Supreme Court will hear Calif. gay marriage case

Roberts is Catholic, thus not a WASP.

 

True. He has WASP-type sensibilities, though.

 

Fair enough.

 

Calling Roberts a WASP is analogous to calling Brady Quinn a frat boy.

 

I thought Roberts' moment arrived when his court ok'd health care at gunpoint.

 

The Feds could rule very narrowly by ruling that the lower courts were making the decision based on the California constitution, NOT the federal constitution.

 

I did too. The entire election season all we heard about was how court direction would change if Romney was elected. Based on Roberts health care decision I don't see how you could arrive that conclusion.

 

I'll take an early, John Roberts-esque, split the baby approach to this.
There is no way that any of the 5 will broaden who gets strict scrutiny protection to include gays. None. Wait for some uncomfortable oral argument about immutable characteristics on this one. Likewise, there is a movement (which I agree with) to move away from rational basis as a test because it's just too damn easy for the government to win under this standard. (George Will has some good columns recently about how all sorts of economic protectionism is justified, wrongly, by courts under rational basis).
There is a third test, though seldom used. Intermediate scrutiny. It is the standard already used to protect classifications based on gender. Under intermediate scrutiny, the law must be substantially related to an important government purpose. The government bears the burden of showing an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the discrimination.
Allowing gays intermediate scrutiny protection would allow them marriage but not necessarily the right to adopt. I'll go 6-3 in favor of striking down the CA law and allowing gay marriage using the intermediate scrutiny standard with Roberts and Kennedy in the majority (along with the 4 liberals, of course).

 

The Court granted cert in two cases involving the gay marriage: Hollingsworth v. Perry, the California case involving Prop 8; and US v. Windsor, involving a challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In both cases, the lower courts determined that there was no rational basis for the laws in question. The Court could go that way and avoid the need to determine whether there is a special class involved or what level of scrutiny is required.

However, I think the Orders granting review are interesting. In the California case, the Court also directed the parties to brief and argue whether the petitioners have standing. In the federal case, the Court directed the parties to brief and argue whether the fact that the Executive Branch agreed with the decision that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Court of jurisdiction.

ETA: There is precedent for the Court raising the jurisdictional issue in its cert Order and then deciding the case - or avoiding the substantive issue - based on standing. In Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler (2006), the Court granted cert and directed the parties to address the issue of standing. The Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing so did not rule on the merits of the case.

 

This is so Roberts. The next plaintiff he believes has standing to bring suit in a case, I swear, will be the first.

 

I have friends-- a married gay couple-- who tried twice to adopt. Both adoptions fell through after the birth mother changed her mind. Anybody who knows anything about adoption (including Chief Justice Roberts) knows how excruciatingly heartbreaking a failed adoption can be. In the case of my friends, it was also financially draining because they'd paid expenses of the birth mothers and never got that money back.

So they decided "enough of this," found an egg donor, found a gestational carrier and underwent IVF. The GC got pregnant with twins, a boy and a girl. The kids are now happy, healthy, smart, thriving 6-year-olds. The little girl is my daughter's best friend.

I wouldn't wring hands too much over gay adoption... it's perfectly legal for gays to procreate. It is a free country.

 

he has Republican Establishment sensibilities with the social conscience and extremist fervor of a catholic . The catholic court majority, Opus Dei, hates minority opinion, women except for procreation, gays except for priests, Jews and abortion ( but they love them their death penalty)
The only hope for America to be free from Scalia's attempts to institute Sharia Law, Catholic style, is for Roberts to experience contempt for Scalia and his bitch boy Thomas by virtue of familiarity. Otherwise I fear the Catholic Court will bring back the inquisition