Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Pro-marriage equality Virginia AG to appeal Fourth Circuit ruling to Supreme Court

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Virginia state sealVirginia Attorney General Mark Herring–a supporter of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples–will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a pro-marriage equality ruling issued by a federal appellate court, his office announced today.  From Metro Weekly:

On Friday, Herring, a Democrat who has said the Virginia ban is unconstitutional, will file a petition for writ of certiorari asking the nation’s highest court to hear Virginia’s marriage equality case and definitively settle the constitutional issues it raises.

Although one of the defendants in the case announced last week after the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision finding the Virginia ban unconstitutional that she would appeal to the Supreme Court, Herring’s office stated his filing will ensure no delay arises during the 90-day window available to petition the high court to review the case. Bostic v. Schaefer was originally filed on behalf of two same-sex couples in July 2013 by the legal team that challenged California’s Proposition 8, including the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) along with attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal joined the case in March on behalf of all of Virginia’s same-sex couples.

Herring’s office will officially file the appeal this Friday, August 8.

Earlier today, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, a Republican who has argued against marriage equality in court, asked the Supreme Court to consider another appellate court’s ruling in favor of same-sex couples’ right to wed.

The two petitions for certiorari (as they are officially known in Supreme Court-speak) will be considered by the high court during its next judicial conference, which will take place in September.  (The Court’s term starts in October.)  At the conference, the Justices will decide whether or not to hear the appeals out of Utah and Virginia (which are in the Tenth and Fourth Circuits, respectively), or they could decide to sit on the appeals and wait for further decisions to arise out of the lower courts.

What that means is that we may know by the end of September that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of state-based marriage equality bans sometime in its upcoming term, with a decision due by summer 2015.  Of course, we may no nothing on that front by the end of September.  Admittedly, this isn’t the most helpful of information, but such is the nature of SCOTUS-watching.

Nevertheless, with so many district courts and now appellate courts ruling in favor of marriage equality–no court since the Windsor DOMA decision has ruled against it–it seems difficult to see how the Supreme Court could justify not hearing such an appeal, especially since doing so could result in equal marriage rights in some of the nation’s most conservative states (Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming are all in the Tenth Circuit, while the Fourth Circuit includes South Carolina and West Virginia) without a consistent, nationwide ruling from the highest court in the land.


  • 1. Jen_in_MI  |  August 5, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Why am I hearing "Dueling Banjoes" in my head right now? 🙂

  • 2. Corey_from_MD  |  August 5, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    We are nearly there indeed!!

  • 3. davepCA  |  August 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Can someone please explain – if the Virginia AG agrees with the lower court rulings in our favor, why is he appealing this to SCOTUS? It can't be to prevent someone else from intervening and doing this instead of him, since nobody else has standing to do so – right?. Is it just because he wants this particular case to be the one that results in a nation-wide ruling in our favor, instead of one of the other cases? And if so, why?

  • 4. brandall  |  August 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    And why support the stay (see below, we were posting at the same time)?

  • 5. Corey_from_MD  |  August 5, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    As pointed out previously, the CLERKS in Virginia have standing and this seems to be an act to go around them and go for the inevitable as quickly as possible.

  • 6. BillinNO  |  August 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Yeah- it says he did it to avoid delay.

  • 7. andrewofca  |  August 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Just a guess – but to ensure there is no dragging of heels on the anti-ME side? Left to their own devices they might wait till the 23rd hour of 89th day to file.

  • 8. Rick55845  |  August 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    One possible explanation, and the one that I think is most likely, is that he doesn't want the case to be unnecessarily delayed waiting for someone with standing to appeal to get on with it.

    He may believe (as I do) that the fastest way to bring about marriage equality across the US is to have SCOTUS grant cert.

    Plus… maybe Olson and Boies promised him significant mention in the books that are sure to be written to chronicle their future brilliant performance before the Supreme Court. 🙂

  • 9. Jen_in_MI  |  August 5, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    Paging Jo Becker…

  • 10. tornado163  |  August 5, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    It's pretty much what happened with DOMA. The primary government officials (President and US Attorney General / VA governor and VA Attorney General) think the ban should be struck down, but are appealing so that there is official standing. Other goverment officials (House Republicans / VA Clerks) are appealing to have the ban maintained. So maybe it's not just about a delay, but to make sure that there's no quirks involving standing stopping the court from deciding on the merits of the ban. Even though the district or appeals court said the clerks have standing, SCOTUS could still dodge the issue by ruling that the clerks don't have standing so that there is no appeal and nothing for the Supreme Court to say.

  • 11. Mistahtom  |  August 7, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    This was something I've been saying for a long time ever since the backers of prop 8 intervened. The governor/AG need to "defend" the law in court and do a shitty-ass job of it.
    To ensure a ruling for the other side. Then don't ask for any emergency stays.

    Because of prop 8, there is standing in the California courts that backers of propositions have standing in California courts. This is why you don't legislate bigotry, you get answers to questions that never needed to be answered.

  • 12. brandall  |  August 5, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    VA – Bostic: Plaintiff's Oppose Motion to Stay the Mandate [reposted to this latest article]
    This case is AFER, Boies and Olson. I was out and about earlier today and it's impossible to read briefs on an iPhone. I've now had a chance to read their filing from Monday. They are clearly saying you can't follow Kitchen (read SCOTUS stay) and they repeatedly point out the 23 Federal decisions in favor of ME.

