Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Report: Supreme Court takes no action today on LGBT cases

DOMA trials

By Scottie Thomaston

Today’s order list, just released, is here. No word on the ten gay rights petitions.

The Supreme Court held its conference today and the ten gay rights petitions were on the list of cases they were considering taking up for full review. However, SCOTUSBlog’s Twitter account says no action was taken on the petitions today:

It is unclear why December 7 is the most likely day the Court will announce its decision on whether it will take up challenges to Prop 8 and Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a developing story and Prop 8 Trial Tracker will have more details soon.

Update 4:05ET

From SCOTUSBlog:

At this point, any prediction about where the same-sex marriage cases stand at the Court is subject to serious error. The Court does not explain inactions, so silence can mean many alternative possibilities. The Court, though, does tend to follow fairly fixed patterns of activity. The announcement of grants on Friday is usually linked to a desire to get enough cases put on the decision docket to fill the next openings in the argument calendar. As of this morning, the Court still had eight slots open for argument during the March session. By announcing grants this afternoon, the Court gave counsel a few more days to prepare briefing in the two newly granted cases.

132 Comments

  • 1. sab39  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/no-action-on-sa… has a bit more detail, but not much.

  • 2. Kathleen  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    I think the reason it's "more likely" for Dec. 7 is because they issued an order granting cert in some cases, but not these. Though the order Monday MIGHT have a cert grant, I think SCOTUSblog is suggesting it's more likely they've moved the cases off into another conference. We'll have to watch the dockets to see.

  • 3. Peter  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    This is just becoming ridiculous !

  • 4. devon  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    The Dec. 7 conference is the last one scheduled for 2012, according to a court calendar posted at scotusblog.
    These endless delays are taking a toll.

  • 5. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Dec 7th is the next conference. SCOTUSblog is speculating that they needed more time to decide what they're going to do. Unlike earlier delays, where they were likely waiting for additional filings, the likely explanation is that they couldn't reach an agreement before the end of the session. SCOTUSblog has a good point – there's a number of unusual factors that need to be considered at this stage.

    Still, sucks that there is yet another delay. Although we could find out on Monday that while they are still trying to figure out which DOMA case(s) to grant, they were able to decide to deny Prop 8. Unlikely, though.

  • 6. Eric  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    December 7th might just be a day that lives in bigot infamy.

  • 7. chad  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Justice delayed is justice denied!

  • 8. Phil  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Perhaps there are conversations about these cases going on between the justices behind the scenes? It is all speculation on my part what is going on behind the scenes, and i wonder -Ido they even meet together privately, one on one? For those who are SCOTUS watchers, I would love your thoughts on that. Best,

  • 9. RWG  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    They really are going to drag this out the very last moment possible. Never mind people's lives are hanging in the balance, and have been for years. Just take your sweet time. Nobody cares.

  • 10. chad  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    they've had PLENTY of time to decide what they want to do – over 3 months in fact. the additional filing contained nothing new or complex, just pro forma. they should have been looking at this since september. it's not really a difficult decision as to which cases they should take. a first year law student could figure this much out.

  • 11. Seth from Maryland  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    so could this be delayed an go into the next session?

  • 12. Karl Schneider  |  November 30, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    This is just about to cross the line into cruel and unusual punishment. Grrr.

  • 13. Guest  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    How long does the Court have to diddle around with these cases? Can they just sit on the prop 8 decision forever? Isn't there some point after which if they continue to decline making a decision that the lower court ruling goes into effect by default?

  • 14. Felix  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    I don't see what the hold up is all we want is to get married to the person we love. I swear all these delays makes me wanna move to new York where gay marriage is legal

  • 15. RepublicanLutz  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Yeah, I share your hunch. There could be something on the level of a denial of cert in the Arizona state employee benefits case on Monday's order list, but the more likely scenario is that all ten cases will be dealt with again at the December 7th conference.

  • 16. Anthony  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    I actually think there is a very high chance SCOTUS will deny the Prop 8 case on Monday, and this delay is to decide which DOMA cases to take.

  • 17. Tyler  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Dec 7 is more likely bc the court typically issues orders granting cert on the day they decide to grant and orders denying cert the following Monday. Since it's certain they'll grant in a DOMA case, it's far more likely that they've postponed deciding until Dec 7 rather than that they've denied cert in all these cases.

    I also have no idea what's taking them so long to decide. They really should know by now.

  • 18. Stefan  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    I'm not surprised by this since Monday was when they were going to release the decisions anyways.

  • 19. Anthony  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    I don't think they release denials of cert on Fridays, they only do so on Mondays.

  • 20. Stefan  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    They must make a decision by the end of January I believe.

  • 21. RepublicanLutz  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    If your last name is Kennedy, then time for me to run to the store and get some champagne. 😉

  • 22. RepublicanLutz  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    That is usually the case, yes. The long lists of cases where cert has been denied come out on Mondays.

  • 23. David  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Obviously the Judges are above caring about the people who are affected by these delays and are unconcerned about the lives of mere mortal citizens. Geez, what are they thinking and how can they continue to do this, it is heartless and cruel. They are proving the discrimination they are supposed to be protecting us from. Every day they delay causes our LBGT families harm and they could care less, shame on them.

  • 24. Anthony  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    And I'm hoping I wake up Monday here in Cali and I can get married again!

  • 25. RepublicanLutz  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    One thing I think could be going on here is that someone is writing a dissent from denial of certiorari. Pure speculation, but if the Court denies cert in the Prop 8 case, I can see Scalia wanting to do more than having his dissent noted on the order list.

  • 26. Anthony  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Yea, Scalia would bitch and moan about it, I could definitely see that.

  • 27. Dana Jeanne  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    They're taking so long because they're just as bigoted as the rest of the people who don't believe in same-sex marriage and they're not ethical or moral enough to stand up and vote for what should be legally granted to EVERYONE whether the Judges personally agree or not.

    They should vote on the "law" not on thier personal beliefs. It makes me ashamed to live in this country.

