybe I’m just not good at getting under people’s skin.
Also, I find the number of people who go “amen!” at Colonel Jessup’s speech at the end to be a revealing case study of how there’s no such thing as a crime that can’t be forgiven by a fuckton of people if the criminal only wraps himself in the stars and stripes and screams that he’s being victimized by unpatriotic liberals.
jibeaux
The thing is, although I’m not denying that this is not a court given towards bold social justice moves, there’s really a good legal justification for punting the prop 8 case. If the appellants (Cooper et al) are not harmed by SSM and they aren’t the lawful representatives of the state of California, then they just don’t have standing. They are basically a small group of people who did not like a district court decision, so they intervened to defend it when the state wouldn’t. And their answers in oral argument were unsatisfactory on that point — there wasn’t a single identifiable instance I saw that they pointed to as their “harm”. I just don’t see their standing to bring the appeal.
Omnes Omnibus
@Sly: I think the petitioners do lack standing. A decision based on standing would kick everything back to the district court opinion but it would leave that decision in place. There would be some messiness as CA sorts out the details. It is, I think, the most correct decision procedurally and it would effectively put a stake in the heart of Prop. 8. All in all, not a bad result.
Older_Wiser
@JPL: He’s waiting for Mrs. Scalia to die (no divorce for those Catholics) so he can pull a Strom Thurmond himself with a 20-something and add to his baseball team.
geg6
@JPL:
Because the old goat procreated well into his seventies with his 22 yo wife, so because he did that, everyone in their mid-life and late life can do the same.
Pretty glaring problem with that. The question was about couples in which each party is over 50. Nino is too stupid to know about a little thing called menopause. So Justice Kagan had to school him.
Viva BrisVegas
@Randy P:
It’s from “And Justice for All” an Al Pacino movie from 1979 about incompetence and corruption in the Chicago legal system.
If I remember correctly, Jack Warden played a suicidal judge who preferred to use a gun for a gavel.
He was one of the more sympathetic characters.
cmorenc
I actually think a punt by SCOTUS on marriage equality in the Prop 8 case is a win. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are of course, near-certain votes to refuse to recognize any rights of “marriage equality”. However, not just Roberts and Kennedy, but IMHO you might be disappointed that a couple more from the more progressive wing of the court are sympathetic to the pro-equality cause, but fearful of creating new territory too quickly in an issue of dynamically churning, changing public sentiment, in light of how Roe v Wade worked out in terms of political dynamics. In the segregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board, the court may have had little choice but to plow forward, but the same sort of powerful political backlash over the next forty years followed as with Roe v Wade. (The tide toward reproductive rights appeared just as inexorably moving in a progressive direction in the early 70s as marriage equality appears today, and look what happened).
They may regard the DOMA case as firmer ground to stake a beachead on which a future more full recongition of a federal constitutional right to marriage equality may be built over the coming years. They can more safely rule that it’s a discriminatory violation of equal protection and traditional areas of state’s rights to determine such matters to discriminate against states permitting marriage equality. The next step after that could be a case where SCOTUS holds that though states may constitutionally refuse to allow valid same-sex marriages to be created within those states, they may not refuse to recognize same-sex marriages validly created in other states, on full faith and credit grounds. That would as effectively fatally undermine legal opposition to same-sex marriage as an outright federal holding on the fundamental right itself, and be much better insulated against effective backlash. True, it wouldn’t be quite as satisfying, but in the long run it would likely lead to a much more secure right, and in the end, the sort of full, secure recognition the marriage equality movement seeks.
Omnes Omnibus
@cmorenc: The only thing you said that I would disagree with is the idea that a decision on standing is a punt by the Court. Otherwise, I think you are right on the money.
mai naem
Dowd’s piece on Cheney a couple of weeks ago was brilliant. If the USSC chickens out of this decision, shame on them. I just don’t see how you can’t make gay marriage legal nationally with consistent standards. Otherwise, it’s a huge mess. Jeezus, you could get a gay couple child custody situation where one parent takes off with a child, to a state where gay marriage is illegal. Or one parent try to get out of child support by moving out of state. Or one of the couple take off with property of the other. There’s just a million situations.
greennotGreen
@Omnes Omnibus: But who would ever have standing? Who can ever prove that they’ve been harmed by SSM in general? (In a particular marriage, I can understand. I was harmed by my heterosexual marriage, but I don’t think that’s a reason to outlaw it for everyone.)
low-tech cyclist
Just want to say that Tom Toles is fuckin’ brilliant.