    Opening Summary Statement: "Even assuming the Supreme Court is likely to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, Clerk McQuigg cannot demonstrate that she is likely to prevail on the merits, that she (or the Commonwealth) will be irreparably harmed if the stay does not issue, or that the balance of equities, including the public interest, favors staying enforcement"

    Likelihood of Success: "It is also consistent with the decisions of no fewer than 23 federal courts … to consider a same-sex marriage ban since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor. Given this decisive weight of authority, Clerk McQuigg simply cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits"

    Depriving a Fundamental Right: "The balance of equities and the public interest strongly favor immediate enforcement of the district court’s injunction…Once declared unconstitutional, such a deprivation of a fundamental right should not be permitted to remain in force, even during the pendency of an appeal."

    Harm to Plaintiff's: "In any event, that risk of uncertainty falls on those same-sex couples who choose to marry before the Supreme Court has ruled, rather than on Clerk McQuigg or the Commonwealth."

    State's Legitimate Interests: "Moreover, unlike in Kitchen, where the State of Utah continues to defend the constitutionality of its prohibition on same-sex marriage, the Commonwealth has conceded in this case that Virginia’s Marriage Prohibition is unconstitutional, which conclusively demonstrates that the Commonwealth has no legitimate interest in leaving that discriminatory measure in place pending further appeal."

    Independence of the Case: "Whether or not to stay the mandate rests squarely within this Court’s discretion and turns on the particular circumstances of each case. "

    The court is going to have to respond to this. It's a bit weird (not coordinated) that Herring says he will file for cert with a stay. The big question will be if the Plaintiff's are denied this motion, will they appeal? How far does the AFER team want to push this? I want them to push it all the way to SCOTUS, but I've been pissed off about these stays for weeks now.

  • 13. Ragavendran  |  August 5, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    I think the "State's Legitimate Interests" portion of your excellent summary is the most notable distinction of this case from Utah's Kitchen. Let's see how Floyd and Gregory decide. (Niemeyer is a lost case.) I fear they might, as has been the custom in all appellate courts to have considered the matter post-Kitchen so far, just go with gay-means-stay.

  • 14. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:04 am

    Morning brandall,
    I believe the plaintiff's will push this all the way to SCOTUS because Olson and Boies have argued in front of SCOTUS many times and Olson has a better than 75% success rate at SCOTUS.

    I am totally with ya regarding the stays……why have guidelines if they AREN'T being followed?

  • 15. DrPatrick1  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:05 am

    I think the right course of action is to request to have the stay lifted, it may be denied by the 4th circuit, then appeal the denial to SCOTUS. It is unreasonable to have this stay in place, just as Ragavendran has written. While the lawyers in the other cases may be intimidated by going to SCOTUS, and worried about offending or bothering a justice, OLSON and Boies have no such fear. They realize that the justices have much thicker skin, and won't be so easily pushed to a negative response. They may have contrary views on the law, but they won't take things so personally.

    I think if any progress will happen throughout the country before the ultimate SCOTUS decision is released, it will be because these lawyers took the gay means stay question all the way to SCOTUS.

    On the other hand, I think it is very unlikely that Bostic will be the final case to decide this. I think the State (Commonwealth) conceding defeat here helps us with the stay appeal, but hurts us in having the AFER team pull this through all the way to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS picks up Bostic as the appeal of choice, the door is sooooo very wide open for them to release a decision where our opponents claim it doesn't apply to their states because their states are not going along with this change. It will likely drag out the ME fight for years.

    On the other hand, taking the UT case, it would be very difficult to issue a narrow opinion which doesn't settle this issue.

    The appeal to SCOTUS to lift the Stay if the 4th refuses, just might be AFER's last chance to put their names behind this very historic change in our country.

  • 16. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:19 am

    I am hoping you are right about the stays.

    You raise an excellent point about Bostic and I agree with you. Just out of curiosity… as in Windsor, couldn't the court appoint counsel to defend the state in order to insure there is no question about the defensive position having full representation? There is a similarity here.

  • 17. DrPatrick1  |  August 6, 2014 at 9:46 am

    Indeed they can accept an intervenor if necessary, but when multiple cases are available, why not take the cleanest case and settle the issue. If they don't take a clean case, look for them to hedge and not real settle the issue

  • 18. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Even if the Rainey petition that is going to be filed this Friday could be suspect for standing because she (with the AG behind her) is in support of repealing the marriage ban, McQuigg's cert petition will have no such issues, and she does have independent standing.

  • 19. JamesInCA  |  August 6, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Why would SCOTUS have changed their minds on the issue of a stay since they went out of their way to issue one in Kitchen?

  • 20. DrPatrick1  |  August 6, 2014 at 9:51 am

    This is a great question. As I see it, the Sotomayor stay was to allow these opposing sides to complete the appeals process. Arguably that situation no longer exists in VA, and may give SCOTUS an opportunity to eliminate the gay equals stay in existence today.

    It is a little muddled because the AG supports the stay and is appealing. Although he has made clear his intention to file briefs in support of the notion the discrimination is unconstitutional, that will only come out in his briefs. I hope SCOTUS sees through this, and lifts the stay in VA. This will give an opportunity for the stay issue to be readdressed in other cases.

  • 21. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:12 am

    I hope that you are correct and SCOTUS will lift the VA stay. And if they do, perhaps the UT and OK plaintiffs can also ask them to lift their respective stays, now that the Tenth has ruled, at least to test waters.