  • 28. Steven  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    At this point, any prediction about where the same-sex marriage cases stand at the Court is subject to serious error. The Court does not explain inactions, so silence can mean many alternative possibilities. The Court, though, does tend to follow fairly fixed patterns of activity. The announcement of grants on Friday is usually linked to a desire to get enough cases put on the decision docket to fill the next openings in the argument calendar. As of this morning, the Court still had eight slots open for argument during the March session. By announcing grants this afternoon, the Court gave counsel a few more days to prepare briefing in the two newly granted cases.

    Lawyers and other public Court-watchers knew that the same-sex marriage cases were being considered at this morning’s Conference, because that fact was listed on the public docket page for each case.

  • 29. Anthony  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    In addition, the fact that it took the court so long today to come up with an order list suggest there were some intense arguments today in SCOTUS about "the gays."

  • 30. RepublicanLutz  |  November 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Just one possibility out of many.

    One thing I do know is that I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the conference room these days. I would love to know how they are really approaching these matters. Some anonymous clerk might one day spill the beans as to what went on between chambers and during the opinion writing phase, but only the justices will fully know how the first stages of making the sausage transpired.

  • 31. Mackenzie  |  November 30, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    As was stated before, hearing nothing today in regards to Prop8 is a good thing. It means they have yet to take the case and could very well announce this on Monday when they deliver their list of denied cases. But really folks, this accusatory language is not warranted. I understand just how frustrating this can be. Some of you have been waiting a very long time for this to happen. But it is unfair to accuse the court of being prejudice or bigoted or punishingly slow in deciding these cases. The glory of the SCOTUS is that much of what they do is outside the public eye. They may have a very legitimate reason for not taking the DOMA cases today. I too am going crazy waiting, it will happen.

  • 32. Anthony  |  November 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    I agree with you. Let's have a nice weekend (for me it's going to be preparing for finals lol) and wait until Monday.

  • 33. Karl Schneider  |  November 30, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    I suppose so, but think about this…around 7000 people in the USA die every day. If the gay fraction of the population is only 5%, that's 350 who will never get equal rights…and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to conclude that many of that number wanted to avail themselves of marriage rights that are being kicked down the road by politicians, bureaucrats and lifetime appointees who don't really give much of a rat's ass about the victims. Bah.

  • 34. Bryce from DC and KS  |  November 30, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    You and me both Anthony. I have grading up to my eyeballs and some projects to do before I can head back to beautiful old Kansas

  • 35. truthspew  |  November 30, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    No kidding. At first I thought that perhaps they were waiting out the election. But now they're just dragging their feet on what I consider to be serious constitutional issues.

  • 36. MFargo  |  November 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Technically, they can sit on this for years (behold the bearer of bad news).

  • 37. MFargo  |  November 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Rick Warren was on Piers Morgan this week and made the statement regarding SSM "There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage…." Well, wherever he got his numbers (that ole 1:99…even Gallup thinks it's 3.4%), it's perhaps because we're a minority that we need the protection of the courts. We even need protection from those who seem to have a whole different way of counting demographics.

  • 38. lazerhaze  |  November 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    My judgement of the SCOTUS has been released.. I hereby declare that the SCOTUS is completely lazy, heartless and worthless and it's members have been judged lacking in intelligence, diligence, compassion and common sense!

    ALL SCOTUS justices are to be sentenced to a lifetime appointment to second class citizenship and they shall all be stripped of their government pensions and any other privileges given to SCOTUS Justices.

    If we had a REAL JUSTICE in America instead of this worthless, Justice system split into two.. ( Harsh penalties for the common folks and a free rides for the rich and powerful ) Maybe the rich and powerful would me afraid of the collective power of the people (as they should be) instead of being more concerned with keeping and maintaining their greedy hands on wealth and power. I'm looking at you Thomas and Scalia!

  • 39. MFargo  |  November 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Well, if the delay is because of Justice Scalia's dissent of denail of cert, I can wait.

  • 40. Amir  |  November 30, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    It's becoming painfully obvious to me that they DON'T want to grant gay rights and gay marriage to us…and are just trying to continue to push it back. Vile! absolutely vile.

  • 41. Kevin  |  November 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Part of me wonders if they are just playing mind games. Point blank…I think it's really cheap what they are doing, as though they haven't given this issue much consideration before. It's affecting millions of lives and they seem to be playing a round of tag with it.

  • 42. 2 Dads  |  November 30, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    This is either a really lazy court or really ignorant on our constitutional rights. Either way, this court is certainly not as understanding about the plight of LGBT as I was hopeful they would be..and this consistent delaying just reaffirms that

  • 43. Juan  |  November 30, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    There's really no justifiable reason now. First it was the election, then it was waiting for filing, then it was maybe overwhelmed with other cases…now it's just quite frankly silly. LGBT exist in this country. Constantly pushing us back to the back of the line will not change our innate desires to have our equality recognized. Especially in the Prop 8 case which the ruling should be easily laid out for you, considering the other side had a comical "defense" in trying to strip California LGBT of their equal access to civil marriage.

  • 44. Russ  |  November 30, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Get a grip. There could be all kinds of very good reasons why the Supremes are doing what they are doing with these cases. For all you know, the delay *might* signify something positive for our side. And there is a freaking truckload of other cases piled on their desks too, every one of which affects the lives of "mere mortal citizens" too. So quit throwing your mashed potatoes across the table already, sit up straight, and finish your dinner. Sometimes it's just not about you.

  • 45. RWG  |  November 30, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Most of the cases the high court hears involve matters of COMMERCE. Very few cases have such great bearing on the actual meaning of liberty in the Unites States as do these marriage cases. The lives of millions of people are effected. We've been patient enough with the straight world's bullshit delays and processes. Time to stop stalling and move on to the next step already.

  • 46. Doug  |  November 30, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    I thought the court usually issues denials on Mondays. So isn't their a good chance we could see the court issue a denial on Monday for the prop8 case?

  • 47. davep  |  November 30, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Yes. The angry comments about not hearing anything from the court today are misguided. Of course we are all tired of waiting, but if they are going to deny cert we would be hearing that on Monday, not today.

  • 48. Brian H  |  November 30, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Justice delayed is justice denied.

  • 49. Mike in Baltimore  |  November 30, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    I hate to beat the drum again, but maybe they are trying to decide if one or more parties to one or more of the suits has standing – specifically if BLAG has standing on the DOMA cases, and if anyone has standing in the Prop H8 case? And they don't want to decide on the Arizona case until they decide what to do with the Prop H8 case?

