Obama administration considers urging Supreme Court to overturn California gay marriage ban

[rareboy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...220_story.html

Proposition 8 opponents believe the president signaled his intention to file a brief when he declared in last month’s inaugural address that gays and lesbians must be “treated like anyone else under the law.” An administration official said Obama was not foreshadowing any legal action, though the administration was considering filing a brief.

I'm sure there will be more on this over the next 24 hours, but this would definitely be a game changer in the US. I think that they must know that if they do it now, it would have almost no impact on the mid-terms and could regain them support among the younger and swing voters.

It certainly would be a principled stand for a President to take.

Since both the legislature and the judicial branches of federal government are involved in an issue that many will argue is States' Rights, I see no reason for the Executive Branch not to weigh in as well.

Let the howling from the right wing commence.

[chrisrobin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...220_story.html


I'm sure there will be more on this over the next 24 hours, but this would definitely be a game changer in the US. I think that they must know that if they do it now, it would have almost no impact on the mid-terms and could regain them support among the younger and swing voters.

It certainly would be a principled stand for a President to take.

Since both the legislature and the judicial branches of federal government are involved in an issue that many will argue is States' Rights, I see no reason for the Executive Branch not to weigh in as well.

Let the howling from the right wing commence.

States Rights = old code for segregation.

Since Pres. Obama doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, he is free to do more things. The Fundies will be pissed no matter what he does.

[rareboy]

Ironic then when you hear some opponents of homo marriage talk about marriage itself as being a States' Rights issue.

[rareboy]

I guess though, a brief could put him on the right side of history, no matter what the courts decide.

[Ninja108]

I think the justices have made up their minds already. Obama has already come out for same sex marriage, so I think an administration brief will be welcome but not of much import.

It's either going to be a 5-4 vote or a 6-3 vote. John Roberts is a Bush pick but he is also concerned about his legacy and doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
Scalia,Alito and Thomas are automatic no votes.

[xbuzzerx]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...220_story.html


I'm sure there will be more on this over the next 24 hours, but this would definitely be a game changer in the US. I think that they must know that if they do it now, it would have almost no impact on the mid-terms and could regain them support among the younger and swing voters.

It certainly would be a principled stand for a President to take.

Since both the legislature and the judicial branches of federal government are involved in an issue that many will argue is States' Rights, I see no reason for the Executive Branch not to weigh in as well.

Let the howling from the right wing commence.

Of course they'll be mad. They spent millions upon millions of dollars in illegal funds transferred in from out of state, national religious PACS and what not to unethically interfere in our election fair and square. (Besides the illegal parts.)

Oh and also, I'm sure you guys all heard/knew this, but the ads that were paid for by the Knights of Columbus and the Mormons for prop 8 in CA were the most misleading political ads I have ever heard in my life, on any topic. You literally had absolutely no idea what the prop was about, or whether you were supposed to vote yes or no on it to get the result you wanted, the way the ads presented it. Many of the ads flat out had something like, a teacher role playing she was being ordered to teach kids how to participate in a gay marraige or something and it's like... wait, what is this law about? Public education?

[Rolyo85]

I just opened JoeMyGod this morning, and was suddenly overwhelmed by everything that's been happening lately. A bipartisan pro-marriage national coalition. Illinois moving rapidly to equality. Hate groups defunded left and right. Europe's big forces finally getting there. Indiana's "gay people have no purpose and I want a Christian no-gays-allowed prom" teacher has been suspended, and even fucking Tim Tebow is not doing his dumb speech...

After surviving my coming out without permanent damage, I am now so happy to be gay TODAY rather than in ten years time.

[chrisrobin]

I just opened JoeMyGod this morning, and was suddenly overwhelmed by everything that's been happening lately. A bipartisan pro-marriage national coalition. Illinois moving rapidly to equality. Hate groups defunded left and right. Europe's big forces finally getting there. Indiana's "gay people have no purpose and I want a Christian no-gays-allowed prom" teacher has been suspended, and even fucking Tim Tebow is not doing his dumb speech...

