Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Arizona same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

A federal judge has ruled that Arizona’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. He issued a ruling in two cases: Connolly v Roche (here) and Majors v. Horne (here.)

Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, so the judge noted that binding precedent exists on the question. The Ninth Circuit had earlier struck down bans in Idaho and Nevada.

The judge explicitly declined to issue a stay in either case.

EqualityOnTrial will have more on this soon.

UPDATE:

BREAKING UPDATE: Arizona will not appeal the ruling.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

221 Comments

  • 1. Terence  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:18 am

    That was fast!

  • 2. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:18 am

    Deaf ear…you gotta love Sedwick for this one:
    "A stay of this decision to allow defendants to appeal is not warranted. It is clear that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would not succeed. It is also clear—based on the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in connection with several circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must be recognized in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin —that the High Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision"

    From the 2nd case, Majors v. Horne

  • 3. Terence  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:19 am

    And already reflected on Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in

  • 4. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:21 am

    And we grow from more to more. (A variation of the University of Chicago motto, "Let knowledge grow from more to more.") Yay.

  • 5. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:23 am

    Sedwick seemed determined to rule in favour of equality anyway, it was evident since he issued the emergency injuction for the plaintiffs. Congrats to Arizona ! I hope SCOTUS denies Alaska's request so that Arizona officials take a hint.

    This "the HighCourt will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision." line killed me. Oh I love how there can be some subtle witt even in simple decisions on summary judgement..

  • 6. dorothyrothchild  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:24 am

    The arc of the moral universe just bent a little further. Congratulations to the happy couples of Arizona and their families.

  • 7. Terence  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:24 am

    A stay of this decision to allow defendants to appeal is not warranted. It is clear that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would not succeed. It is also clear—based on the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in connection with several circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must be recognized in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia,and Wisconsin —that the High Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

  • 8. Terence  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:24 am

    "A stay of this decision to allow defendants to appeal is not warranted. It is clear that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would not succeed. It is also clear—based on the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in connection with several circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must be recognized in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia,and Wisconsin —that the High Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision."

  • 9. DoctorHeimlich  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:26 am

    Short, but sweet.

    I have to wonder — from his use of "the High Court will turn a deaf ear," it seems like maybe without 9th Circuit precedent, he might have been inclined to rule against us. He is older, and a Republican appointee (Bush Sr.). As noted above, maybe not, given that he did previously issue the injunction.

    Even if he was reluctant, to his credit, he didn't drag this out. He issued the ruling quickly, and declined to stay it for fruitless appeals.

    Welcome to the party, Arizona!

  • 10. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:28 am

    Who would have thought all of that bright red on the wikipedia map at the start of October would be mostly blue by the end of it?

  • 11. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:39 am

    I doubt he would rule against. Before the 9th issued its ruling, Sedwick had granted an injuction related to the plaintiffs and implied that he would strike down the ban anyway, based on the merits.

  • 12. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:40 am

    Look like I'm gonna have to add a few stars to my flag…….are we at 32 or 33?

  • 13. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:42 am

    Does Alaska turn blue later today?

  • 14. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:42 am

    OH, yeah…That's the release I was hungry for.

  • 15. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:44 am

    The fact he had ordered AZ to acknowledge the relationship of one gay couple for death benefits etc pretty much showed that the ban was doomed.

  • 16. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:46 am

    My my … Sedwick's order equals = "We're done with this. Stop already, stupid states."

  • 17. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:47 am

    Pretty much yes. The 9th's decision just saved him time from writing "a lengthy and detailed opinion", as he says in this judgement, most probably.

  • 18. Steve27516  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:49 am

    Ha ha, easy, Rose, easy! – We're still at 30. If we get Alaska back, we'll be back to 31. Once Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, and South Carolina fall in line, we'll be at 35.
    I know how you feel — I want more stars! More stars!
    :-)

  • 19. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:51 am

    I'm just so excited about these states falling like dominoes and want to add more stars……yippy:-)

  • 20. Silvershrimp0  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:52 am

    Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but perhaps we'll see more conservative states willing to just give up on the matter in a couple of weeks after the election.

  • 21. DrBriCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:53 am

    Anyone want to send a copy of this decision to Judge Childs over in South Carolina as a template for how to write a quick decision on a judgment she can't avoid forever?

  • 22. jpmassar  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:53 am

    U.S. To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages In 7 States

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government will recognize same-sex marriages in seven more states and extend federal benefits to those couples, the Justice Department said Friday.

    The announcement comes one week after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand rulings from three appeals courts that struck down bans on gay and lesbian marriages. That order meant same-sex couples in those states could get married immediately.

    The states covered by Friday's announcement are Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada.

    The move brings the total number of states where gay and lesbian weddings have federal recognition to 26, plus the District of Columbia.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/same-sex

  • 23. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:53 am

    RnL (a.k.a. Rose?): So far, the Supreme Court has declined to issue a stay in AK. It is 8:51 AM PDT. The stay issued by the 9th expires at 12 noon PDT, which is 11 a.m. Alaska Daylight Time.The justices are in conference today. When Kennedy declined a further stay of Idaho's case, it happened just after a conference and before all of the other orders from the conference were released.

  • 24. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:54 am

    I am waiting to hear this from SCOTUS today in less than 3 hours to believe it..!

  • 25. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Why not West Virginia and North Carolina ?

  • 26. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Didn't AZ AG Horne say yesterday no appeal?
    Hoping SCOTUS doesn't even RESPOND to Alaska appeal by 12 PDT – that would send an even better message than a denial? If I were on SCOTUS, I'd let them wait to hear back on my schedule, not the 9th's.

    As I mentioned on yesterday's post, my brother in Missoula thinks Judge Moore in MT will rule soon and positively, even though he clerked for Rhenquist. And certainly WY is on the way very soon, esp. since Gov. Mead has sobered up and said there will be no appeal.