    If no one now has standing in one or more cases, when did that occur – before the Circuit Court decision(s)? Before the District Courts ruled? What exactly is the status of the case(s) if there is a party that has no standing? What if SCOTUS agrees with the Circuit Court rulings, but find they shouldnt have heard the cases, and they like the District Court decisions, but disagree on the grounds the decision was arrived at? Do they send the decision back down with instructions? To the District Court(s)? To the Circuit Courts? Do they accept and rule on other grounds?

    Maybe they are trying to decide if the Ninth Circuit was correct or not in allowing one of the parties to have standing? Maybe they don't think it did, but have disagreements with, and problems with, the District Court decision? Send the case back to the Ninth Circuit? Allow the District Court ruling to stand? Hear the case (which means accept the cert, even if they decide one or more parties don't have standing)?

    Maybe they want ALL cases dealing with marriage equality to be heard on the same date, but they don't know how many oral hearings that will be? It could be any number of cases between zero and ten, depending on the decisions on standing? Do they combine all the DOMA cases into one oral hearing? Do they accept one or more DOMA cases, and refuse to hear the rest? Which, if they accept only one DOMA case, do they select?

    If they accept the Arizona case, do they combine the oral arguments with those of Prop H8 (if they accept that case)? Keep it separate? Tell the Ninth to rule, then decide on whether to accept cert after the Ninth Circuit rules (a decision on accepting cert would be next term at the earliest)? How do you tell a state to 'shove it' in judicial language – remember, it is a state that is potentially being told to shove it, not an individual (not even a very rich individual).

    And to those who were so strongly saying that SCOTUS was waiting ONLY for the election so as to not 'disturb' the results, what say you now, since a decision on whether to grant cert or not has been postponed and postponed after the election? After all, if the ONLY reason for delay was to not disturb the election results, they would have scheduled conference on the first date after the election (which they didn't), and made a decision without rescheduling and rescheduling and rescheduling to dates after the election.

  • 50. Mike in Baltimore  |  November 30, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    "They're taking so long because they're just as bigoted as the rest of the people who don't believe in same-sex marriage and they're not ethical or moral enough to stand up and vote for what should be legally granted to EVERYONE whether the Judges personally agree or not."

    And you are basing that opinion on what empirical data? Please remember, opinion is NOT fact, until it is proven.

  • 51. Stefan  |  November 30, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    The decision has not been postponed yet it was always the understanding they would announce if they were taking it on Monday.

  • 52. R. Griffin  |  December 1, 2012 at 2:44 am

    Here is a commentary on these cases.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/history/

  • 53. Bill S.  |  December 1, 2012 at 5:27 am

    But if they granted cert in a DOMA case we would have heard about it today. And it is supposed to be virtually certain that they will grant cert in one of them. I'm still hoping for a denial in Perry to come on Monday and that the delay with the DOMA cases is wrapped up in them deciding which one to take or which ones to consolidate.

  • 54. Lymis  |  December 1, 2012 at 6:37 am

    Obviously, since in his Lawrence dissent, he said that there was no longer any valid Constitutional reason to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples, to be consistent and honorable, he'd want to hear the Prop 8 case so that the Court could resoundingly declare the fundamental right of marriage extends to same sex couples and that all anti-gay discrimination should be viewed under strict scrutiny.

    Oh look, pigs, flying in formation over the Capitol!

  • 55. Lymis  |  December 1, 2012 at 6:58 am

    This sort of accusation would be valid if, having had these cases reach them this year, they put them off until next year or beyond without taking action. Right now they are solidly within the time range of normal judicial process.

    It's frustrating – believe me, my rights are on hold and its costing us more than we can afford for our marriage not to be recognized – and I'll be happy to agree it's taking too long. But that doesn't translate into accusing the court of malice when they are moving at the normal speed for this kind of case.

    I think you can say that some of them not only could care less, but are actively opposed to us. But there's as much evidence that the delay is to get things right as it is that there is deliberate malice to continue to screw us over.

  • 56. Lymis  |  December 1, 2012 at 7:01 am

    At this point, a rush to judgment would be far more likely to be against us, in ways it could take generations to overcome. Sucks, but slow and deliberate is far more likely to work out for us than quick and snappy. A generation from now, that might not be true – but let's not push this out for another generation.

    A rush will get us another Bowers. Let's let them take the time they need for a Lawrence, or better yet, a Loving.

  • 57. Jamie  |  December 1, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Maybe they aren't granting cert in a DOMA case. You have no idea what they are or are not doing until Monday.

  • 58. Jamie  |  December 1, 2012 at 8:50 am

    For those people that are angry about the delay, I urge you to get off your computers and go protest on the steps of the courthouse. Well. Actually that's illegal, so the next closest spot.

  • 59. John_B_in_DC  |  December 1, 2012 at 10:39 am

    No, of course 2% (or whatever our true percentage is–I would put it at around 3-4%) can't do much on our own but he's conveniently overlooking that we got over 50% of the vote in several states in this election. So who were all those people who voted??? People like Rick Warren can complain about gay people "redefining" marriage but courts aside, it's our friends, our families, our neighbors, our co-workers, and all the other decent and fair-minded people who support our marriages who are making this "redefinition" possible. Our opponents may not acknowledge this but they know it, and that's why they're running scared: the tables have been turned and now THEY are the minority, and a rapidly shrinking one at that.

  • 60. John_B_in_DC  |  December 1, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Maybe they can't agree among themselves exactly which case to take?

  • 61. MFargo  |  December 1, 2012 at 10:52 am

    Here! Here!

  • 62. zauberflute  |  December 1, 2012 at 11:30 am

    I bet Scalia is defecating bricks right now. His only hope for a satisfactory outcome in these cases is that enough justices abstain from voting on action for/against cert in these cases. That could be what's taking them so long. They need 4 votes to grant cert, right?

    I bet they're playing a big game of Chicken right now.