  • 22. mario315  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:25 am

    I'm so confused about the Virginia AG supporting the stay, even though lots of comments here are trying to explain it…. Question: Is any party that is involved in the Virginia case asking the US Supreme Court to LIFT the stay or is it that now BOTH sides want the stay to remain in place ???….. Because Olson & Boies want to force cert on the merits of the case and don't want a ruling on the stay being lifted ???…. So baffled !!!

  • 23. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:31 am

    Q: Is any party that is involved in the Virginia case asking the US Supreme Court to LIFT the stay?

    A: Yes, AFER filed on behalf of their plaintiff's to lift the stay on preventing new marriages. Don't confuse this with a stay on the ruling itself. The appeal to SCOTUS will continue.

    Q: or is it that now BOTH sides want the stay to remain in place?

    A: Yes. Both AG Herring and the defendants want the stay on new marriages to remain in place.

    Q: Because Olson & Boies want to force cert on the merits of the case and don't want a ruling on the stay being lifted?

    A: This has nothing to do with cert. They all want SCOTUS cert. The issue of the stay is to prevent new marriages and is a separate moving part.

    Does this help?

  • 24. mario315  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:49 am

    Thank you for explaining !…. I don't understand the Virginia AG's strategy of pushing so hard for the Stay to remain in place, only our opponents do that…. I hope he's not overthinking this and in the process a bigger mess is created…
    Prefer to get all that energy of the AG's Office to push for the Stay to be lifted, 4 more states get marriage equality, and we live to fight another day with 23 states in our pocket….

  • 25. Eric  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:17 am

    It's politics, the AG wants to appease both sides. That's why his position is hypocritical, if he truly thinks the state's position is unconstitutional, then he can't logically support a stay.

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    It could be that he is trying to make sure SCOTUS is able to concentrate solely on ME, and not other issues that are tangential, at best, to ME. You can be assured that SC (and possibly other states in the 4th Circuit) would take up the fight to retain the stay.

    Then again, maybe his thinking is not so 'straight forward' but a bit more convoluted.

    Maryland is basically out of this discussion, since it already has ME, and recognizes legal marriages from other states.

  • 27. Eric  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Because, each stay is supposed to be decided de novo based on the particulars of that specific case. What has actually happened is that there is a fifth, unwritten test, that gay means stay. It's like RoboCop's directive 4.

  • 28. debater7474  |  August 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    So the Florida marriage ban was apparently just struck down for a fourth time, lol.

  • 29. ragefirewolf  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:09 am


  • 30. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 5:39 am

    There's another since the Broward County one just 2 days ago??

  • 31. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 6:02 am

    Yes. I think the media is definitely having a tough time keeping track of it all, it just took me a few different searches to find an article on the correct ruling.

  • 32. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:19 am

    This was previously posted and has comments…about 3 hours before debater7474 added this comment. It's the 4th FL decision in our favor. See the bottom of:

  • 33. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:34 am

    I was not referring to EoT.

  • 34. ragefirewolf  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:48 am

    Thank you, Michael!!

    It looks like it only applies to the plaintiff in question and not to the entire county, unlike the other rulings in Florida so far.

  • 35. Margo Schulter  |  August 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    Maybe Attorney General Herring feels a certain kind of institutional conservatism: “Yes, of course marriage equality is the right position and it’s very likely to win, with my hearty support! But let’s do this in as orderly a way as possible, covering for the possibility — however unlikely we might consider it, that SCOTUS just might overturn the Fourth Circuit. An expeditious review, if SCOTUS so chooses, will resolve this soon enough.”

    Of course, if SCOTUS denies cert., that would resolve the situation in Virginia even sooner.

  • 36. MichaelGrabow  |  August 5, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Attention: Corey_from_MD.

  • 37. MichaelGrabow  |  August 5, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    You are truly a ridiculous human being. I made a simple statement that he previously made it seem like he would appeal and you went on and on and on that you weren't buying it (as if I my intent was to convince YOU) and it wasn't going to happen. Regardless of the reason behind it, it happened. You were wrong, get over it. Not admitting when you're wrong is a terrible quality in a person.

  • 38. MichaelGrabow  |  August 5, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Also, I said "inexplicably".

  • 39. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:20 am

    There is some info about transcripts and streamed audio from the Sixth on today's arguments,
    looks like nothing will be available live but will be shortly after they're finished this afternoon,

  • 40. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:25 am

    I am sure I read the audio would be available one hour after the conclusion of the arguments. I'm sorry I don't have the link about the release time.

  • 41. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:38 am

    It must be right around 5 pm Eastern time, they have scheduled 3 hours starting at 1300 hrs

  • 42. Dr. Z  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:43 am

    Here's my prediction: all pending appeals at the Sixth, Fifth, Ninth etc Circuits will be frozen once SCOTUS grants cert for one or more of Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia. I think they will pick Utah because it is the most straightforward, but they may do like the Sixth did and take 'em all at once. (I doubt it though.) I think it more likely they will just hang onto Oklahoma and Virginia while hearing Utah. The stays will remain in force until they issue their opinion toward the end of June 2015 (can we hope for June 27?)

    It's endgame, and it will be a long suspenseful 10 months.

  • 43. BenG1980  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Isn't it possible, and, given the circumstances, likely, that the Sixth will have already ruled by the time SCOTUS conferences to discuss cert?

