It’s December 7th that the 9 justices meet in conference, not November, PN. Let’s hope it turns out to be the day when DOMA and Prop. 8 will live in infamy on such an auspicious date in American history, the bombing of Pearl Harbour which heralded America’s entry into WW2. DOMA and Prop. 8 MUST go.
I don’t think you can read anything into this. The decision on which cases to take is pretty complicated from a variety of angles. There are several different cases on DOMA, and as I understand it, they could choose to consider any of these, or even bundle some or all of them up into a single case. They could also choose to rewrite the questions they are to answer. Presumably, they will also be trying to second-guess each other (for example, the liberal judges would prefer not to take the case if they think the others will all vote to uphold the law).
I wouldn’t be surprised if Scalia is trying to stall this. His 2003 dissent in Lawrence v. Texas is coming back to bite him. In his own paranoia, he actually demonstrated why theoretical marriage equality would later have to be upheld.
These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
It’s December 7th that the 9 justices meet in conference, not November, PN. Let’s hope it turns out to be the day when DOMA and Prop. 8 will live in infamy on such an auspicious date in American history, the bombing of Pearl Harbour which heralded America’s entry into WW2. DOMA and Prop. 8 MUST go.
Not good sign, I think. Judges are disunited, atmosphere nervous… Final decision about Prop. 8 will be postpone until June.
I don’t think you can read anything into this. The decision on which cases to take is pretty complicated from a variety of angles. There are several different cases on DOMA, and as I understand it, they could choose to consider any of these, or even bundle some or all of them up into a single case. They could also choose to rewrite the questions they are to answer. Presumably, they will also be trying to second-guess each other (for example, the liberal judges would prefer not to take the case if they think the others will all vote to uphold the law).
I wouldn’t be surprised if Scalia is trying to stall this. His 2003 dissent in Lawrence v. Texas is coming back to bite him. In his own paranoia, he actually demonstrated why theoretical marriage equality would later have to be upheld.
Good stand! Good luck!