  • 63. SHOES THROWER  |  December 1, 2012 at 11:33 am

    The Supreme Court could simply issue per curiam decisions in Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group v. Gill and Hollgnsworth v. Perry, vacating the lower court decisions without a full hearing and remanding to decide other legal issues that would have been dispositive in the case. The Court had done this before. See e.g. Wilson v. Corcoran, No. 10-91, op. at 6-7 (2010) (per curiam) (holding that "it was improper for the [Seventh Circuit] Court of Appeals to issue the writ of habeas corpus without first concluding that a violation of federal law had been established", while "express[ing] no view about the merits of the" case).

    In Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988), the Supreme Court identified only three levels of scrutiny in equal protection cases, Clark, 486 U.S. at 461. However, the First Circuit in Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) had invented a new level of scrutiny to strike down DOMA. See Massachusetts, 682 F.3d at 8, holding that a
    closer than usual review is warranted. This plainly defies Clark.

    In Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman , 433 U.S. 406, (1977),
    the Supreme Court held that "[t]he question of whether a rescission of
    previous Board action is, in and of itself, a violation of appellants’
    constitutional rights is inextricably bound up with the question of
    whether the Board was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took”, Brinkman, 433 U.S. at 414 the Supreme Court later reaffirmed that principle in Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education,
    458 U.S. 527 at 535 (1982) (rejecting the contention that, once a State
    chooses to do "more" than the Fourteenth Amendment requires, it may
    never recede.) See also Crawford, 113 Cal. App. 3d 633 at 652-654 (Cal. Ct. of App. 1980) (citing Brinkman) However, the Ninth Circuit in Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), held that "[w]ithdrawing from a
    disfavored group the right to obtain a designation with significant
    societal consequences is different from declining to extend that
    designation in the first place, regardless of whether the right was
    withdrawn after a week, a year, or a decade", Perry, 671 F.3d at 1079-1080. This plainly defies Brinkman and Crawford.

    Therefore, consistent with its prior practice, the Supreme Court could simply grant cert, vacate, and remand on narrow grounds, without deciding the merits on the constitutional challenges. In Gill, it can remand with instructions to decide whether DOMA is subject to rational basis, intermediate, or strict scrutiny, and decide whether DOMA satisfies the appropriate level of scrutiny. In Hollingsworth, the Court can remand with instructions to decide if "extend[ing the] designation [of marriage to same-sex couples, if extended to
    opposite-sex couples] in the first place" was required by the Fourteenth
    Amendment.

  • 64. zauberflute  |  December 1, 2012 at 11:50 am

    How many justices would have to vote for vacating or remanding? It seems to me that if (as we hope) 5 of the justices already intend to support ssm to some degree, those same 5 would be opposed to vacating the lower courts judgements, right?

  • 65. TROLL TOSSER  |  December 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Considering thhe SCOTUS is highly unlikely to issue a broad ruling of marriage equality I doubt Kennedy nor Roberts (big maybe on Robers) would be ready to do this. I also think the four liberals wouldn't either. I also don't think they would remand to decide the broader issues for the reasoning above.

  • 66. Anthony  |  December 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Sorry but there is no way that we are 4 % of the population. I think it's somewhere around 6-7%.

  • 67. Carpool_Cookie  |  December 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    I don't agree that there's anything unusual about cases being shuffled like this. It's not "ridiculous," it's just the way our system works. Slow and tedious, but usually thorough.

  • 68. Carpool_Cookie  |  December 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    "Some anonymous clerk might one day spill the beans as to what went on between chambers and during the opinion writing phase, but only the justices will fully know how the first stages of making the sausage transpired…

    I'm always surprised there aren't more whistleblowers. The $cientologists have them planted everywhere, just panting to report back. I guess, especially in this economy, people want to hold onto their jobs, and are afraid inside info could be traced back to them. I watched an interesting documentary called Paradise Lost III, where they finally revealed how a crooked jury had reached a decision, and why. They went from notes a jurist had taken down of what was on the blackboard in the deliberation room. Part of the info was blacked out later…but with modern technology they were able to reveal what had been obscured.

  • 69. Eric  |  December 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    The recognition of same-sex marriages in California had nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Supreme Court rules based on the California Constitution. So your argument that recognition has to do with the Fourteenth Amendment is untrue. A fundamental right was taken away without a compelling governmental interest, that is the Fourteenth Amendment question.

  • 70. Lance - Sacramento  |  December 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    Let me start by saying this first: I would honestly believe in miracles if we heard ANYTHING at all about any of these cases this coming Monday. I've become so used to our "can" being kicked ENDLESSLY down the road that a part of me has actually started believing that Prop. 8 (in particular) will NEVER EVER be truly dead.

  • 71. Lance - Sacramento  |  December 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    But with that much being said, it makes very little sense to think that just because we didn't hear anything yesterday (November 30th), that we can't hear anything on Monday morning. And that holds true whether the SCOTUS has denied OR granted cert in some of our cases. I often look at the order lists that the Supreme Court puts out, and while it is true that they sometimes put out Miscellaneous Orders granting review THE DAY OF their decision to do so, the majority of their orders seem to come out on the Mondays following their conferences. They do, in fact, grant cert to cases in these Monday lists, just like they grant it in their Miscellaneous lists. I have no great explanation for why they announce they're granting cert to SOME cases immediately, but wait to announce it in others, but nevertheless that is what they seem to do. So, while I'm already furious because in my heart I believe that they made no decisions about "us" yesterday, I recognize that on Monday, there will undoubtedly be a regular-sized Order List granting and denying cert to many cases, and some or all of these cases we ALL care so deeply about MAY be on there…

  • 72. petshop_grrl  |  December 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Mike in Baltimore… Dana Jeanne doesn't have to present you or anyone else with "empirical data." True, her opinion is not fact until it is proven, but she is entitled to make an opinion as she has just done regardless of anyone's disapproval or need for further substantiation. The gist of her post is that she thinks the SCOTUS is "bigoted" and lacks the urgent courage to make a timely decision. And, actually, this is not unlike what many of the other posters on this forum have felt and intimated. Perhaps, it bristles some feathers that she did this with a comment that has SHARPER AND MORE DIRECT LANGUAGE? Perhaps it bristles feathers even more when an American citizen candidly says, "It makes me ashamed to live in this country"? Did not Michelle Obama hint as much and yet how many would actually stone her for that.

  • 73. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    I have to say, given the way this court has been so bad with leaks before (i.e. clerks talking about infighting in the ACA case deliberations), I am shocked that we don't already have an idea of what will happen come Monday, one way or another.