  • 44. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Well, given that UT has already filed their petition in Kitchen, it's ripe for Conference on October 10th. Similarly with VA in Bostic.
    That's pretty fast for the 6th – only 2 months.

  • 45. BenG1980  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:45 am

    Very true, but they could start copying and pasting their decision tomorrow. lol

  • 46. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:51 am

    Except for Michigan. We want them to pull in specific information from the trial record.

  • 47. Eric  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:24 am

    Can anyone explain if there is any difference in the appeals process for summary judgments vs. trials?

  • 48. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:33 am

    As I understand it, fact findings from a trial are considered binding on any higher court (even though Alito would disagree), unless it can be shown that they are "clearly erroneous", in which case, usually, the case would be remanded to the trial court for a retrial. So here, the State of Michigan is unlikely to prevail if it keeps on and on about the gays-are-bad-parents argument, as that argument was debunked in the process of the trial.

    In contrast, summary judgment is reviewed by a higher court de novo, meaning that it starts afresh, after wiping the slate clean of any lower court proceedings.

  • 49. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:39 am

    Ragavendran is exactly correct.
    Findings of FACT by the trial court are given extreme deference by appellate courts and SCOTUS.
    Findings of LAW by the trial court (which includes where summary judgment – i.e. judgment on the basis of briefs alone – is reached) are always reviewed anew.
    When you read the DeBoer decision, Judge Friedman is careful to delineate the two. The first section is his findings of fact, then follows his findings of law.

  • 50. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Especially the thorough discrediting of that BS Regnerus "study!"

  • 51. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:46 am

    Some C-SPAN channel is scheduled to telecast today's oral argument:
    It seems official, as the hosting organization is the "U.S. Court of Appeals | Sixth Circuit" (and clicking on it brings up a lot of old official Sixth Circuit videos).

    But it is uncertain what channel and whether it will be live or after the official audio is made available.

  • 52. BenG1980  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:52 am

    It looks like the court's website also has a link to a stream, but similarly not sure if it will be live.

  • 53. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Go up 2 root comments. Hopalongcassidy posted information.

  • 54. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 9:09 am

    AR – Officials ask judge to suspend STALL gay marriage case

    Request to stay in the Federal District court. I'll bet the AG tries the same thing in the state SC to avoid the recusal filing.

  • 55. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Can you or another knowledgeable commenter explain why a SCOTUS petition should affect the process of a state court? On its face this doesn't make sense to me.

  • 56. ebohlman  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    If the state court is deciding a case on at least partially Federal issues (yes, they can do that and in fact that's what the lower court in AR did), then they're bound by SCOTUS precedent (though not, in general, by Federal circuit court precedent)..Thus prudence dictates that they not move forward with a case that relies on issues also raised in a case that the SCOTUS has granted cert on but hasn't yet decided.

    However, this logic does not apply when there's a mere possibility that the SCOTUS might grant cert, which is the case here.

  • 57. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Thanks! Makes a bit more sense now.

  • 58. debater7474  |  August 6, 2014 at 9:25 am

    The Utah plaintiffs get to file a reply brief at the supreme court and then Utah gets to file a second brief, so I wonder if the Utah plaintiffs will even oppose certiorari in their brief. It would be interesting if they said, "We agree, take up our case," which of course almost never happens at the supreme court.

  • 59. Eric  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:25 am

    A decision in hand is worth two on cert.

  • 60. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:14 am

    Chris Johnson did not make it into the courtroom. He is in a overflow holding room for reporters. Chris is a credentialed reporter for the Washing Blade. I hope Scottie did better.

    Here is a picture of the holding room with the other reporters:

  • 61. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:08 am

    More on what's going on outside the courtroom. I am sure we all wish we were inside the courtroom itself and not here on EoT today.

    Hundreds of gay marriage supporters rallied Wednesday in downtown Cincinnati near the federal courthouse…3 pictures of ordinary folks at the ME support rally.

    "There was little sign of public opposition near the courthouse; opponents said they planned to pray that the judges uphold “traditional marriage.”

    "Archbishop Dennis Schnurr urged Roman Catholics in the 19-county Cincinnati archdiocese to pray that the appeals court would uphold Ohio’s ban in support of “traditional marriage” of “one man and one woman for life.”

    While I am in no way dishing folks belief in the power of prayer, this is all they left now. And that's not admissible in a courtroom.

  • 62. StraightDave  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:17 am

    After all their shouting, scribbling, and lying failed to get them anywhere, they might as well try praying. Now let's see how well they accept God's "answer".

  • 63. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    "Now let's see how well they accept God's "answer". "

    My guess is not very well. After all, don't they try to tell us all the time that they speak for god? Not only on ME issues, but ALL issues?

  • 64. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:36 am

    People who believe in praying to make-believe gods get the results they deserve.

  • 65. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    Thanks for the link. I'd not heard of this website and will be sure to share it with likeminded folks.

  • 66. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Target signs on to Amicus brief before the 7CA in Wolf v. Walker.

  • 67. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:44 am

    And a little background on this..

    "In 2012, the company refused to take an official stance when a battle over marriage equality raged in its home state of Minnesota — despite releasing wedding registry ads that featured two grooms. "We recognize that there is a broad range of strongly held views on the MN Marriage amendment," a Target spokeswoman said at the time, referring to a proposed amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman."….

  • 68. FredDorner  |  August 6, 2014 at 10:45 am

    I really applaud Target for doing that. They made some serious missteps a few years ago when they donated to an anti-gay candidate in 2010 but really seemed to have learned their lesson.