    Wow, just 10 days and the federal court smack-down process has been streamlined and almost perfected. Bamm, the B.P.O. of Federal Courts has kicked it up a notch. I would love to be in KS and SC when they pour the bucket of water on the Elvira Gulchs.

  • 27. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:56 am

    Your right, it's Rose:-)

    I don't see Justice Kennedy nor any other Justice issuing a Stay……..as there is no circuit split.

    So, we will just have to wait a couple of hours……okay:-)

  • 28. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 8:58 am

    IMO they will respond and should respond in less than 3 hours when the stay expires, it will send a much stronger message.
    I do hope things pick up in Montana.
    Kansas and South Carolina win the dubious honor of dragging their feet…

  • 29. Silvershrimp0  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:00 am

    She'll get to it around November 5 or so.

  • 30. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:01 am

    Freedom to Marry tweet: AG Horne will announce whether state [Arizona] will appeal at 1:30 pm today.

  • 31. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:04 am

    What is the point? It's not like Democrats in SC are going to be hurt by this.

  • 32. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:05 am

    Even if we did, do ya really think she'll read it?

  • 33. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:06 am

    South Dakota:today's hearing for the Motion to Dismiss just concluded. Judge will file decision at a future date…darn, just ONE decision from the bench would be so fun.
    http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/20

  • 34. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:07 am

    Haha. We see through you, AG Horne. You're waiting to see if the Supremes decide to stay the Alaska case before you decide whether or not to appeal.

  • 35. Randolph_Finder  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:07 am

    Trust me, we have some editors who know how to change the image who are definitely quick (sometimes too quick, i.e. colors for Alaska)

  • 36. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:07 am

    Exactly what are they going to appeal? The ruling from the 9th is already binding precedent and SCOTUS ISN'T likely to issue a stay either…….so, who will accept his appeal?

  • 37. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:08 am

    Remember AZ does NOT have daylight time. Brandall, I assume you posted local time, which would be MST, and 1:30 PDT, 4:30 EDT.

  • 38. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:10 am

    Woohoo!!!

    A-wiggle, wiggle! A-wiggle, wiggle, WIGGLE!!!

  • 39. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:11 am

    I assumed the announcement referred to Arizona local time. Yes, I knew (but it is always confusing to many folks) that AZ does not observe daylight savings time.

  • 40. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:11 am

    That is correct, RQO. Until the switch from daylight to standard, Arizona is on the same time as Nevada.

  • 41. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:11 am

    That was likely before Cathi Herrod (the anti-gay bigot for Arizona) and the ADF got ahold of him.

  • 42. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:12 am

    They can always go en banc. I think Alaska intends to do so as well, CPM also filed for en banc in the Nevada case but they are doomed (especially after ofending the court). I don't know what Idaho is doing. Not that they stand a chance to even be granted an en banc but just for a delay tactic. All will be sorted out after SCOTUS's decision today.

  • 43. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:13 am

    I wouldn't hold out hope for this judge to rule in favor of ME. She may consider herself bound by Brunning.

  • 44. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:16 am

    I don't think that the 9th Circuit will grant en banc review after any of these decisions. Remember, Bybee (former UNLV Boyd School of Law Professor and conservative) voted with Berzon (liberal) to grant only a temporary stay in Alaska. Judges aren't stupid, and I think they've taken the Supreme Court's actions to mean they should all declare these bans unconstitutional and move on to other business.

  • 45. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Do you honestly believe that an en banc hearing will be granted? I don't!

  • 46. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Indeed, even though it was pre-Windsor it likely is still binding.

  • 47. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:17 am

    I agree. The only frustrating thing is that it will give Brown and his ilk something to celebrate and start telling us again that the tide is turning somehow or so. On pure legal grounds it doesn't matter much anyway, the 8th will be the most irrelevant circuit in this nationwide legal battle in the sense that a decision will probably be made from SCOTUS for them, without them (when/if a case from the 5th or the 6th reaches SCOTUS).
    Or who knows she may surprise us and take a hint from SCOTUS's denial of cert.

  • 48. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:19 am

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/ncs-top-gop-la

    Tillis trying to get elected while spending taxpayer money….*yawn*

  • 49. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:21 am

    Brandall.. even more confusing if you live next door to them and drive through their state. :-)

  • 50. wes228  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Even more MORE confusing is that the Navajo nation, which is inside Arizona, DOES observe DST!

  • 51. MichaelGrabow  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:29 am

    If? Where is Alicia Silverstone to give you an "as if!"?

  • 52. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:31 am

    We are going to encounter a couple of more roadblocks before we get to the final victory like the bigoted judge in LA.
    Let the bigots gloat over it, we will win in the end.

  • 53. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:35 am

    I was reading comments on fox 8's facebook page (north carolina). They are making heroes out of the 2 (now) magistrates who resigned over same sex marriage, saying they should run for president and that they wouldn't have to resign for standing by their beliefs. Then amidst this sea of religious lunacy a commenter says : Funny how the same people who say to Hobby Lobby employees to "find another job" if they don't like the company's policy do not take the same stand when it comes to a governmental official refusing to do his job. Of course no one answered that one there.

  • 54. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:43 am

    Well, only during DST months. :)

    No offense to any Arizonans here but driving through is, as far as I'm concerned, the best way to experience AZ.

    I sometimes have to travel to AZ for work. In my case, since I live in CA, going there during the summer is less confusing, rather than more. I don't need to re-set my watch.

  • 55. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:45 am

    Driving in Arizona … beautiful.

  • 56. hopalongcassidy  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Well, those people do have some usefulness….they're very convenient examples of the concept of hypocrisy…

  • 57. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Even worse is the Hopi Nation, embedded entirely within the Navajo territory, that does NOT observe DST. It's like the rest of AZ, with which it has no direct geographical contact.