What’s really impressive is that he’s been fuckin’ brilliant for decades. Few people can be that good at anything for that long, but he’s been one of the best (I’d say THE best) editorial cartoonist in America for eons now.
Omnes Omnibus
@mai naem:
I agree with you about the need to make gay marriage legal across the country, but the idea of a party needing standing to bring a case is important. Basically, one has to be affected by something to have grounds to sue over it. The people who filed the appeal in this case simply don’t like the law.
Also, don’t be too sure that, if the Court were to reach the merits of the case, it would go as we would like. This is pretty conservative (and Catholic) Court. A decision on standing might produce the happiest result that we could get from this bunch.
Omnes Omnibus
@greennotGreen: The state had standing because it was a state law being challenged. The state declined to appeal. Since no one is harmed by gay marriage, no one else would have had standing to appeal.
mai naem
@Omnes Omnibus: If it’s a standing issue, I’m assuming you just wait till you get the right situation and it goes back within a couple of years.
I haven’t seen any comments by people who were in the court about how Thomas was acting when they were talking about Loving as related to this case. Did he have any reaction being that he he’s married to a white woman?
piratedan
@WereBear: this is what happens when a generation of folks use the movie events from Wall Street as a primer instead of as a life lesson.
SFAW
@Todd:
or the “sanctity” of Limbaugh’s 48
rentboyschildren for whom he’s providing financial support in the Dominican.Schlemizel
Kim Jong-Un Comes Out In Support Of Gay Marriage:
‘I’m Not A Monster’
http://www.theonion.com/articles/kim-jongun-comes-out-in-support-of-gay-marriage-im,31821/
piratedan
@Viva BrisVegas: ty Viva, Warden’s 12 Angry Men character was the one who went along with the flow in the jury room because he was more concerned with making a ballgame than in seeing justice served and if changing sides got him out faster it was expedient for him to do so with nary a blink. He had the “superficial American who’s more concerned with sports than anything else” thing down cold.
SFAW
@debbie:
or he could have said there is no peer-reviewed data backing up Nino’s “hypothesis.
I don’t know, I had heard that Olson was a great litigator (or whatever the right term is), but I was underwhelmed by what I heard.
On the other hand, I did not hear the entire argument/discussion, nor am I a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
SFAW
@Randy P:
Jack Warden – “And Justice For All”
Although, in fairness, he was not as nuts as Nino.
Hmm … “not as nuts as Nino” … it’s got the right rhythm, it’s alliterative, potentially catchy. Now, if I could only figure out how to apply it …
“Justice Kennedy may be vain and weak-willed, but he’s not as nuts as Nino”
“Scalito’s legal reasoning is pretty bad, but he’s not as nuts ass Nino”
Yeah, it might catch on.
greennotGreen
Because I’ve made it before, I know nobody cares about this argument, but this is the internet, and therefore I’m going to make it again anyway.
Male/female is not always so clear-cut. There are people who are genetically male and phenotypically female and vice versa. There are shades in between. In addition to trans people who aren’t born with a gen/phen mismatch, some of the people who are choose to make a transition to match their phenotype to genotype; some do not. If marriage is only between a man and a woman, will they have to have a doctor’s statement to say who they can marry? Why are their genitals – or anyone’s genitals – the state’s business?
greennotGreen
@SFAW:
Plus, it’s got a good acronym: NANAN
I like it.
artem1s
the more I hear, the more I’m thinking Roberts will find a way to punt this back to the lower courts. He’s shown he is concerned about his legacy and while he knows if he rules against DOMA he’s going to be cast as this century’s Blackmun. And if he is forced to write a defense of DOMA he’s only going to end up sounding like Taney. It’s a no win for JR. So back to the states it goes.
SFAW
@greennotGreen:
Plus, also, too, it’s a palindrome.
Like “Bolton.”
Bubblegum Tate
Checking one of my wingnut barometers, I see that he’s resigned to defeat on this issue. Naturally, this leads him to pledge spite and bitchiness for years to come (emphasis mine):
I also see that he talks about “The Ruling Class” the same way other kooks talk about the Illuminati, which is just a fun bit of craziness.
SFAW
@Bubblegum Tate:
Well, that’s not industrial-strength wingnuttery, but it’s close.