    And to those who say it doesn't matter because Target is based in a state which already has marriage equality, it matters a great deal because this brief concerns the folks who live in the neighboring states which currently lack equal rights for gays. I suspect those pro-equality briefs from large business carry far more weight than the ones from nutty bible-thumpers, and not just due to the merit and quality of their arguments.

  • 69. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:30 am

    I applaud Target as well, and I ended my boycott awhile back anyway. But the issue wasn't so much their stance on gay rights, but how they used their money. From what I gather, they STILL are making contributions to highly anti-progressive PACs and candidates, though they are also contributing to progressive ones as well. It's their way of making sure they have a finger in every pie, no matter who gets elected.

  • 70. Eric  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:28 am

    I haven't shopped at Target since 2010. Maybe I'll start again, if I can remember to pay cash.

  • 71. Rik_SD  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:38 am teehee

  • 72. robbyinflorida  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Ok. After all the hype about today's oral arguments what's going on? Where are the tweets?

  • 73. DoctorHeimlich  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:17 am

    According to court rules:

    During oral argument, persons attending are strictly prohibited from photographing, recording or broadcasting the proceeding.

  • 74. bythesea66  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:20 am

    Gotta wait until the hearings are done unfortunately.

  • 75. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:17 am

    The Detroit Free Press has this small pre-hearing report from outside the courthouse. It is a neat little overview, plus, they interview a man who camped outside for the whole night to get the first ticket for a seat inside. Please skip ahead to minute 4:00 when the actual reporting begins. Around then is also when the reporter drops an f-bomb. At minute 12, she giggles, reporting on a sex-toy convention down the street from the courthouse.

  • 76. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Amy Lange of Fox2 in Detroit left the courtroom after DeBoer, and is tweeting her notes:

  • 77. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:45 am

    I love Daughtrey: "Even the Texas prof's university says don't believe anything this man says," and "What harm comes? It doesn't look like the sky has fallen in other cases."

    Sutton's quip sounds encouraging: "So how is one group eligible and another group is not?"

  • 78. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:46 am

    At the very least he may be considered a "swing" vote, I hope.

  • 79. SethInMaryland  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:53 am

    i think we may win

  • 80. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Sutton is pretty hard on the DeBoer attorney – Baker being controlling, whether it's "better" for the GLBT community to follow the legislative process and overturn MI's ban at the ballot.

  • 81. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Would it be "better" for her to ask the state she lives in to vote on her rights if they voted to ban women from becoming judges?

  • 82. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Sutton is the lone male judge.

  • 83. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    Haha fair enough. General thought still applies.

  • 84. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    There was (she still may be in office) a state legislator in Kansas (state Senator, I believe) who was all in support of repeal of the 19th Amendment (the Amendment that gave women the universal right to vote).

    In politics, many things are possible, some more crazy that others.

  • 85. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Damn it all! I am SICK TO DEATH of them hauling out Baker over and over again!! Since Windsor, it's pretty clear SCOTUS doesn't think it is still controlling – so just STOP with the 40+-year-old idiocy already!

  • 86. Corey_from_MD  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    I am SICK TO DEATH of the need to "win the heart and minds" crapola. My take is that you need to have the HEART to MIND your own business and stop trampling on my rights.

  • 87. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Amen, friend! Could not agree more.

  • 88. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:43 am

    6th Circuit Audio Now Available for April DeBoer, et al. v. Richard Snyder

    Save and download:


  • 89. FilbertB  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Great! Thank you, Brandall!

  • 90. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:56 am

    I'm 12 minutes into the recording. Sorry I don't have the judges names in front of me…but, the female judge interrupted and blasted the defense lawyer for the first 8 minutes. At about 11 min in, the second judge is not buying the procreation argument. Dang, I have to leave for a few hours. Happy listening. Get ready for collapsed comments today.

  • 91. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:58 am

    Audio is bad – annoying 🙁 Keeps switching between two feeds and in the process we lose a few sentences every time.

  • 92. SethInMaryland  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:59 am

    hows the other judge reacting? has he questioned the defence much?

  • 93. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    There are 2 female judges, so presumably the one not mentioned is Cook.

  • 94. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Sounds promising. Well, let's see what happens. We all know how some judges like to pester both sides to not show their hand.

  • 95. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    That is why I liked Judge Gregory in the Fourth Circuit so much. I don't think he spoke a single solitary word to the plaintiff's attorneys.

  • 96. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    More and more I think they like to roleplay where you have one "pro" judge, one "anti" judge and one "swing" judge. I don't know if that's going on here, but it seems to be a pattern in ME cases.

  • 97. SethInMaryland  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    i think it's more of they like to put a conservative judge that will vote in favor of ME , so that it's harder to overturn

  • 98. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Daughtrey is absolutely *hammering* on the MI asst AG.

  • 99. RLsfba  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    The second female judge has spoken up and she's asking realistic questions, sounds good.

  • 100. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    I think the second female judge is Cook, and it was disturbing to hear her bring up the point about the will of the voters towards the end of the first half. That was quickly interrupted with an Ohio joke by Sutton which I don't understand – can somebody explain? I think Sutton is the swing vote – and he may just rule in our favor!

  • 101. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Found it, 26:55. I think he's just making a "Oh, all Ohio people don't have a rational basis for anything!" joke.