  • 58. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Wait…Horne will make his announcment on whether to appeal on 1:30 pm ET (eastern time) ? I thought he might wait for SCOTUS to decide on Alaska's request till 3:00 pm ET (2 hours to go btw…)

  • 59. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Supposedly, the two Republican legislative leaders in North Carolina have hired our our old friend, John Eastman (Chairman of NOM) to represent them on the appeal at the rate of $400 per hour. The North Carolina statutes and constitutional provisions, in all relevant respects, are substantially identical to those of Virginia, making the Bostic decision indistinguishable. It will be interesting to see what Eastman tries to do.

  • 60. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 9:59 am

    I think he will make his announcement at 1:30 p.m. Arizona time.

  • 61. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:00 am

    Which is 3:30 pm Eastern Time correct ? That makes sense by the tweet from FTM says otherwise above…It might be a mistake, we'll see.

  • 62. Randolph_Finder  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:00 am

    I *think* that if the AR Supreme Court punts there is a case headed Federally from there. It is possible (but not likely) that one of the other circults will be behind them…

  • 63. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:00 am

    Bruning may have had other foundations, but it did include this passage

    "Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed 'for want of a substantial federal question.' There is good reason for this restraint."

    There's at least a hook for the judge to hang her hat on if she so chooses.

  • 64. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:02 am

    I doubt what the AR SC does will have any impact on what the 8th and the district courts will do.

  • 65. jlvnv  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:03 am

    The Arizona Republic is showing that Horne is set to make his announcement at 10:30 AM PDT, MST. It will be carried live on the web.
    http://www.azcentral.com/topic/e85b7e4c-ae59-4084

  • 66. RobW303  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:04 am

    These state officials are playing a waiting game, hoping the 6th or (if needs be) 5th Circuit will rule in favor of the bans. Then they can request stays "pending the outcome of a SCOTUS ruling". We still can't really predict how SCOTUS will handle the inevitable dissent or, after such a dissent, appeals from circuits where cert has not yet been denied—particularly if there is a change in the bench between now and then. The justices already know the issues and finer points—briefing at this point would be largely a formality—yet they won't give a clear indication, not a word of elucidation, how they arrived at their decisions so far or how lower courts should take direction. They'd rather see our community squirm under their sword of Damocles. The SCOTUS antis are, I'm sure, also playing a waiting game, part of the reason they won't tip their present hand.

  • 67. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:07 am

    Shaking my head in disbelief…what track record does Eastman have that entices these folks to hire him for their causes?

  • 68. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:09 am

    I think we can relatively expect what SCOTUS will do……..and that's basically rule the remaining bans UNCONSTITUTIONAL…….I seriously doubt that they denied cert just to save face and reverse course in a circuit split…….frankly, I think SCOTUS has already played it's hand and these other States and Appellate courts need to get the message……now, I could be wrong, but I don't think so!

  • 69. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:12 am

    4:30 p.m. EDT, 1:30 p.m. Arizona standard time, 1:30 p.m. PDT

  • 70. Chuck_in_PA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:13 am

    I think we all are excited. Who would have ever dreamed we would see such rapid expansion of ME beyond the blue states.

  • 71. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:14 am

    And they NEVER will…….there is also an article on face book about this couple up in Idaho who supposedly live by the bible and refuse to go to town when Gays and Lesbians were celebrating……..I guess the Ayran Brotherhood will have to find a new state to reside in……oh wait……there probably won't be one to their liking!!!

  • 72. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Ok so currently in most of Arizona except the Navajo nation it's 10:15 AM while in the Navajo nation it's 11:15 AM then ? Arizona is MST not MDT correct ?

  • 73. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:16 am

    My guess is they AIN'T gonna get far!!!

  • 74. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Exactly….but what I want to know is who do these idiots think will actually take their appeal?

  • 75. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:19 am

    Indeed, people who don't want religious views imposed on them are the ones that have to find new jobs, not bigots like this that won't leave their religion at home.

  • 76. R_A_J  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:28 am

    John Eastman is a true believer from WAY back. I remember, while tracking donations to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign back in 2008, running across his $1,000 donation and being surprised that his listed zip code was the same as mine at the time.

    I also remember he had a LOT of energy on keeping gays out of the Boy Scouts back in the day and, although I think he is actually not Mormon, he attended and spoke at a number of events sponsored by the J. Rueben Clark Law society, and was listed as a member of the Los Angeles chapter back in 2008.

  • 77. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:31 am

    I really do look forward to seeing this particular comment : )

  • 78. flyerguy77  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:31 am

    AZ Attorney General will announce at 10:30 AZ time not 1:30…….

  • 79. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Which is right now right ?

  • 80. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Horne will NOT appeal AZ! Tweet from Chris Johnson.

  • 81. flyerguy77  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:33 am

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/polit… he will not appeal..

  • 82. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:34 am

    That was unexpected ! Or it shouldn't be, a majority of AZ citizens support ME according to latest polling. A wise decision from Horne ! Congrats to Arizonan LGBT citizens :) !

  • 83. BenG1980  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Watching live. That is correct. AZ will not appeal.

    Horne: "I've fought it as far as I ethically could. … There's no chance of a reversal, and therefore it would be unethical for me to file an appeal that has no chance of success."

  • 84. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

    I bet it's more than wishful thinking. I bet you're right.

  • 85. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Whoa! That is really odd…

  • 86. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Brewer is fumming pretty much in the way Fallin did :
    http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/brewer-statem

    She even quotes her idol, no doubt, Scalia. So cute :)

  • 87. Jaesun100  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:45 am

    Tom tillis in NC plans to appeal. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/ncs-top-gop-la

  • 88. hopalongcassidy  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:46 am

    What he'll try to do is…rack up as many billable hours as possible before his next crash & burn…

  • 89. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:47 am

    Awesome!