After surviving my coming out without permanent damage, I am now so happy to be gay TODAY rather than in ten years time.

One step at a time... small but sure steps. The tide of public opinion is with us. Think of it this way: Seneca Falls heralded the beginning of women's suffrage in 1845. If we do the arithmetic, it appears to have taken 75 years (1920)! It's only been 44 years since Stonewall, which is remarkable, considering the strength of the opposition. The prom story happened in Indiana, not known for being progressive. If public opinion can shift in Indiana, it can happen anywhere.

[Rolyo85]

One step at a time... small but sure steps. The tide of public opinion is with us. Think of it this way: Seneca Falls heralded the beginning of women's suffrage in 1845. If we do the arithmetic, it appears to have taken 75 years (1920)! It's only been 44 years since Stonewall, which is remarkable, considering the strength of the opposition. The prom story happened in Indiana, not known for being progressive. If public opinion can shift in Indiana, it can happen anywhere.

Yes, but our age is a thousand times faster in every aspect from the 19th and early 20th century, so I'd say we should be closer.

[xbuzzerx]

And just look at the amount of time between the onset of the racial civil rights movement and the universal legalization of interracial marriage.

People today are almost universally shocked when you tell them just how recently anti-miscegenation laws were on the books.

[Just_Believe18]

It's outrageous, I tell you. Obama is dictating to the Supreme Court how they should make decisions! This is government intrusion on the voice of the American people! Obama is a dictator who should be more concerned about jobs and lower gas prices! Typical liberals. I'm sure those activist judges will side with him. At least we can depend on Scalia and Thomas, true and faithful Originalists to the Constitution.

[scream4ever]

^^^

That's the issue with Obama; he is buying the 'states' rights' argument, and that's why he is waffling so much on ordering a brief from the Solicitor General for the Prop 8 case.

If the administration files a brief in Perry, then Obama must come out in support of mandatory marriage equality nationwide, which he has yet to do. Remember, his position right now on same sex marriage is more should than must.

He could do a more soft brief, supporting the 9th Circuit ruling and being less broad then the one filed by Olsen and Boise.

[xbuzzerx]

It's outrageous, I tell you. Obama is dictating to the Supreme Court how they should make decisions! This is government intrusion on the voice of the American people! Obama is a dictator who should be more concerned about jobs and lower gas prices! Typical liberals. I'm sure those activist judges will side with him. At least we can depend on Scalia and Thomas, true and faithful Originalists to the Constitution.

lolol. And I bet that took zero prep time to give a near perfect rendition of their reaction.

[bankside]

Especially given the emergence of voter-lead equality measures, I think it's clear the Court cannot find equal marriage to be unconstitutional. Once it's determined to be legal in one place, then what debt of recognition is owed by other states?

I think the opponents are being painted into a smaller and smaller corner.

But I don't see that the Court would feel constrained to recognise equal marriage as a constitutional right that must be granted by way of obligation.

Would a brief by Obama at this point just sort of rile the Court up and push them to rebut it? They might otherwise just allow homophobic marriage to crumble, but if pushed….

Edit: oh! There's the text! Thank you; I'm curious to read it…

Here is the text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/127822315/...-United-States

[bankside]

K. Is there anything new here or are they just weighing in? Maybe the arguments seem so back-of-the-hand to me, it's hard to see anything new due to familiarity.

I guess I'm glad they're weighing in; they can't really present a weak argument can they? There isn't really a weak argument to present. All very familiar too, once I "translate" from american to canadian - we even had the same argument over jurisdiction, except that the "capacity to marry" is federal in Canada. But how to regulate that, whoever ends up doing it, is the real question.

[bankside]

Does it move Obama that way?

In our federal system, there is also a debate about the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments, but the debate is about which government has the power to do constitutional things. (Contrast with the power to do anything they want..)

So is it really an expansion of the federal level if states are not allowed, in the exercise of their proper powers, to engage in unconstitutional discrimination across the board?