  • 102. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Oh I see – gotcha. And I take back my optimism about Sutton. Now that I'm well into the second half, he is being so so so hard on the Plaintiff attorney first about Baker and then about the democratic process. I'm now very worried all over again 🙁

  • 103. BenG1980  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    Yep, that's exactly the joke. Ragavendran may not have understood it because it's premised on the rivalry between our two states. Obviously no rational person could be a M*ch*[email protected] fan!

  • 104. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    As a Northwestern alum, I can't fathom the rationality behind Meechegun OR tOSU fandom (or State Penn for that matter). But to each her or his own rationale in life 🙂

  • 105. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Biggest religion in the state of Ohio. Services every Saturday in fall, pews for 106,000 worshipers.

  • 106. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Spot on, BenG. I've only been in the US six years, and most of them were in CA 🙂

  • 107. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Well, since they all seem to back OSU, they don't! I may live in Maryland, but I'm a big fan of IU.

    (Disclosure – both my paternal grandparents came from Ohio [my grandfather from Adams County (closer to Highland and Pike counties than the Ohio River), my grandmother from Paulding County.]. And on my mother's side, many of her ancestors came from NE Ohio.)

  • 108. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Oh well, there may go our short winning streak with female justices.

  • 109. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Have a little faith Bruno…….we still could win, but even if it should go against us…'s the circuit split that may help get us to SCOTUS this term……..I am not able to hear the audio because I don't have a user name or password….ugh!!!

  • 110. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    Thank you brandall:-)

  • 111. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    Seems like the same failed arguments being used against us…….and I CAN'T believe that the anti-gay marriage folks are saying that it DOESN'T matter if an opposite-sex couple can't procreate……because the right to marry is ONLY for opposite-sex couples!!!

  • 112. FilbertB  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Hi all! I am spending today with an eye on EOT for the latest news from the 6th circuit. I have appreciated many of the regular commentators insights. Thank you.

    I wonder if Scottie is in the courtroom? I read on the The Sixth Circuit Appelllate blog: at Potter Stewart Courthouse in Cincinnati on August 6. The Court is designating two overflow courtrooms in which spectators will be able to hear live audio streaming of the oral arguments.

    For many people here the cases being reviewed by the 6th circuit today are quite familiar. I thought it was good for me to have a list of these cases, and here is that list for those who are interested.
    Warm regards,

    -DeBoer, et al. v. Snyder, et al., Case No. 14-1341: An appeal from a March 21, 2014 order by Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan striking down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    -Obergefell, et al. v. Himes, et al., Case No. 14-3057: An appeal from a December 23, 2013 order by Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio requiring Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates issued by the state.

    -Henry, et al. v. Himes, Case No. 14-3464: An appeal from an April 14, 2014 order by Judge Black requiring Ohio to recognize valid same-sex marriages lawfully performed in states that authorize such marriages.

    -Bourke, et al. v. Beshear, et al., Case No. 14-5291: An appeal from a February 12, 2014 order by Judge John G. Heyburn II of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruling that Kentucky law denying recognition for valid same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and requiring Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

    -Tanco, et al. v. Haslam, et al., Case No. 14-5297: An appeal from a March 14, 2014 order by Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee requiring Tennessee to recognize the marriages of three same-sex couples who were validly married outside the state.

  • 113. sfbob  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    My understanding is that Scottie will be in the courtroom.

  • 114. SethInMaryland  |  August 6, 2014 at 11:56 am

    target annouces support for marriage equality

  • 115. Margo Schulter  |  August 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    Bruno71, I suspect that we’ll do fine with Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan of SCOTUS — but suspect that you’re wondering whether Judge Cook of the Sixth Circuit will be so favorable.

  • 116. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    Okay, I just finished listening to the DeBoer argument, and IMHO two things are clear:

    (1) Daughtrey is clearly on our side.
    (2) We win if and only if Sutton can be convinced that marriage, as a fundamental right, includes the right to choose someone of the same sex, because that triggers strict scrutiny. (He was very clear, especially in the second half, that he definitely thinks the ban would survive rational basis, and he didn't seem comfortable finding heightened scrutiny for an equal protection analysis by violating a Sixth Circuit precedent, despite an argument that that precedent was flawed.)

    I have no reading on Cook, but based on just the two or three times she spoke, she seems to be against us.

    Also, even though Sutton was fighting back our attorney on Baker, I'm not convinced he's going to conclude that Baker still binds.

    Onward to Obergefell and Henry.

  • 117. samg68  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    I can believe Sutton would back us on the fundamental right issue from the argument, the question is is he really going to follow Baker? He didn't seem too convinced about the doctrinal developments point and he does seem to be a stickler for the rules. That said there's not much logic to blindly follow it since we all know SCOTUS is going to tell us one way or another.

    I would say cook is against us.

  • 118. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    It's 4pm… Where's Scottie?

  • 119. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Probably eating sushi on our dime…


  • 120. Zack12  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Based on what I've read and heard so far, we're going to get our circuit split.
    Cook and Sutton have more or less stated that our side needs to respect the Democratic process and go back to the voters again if we want full marriage equality.

  • 121. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Did any of the legal beagles mention the 4 states that have recently passed ME thanks to the voters?

  • 122. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Sad to say, but I agree with you. With the one caveat (explained two comments above) that there is a small chance that Sutton might be convinced that the fundamental right at issue here is the existing right to marriage, not a new right to same-sex marriage. He did push back on the State's attorney that the marriage law is not facially neutral on the basis of sexual orientation, and he seemed dumbstruck (at least in my imagination when I listened to the audio) when the attorney replied (paraphrasing) "No, we're not saying that gay people can't marry, they still can marry someone of the opposite sex, same as straight people." That there is a glimmer of hope. Nevertheless, I'm worried.