  • 90. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:47 am

    "…it will give Brown and his ilk something to celebrate and start telling us again that the tide is turning somehow"…

    Reminds me of the Jim Carrey line from 'Dumb and Dumber':
    "…..so you're telling me there's a chance!"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

  • 91. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Just posed this one the comments section of that article: "Someone please explain to me how the governor of a state doesn't understand how our system of gov't works, what the Constitution promises, and the very American value of not allowing the majority to strip away rights from the minority. How long might it have taken for women to have gotten the vote otherwise?" How aggravating, how frustrating, how deceitful.

  • 92. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:49 am

    Good for AG Horne – not only did he speed up his announcement, his office sent out emails to all county clerks green-lighting marriage licenses before he had finished speaking. I thought he was as gracious as he could be (note to WY, MT, KS, and SC). Gov. Brewer's quick written announcement bitching about spilt milk is another thing altogether.

  • 93. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:49 am

    He has gained lots of experience finding his way out of the courtroom after the trial and not letting the door hit him in the ass.

  • 94. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:51 am

    Some detailed info about this has been posted further up in the thread. It's kinda crazy.

  • 95. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:52 am

    FTM says AZ AG is the 2nd Republican and the 13th AG from 12 states to not appeal an ME decision.

  • 96. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:53 am

    I have to congratulate Horne for his announcment which is the most sensible out of all similar ones from AGs I have heard so far :

    "It is unethical for a lawyer to file a pleading for a purpose of delay rather than to achieve a result.The probability of the 9th circuit reversing today's circuit court decision is zero.The probability of SCOTUS accepting review of the 9th circuit's decision is also zero. Therefore, the only purpose that would be served by filling another appeal would be to waste the taxpayers' money. That is not a good conservative principle. I have decided not to appeal today's decision which would be an exercise in futility and which would serve only the purpose of wasting taxpayers' money."

    A republican FINALLY gets it !

  • 97. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:57 am

    I took a look at Judge Childs judicial background, there's nothing to suggest that she is biased against LGBT or is attempting to play politics with the date. What does emerge is that she is methodical to a fault and refuses to cut corners or be rushed into anything. (She's also quite young.)

    There was one quote to the effect that on an issue that had already been briefed and discussed, she still wanted a hearing. She believes in ensuring that everybody gets their chance to have their say.

    That may explain why she's being so overcautious here. I wouldn't be surprised if Lambda Legal asked for an immediate summary judgement, and if she denies it appeal the motion to the Fourth Circuit. There's no reason for this to drag out for months, which the haters will take full advantage of to stall at every opportunity.

  • 98. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Sweet…….now we need to see about Alaska and this will be a pretty good week!!!

  • 99. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Now Sarah Palin can see gay marriage from her new (AZ) house!

  • 100. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 10:59 am

    People might recall Sedwick from an earlier AZ case:
    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/07

    What's interesting is that he's a Sr. Judge in Alaska, but has done visiting judge work in AZ for several years. Hence the 2010 case, and this one.

    He's a GHWB appointee, but one who seems in touch with the views of the 9th.

  • 101. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Oh cool, Russia from one house and the Rainbow Flag from the other house……wonder what State she'll move to next……..lol

  • 102. LK2013  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:02 am

    $crew her … I hope she chokes on her bile and hatred

  • 103. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Can he educate the other AG's like the one from South Carolina?

  • 104. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:04 am

    To whom? The 4th? An en banc from the 4th? or SCOTUS? I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he get's smacked down!

  • 105. wes228  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Less than an hour now for the Alaska stay to dissolve! What a jab that would be if the Supreme Court denies it after the deadline, as if to say "NO We really do not care! Leave us alone!"

  • 106. LK2013  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:05 am

    Awesome! Great statement too … lawyers follow Rule 11 and don't pursue hopeless causes just to cause delay when there is no hope of success … and don't waste taxpayer money … a good conservative principle. Well done. Congratulations, Arizona !!!!!

  • 107. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:07 am

    This is sort of pathetic seeing as it was the Republicans in office that did a down low thing by turning off the mics from some of the legislators when their marriage Amendment came up in 2008……after the State had voted down a similar amendment 2 years earlier……..where was her outrage then?

  • 108. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:11 am

    We've seen this a few times. On some level, it was the course Christie took in NJ when it was clear they were going to lose:

    * lost at Superior Court
    * the Superior Court judge turned down a stay after briefing
    * the Appellate court turned down a stay
    * the State Supreme Court turned down a stay request… 7-0

    Christie & Co has only lost at the Superior Court level and at the *stay* level. They still had the right to appeal the Superior Court Judge's overall decision on the ban being unconstitutional. Yet the signs from above on the stay issue made it clear that all was lost.

    That's pretty much what happened here:

    * lost on a District level
    * District Judge denied a stay
    * clear that the 9th wasn't going to give a stay, or overturn the District
    * largely clear that SCOTUS wouldn't stay for long, nor overturn the 9th & District

    I think we've had a few others that were somewhat similar as well. PA, though the Gov was getting himself out of the matter earlier. NC.

  • 109. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Hehehe. Thank you, Dave.

  • 110. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:15 am

    It's 2:15 EDT. The justices may still be in conference. Kennedy may have other concerns.

  • 111. Waxr  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:16 am

    In other words, the politicians are just putting on a show for the voters.

  • 112. jdw_karasu  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Wyoming will be next week, and per the other post, the Gov indicates the state shouldn't appeal (i.e. they know they're dead at the 10th and SCOTUS).

    With some luck, in addition to Alaska getting cleared up today, we should get Wyoming next week, Montana shortly, then bring in Kansas in short order and South Carolina kicking & screaming.

    Then it's just waiting on the 6th and then the 5th.

  • 113. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:16 am

    You know what frustrates me the most about the fact that the two governors who issued the most poisonous statements after ME came in their states (Fallin and Brewer) are women ? That if it wasn't for COURTS they may not have been in the position they are, giving them the privilege to say all they say (especially if we take under consideration the states they govern). It's infuriating really.

  • 114. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:19 am

    10 more minutes for the stay in Alaska to dissolve..