  • 74. Bryce from DC and KS  |  December 1, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    I take umbrage with your analysis of Crawford and the conclusion that the Ninth Circuit "plainly defie[d]" it.
    Everyone who cites Crawford in the context you do is all too happy to ignore the fact that Crawford was reviewing a law that was not in and of itself discriminatory. The law said that bussing applied to all students, even if it had the effect of segregation. Proposition 8, on the other hand, only applied to couples that were made up of two individuals of the same sex. Proponents argue that heterosexuals cannot marry individuals of the same-sex either, but–by definition–as heterosexuals, they would never need to avail themselves of marriage as a same-sex couple, so the law plainly would not ever apply to them. Ergo, Proposition 8 was discriminatory in nature: it, as the court has identified time and again, was a law that turned on line drawing, where Crawford did not.
    It should be mentioned here, that you employ the same careless reading in Brinkman. In Brinkman, the District Court considered the evidence to answer the question of whether there was purposive action leading to segregation of Dayton's schools. They found a lack of evidence, and so dismissed it. In sum, they found that Dayton's segregated schools were not the intended result of any law. The exact opposite is true in Perry. In Perry, California's segregated marital regime is the direct and intended consequence of Proposition 8. This is proven in three ways: 1) examination of the link between the intended effect of Proposition 8, and the marital regime itself; 2) examination of the evidence (where, for example, Proponents spoke with vitriolic hatred of gays and lesbians); and 3) the concession of the Proponents and their attorneys that the only goal of Proposition 8 was to keep gays and lesbians from marrying, but allowing everyone else to do so. In Dayton, the court could find no law where the intended effect was solely to cause some individuals to go to one school, and other individuals to go to another. Your citation of it here is the epitome of a non-sequitor.
    What's more, you ignore the fact that busing was not itself a constitutional right, but rather a means of obtaining a constitutional right. Marriage, on the other hand, is–in and of itself–a constitutional right. That is what the "do[ing] more" in Crawford was, and it is simply not present in the case of Proposition 8.
    To be frank, SHOES, these responses are raised in brief after brief after brief, and proponents of Proposition 8 never answer it. They simply restate their own argument. This means that either: 1) you do not understand the responses, and–thusly–the plain language interpretation of the law upon which they rely, or 2) you are hoping that if you state a constitutionally infirm argument time and time and time again, eventually it will become true. In either case, it is nearing the point where we are just going to have to say "Proponents will never understand the law, so we should just let them cling to their fantasy and wonder why they will lose (which they will eventually)."

  • 75. Str8Grandmother  |  December 1, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    There is no news. Nobody has any insider scoops and yet I am drawn to P8TT to read about "No News". Drip, drip, drip. Remember how in Prop 8 we had to wait a whole YEAR for the California Supreme Court to decide if ProtectMarriage.com had standing. It is a big long wait. Maybe Monday, maybe. Maybe next Friday, maybe. I think this is the hardest wait of all because in every other instance we knew that it would not be over until the Supreme Court said it was over. So we knew we were waiting on that stage only.

    Now that it is finally up there every week seems so much longer. The wait is harder for me this time because I know this is the final stop. My money is also on the delay is because Scalia wants to write a nasty dissent to denial of cert. in Prop 8.

    Don't forget that in 10 years they have to unseal the original Prop 8 Trial Tape or else Petition the Court to keep it sealed. I think it is 10 years, or is it 7? I still want to see the whole trial some day. Either way, either by taking the case or denying Cert I am certain that Civil Marriage for Sexual Minorities will be the law of the land in California. I hope we get protected minority class in the DOMA cases (heightened scrutiny). If the Supreme Court stiff arms us, just think what it will be like to have to fight for Civil Marriage for Sexual Minorities State by State. We all take joy in Minn, Maryland, Maine and Washington but don't forget North Carolina at 62%. How many more years and money will it take to win in North Carolina, and Texas and Kansas and Alabama and Mississippi?

  • 76. Anthony  |  December 1, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Well in Canada, Alberta (their version of Texas) was the last province to legalize. So those states you mentioned will be the last ones to do so as well.

  • 77. Jeremy  |  December 1, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Alberta Canada maybe more conservative than the majority of the country but the people are far from like people in Texas. They have much more respect for each other than Texans do. A recent poll I might add said 72.1% of Albertans support marriage equality. Canada is much more advanced than the US when it comes to social issues. It took than a matter of a couple years to achieve nationwide equality. And yet there are no mass riots boycotts etc.

  • 78. MFargo  |  December 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    " Nobody has any insider scoops and yet I am drawn to P8TT to read about 'No News'"

    Well, StrGrandmother, if nothing else, I'm always happy when I seee you here.

  • 79. _BK_  |  December 1, 2012 at 10:25 pm

    Has anyone else become rather fond of this troll? :)

  • 80. Anthony  |  December 1, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    If you look throughout history, Canada is always ahead of the U.S. when it comes to social justice. Always. But eventually we become like them, so don't worry about it. We'll get there in time.

  • 81. Anthony  |  December 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    How can they not grant cert for DOMA? They can't let federal law apply in one part of the country and not another.

  • 82. Jeremy  |  December 1, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    Ok then why compare Texas to Alberta when clearly you don't know? Stop making assumptions.

  • 83. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 2, 2012 at 1:20 am

    "always the understanding"

    Whose?

    Yours?

  • 84. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 2, 2012 at 1:51 am

    Actually, Michelle Obama did NOT state she was ashamed to live in this country. Her words were "Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

    Someone can be proud to live in a country (or attend a specific school, etc), and then they can ALSO be REALLY proud to live in a country (or celebrate something) at one time or another.

    I understand MOST parents are proud of ALL their children, and REALLY proud when they graduate from a school, or get married, etc.

  • 85. Mike in Baltimore  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:09 am

    Fond? Can't say I have become fond of him/her/it.

    Admire him/her/it for the stupidity that is constantly displayed?

    Maybe, if that is to be considered an admirable trait.

    Actually, I think 'shoes thrower' needs to concentrate on his/her/it's day (or is it evening or night?) job of asking people if he/she/it can supersize their order.