  • 123. Corey_from_MD  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    @Ragavendran, what has been this judge's [Sutton's] propensity when faced with something similar in the past?

  • 124. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    No idea. Unfortunately, I'm terrible when it comes to history of a judge's rulings 🙁 Any court-watchers out there?

  • 125. Corey_from_MD  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    The only thing that I see is the newsworthy vote that he took to uphold the health care mandate of Obamacare. This vote shocked many, but it would be interesting to hear from any court-watchers as you mentioned…

  • 126. Ragavendran  |  August 7, 2014 at 12:07 am

    This nice article was pointed out in the live chat with Scottie and Jacob:

  • 127. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Okay, if we MUST use the democratic process to secure our rights, then WHY don't the heterosexuals put their marital right up to vote as well? In others words if folks get to vote on my right to marry…..we should get the right to vote on who they can marry……..fair is fair, right?

  • 128. brandall  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Or we should be able to put their right to divorce in a proposition, "Opposite sex couples who have procreated together may not divorce until the youngest child reaches the age of 18."

    That covers the state's arguments about procreation and opposite sex child rearing being the best environment. As part of this proposition process, I expect to see the Catholic and Mormon churches being fully behind this in both raising money from their congregations and telling them they must rally and support this….I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.

  • 129. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    I like it……let's figure out how to get it done…but ya know that some will NOT be happy with having their rights voted on!!!

  • 130. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    Respect the fact that a bunch of people voted to strip others of their rights? No thanks.

  • 131. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Oklahoma's Smith has formally filed her cert petition with SCOTUS:
    Only Virginia remains, and the AG has promised to do so by Friday.

  • 132. Margo Schulter  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Just a note that Oklahoma, through clerk Sally Howe Smith, has filed a cert. petition in SCOTUS for review of the Tenth Circuit’s Bishop decision. So we have another cert. petition promptly filed.

    Some quick points include the fact that the Baker v. Nelson discussion doesn’t even mention the question of “doctrinal developments,” but simply assumes that Baker is still binding.

    There’s a discussion of the problems of “genderless marriage” in resulting in the raising of children “without a father,” including quotes from a 2008 speech by Obama on the problems of children raised in the absence of a father (i.e. doubtless in single-parent households, one of the major flaws of the Regnerus study in rarely looking at actual and stable same-sex couples).

    Oklahoma, as opposed to Utah, is a bit more cautious about alleging that the Tenth Circuit actually violated the principles of Schuette. They do quote it a great deal to support a preference for democratic decisionmaking (when constitutional rights are not at stake, is the unmentioned qualification!).

    All the talk about “gendered” vs. “genderless” marriage just might invite Justice Kennedy, if he considers it necessary, to revisit the question I recall he raised in the 2013 oral arguments about whether marriage bans are a form of gender discrimination.

    Some of the use of precedent is curious, albeit pretty much all they have. Oklahoma (or maybe I should say Clerk Smith) emphasizes some pre-Windsor state appellate decisions on federal constitutional issues — which neatly avoids Massachusetts, California (2008), and other decisions under state constitutional law, for example. The emphasis, not surprisingly, is on Bruning and, of course, Baker, as opposed to all the post-Windsor rulings.

    They also cite the views of Judge Holmes, both on the difficulties of a successful challenge to the bans under mere rational-basis review, and on the absence of animus, to argue that rational-basis review is the appropriate standard, and that Oklahoma will prevail under this standard.

    Finally, they interestingly argue as one possible benefit of taking this case the opportunity to rule on the marriage license question alone, leaving issues regarding recognition of marriages contracted in other jurisdictions for consideration, if desired, in some other case. There’s an acknowledgement that recognition cases might involve issues such as comity and full faith and credit.

  • 133. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    If the impact on the children is to early to tell……when does the anti-gay side feel WOULD be a good time to allow Gays and Lesbians to marry? I mean just because the legal aspect of Gays and Lesbians getting legally married is "NEW"….it DOESN'T mean raising children is a "NEW" concept within Gay and Lesbian couples raising children!!!

  • 134. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    Oh and a question to those who have more legal knowledge than I do….if Baker vs Nelson was precedent or could still be precedent, how would all of these federal lawsuits be allowed to go forward? Wouldn't the federal courts be required to dismiss these lawsuits because of Baker?

  • 135. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    As we've seen, all of the federal courts so far believe Baker is no longer precedent after the developmental change caused by Windsor. I don't think any court would be required to dismiss the cases, however, but they have to follow the precedents (at least as they interpret them) that bind them.

  • 136. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Sorry Bruno, but it was a rather rhetorical question seeing as we have won many federal and appellate court rulings……this alone should signal that Baker is NOT as controlling as it once was……and I'm damn sick and tired of anti-gay Judges telling us to go back and use the Democratic Process……..if the Lovings DIDN'T have to use the democratic process to get their right to marry and Zablocki DIDN'T have to use the democratic process to get his right to marry…….THEN why the hell should we have to?

  • 137. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:35 pm


    Baker v. Nelson is the last directly-on-point case from the Supreme Court, and as such is still "precedent." However, applying Hicks, every. single. case. so far has concluded that "doctrinal developments" mean that Baker is no longer controlling and needs to be ignored.