  • 115. ninjascottsf  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:20 am

    UPDATE!
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/arizona-same-se

    Arizona same-sex marriage ban falls (UPDATED)
    UPDATED 1:43 p.m. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne issued a public statement Friday morning saying that the state would not appeal the decisions against the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. He said there was “zero” chance the Supreme Court would review the Ninth Circuit Court decision that led to nullification of Arizona’s ban. He told county clerks across the state that they could begin issuing marriage licenses immediately to gay and lesbian couples. These developments will make Arizona the thirtieth state in which such marriages are now fully permitted. It will also allow recognition of gay and lesbian marriages performed in other states for Arizonans. (Meanwhile, at this hour, there is no word from the Supreme Court on the legal situation in Alaska.)

  • 116. Jaesun100  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:24 am

    I'm thinking he does not want the conservative voters in North Carolina think this is a done deal he is trying to increase the conservative turnout to get elected imo. In the process wasting our States tax money on something that is useless and a waste of time ….

  • 117. Steve27516  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:26 am

    I'd love to know the backstory to this happy comment, ragefirewolf …

  • 118. MichaelGrabow  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:27 am

    He is also smart to appeal to the voters who not supporters, but are concerned with the state's finances.

  • 119. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:30 am

    It's a pretty common phenomenon where a formerly downtrodden group gains their equality and then takes it out on the next new kids on the block, as if to further elevate themselves. Or at least that my personal biased viewpoint :)

  • 120. Waxr  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Nope. By giving no response the Court will be telling everybody that they won't even waste the time to respond.

    Plus, if there is no need to make a decision, the standard court practice is not to make one.

  • 121. davepCA  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:33 am

    That's awesome!!

  • 122. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:37 am

    Brewer didn't say anything about taxpayers' money, she only went on fuming about "states rights trumped by the federal government".

  • 123. Waxr  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:42 am

    As they say, "Arizona goes by God's time."

  • 124. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:43 am

    The fact he isn't running for reelection also probably has something to do with it.

  • 125. RobW303  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Not buying it. It's a matter of guaranteed civil rights (that has already been decided); you don't hold hearings on whether to allow infringing someone's guaranteed civil rights. Shall we get an injunction against external Christmas decorations? They're tacky and not in keeping with "traditional taste". I just don't like them. Sure, maybe—just maybe—there's something in the Constitution that vaguely might apply to them, but I'm not convinced. Religious freedom doesn't give you the right to put up eyesores and proselytize to my young, impressionable children. So let's get an injunction against celebrating Christmas with a hearing to be held, say, February 12th; there's no rush. What's sauce for the goose….

  • 126. debater7474  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:45 am

    It sees like the whole thing is such a foregone conclusion by now. I wonder if Roberts concurs in the pro-marriage equality opinion when it finally reaches the court.

  • 127. jpmassar  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:48 am

    So the Supreme Court is going to "let the clock run out" ? That's kind of amusing.

  • 128. RobW303  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:49 am

    No, getting it would be realizing that gay people have guaranteed constitutional rights that no state has the right to infringe. Getting it would be admitting that the state, and the majority of the people of the state, were dead wrong in ever passing such a ban.

  • 129. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:49 am

    It's my happy dance. I must say I don't do it as often as I'd like…but news like this is worthy of it. :-)

  • 130. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Indeed it is. I look at some of the bigots of color who have fought against us in so many states who repeat the talking point that unlike the color of their skin, we "choose" to be gay and thus don't deserve "special" rights.

  • 131. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:50 am

    I really can't believe SCOTUS will leave state officials in Alaska that humiliated by hanging them on that..!

  • 132. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:51 am

    I wrote to her and tweeted her with that same exact point. So much for The Golden Rule. Her insistent misinformation was infuriating and beneath the dignity of a governor.

  • 133. flyerguy77  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:52 am

    8 MORE MINS… Where is SCOTUS?

  • 134. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:52 am

    I don't really understand the delusion that Roberts will concur in a marriage equality ruling. It is both extremely unlikely and as Justice Thomas (another highly unlikely concurrence) once aptly said, "uncommonly silly."

  • 135. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:52 am

    It kinda matches up with all their cert denials. They're saying "go away, we're busy with more important stuff".

  • 136. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:53 am

    You are asking too much now I am afraid. At least he realizes that spending taxpayers' money not for legal purposes (as an AG should do) but for political purposes on a frivolous suit is not ethical. Other republican AGs could learn something from him.

  • 137. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:55 am

    He had to do that because until this year, there were several vacancies on the court.

  • 138. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Now that you answered I cannot edit my comment further for the countdown lol 😛 !

    5 more minutes..Parnell is sweating even in Alaska at this moment..!

  • 139. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Kennedy's just walking the stay request around the Court chambers.

    "Elena?" "Nope."
    "Sonia?" "No way!"
    "Ruth?" "Don't be absurd, Tony. Of course not!"
    "Stephen?" "No reason for it."
    "Sam?" "Ughh…what's the use? No."
    "Nino?" "Argle bargle."
    "John?" "Think of my reputation. No stay."
    "Clarence?" "………"
    "Clarence?" "………"
    "CLARENCE?" "……."
    Kennedy: "We'll take that as a 'no' vote."

  • 140. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Don't know why I keep hitting the refresh button. Five minutes to go for deadline. Doesn't seem like the SCOTUS style to dramatically release something with minutes to go…

    I was wrong, per Lyle at SCOTUSBlog: "The Court released its order just moments before a temporary delay imposed by a federal appeals court was due to expire."

  • 141. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

    I am crying from laughter right now,especially the Clarence part !!! ROFL !!

  • 142. brooklyn11217  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Less than 1 minute…

  • 143. jpmassar  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:59 am

    High Noon!

  • 144. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Happy marriage equality in Alaska ladies and gentlemen :) !

  • 145. wes228  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Should auld acquaintance be forgotttt and neverrr brought to minddd!

  • 146. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Is Kenney just not going to respond today and allow the temporary stay to expire? 12:00 PM has just passed.

