BREAKING: #SCOTUS to review constitutionality of #DOMA, #Prop8; more soon at Prop8TrialTracker.com

[FreeState]

Twitter... links coming


http://www.prop8trialtracker.com

BREAKING: Supreme Court decides to review Prop 8, DOMA cases
By Jacob Combs, Scottie Thomaston and Adam Bink

Big news: The Supreme Court has just announced in an order that it will take up the Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act cases for further review. The next step in the review process for both cases is a scheduling order, which should come soon, laying out the date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court, although the case will likely not be heard until the spring of 2013. The Court’s term lasts until June, so we should have final news by then on the fate of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in California. This decision means that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional continues to be stayed, and couples cannot wed in California.

In the cases involving DOMA, which prohibits same-sex couples’ legal marriages from being recognized by the federal government and therefore denies 1,138 federal rights and benefits due to those couples, the Court specifically chose to hear the CASE challenge, and will likely make no public announcement regarding the other cases until after it rules on DOMA’s constitutionality.
This is a developing story and updates will be included at the top of this post

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. On msnbc right now

[DURHAM D]

2. I don't think taking Prop 8 is a good thing.

The conservatives on the SC think they have the votes.

[Not Me]

3. from Scotusblog.com

...the Court has agreed to consider the merits case in Prop. 8, because that is what the petition presented as its question, but that it is also going to address whether the proponents had a right to pursue their case. If the Court were to find that the proponents did not have Art. III standing, that is the end of the matter: there would be no review on the merits of Proposition 8, or of the 9th CA decision striking it down.

[moobu2]

5. I was thinking the same thing. nt.

[JackBeck]

4. I believe the Windsor case involves strict scrutiny. n/t

[FreeState]

6. IS that the one Kagen would have to recuse herself from?

Edit: found it, that was Gill - so thats good news!

[JackBeck]

7. Kagan potentially could recuse if they hear Gill. n/t

[RomneyLies]

8. So, there are two ways this could go....

RWNJs prevail and we get a Dred Scott v. Sanford style historical decision or reason and compassion prevails and we get a Loving v. Virginia style historical decision.

Either way, it will be historical. Roberts seems obsessed with his legacy, so even though he is a right wing Catholic, he may come down on the right side of history on this one.

[FreeState]

9. There are more than two ways actually

Prop 8:

1) Finds propionates have no standing, original Walker ruling stands
2) Finds propionates have standing, 9th Circuit California ruling stands
3) Finds propionates have standing, Walkers broader all state ruling stands
4) Finds propionates have standing, 9th Circuit ruling reversed

DOMA:

1) Finds propionates have no standing, original Windsor ruling stands
2) Finds propionates have standing, Windsor ruling stands
3) Finds propionates have standing, Windsor overturned
4) Finds propionates have standing, Windsor ruling stands with Strict scrutiny (all anti-gay laws are struck down nation wide)
5) Finds propionates have standing, Windsor ruling stands with any of the 3 1/2 scrutiny groups (all anti-gay laws are struck down nation wide)
6) Finds propionates have standing, Windsor ruling stands based on some other law (no scrutiny group defined)

Im sure there are others as well... its always a guess!

[joeybee12]

11. Whatever the ruling, I'm willing to bet 5-4...

Our only hope is Kennedy, we can't count on the only gay SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts.

[countryjake]

10. K&R

[NYC Liberal]

12. I am cautiously optimistic, because of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05roberts.html

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination.

Judge Roberts, at the time an appellate lawyer for the Washington firm of Hogan & Hartson, did not write legal briefs or argue the case, lawyers involved said. But they said he did provide invaluable strategic guidance working pro bono to formulate legal theories and coach them in moot court sessions.