  • 86. petshop_grrl  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:32 am

    Mike in Baltimore… First, please note that I used the word "hint" and not state in my example. You brought in the word "state," which is fine, but it is not attributable to me. Second, granted yes, the situation is not exactly the same, but do you understand why I tried to use the analogy in the context of Dana Jeanne's post? Did you understand my original point that she has a right to her opinion without needing to respond to your "demand" for empirical substantiation? Of course, you can continue to ask her and others to substantiate their every opinion (although don't always expect an answer back), but eventually it gets tiresome for posters to have to explain everything to someone who doesn't quite get that some "justifiable rants" are just natural human venting under frustrating circumstances and not necessarily a fact-checked response. Do you kiiiiinda get what I'm saying… or would you rather continue to nit-pick semantics?

  • 87. zauberflute  |  December 2, 2012 at 4:57 am

    What I think of Shoe Thrower and such trolls that are presumably straight but haunt our gay dreams…

    They obviously can't get enough of us :)

  • 88. zauberflute  |  December 2, 2012 at 5:04 am

    I don't think Scalia wants any action taken at all Prop 8 or any of those cases. Consider:

    1. Why would he write a dissent on denial of cert for the Prop 8 case? Yes, a denial of cert would lead to the 9th Circuit Decision being upheld, but only for California. Obviously that would upset him… but the alternative would be a sweeping 5-4 or 6-4 decision by the court finding a right to marriage for all same sex couples in the all states. Surely a he'd prefer a denial of cert?

    2. That said, I could see him writing a dissent just to be contrary, although a denial would be the best possible outcome from his perspective.

    3. Unless, of course, he could find a way to kick that can until his ashes are eventually buried in one.

  • 89. zauberflute  |  December 2, 2012 at 5:06 am

    And I apologize for my wildly terrible English. At the moment I'm studying Environmental Science while also taking German immersion courses, in Germany. So yeah, German has messed up my English.

  • 90. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 9:23 am

    I am genuinely surprised that they could not even decide whether to dispose of the Brewer v. Diaz cert petition.

  • 91. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 9:25 am

    They might have a problem with the reasoning of the lower courts.

  • 92. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 9:51 am

    Proponents argue that heterosexuals cannot marry individuals of the same-sex either, but–by definition–as heterosexuals, they would never need to avail themselves of marriage as a same-sex couple, so the law plainly would not ever apply to them. Ergo, Proposition 8 was discriminatory in nature: it, as the court has identified time and again, was a law that turned on line drawing, where Crawford did not.

    the point of Crawford and Brinkman are that the repeal of policies can only be unconstitutional if ther policies were required in the first place. " the Equal Protection Clause is not violated by the mere repeal of race-related legislation or policies that were not required by the Federal Constitution in the first place." Crawford, 458 U.S. at 538. " If the Board was not under such a duty, then the rescission of the initial action in and of itself cannot be a constitutional violation. If the Board was under such a duty, then the rescission becomes a part of the cumulative violation, and it is not necessary to ascertain whether the rescission ipso facto is an independent violation of the Constitution." Brinkman, 433 U.S. at 414

    And the Brinkman case was not dismissed in that decision, merely vacated and remanded. At a later stage of the case, the Supreme Court did affirm an appellate court ruling holding that " the Board had engaged in post-1954 actions which actually have exacerbated the racial separation existing at the time of Brown I .". See Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526 at 538-540 (1979) (internal citations omitted) The second Brinkman decision did not overrule the first; it merely found that the Board "was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took"

    Applying Brinkman and Crawford to the Prop 8 case thus requires determining if California had an initial duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

  • 93. Str8Grandmother  |  December 2, 2012 at 10:51 am

    I get it no problem…. Trying to think and write in 2 different languages is challenging.

  • 94. TROLL TOSSER  |  December 2, 2012 at 11:33 am

    SCOTUS will most likely issue more orders tomorrow at 6:30am PT / 9:30am ET. The court tends to issue denials week after conference. If they do not issue anything that means they need more time to make a decision on denial or grants of cert. Why don't you go back to your hole troll?

  • 95. Anthony  |  December 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Canada as a whole is ahead of us on these issues. So once Alberta (the most conservative of the provinces) legalized it, the most liberal in the U.S. followed after. Hence, the most conservative states in the U.S. will follow the liberal states soon afterward.

  • 96. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    Indeed, there is in fact a circuit split. There is no way Windsor v. United States, Nos. 12-2335 and 12-2345, (2nd Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), can be squared with e.g. Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) There are right now, two differing interpretations of equal protection.

  • 97. Juli  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    funny how some Christians forget that whole thing about Christ leaving the ninety and nine to save the one lost sheep. All of us are important. Even (and especially) if they think of us as sinners.

  • 98. Jeremy  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    You still can't compare Alberta to Texas. It's like the religious right comparing gays to pedophiles. A state like Texas for one would throw a huge fit and probably try and fight it in their own way. You see when marriage equality came to Alberta there was no mass riots, boycotts etc.

  • 99. Jeremy  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    You still can't compare Alberta to Texas. It's like the religious right comparing gays to pedophiles. A state like Texas for one would throw a huge fit and probably try and fight it in their own way. You see when marriage equality came to Alberta there was no mass riots

  • 100. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    More on the Brinkman case.

    In Brinkman v. Gilligan, 503 F.2d 684 (6th Cir. 1974), the Sixth Circuit heard cross-appeals of a district court decision involving desegregation of public schools in Dayton, Ohio. It noted the following finding of fact from the district court. (emphases added)

    "The Board adopted several resolutions. These resolutions recognized the existence of racial segregation in the Dayton schools, the role played by the Board in the creation of the racial patterns and the concomitant responsibility of the Board to eradicate these patterns through affirmative action. The types of affirmative action recognized included the elimination of the old attendance zones and the transportation of students for the purpose of achieving the city-wide racial balance of students. . . .
    "Immediately thereafter, one member of the Board who had voted with the majority, requested reconsideration and was improperly ruled out of order. The Board met subsequently on December 6, 1971, and January 3, 1972. At the end of the latter meeting, the Board ended its term of office and the 1972 Board took its place. On January 3, at its first meeting, the 1972 Board rescinded the resolutions passed on December 8. Since the 1971 Board had passed out of existence, the action of the 1972 Board on January 3, 1972, was not in the nature of a reconsideration but instead was a rescission of the previous action."

