BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[ArcadiaGP]

SCOTUS will not hear SSM cases from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

So they've decided not to resolve gay marriage cases -- for now. This is basically a win for gay marriage supporters.

With SCOTUS declining to accept cert in SSM cases out of the 4th, 7th, 10th Circuits, SSM will shortly become lawful in majority of states.

 

[KittySlayer]

With SCOTUS declining to accept cert in SSM cases out of the 4th, 7th, 10th Circuits, SSM will shortly become lawful in majority of states.

I was kind of figuring that SCOTUS would not take up the case. Since the Supremes look a lot to precedence and the actual written law and constitution I think they may have had a hard time arguing that according to the law that SSM should be legal. So by punting and not taking the case they let the states and circuits continue to slide along the slippery slope until its too late for SCOTUS to overrule the circuits and make SSM illegal on a national basis. Basically they have approved SSM by not taking up the case and making a decision.

 

[HoughMade]

There's nothing quite like legislating new "rights" with a few people in robes rather than having to mess with a pesky thing like convincing the voting citizens, or even the legislature.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Denny347]

 

[avboiler11]

Good.

Any conservative-minded individual that desires a small, less intrusive government should hail any legal decision that reduces governmental meddling in the affairs of its citizens.

 

[HoughMade]

Some conservative minded people do not prefer judges making new rights whether the rights at issue are to their personal liking or not. How is it "small government" when judges, unelected and holding their seat for life, can make new rights that have, historically, never been recognized? Recognizing new rights is properly a power to be exercised by the legislative process. If judges make rights, judges can take them away without legislative action.

We need to think beyond "I like the result" to "did the government act constitutionally or not". There was a time when conservatives rejected judicial activism. Now, as long as we like the result, we applaud it? So much for intellectual honesty.

 

[JTScribe]

Good.

Any conservative-minded individual that desires a small, less intrusive government should hail any legal decision that reduces governmental meddling in the affairs of its citizens.

Sure, but I doubt this decision will be used in such a way. It will be used to hammer churches that don't hew to the line. Period.

A conservative decision would have been to note there is no Federal authority to regulate marriage, and that it is to be remanded to the States and the People.

 

[HoughMade]

....A conservative decision would have been to note there is no Federal authority to regulate religion, and that it is to be remanded to the States and the People.

There you go. This.

 

[JTScribe]

There you go. This.

Brain fart, meant marriage and not religion. Point stands though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sure, but I doubt this decision will be used in such a way. It will be used to hammer churches that don't hew to the line. Period.

A conservative decision would have been to note there is no Federal authority to regulate marriage, and that it is to be remanded to the States and the People.

Logically speaking, if the people and the states no longer have a Constitutional right to define marriage in one particular way, they no longer have the right to define it in any imanginable way. It'll be interesting to watch for the various combinations and permutations of sentient beings to begin applying and what excuse the states can come up with in denying them their God given rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

To quote my grandfather, "it's all over, but the shouting".

SSM issue shows the importance of the culture. Valuable lessons indeed.

 

[HoughMade]

It was all over when courts found new constitutional rights in penumbras formed by emanations.

ETA...

Actually, it goes back one step further, but then takes a left turn.

Connecticut should never have had laws limiting access to birth control, but the legal response to that should never have been: "We're smart judges and we don't like this law. We'll find a Constitutional right here someone if we have to make it up." It should have been: "We're smart enough judges to know this is a state law issue and does not present a Constituional issue. The CT legislature may be overreaching, but if it is, go mount a campaign, convince people, and get the law changed."

What is it about a representative republic that SSM advocates refuse to go the legislative route except in a handful of cases? Could it be that support is not as widespread as claimed?

 

[CathyInBlue]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Anyone remember where this came from? I know I've heard it somewhere before.

 

[mrjarrell]

Same sex marriage is now legal in Indiana and marriages performed in other states will have to be recognised. It's a win for folks who believe in equality. Now to just sit back and listen to the gnashing of teeth from the usual opponents.

 

[HoughMade]

Same sex marriage is now legal in Indiana and marriages performed in other states will have to be recognised. It's a win for folks who believe in equality. Now to just sit back and listen to the gnashing of teeth from the usual opponents.

Regardless of the specific issue, is this how you think new rights should be recognized? Through judges without the people having any say?

 

[mrjarrell]

It wasn't a new Right. It was an existing Right that was being denied.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Regardless of the specific issue, is this how you think new rights should be recognized? Through judges without the people having any say?

From everything I have read/heard, the pro-SSM side doesn't view it as a "new" right, but rather as an existing right from which they have been excluded.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Oh Em Gee... I just said the same thing as mrjarrell...

 

[terrehautian]

I was hoping they would take it up and fast track it. If they found the same thing as previous court rulings, then the issue would be done legally in all states. It maybe that way now also.