  • 147. CowboyPhD  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Is it official?

  • 148. jpmassar  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Or do they have to dissolve the order physically in acid? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • 149. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    If Kennedy does not respond, then it is official unless Alaska appeals to the 9th for an extension of the temporary stay. This lack of SCOTUS response is unexpected.

  • 150. jpmassar  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    The Wikipedia Gods haven't changed Alaska's map color yet.

  • 151. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    I just flashed back way too many decades to Clarabell the Clown on the Howdy Doody show. He never spoke a word – until the very last minute of the last episode where he choked out a sad "goodbye, kids". I can see Thomas doing the same thing from the bench 10 years from now.
    The name may not be a coincidence.

  • 152. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    Oh here it comes according to Lyle :
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-allows-sa

    Oh and it's a..wait for it..NO !

  • 153. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    Oh here it comes according to Lyle :
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/court-allows-sa

    Oh and it's a..wait for it..NO !

  • 154. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    They're the Supreme Court so they can do whatever they please. Still, I'd expect them to dispose of the request one way or the other. It's possible they have informed the parties but haven't yet updated the docket.

  • 155. Swifty819  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    The actual AK order:
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

  • 156. Swifty819  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    The actual AK order:
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

  • 157. Swifty819  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    The actual AK order:
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

  • 158. Swifty819  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    The actual AK order:
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

  • 159. Swifty819  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    The actual AK order:
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

  • 160. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    from the Alaska Dispatch News in Anchorage:
    http://www.adn.com/article/20141017/temporary-sta

  • 161. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    unexpected, delicious, catty, gossipy, swift sword. All state gov's and AGs must now repeat after AZ's AG Horne – appealing with zero chance of success is not a conservative principle.
    And in my opinion, it's official unless and until the 9th grants another stay, which will be hard to get today since all but 3 in SF are probably out celebrating already. (Maybe they even figured out drinks are on the house in the Castro and SOM tonight).

  • 162. franklinsewell  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    My heavens … My favorite words … "and by him referred to the court is denied." They clearly only want to take a case if a ban is actually upheld.

  • 163. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Wordy, ain't they?

  • 164. flyerguy77  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    I'm laughing my ass now… they waited to the last min.. I think they are giving us hints ha ha

  • 165. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    4th time in a row it is reviewed by the entire court. Hopefully, that pattern will continue since I'm very confident more states are going to try…and loose.

  • 166. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    "And by him referred to the Court…"

    No justice-shopping allowed then.

    BTW the Court docket is STILL not updated. But we know all we need to know and that's a very, very good thing.

  • 167. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Dr. Z, I think you are being far too generous. My opinion is that she is a bigot, perhaps indebted to Graham or other conservative politician for her job. She really should be censured by the Fourth Circuit. This is ridiculous. Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina have acted responsibly. Her stalling tactics are infuriating and contrary to the rule of law.

    Lambda Legal has filed another suit with a different judge. I take that as meaning they do not trust her to do the right thing.

  • 168. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Dr. Z, I think you are being far too generous. My opinion is that she is a bigot, perhaps indebted to Graham or other conservative politician for her job. She really should be censured by the Fourth Circuit. This is ridiculous. Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina have acted responsibly. Her stalling tactics are infuriating and contrary to the rule of law.

    As an African American, she should know very well that justice delayed is justice denied.

    Lambda Legal has filed another suit with a different judge. I take that as meaning they do not trust her to do the right thing.

  • 169. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Lovely. Concise language should be admired.

  • 170. guitaristbl  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    So what we learn out of that : SCOTUS won't stay district court rulings either from circuits where COA have ruled in favour of ME. Take notice bigots in Montana, Wyoming, Kansas and South Carolina. Wow we only have a few left from the settled circuits..

  • 171. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Dispatch got it wrong. I emailed writer to check the denial – not Kennedy alone.

  • 172. RemC_Chicago  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Right, Interesting, no?

  • 173. cpnlsn88  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    I wonder if this is now the new pattern. District court judge rules and denies a stay; appeals court grants a stay lasting a few days in order to seek one from SCOTUS; denial of stay by SCOTUS. Then the penny will drop that all the while SCOTUS has been deciding marriage equality cases in the affirmative, at each time implicitly rejecting the thinking of Baker. Further nudges to the 6th to get on an do the right thing.

  • 174. Eric  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    SCOTUS is no longer issuing gay=stays, so there really isn't a reason for the circuit courts to issue stays either.

  • 175. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    You may well be right; I didn't say she wasn't a bigot. I said I could find nothing in her background that suggested that she was a bigot. From her record she seems bright and hardworking and committed to social justice, BUT…sometimes very smart and highly capable people have blind spots. She may well have strong beliefs against ME that we don't know about, but in the absence of proof it's worth remembering that we are just speculating, and therr are other possible explanations for her actions.

    None of this alters the fact that it's wrong for her to drag this out, no matter what her reasons are.

    I was

  • 176. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    I can't describe how happy I am with 1st class citizenship (fortunately CO already had other non-discrimination legislation in place). However, don't think for a moment we're regarded as "normal". We must pick up the pieces of dung left behind by years of discrimination, on our own dime. CO AG Suther's office – he who managed to clear up ME marriage licenses in a flash 10 days ago – refuses to give me an answer as to whether my out-of-state (VT) licence is recognized here in CO as full marriage, not civil union. They want me to hire an attorney, and potentially sue the state to get an answer. So much for the graciousness of losing Republicans. OK, in CO we can now avoid paying an officiant by "self-affirming" a license, but I'm damned if I have to fork over another $30 and get married again. I'm a Vermont native; pissed off and feisty is my birthright.

  • 177. Eric  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    A denial of a fundamental right for any amount of time is an irreparable harm. She is choosing to continue the unconstitutional harm, that makes her biased against LGBT. An unbiased judge would err on the side of liberty.

