Idaho and Nevada almost got in on America's Great Big Gay Hug for a little while there, as the 9th Circuit Court ruled yesterday that those states' bans on marriage equality were just too stupid for words. But hold on just a damn minute, you gays standing in line at the county courthouse in Boise! Supreme Court Justice
I remember when 'property' was defined in such a way to include "other people." Seems like we moved past that terrible "majority" definition, and we did it using the courts, and we're all better for it.
Get the fuck out of the way of making the Union more perfect, Justice Kennedy. You've got Otter-shit all over your robe.
I just love her. In fact I feel somewhat guilty when I damn this SCOTUS to hell, since she is on it . . . but it takes too much punch out of a really good curse to say/type "May all the demons of hell infest the scruffy undergarments of the Supreme Court - except Her Excellence, the Notorious RBG!"
Well, we can hope that scholars of the future look on his behavior with the same forebearing forgiveness and understanding they have deservedly shown to Wallace's.
Breaking - Kennedy reverses field, releases Nevada from his order. Elvis is standing by to wed you happy gays and lesbians!
"IT IS ORDERED that the portion of the order issued on this date entering a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 12-17668 is hereby vacated."
Judge Reinhardt may have had some fun with sex, drugs and rock and roll in his opinion, but the basic thrust of it seems identical to the cases SCOTUS declined to hear already.
Meh, at this point it&#039;s pretty standard procedure - Idaho&#039;s appealed the Circuit&#039;s ruling, and filed for a stay; the issuing of an emergency stay is routine while the court decides whether there&#039;s anything at all interesting about the filing for an appeal. Once the court&#039;s read the reply brief it asked for by Thursday it will make a more consequential decision. Given the similarity between the 9th&#039;s ruling and the cases SCOTUS declined to hear already, the stay <em>should</em> be lifted at that point, because in the District and Circuit stages Otter trotted out the same tired garbage tropes as all the other &quot;eeeeewww gays!&quot; types before him, and fell in the same way to the same conclusion that the right at stake is &quot;marriage&quot; not &quot;gay marriage&quot;, that it&#039;s a fundamental right, and no way do vague assertions of &quot;protecting&quot; procreative marriages and won&#039;t you please think of the children come close to surviving the strict scrutiny impingement on a fundamental right attracts.
And Kennedy whipsaws back, <a href="http:\/\/www.rgj.com\/story\/news\/2014\/10\/08\/kennedy-blocks-nevada-gay-marriage-ruling\/16907673\/" target="_blank">reimposes stay in Nevada</a> so that the &quot;Coalition to Protect Marriage&quot; can take their turn tilting at windmills.
At this stage it can&#039;t be anything on the merits, because only one side&#039;s submitted any kind of filing to the Court. If the stay survives past the emergency stage, then there&#039;s a problem. Issuing an emergency stay pending enough briefing to decide whether to issue a temporary stay pending appeal seems completely routine to me. I don&#039;t think you can read anything into it.
The 7th Circuit used heightened scrutiny as it&#039;s standard of review on the basis of a finding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. If Kennedy was worried about that, that&#039;s the case he&#039;d have taken up (although I guess Kagan is assigned to the 7th, but still... if the other 4 reich-wingers on the court thought there was much of a chance Kennedy would vote with them, they&#039;d have taken up the cases), not the 9th&#039;s - the 9th used strict scrutiny not because of the targeted classification but because it found marriage in general (not &quot;opposite-sex marriage&quot;) to be a fundamental right. The 10th also used strict scrutiny for exactly the same reason (based on extremely similar citations). Also, not only is the 9th&#039;s the wrong case to be worrying about scrutiny, Kennedy&#039;s the wrong Justice - it was after all his decisions that first created the belief (<em>Lawrence</em>) and then seemingly confirmed it (<em>Windsor</em>) that when sexual orientation is used as a classification, heightened scrutiny is required.
<i>&quot;Each same-sex marriage performed will be contrary to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels...&quot;<i>
<a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Loving_v._Virginia" target="_blank">1965 version</a>: <i>&quot;Each interracial marriage performed will be contrary to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels...&quot;<i>
<a href="http:\/\/womennewsnetwork.net\/2014\/05\/07\/myanmar-womens-rights-groups-oppose-interfaith-marriage-act\/" target="_blank">Myanmar version</a> <i>&quot;Each interfaith marriage performed will be contrary to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels...&quot;<i>
<a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Morganatic_marriage" target="_blank">1772 version</a> <i>&quot;Each marriage performed between royalty and commoner will be contrary to the interests of the king ...&quot;<i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i>
I remember when &#039;property&#039; was defined in such a way to include &quot;other people.&quot; Seems like we moved past that terrible &quot;majority&quot; definition, and we did it using the courts, and we&#039;re all better for it.