    Sutton today was basically saying "Prove it." And the DeBoer attorney tried her best to do so – we'll see if Sutton was convinced that Baker is no longer good law.

  • 138. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    Yes, that's exactly right. But the Sixth Circuit doesn't have to take into consideration the rulings by any other federal court other than itself and the Supreme Court. It is free to disagree and rule that Baker is still binding precedent (arguing that Hicks was overruled) and never reach the merits of the case. That would be a quick, 2-5 page opinion.

  • 139. sfbob  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    To continue to assert, as some of the state attorneys general still are doing, that Baker vs Nelson is controlling precedent is absolutely laughable.

    It seems at least plausible (to me at any rate, though what do I know?) to presume that the moment one state began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, any legal issue regarding the recognition of those marriages by any other state constituted a substantial federal question. That is all by itself an entirely different question than the one posed in Baker which turned on the matter of whether a state was required to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. As the courts have noted repeatedly, summary dismissals continue to be precedent only on the precise issues raised in the original case and only to the extent that there are no doctrinal changes. Neither of the conditions under which Baker could be presumed to be precedential continue to exist and to argue otherwise is…well, what was it Judge Heyburn said? "These are not the arguments of serious people."

  • 140. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Thanks guys for the responses………it seems that a federal question is now out there and to ignore it would not be realistic……..really tired of being told by anti-gay folks that our right to marry MUST first go through some sort of democratic process when at least three cases for opposite-sex couples marrying just went through the lawsuit process…….some how this is mind-boggling…… we are NOT asking for a NEW right, just to be included in the Fundamental right!!!

  • 141. FredDorner  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    I think the issue of "a substantial federal question" can be argued without even referencing a change in judicial doctrine, merely by looking to the fact that numerous federal rights and benefits are now contingent upon marital status. That wasn't so much the case in 1971. The court obviously got Baker wrong anyway from a 14th amendment perspective.

  • 142. RnL2008  |  August 8, 2014 at 12:47 am

    I would tend to agree with ya, but one does have to remember that Homosexuality was still listed or considered a mental illness on the DSM…….frankly, that was wrong as well!!!

  • 143. debater7474  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    The Michigan audio makes it pretty clear we're headed for a 2-1 loss, but we have so many victories on our side at this point that I'm not really that concerned about it.

  • 144. hopalongcassidy  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Have you gotten your Magic Eight Ball calibrated in the last 90 days? It might be out of spec…


  • 145. davepCA  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    Keep in mind that there have been a number of previous instances where a judge seemed to be going further than simply asking questions and seemed to be disagreeing with, or strongly challenging, the lawyers for our side, only to end up ruling in our favor. The oral arguments may not carry nearly as much weight as the briefs and evidence.

    I'm not saying I'm sure that you're wrong, it's just that we can't know the outcome based on the 'performance' during oral arguments.

  • 146. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    I'm glad you're so sanguine about a pending loss. Not all of us are.

  • 147. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    I never suggested or assumed anything of the sort, but was merely observing that not everyone shares your blasé attitude about losing today. Nice of you to suggest I am delusional, that ad hominem was so appreciated and really added value to the discussion.

  • 148. FredDorner  |  August 6, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    If the 6th circuit issues an adverse ruling in the near future it substantially increases the likelihood that SCOTUS will grant cert for the Fall session. If the 6th circuit strikes down the bans, that order will be stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS…..and the court might very well sit on those appeals until the Spring session or later, waiting for other circuits to rule or waiting for the ideal case to present itself (like the Idaho case which uses heightened scrutiny). So the fastest route to win nationwide (and to win in a concrete manner in Michigan) might well be to lose in the 6th circuit.

  • 149. MichaelGrabow  |  August 6, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Me thinks that if last year someone would have said we'd have this many rulings in our favor you would have called them delusional.

  • 150. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    A tweet from Chris Johnson called Sutton "skeptical" of the marriage bans. Perhaps people are trying to build up this "one for, one against, one swing" scenario we've seen so far, or perhaps Sutton is more on the fence than we've been portraying in the last hour or so?

  • 151. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Obergefell Henry v. Himes Audio Now Available
    and it's more than double the file size of the previous argument. I wonder…

  • 152. DaveM_OH  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    They're all up now.

  • 153. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    This one should be interesting, given the 2 justices' skepticism of overturning Michigan's ban, and the fact that there is an actual, living, breathing couple who are married in Ohio that they would have to say "sorry, your marriage was never valid" to.

  • 154. FilbertB  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    That took a long time for me to download -but I am glad i had the opportunity to listen to the oral arguments.

  • 155. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    Bourke Love v. Beshear Audio Now Available

  • 156. Ragavendran  |  August 6, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    Tanco v. Haslam Audio Now Available

  • 157. RnL2008  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Thanks Ragavendran for posting the links…… it going to be the same stuff as from Michigan? or will there be some NEW information or questions?

  • 158. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    So, any new insights contained in the latest audios?

  • 159. Jen_in_MI  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    It sucks that the audio links won't work on my mobile device. Guess the download must wait until I am tethered to a computer. What a drag!

  • 160. Bruno71  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Hmmmmmmmm, Chris Johnson's Washington Blade article seems to go one step further and predict Sutton will rule against the bans:

  • 161. JayJonson  |  August 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Hope Chris Johnson is right. I have heard only the DeBoer tape, but from it I would not be confident in his vote either way.

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