Darwin can’t work his magic on these assholes fast enough.
(Of course, the argument could be made that the very existence of so many wingnuts refutes Natural Selection.)
rumpole
The quote’s from Huckabee at Kos’s front page. This is case in point about why I can’t stand the reasoning of the modern religious right. Uh, has anyone ever seen a thermostat work without a thermometer inside it? That’s like saying that judges just call balls and strikes.
RoonieRoo
I had an “I love my family” moment this morning. I logged onto the evil that is facebook (best way to keep in touch with my family so I suffer) and found that pretty much ALL of my family had changed their profile pics or posted clear statements of supporting marriage equality. It actually made me cry a bit seeing that my entire family (old, young, very old, left, right, center) is completely awesome and we are ALL on the same page on this one.
And as much as it affected me, I can’t imagine how it has felt for my cousin and her wife to see literally the entire family make this statement loud and clear.
Cassidy
Has pedobear stopped by to tell us how none of this matters because OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH! and CIA CONSPIRACIES! and other such nonsense?
SFAW
@Cassidy:
Pre-trolling a troll. Nice.
Cacti
@rumpole:
Now compare that to what Thomas Jefferson had to say in 1816:
Mike Huckabilly’s mindset is pre-19th century.
Cassidy
So, I figure this is as good a place as any to provide a Combat Sports update and how it relates to some liberal positions.
1) GSP, the superstar Canadian MMA and UFC Welterweight Champion always walks out in a gi as tribute ot his Karate beginnings. The latest one had a big Rising Sun symbol on it. A Korean MMA wrote polite open letter to GSP and Hayabusa (maker of the gi) asking them if they were aware what that symbol means to the various Asian people. As is expected, most Westerners do not and GSP promptly apologized for any offense as it wasn’t intended and hayabusa said they would not be marketing or selling the walkout gi. I thought that was pretty cool. No excuses. Just short apologies and what they’re doing to fix it.
2) Fallon Fox, the transgender woman fighter, has been licensed to fight in Florida and is taking part in a regional promotions Featherweight Tournament. It’s still unknown if her opponents will accept the fight.
3) There’s a really cool video of a young man with Downs Syndrome fighting an MMA fight. Short story is that he always wanted to be athletic and accepted and started training MMA with his Dad when the father was trying to get into shape. At some point he apparently grasped and has fought a couple of bouts, but the opponents wouldn’t hit him. They finally found an opponent who said he would fight him and gave him a good fight. I’m not convinced he went 100%, but the guy was on top of the world that he got to be a real fighter. His parents described him as somewhat of a bigot towards other people with disabilities. Since then he’s an Instructr at American Top Team, the gym he trains out of, and one of his students is Downs. So definitely some positive changes.
Cassidy
@SFAW: Just gettin’ everyone’s mind right.
Mnemosyne
@greennotGreen:
I don’t think you would ever be able to find anyone who would have standing to block gay people from being married. But there will be a lot of gay couples who would have standing to sue when they get married in a state that permits it and then move to a state that refuses to recognize the marriage. That’s probably where court cases go next, as gay couples demand equal protection under the law.
SFAW
@Cacti:
Actually, it’s probably pre-Runnymede, but who am I to split hairs?
Omnes Omnibus
@Mnemosyne: The DOMA case stems from a woman who married her longtime partner in Canada and then when her wife died had to pay estate tax – something that would not have happened if her marriage were recognized. It is a federal equal protection issue* rather than a state full faith and credit issue, but these are the next set of things that will be litigated.
*Caveat: There are a number of other things that come into play as well.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
There are. The standing issue is significantly more complex than in the Prop 8 case.
Not that that can or should stop folks who aren’t lawyers from spouting facile conclusions, of course.
SFAW
@eemom:
Thanks, I was getting worried I’d have to shut up.
Cassidy
At BJ? No. Say it ain’t so.
PeakVT
@SFAW: Pre-Runnymede would also be pre-Reformation, so not likely.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: The standing issues in this one make me dizzy. At bottom though, it is either an equal protection or states rights case. If they get to the merits, I think they should shitcan DOMA on EP grounds, but that is my preference not my analysis talking.
Jay C
@Bubblegum Tate:
So: leaving aside the “sue churches out of existence” thing: (RLY? Who? Where?) the wingnuts’ Cunning Plan to get around the striking down of a discriminatory law is to “chip away” with even more discriminatory laws?? Sheer genius!