Get the fuck out of the way of making the Union more perfect, Justice Kennedy. You&#039;ve got Otter-shit all over your robe.
I just love her. In fact I feel somewhat guilty when I damn this SCOTUS to hell, since she is on it . . . but it takes too much punch out of a really good curse to say/type &quot;May all the demons of hell infest the scruffy undergarments of the Supreme Court - except Her Excellence, the Notorious RBG!&quot;
Well, we can hope that scholars of the future look on his behavior with the same forebearing forgiveness and understanding they have deservedly shown to Wallace&#039;s.
Yeah, Otter&#039;s all like, Whatsamatta, gays? Cantelope? Cause you can&#039;t get married here!
Breaking - Kennedy reverses field, releases Nevada from his order. Elvis is standing by to wed you happy gays and lesbians!
&quot;IT IS ORDERED that the portion of the order issued on this date entering a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in case No. 12-17668 is hereby vacated.&quot;
Judge Reinhardt may have had some fun with sex, drugs and rock and roll in his opinion, but the basic thrust of it seems identical to the cases SCOTUS declined to hear already.
Meh, at this point it&#039;s pretty standard procedure - Idaho&#039;s appealed the Circuit&#039;s ruling, and filed for a stay; the issuing of an emergency stay is routine while the court decides whether there&#039;s anything at all interesting about the filing for an appeal. Once the court&#039;s read the reply brief it asked for by Thursday it will make a more consequential decision. Given the similarity between the 9th&#039;s ruling and the cases SCOTUS declined to hear already, the stay <em>should</em> be lifted at that point, because in the District and Circuit stages Otter trotted out the same tired garbage tropes as all the other &quot;eeeeewww gays!&quot; types before him, and fell in the same way to the same conclusion that the right at stake is &quot;marriage&quot; not &quot;gay marriage&quot;, that it&#039;s a fundamental right, and no way do vague assertions of &quot;protecting&quot; procreative marriages and won&#039;t you please think of the children come close to surviving the strict scrutiny impingement on a fundamental right attracts.
And Kennedy whipsaws back, <a href="http:\/\/www.rgj.com\/story\/news\/2014\/10\/08\/kennedy-blocks-nevada-gay-marriage-ruling\/16907673\/" target="_blank">reimposes stay in Nevada</a> so that the &quot;Coalition to Protect Marriage&quot; can take their turn tilting at windmills.
At this stage it can&#039;t be anything on the merits, because only one side&#039;s submitted any kind of filing to the Court. If the stay survives past the emergency stage, then there&#039;s a problem. Issuing an emergency stay pending enough briefing to decide whether to issue a temporary stay pending appeal seems completely routine to me. I don&#039;t think you can read anything into it.
The 7th Circuit used heightened scrutiny as it&#039;s standard of review on the basis of a finding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. If Kennedy was worried about that, that&#039;s the case he&#039;d have taken up (although I guess Kagan is assigned to the 7th, but still... if the other 4 reich-wingers on the court thought there was much of a chance Kennedy would vote with them, they&#039;d have taken up the cases), not the 9th&#039;s - the 9th used strict scrutiny not because of the targeted classification but because it found marriage in general (not &quot;opposite-sex marriage&quot;) to be a fundamental right. The 10th also used strict scrutiny for exactly the same reason (based on extremely similar citations). Also, not only is the 9th&#039;s the wrong case to be worrying about scrutiny, Kennedy&#039;s the wrong Justice - it was after all his decisions that first created the belief (<em>Lawrence</em>) and then seemingly confirmed it (<em>Windsor</em>) that when sexual orientation is used as a classification, heightened scrutiny is required.
Annnd, in yet another update to that story (16:05), it appears that he didn&#039;t do that.
Well now we wait for the District Court, though the original judge has now recused himself and a new judge being reassigned will gum it up a bit.
<i>&quot;Same-sex marriage supporters came to the courthouse with cake...&quot;</i>
They found someone who will bake for them. In some states that&#039;s harder than getting the marriage license.
<i>&quot;Each same-sex marriage performed will be contrary to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels...&quot;<i>
<a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Loving_v._Virginia" target="_blank">1965 version</a>: <i>&quot;Each interracial marriage performed will be contrary to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels...&quot;<i>
<a href="http:\/\/womennewsnetwork.net\/2014\/05\/07\/myanmar-womens-rights-groups-oppose-interfaith-marriage-act\/" target="_blank">Myanmar version</a> <i>&quot;Each interfaith marriage performed will be contrary to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels...&quot;<i>
<a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Morganatic_marriage" target="_blank">1772 version</a> <i>&quot;Each marriage performed between royalty and commoner will be contrary to the interests of the king ...&quot;<i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i></i>
No throat cramming just yet in Idaho, well at least not legal like
You&#039;re living with your <i> own</i> privates, Idaho.
Tuber or not tuber. That is the question.