  • 178. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Thanks for reminding us of the earlier case. No wonder Brewer is furious.

  • 179. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Do governors have any dignity? Not in my state.

  • 180. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Or as I say, "not bloody likely!"

  • 181. Jen_in_MI  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    OK, it's a time for honesty. Make no mistake – I am THRILLED that so many more states have banded together under the equality umbrella…but I am getting more and more frustrated waiting for the 6thCA to effing ISSUE A DECISION ALREADY! And it's unconscionable that the issue of folks marrying during the window after MI's ban bit the dust has languished after similar states with this situation have stopped contesting the validity of these marriages. Yes, I am hella jealous and TIRED OF WAITING FOR MY EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. /end rant

  • 182. JayJonson  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    LOL.

  • 183. brandall  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    BRILLANT! LMAO! You should hit over 50 thumbs up for that one. I hit that a few days ago with my "Putin can see gay marriage, " but it originated from Chris Johnson. Yours is original….still LMAO. Send it to Chris Johnson, he might publish it!

  • 184. RQO  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    You are right, of course, and since Michigan as a whole is pro-ME the situation is just absurdly ridiculous and unfortunate. (Though I note the LGBT among us have lived their entire lives in this state.) But the issue has been timing for political points and positioning. Today I think answers any questions anyone may have had. Any further delay on the part of the 6th – certainly for MI after Friedman's tour de force opinion and trial evidence – is inexcusable. Read that word again Sutton: inexcusable.

  • 185. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Jen, it will happen soon enough……and I know the wait is NOT easy, but this train is picking up speed and your state will be aboard will soon!!!

  • 186. RnL2008  |  October 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    That's just to funny……love it!!!

  • 187. MrBaronB  |  October 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Don't underestimate Roberts' narcissism. He's been obsessed with his own legacy since he was first nominated. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito clearly don't give a damn how history remembers them, but Roberts is a little more than obsessed with it. That alone could swing his opinion on a case that's destined to be well-remembered by history.

  • 188. MrBaronB  |  October 17, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    They're just being big ol' drama queens… 😉

  • 189. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    Don't overestimate it. He's relatively young, has lifetime tenure, and a fat purse. He's also got plenty of wealthy friends. The idea of legacy here is irrelevant. If he really cared about legacy in this arena, he would've concurred on Windsor. He did not.

  • 190. StraightDave  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Wow! A brand new excuse. I have not heard this one before. AK must be special.
    Gay is bad. The environment is bad. It's all one big conspiracy.

    The first comment in the Alaska Dispatch News article linked above says:

    "Since so many LGBT's have environmental agendas, I'm now wondering in the long term how long will our PFD will be diminished? The lift on the gay marriage ban will encourage many to now stay, as well as encourage other LGBT to relocate to Alaska. Then that means more lobbyists & objectors to further developments in our oilfields, as well as pursuing production in our mining industry. I could care less about what they do in the bedroom as long as they don't interfere with our economy."

    "PFD" is the Permanent Fund Dividend, an annual payment of between $1000-2000 to every AK resident from the oil profits.

    Since when did us straight people not give a shit about the environment?

  • 191. MrBaronB  |  October 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Yeah, but he'd be smart enough to know that Windsor was not going to be the definitive marriage equality case and *definitely* not the last one.

  • 192. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Dave I will NEVER admit to getting your reference to Clarabell the Clown and Howdy Doody. :)

  • 193. sfbob  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    I will probably put in a comment on Daily Kos later today.

  • 194. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    You're allowed your own opinion but not your own facts. The facts are that Roberts has never ruled for equality and most likely will not do so. You are free to believe whatever you want to the contrary but it is hardly a reflection of reality.

    Don't get me wrong. I'd like nothing better than to see a larger majority on an equality decision than 5-4. That is, if a SCOTUS intervention even becomes necessary. However, just because I want it to happen doesn't mean it will happen. It's a futile exercise in magical thinking otherwise.

  • 195. Dr. Z  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Well, he did once – when that crazy Wash DC preacher wanted to put their ME law up to a referendum in violation of the DC human rights law. I think this was in 2010 or 2011.

  • 196. ragefirewolf  |  October 17, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    Chief Justice Roberts did? What case was that, Doc?

  • 197. LK2013  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    Jen, so sorry you are going through this and we ALL hope the effing 6th COA issues their effing decision effing soon!

  • 198. LK2013  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    Exactly. We are still fighting in NJ for civil unions to be recognized retroactively as the marriages they were intended to be. Illinois cleaned that up in the legislation. But the NJ summary judgment left this question open. The legislature just introduced yet another bill to correct this, but they never seem to get it done. A lawsuit would accomplish it – especially right now – but we aren't going to pay for that, and Lamda Legal and Garden State Equality have moved on. So yes, there are messes left behind for sure! But there are also still states without even basic marriage, so … I understand. But it is still an effing mess!

  • 199. ebohlman  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    It's like someone with a miswired retina watching the the leaves turn colors in the fall.

  • 200. Zack12  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Indeed, the fight for equal treatment is far from over.
    I will say this..good riddance to civil unions and domestic partnerships.
    They sure as hell weren't legal and only served as a reminder that we were viewed as second class citizens.

  • 201. flyerguy77  |  October 17, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Do you mean big ol' drama justice queens? hehehe

  • 202. ebohlman  |  October 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    It's only been 72 days since oral arguments; the 10th and 4th weren't any faster, and they weren't dealing with six different cases all at once like the 6th. Also, the 4th and 10th are among the fastest circuits, and the 6th is among the slowest.

  • 203. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    Another state that had/has split time was/is Indiana.

    Several NW counties are very closely tied to Chicago, and are on Central Time (Standard and Daylight); several SE counties are very closely tied to Cincinnati, and are on Eastern Time (Standard and Daylight). The rest of the state, until recently, didn't switch from Standard time to Daylight Time (staying on Standard time year-round), and thus swung between EST and CDT.