    Brinkman, 503 F.2d at 696

    The district court had concluded

    The rescission in early 1972 of the resolutions adopted by the 1971 School Board constituted an independent violation of the Equal Protection Clause rights enjoyed by the black minority of Dayton.

    id. at 697

    The Sixth Circuit held

    Accordingly, when the Dayton Board at its December 8, 1971, meeting passed resolutions designed, among other things, to eliminate racial imbalance and optional attendance zones in Dayton schools, it was acting in a manner consistent with its constitutional duties. Therefore, the rescission by a subsequent Board of these resolutions designed to carry out the Board's constitutional duties was an element of the cumulative violation of the appellants' constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
    The question of whether a rescission of previous Board action is in and of itself a violation of appellants' constitutional rights is inextricably bound up with the question of whether the Board was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took. If the Board was not under such a duty, then the rescission of the initial action in and of itself cannot be a constitutional violation. If the Board was under such a duty, then the rescission becomes a part of the cumulative violation, and it is not necessary to ascertain whether the rescission ipso facto is an independent violation of the Constitution.
    In view of our conclusion in this case that the rescission was a part of the cumulative violation of appellants' constitutional rights, we find it unnecessary to pass on the question of whether the rescission by itself was a violation of those rights.

    id. (internal citations omitted)

    The Sixth Circuit affirmed the "District Court's holding of a cumulative violation of the appellants' constitutional rights",, and concluded " that the remedy prescribed by the District Court is inadequate" id. at 704. It then "remanded to the District Court with directions to revise and supplement its order " id. at 705

  • 101. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Later, the Supreme Court granted cert. It adopted the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit that " question of whether a rescission of previous Board action is in and of itself a violation of appellants' constitutional rights is inextricably bound up with the question of whether the Board was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took" Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 at 414 (1977) It then remanded the case to the district court. Brinkman, 433 U.S. at 421

    In 1979, Brinkman reached the Supreme Court again. The Supreme Court reiterated that "rescission of prior resolutions proposing desegregation is unconstitutional only if the resolutions were required in the first place by the Fourteenth Amendment.", Brinkman, 443 U. S. 526 at 531 (1979), and had noted that "the [district] court held that the Board's rescission of its earlier resolutions was not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment since, in light of the court's finding that the current segregation had no unconstitutional origin, the Board had no constitutional obligation to adopt the resolutions in the first place" id. at 533n.7 (1979) The Supreme Court held that " [the Sixth Circuit] Court of Appeals was also quite justified in utilizing the Board's total failure to fulfill its affirmative duty — and indeed its conduct resulting in increased segregation — to trace the current, systemwide segregation back to the purposefully dual system of the 1950's and to the subsequent acts of intentional discrimination" id. at 540, thus affirming the Sixth Circuit's holding that the petitioners violated the respondents' constitutional rights.

    In no way did Supreme Court hold that these violations resulted from ending a policy that was not required by the Constitution, but for ending a policy that was required by the Constitution.

  • 102. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    What Proposition 8 did was rescind in part a previously adopted state constitutional provision that required legal recognition of same-sex marriage. "Rescission of prior [constitutional provisions] proposing [same-sex marriage] is unconstitutional only if the [provisions] were required in the first place by the Fourteenth Amendment." Brinkman, 443 U. S. at 531

  • 103. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    What about the harmful effect of the doctrine announced in Perry?

    Already this applies to the Diaz v. Brewer litigation. When it was first filed, it was assumed that Arizona could repeal benefits for domestic partners, but not married spouses, if it was permissible to reserve those benefits for married couples. But now, under Perry, the withdrawal of the previously granted benefits has to be justified independently of whether or not a failure to offer these benefits to domestic partners (if offered to married couples) had sufficient justification under the 14th Amendment. That effectively means that if a state expands the eligibility of a benefit (as Arizona did), and such expansion was not required in the first place, it may not be able to retract to where it was before.

  • 104. Bob  |  December 2, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    The funny thing about good old red neck Alberta,,,, is although it was a lot of tough talk,, about how they would get around the gay issue,, they were going to fight it all the way,,,,, BUT THEN THEY DIDN'T,,,,,]]]]

    And now they have become more liberal and accepting,,, Calgary has become even more progressive,,, with it's Muslim mayor,, who may or may not be gay,,,, Laws change first and attitudes follow,,, is the way it went Alberta dropped it's red neck label,,,, but the die hard religious right,,, still hopes the U.S. will set things right,,,, did you read that article about red state or blue state Jesus,,,,,, there's still those deep entrenched differences in families at the dinner table,, but not in the public square

  • 105. Bob  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    and that's why it's really important for the Supremes,,, to stand up and do the right thing,,,,,, for us all here,,,,, change the law,,,,,,, it's time!!

  • 106. Bob  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Albertans+shedd

  • 107. Sammy  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    The problem is her rant bashing the judiciary calling them bigots and saying she is ashamed to live in this country is exactly what those that oppose our rights look for. We do not have to tip toe around because of them but her points are just a meritless rant and whether a "justifiable rant" as you say or not, those should be left to conversations with your friends or to yourself? They do not add to this or any discussion…

    In terms of the judges judging on the "law" and not "personal feelings" that is what they are "hopefully" doing, if they just jumped to a decision to grant equal marriage without deep analysis that would hardly be judging the law as it raises complex legal questions. Obviously we all believe that the law guarantees equal rights in this instance but there is complex legal analysis to come to that in a court. Give em time, discuss and keep up the discussion :)

  • 108. Bob  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Alberta+famil

  • 109. Bob  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    “What the census is doing is highlighting the full social impact of legalizing same-sex marriages in Canada,” Wells said. “It’s quantifying what we know to be true. This is why inclusive laws and policies are so important, because they afford a certain amount of protection.”

    The jump in the number of same-sex families is not a surprise, he said, since it is a demographic that had been marginalized.

    “It is probably a reflection of our changing political and social landscape in the province. Our province is changing. We’re beginning to more actively support diversity in all its forms in the province.