Are these ideas generated by lawyers looking to protect their future income stream (by creating endless appeal processes for and/or against BS wingnut-hobbyhorse laws??)??
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay C:
I need to get in on this racket.
SFAW
@PeakVT:
Well, he may be a Baptist, but his mindset is definitely pre-Reformation.
I’m kind of amazed that he hasn’t mounted a “What’s all this bullshit about the Earth moving around the Sun?” movement.
Even invoking Great A’Tuin would show more sense on his part.
SFAW
@Omnes Omnibus:
I’m sort of disappointed in you.
Not for wanting to get in on the action – hey, who wouldn’t enjoy separating the right-wing rubes from their hard-
earnedmooched money? – but rather that it took you so long to come to that conclusion.Omnes Omnibus
@SFAW: I have an innate sense of decency that I need to overcome on occasion. It is a burden.
SFAW
@Omnes Omnibus:
You’ll never succeed in Wingnut World unless you do.
Omnes Omnibus
@SFAW: But I need to look at myself in a mirror in order to shave.
Quaker in a Basement
Justice and Liberty are such tramps. Anybody can have ’em.
SFAW
@Omnes Omnibus:
Moi aussi, mon ami.
One might wonder how so few of the wingnuts have Osama-bin-Laden-length beards. But then again, that would require self-awareness on their part.
patroclus
I guess I’m late to this discussion, but my view is that Edie Windsor has an excellent case but the USSC doesn’t seem to be too interested in resolving it because of the standing issue – the House (and only the House) is defending the case and there therefore seems to be ample grounds for them to avoid making a sweeping Loving v. Virginia kind of ruling and instead punting the issue back to the 2nd Circuit. Which, like the Perry case, would probably be an okay result for the litigants but not so much for the rest of us. For those of us, like me, who were really hoping for a sweeping ruling, this is a disappointment.
I went back and read Loving last night and that was as sweeping as a USSC opinion could be – broadly ruling that marriage was a fundamental right which could not be denied and heavily focusing on the issue of timing and how justice delayed is justice denied for so many. What should happen is that Ms. Windsor should get her benefits and the thousands and thousands of federal benefits that are available to married couples should be made available to gay couples immediately. DOMA should be struck down as inimical to equal protection of the laws and full faith and credit should mean full faith and credit.
But the Justices seem to be at pains to pretend that this case (and the Perry case) are not Loving and that incremental slow-walking is the best that one can hope for. So, instead of the full loaf, we might, if we’re lucky, get a slice of bread or two. That’s good because we’re hungry for our civil rights, but it isn’t satiating.
johnny aquitard
@greennotGreen:
Well now. No one can. Because no one can be. And that right there is a little fly in the fundiegelical ointment, isn’t it?
The harm they suffer is having their jeebus fee-fees offended. That’s pretty much what the oral argument boiled down to, from what I’ve read.
In fact, that’s pretty much the reason why fundiegelicals do all the mean, bigoted and assholish things they do to other people.
Because when jeebus has a sad, that makes them mad, which makes it ok to do whatever it takes to make it stop.
JWL
Coming as it does on her epic takedown of the the Monster Cheney, it appears Dowd has either stopped drinking or began.
Darkrose
@patroclus: I thought the standing issue was with Prop 8. There’s no question, AFAIK, about whether or not Congress has standing to defend a challenge to a law that Congress passed.
SCOTUSBlog, who knows all, thinks that DOMA will go down as a states’ rights issue. Honestly, for that one, I think the important thing is that it goes down hard.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@greennotGreen:
@Omnes Omnibus: But who would ever have standing? Who can ever prove that they’ve been harmed by SSM in general?
No doubt some wingnut will come forth stating that he’d been converted from gay to straight and had a wonderful marriage – but that gay marriage has meant he can’t stop thinking about men’s winkies again…
eemom
@Darkrose:
As Omnes said above, the standing issues in the DOMA case are dizzying. And they are, in fact, real issues to people who take things like federal court jurisdiction seriously.
Tehanu
@WereBear:
Impeachment is too good for Scalia. I vote for tarring and feathering, followed by getting him drawn and quartered and then having the pieces arrested.
TAPX486
If the 1954 Warren court had worried about ‘unanticipated consequences in an uncertain future’ Justice Thomas would still be riding the back of the bus on his way to pick cotton!