    The "what to call it" question was quickly settled – "Indiana time".

  • 204. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 17, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    I think he cares about legacy, but he is a very careful 'picker and chooser' of the cases he does and does not support.

    I also think he truly believes his legacy won't be helped with his political and judicial philosophy, thus why he picks and chooses the cases with so much care. He knows he definitely won't be considered 'the best' Chief Justice, but he doesn't want to be in the lowest 1/4 either.

    I get the distinct feeling that he doesn't want to be remembered in the same way Roger Taney is remembered in court history.

  • 205. Mike_Baltimore  |  October 18, 2014 at 12:23 am

    Just after his confirmation hearings, Thomas stated that he intended to stay on the court longer than anyone else ever had (record holder, at 13,358 days, currently is William Douglas. Thomas has 'only' been on the court for about 8,400 days so far.).

    If he keeps his promise, he will stay on until the end of the 2027/28 SC term. Except for death, though, it is highly unusual for a Justice to retire at the end of a SC term ending in a Presidential election year (or before the end of an SC term), so we'll probably be stuck with Thomas until at least the end of the 2028/29 SC term. Since he is now 66, he has basically announced that he intends to stay on the bench until at least 81, and more likely 82 or 83 (or even older if he doesn't retire at the end of June 2029).

  • 206. Zack12  |  October 18, 2014 at 3:34 am

    Thomas is easily the worst Supreme Court justices ever.. and sadly one of the best jobs of Republicans getting a young right wing hack on the Supreme Court who will influence policy for years to come.
    If only Thurgood Marshall had been able to hang on for one more year..

  • 207. Dr. Z  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:24 am

    Jackson v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 999 A.2d 89 (D.C. 2010).

  • 208. hopalongcassidy  |  October 18, 2014 at 4:38 am

    Hey, no remarks from the peanut gallery…

  • 209. wes228  |  October 18, 2014 at 5:03 am

    Justice Roberts could have ended his Windsor dissent simply with the standing issue (he did find that there was no standing for the appeal). Instead, he continued to argue not just why he thought DOMA was constitutional, but then also tried to undermine the effect the majority opinion would have on overturning state bans, stressing its nonexistent federalism principles.

    He's a no vote. It'll be 5-4. All you need is 5 though.

  • 210. ragefirewolf  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:39 am

    That was a rejection of a stay request, not a ruling in favor of equality. You cannot look back on that with today's lense. He could've rejected that stay request for any reason. Otherwise, there's no positive history on his part for LGBT equality – none. The rest is contrived or wishful thinking.

  • 211. josejoram  |  October 18, 2014 at 6:42 am

    What will happen in Florida next Friday? Consecuences?

  • 212. Dr. Z  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:10 am

    Don't misunderstand me, I think Roberts isn't going to side with us. Roberts is to LGBT what Pennsylvania is to a Republican presidential candidate: so tempting, so close, seems to hint at being helpful, and yet it never seems to happen.

    The Roberts nugget here was a comment to the Rev Jackson to the effect that you have to present an argument before I can help you. In the context of that case I interpreted that as: gee I really would like to side with you but as your attorney I have to have an argument that passes the laugh test.

    Which, if anything, only supports the point you are making. Roberts isn't convertable. He's got a carefully concealed blind spot on LGBT issues, IMO.

  • 213. ragefirewolf  |  October 18, 2014 at 7:15 am

    Well said, Doc.

  • 214. billiebobrob  |  October 18, 2014 at 10:05 am

    Having read Jan Brewer's comments regarding her opinion that "activist judges" should not be allowed to overturn the "will of the people"… someone suggested to me that a ballot initiative should be drafted stating that stupid blond women cannot hold elective office… see how Jan Brewer would react if the voters approved it. Anyone want to bet that she'd go to the courts and ask "activist judges" to overturn "the will of the people" because "the people" chose to discriminate against HER?

  • 215. SeattleRobin  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:30 am

    I think there's a different principle at play when it comes to politics. Many years ago I noticed that there was a trend in which the first women to attain high political office are conservatives. It's just a trend, so there are exceptions, but applies to heads of state in other countries, as well as to many offices here in the US.

    Once I noticed this, I predicted that the first female president of the US would be a Republican. (Someone along the lines of Elizabeth Dole.) I was sticking to that until 2008, when Hillary surprised me at how well she did. Now I figure it could be either party, especially with the Republican shift to the far right. I can't imagine the majority of the country voting for someone of Crazy Eyes Bachmann's ilk.

    I don't know the actual explanation for the trend, but my guess has always been that women in authority is threatening as it is. So people tend to think of a conservative woman as less threatening than a liberal. I mean, god only knows what would happen with a lib. Probably mandated by law unisex bathrooms and abortions!!

  • 216. SeattleRobin  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:40 am

    I almost spit out my drink at "argle bargle". Well done!

  • 217. SeattleRobin  |  October 19, 2014 at 8:48 am

    Well, according to numerous court documents, you straight people are so irresponsible. Fathers aren't going to bond with their genetic offspring now, and he-man oil drillers will leave the state as all those flower sniffing nancy boys prance in. Or something.

  • 218. RemC_Chicago  |  October 19, 2014 at 11:37 am

    I'm with you. My father-in-law lives in MI. Weird that IN got ME first. you have many supporters nationwide waiting for fairness to come to MI…and the other states in the 6th.

  • 219. RemC_Chicago  |  October 19, 2014 at 11:40 am

    Good golly. Since civil unions in IL were "convertible," I assumed it was true for the other states. You would think your VT license would be recognizable. Wasn't that part of the legal fight or no? Can't recall.

  • 220. RemC_Chicago  |  October 19, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Duh.

  • 221. Cristianos Gays » E&hellip  |  October 19, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    […] Unidos donde es legal el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. El juez federal John W. Sedwick ha sentenciado que la prohibición del matrimonio igualitario vigente en las leyes del estado de Arizona viola la […]

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