[Rolyo85]

BREAKING! (or something)

http://equalityontrial.com/2013/03/0...ime-to-partic/

[bankside]

Good question.

Family law has always been the domain of states, and by the 10th Amendment and common law, no federal statute can manipulate state family statutes that are constitutional. That's the catch; no state can pass an unconstitutional statute, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over those matters.

The power of the Supreme Court to review those cases is established in Article III, Section 2, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ... the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact." Of course it wasn't until Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 decided that when matters of law and the US Constitution conflict, that the US Constitution is supreme, and that laws cannot preempt the US Constitution. In addition, Congress or the states cannot modify the constitution by statute without a constitutional amendment.

Madison vs. Marbury, yes? We studied the machinations and the case in school; it was a good one.

I don't know if Marshal so much decided it as was brave enough to say it and clever enough to do it in a way that made it difficult to ignore or overturn without damaging the same interested parties.

[PrivateTimm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...220_story.html

It certainly would be a principled stand for a President to take.

No the time for a "principled stand" would have been in 2008 when he carried the state of California by over 3 million votes and he refused to take a stand on Prop 8. Getting 1 out 10 of his supporters in CA to vote No on 8 and we wouldn't be in court now.

A principled stand would have been coming out before the 2012 election to announce what his Justice Dept was going to do.

Changing your position when it is meaningless is pretty much the definition of "not principled".

Ironic then when you hear some opponents of homo marriage talk about marriage itself as being a States' Rights issue.

Ironic that in 2008, when the battle over Prop 8 was RAGING in CA, Obama told Rick Warren, "Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage,

It's either going to be a 5-4 vote or a 6-3 vote. John Roberts is a Bush pick but he is also concerned about his legacy and doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.
Scalia,Alito and Thomas are automatic no votes.

Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer, all Democrat appointees are automatic yes votes so what is your point?

It seems only Kennedy and Roberts, both Republican appointees, are open minded enough to not be seen as automatic votes one way or the other.

I'm crossing my fingers, but I am nonetheless pleased as this President has done more than any other for equality.

Dude, seriously? List all the great things Obama has done for the gay community, especially when he had the House and a veto-proof Senate. Did he repeal DOMA? Pass ENDA? End DADT?

DADT came to an end because of a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans in LCR v. US in 2004, 5 years before Obama was sworn in. That it didn't come to trial until 2010 was happy circumstance for Obama so he could jump on that train just as it was pulling into the station.

[Rolyo85]

I love how somehow even a non-entity such as LCR somehow manages to insert itself into rumors of having done something...

[PrivateTimm]

Obama has been at the forefront for the gay community. And he did end DADT. That was signed into law.

OH here we go again with this falsehood. LCR had little to do with it being overturned. It was overturned because of executive and congressional action. The douchebags in LCR were more interested in endorsing whatever republican came up against Obama. Don't even try to give the credit to that fake ass group that puts political interests over the interests of their own rights.

Obama has been at the "forefront"? Really? Did the "forefront" of the movement start in 2012? Because that is when Obama changed his position on gay marriage. You didn't even address why ENDA wasn't passed by him, or DOMA repealed or DADT addressed until the case was working its way through the courts.

As to who is telling falsehoods, perhaps you should read this timeline from that noted radical right group, The Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund who filed an amicus brief in the case.

DADT was ended by Judge Phillips ruling on this case on Sept. 9, 2010. The DADT legislation was signed by Obama on Dec. 22, 2010.

Do try to get some facts right.

It's just the right wing log cabin type trying to say "look we did everything" blah blah blah... LCR had next to nothing to do with DADT being overturned. And I suppose Bush somehow did more than Obama too... in some parallel universe lol.

Here is the case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Log Cabin Republicans, a non-profit corporation v. United States of America and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, in his official capacity. People can read the case for themselves and the timeline from LLDEF above.

Why do you all keep pretending this case didn't exist? United States ADA Paul Freeborne works for the Obama Administration. They didn't have to respond in the case. Obama's Justice Department made a conscious decision to argue the case.