  • 110. Bob  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    One sector that hasn't seen a slump, not surprisingly, is that of marriage commissioners supportive of same-sex marriage. "I was doing them before they were legal," says a proud Nomi Whalen, who presided over the 1993 nuptials of Lau-reen and Stephen Harper and now marries same-sex couples that come here from all over the world. "No one bats an eye anymore, except for those who've been brainwashed to believe it's a sin. And you can print that

    Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/change+attitude

  • 111. SHOES THROWER  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Agreed.

    What it will likely boil down to are the historic reasons for the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. If these reasons are illegitimate, these laws should be struck down.

  • 112. petshop_grrl  |  December 2, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Sammy, no one is tiptoeing around anything or anyone. You believe hers is a meritless rant and I believe it could be a justifiable rant. Again, it is not unlike the gist of what other frustrated posters have shared in this forum. Unless she has used bad language or made a personal attack (and it remains arguable whether calling the SCOTUS "bigots" or feeling ashamed about living in this country are personal attacks — perhaps you feel they are?), she has a right to her opinion — even if it is one based on frustration. Oh, and by the way, many things add to an effective discussion: opinion, commentary, dialogue, "really listening," etc.

  • 113. davep  |  December 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Wrong again. In the case of Prop 8, it boils down to the question: when a civil law does nothing except single out a group of citizens to disadvantage or stigmatize them, and when it is not rationally related to any valid states interest, is this constitutional? The answer is no.

    In the case of DOMA, it boils down to the question: Can the federal government deny federal recognition of certain civil marriages that are already defined as legal by the states in which they were enacted? And again the answer is no.

    You keep bringing up off-topic points that have nothing to do with the actual issues or questions involved in these cases. You should know by now that these comments you keep making are simply not true. So what is your real point?

  • 114. Eric  |  December 2, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    Marriage is a fundamental right, eliminating that right for a minority without a compelling governmental interest violates the 14th Amendment.

  • 115. Larry  |  December 2, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    I prefer the simplest explanation. So far, nothing has occurred to make me think there's any personal biases at play from SCOTUS. There's plausible reasons for all the delays so far. Waiting for a few last briefs before last Friday's conference being the big one. And it's plausible we haven't heard about Prop 8 or the Arizona case because cert will be denied tomorrow. And all of the cases have some procedural complexity. Gill might require Justice Kagan to recuse herself (and I think 1 of the plaintiffs has a related case going on at the Federal Circuit). Windsor has questions about standing, since there were questions about whether Windsor was married according to NY at the time. While it's not a major hurdle, it might make the Supreme Court think twice about the case. Golinsky has the complexity of coming straight from a district court rather than appeals court, not to mention its long winding history of first starting out at the Ninth Circuit in their capacity of arbitrators rather than judges. Prop 8 has questions of the intervenors' standing. And Arizona is only at the preliminary injunction stage. On top of all that, the cases are all intertwined in terms of the level of review SCOTUS will use. If they use one of the DOMA cases to pick the level of scrutiny, that will affect how any court looks at the Prop 8 and Arizona cases, and they might be mindful of that in choosing which cases to accept, reject, or put on hold pending the remaining cases.

    So in short, there's plenty of plausible reasons for no news, as frustrating as that is. And I'm inclined not to launch any personal attacks, like calling people bigots, until the more procedural explanations have been exhausted.

  • 116. Stefan  |  December 2, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    The court must issue orders by some point in January. That's when the new session begins.

  • 117. Juan  |  December 3, 2012 at 4:32 am

    what time today do you all think we'll get any word? this morning?…or afternoon? any time frame in mind when they make the list of denied cert known?

  • 118. dwpiper  |  December 3, 2012 at 4:56 am

    As I understand it, SCOTUS usually releases an Order List at 9:30 am ET on the Monday following a conference.

    If you're impatiently waiting for news one way or the other – like me – you can park a browser window on the orders page of the SCOTUS web site and keep refreshing and hoping:

    2012 Term Court Orders

  • 119. Juan  |  December 3, 2012 at 5:54 am

    and I'm refreshing it until the liste date reads 12/3, correct? and hopefully in there will be what we hope to see.

  • 120. nicksternet  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:12 am

    HOMOPHOBIC ASSESSMENT ON scutusbLOG:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-legal-case-aga

  • 121. BS Legaleze  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:32 am

    IIRC, Shoes thrower works in a mailroom, not a fast food joint, if Fiona pegged his real name correctly in one of the other threads. I always wondered why he never took all the time he spends regurgitating bad legal analysis on Facebook to actually get a law degree.

    I guess if Blankenhorn can be an anti-gay marriage expert by doing his only peer reviewed work on 17th century union disputes, Shoes can be an anti-gay legal expert by sorting holiday catalogs.

  • 122. Juan  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:36 am

    LIST IS POSTED….CAN ANYONE TELL US IF IT'S BEEN DENIED?!

  • 123. Todd  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:37 am

    Couldn't find any Hollingsworth on the list…

  • 124. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:42 am

    […] Report: Supreme Court takes no action today on LGBT cases […]

  • 125. nicksternet  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:45 am

    I did a search in the doc for Hollingsworth. It doesnt come up. Is there another name for the Case?

  • 126. F Young  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:51 am

    There is no news about any of the cases on today's order list. See discussion at: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/12/03/no-ne

  • 127. nicksternet  |  December 3, 2012 at 6:51 am

    SCOTUS delayed meeting on Hollingsworth AGAIN until???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 128. Kipdoodle  |  December 3, 2012 at 8:32 am

    This is Scalia and Alito flipping us the bird.

  • 129. fiona64  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:15 am

    You are not a lawyer; you're a mail room clerk. Stop trying to pretend you're something you're not. You have been repeatedly shown how incorrect your reasoning is — by actual lawyers. Gah, I wish there was a way to just block you.

  • 130. fiona64  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:18 am

    "Shoes Thrower" used to post here under his real name until he was banned. He likes to pretend he's a lawyer, I guess. I am pretty sure that psychiatric help is available for such delusions …

  • 131. SHOES THROWER  |  December 3, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Not even Brewer?

    The case against granting cert to Brewer is strong, as there is no final judgment.

  • 132. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    […] the Supreme Court–which just last week was scheduled to consider taking up the case but declined to make any announcement to that effect–but the Sevcik decision now puts Nevada’s […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!