Did the Supreme Court just reveal its hand on gay marriage?

[AdamSmith]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/supreme-court-tip-hand-gay-marriage

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/gay-marriage-alabama-clarence-thomas-antonin-scalia-115042.html?hp=lc1_4

[TotallyOz]

I think so. I think even the dissent even alluded to that. But, with these guys, you just never know.

[lookin]

OK, there's a lot of stuff about Thomas's and Scalia's dissenting opinion, but is there also somewhere a majority opinion that gives the views of the other seven justices?

It sounds like all they did was say "no" to Alabama's request to intervene. I guess that's all they have to do and probably all that's appropriate for them to do.

A second question would be how common is it for there to be a dissenting opinion in the absence of a majority opinion? Did Thomas and Scalia do something unusual by issuing one?

Not trying to look up anybody's robes, but I'd appreciate it if anyone has some juicy insights to share.

[MsGuy]

Lookin, this type of administrative/procedural decision requires no opinion and normally there would be none. Even for a final judgement on a fully argued case the only opinion required is that of the majority. If I remember right the decision last year not to hear an appeal of several marriage cases carried no opinion. SCOTUS just announced they wouldn't hear them (meaning there was not 4 justices who voted in favor of hearing them).

You have to remember that the vast majority of Federal Appeals Courts decisions are allowed to stand as is w/o the Supremes weighing in one way or the other. That's why appointments to the Circuit Courts of Appeal are so hotly contested in the Senate.

On the other hand, any justice can attach a written explanation to damn near any action that requires his vote. In this case, attaching an opinion was not so uncommon as to be weird but it was uncommon enough to be a surprise.

In any case what gave the good justice umbrage was not on its face the issue of marriage rights. He opined that, as the Court already had what amounts to a controlling case before it, (1) not issuing a stay pending the Court's decision on the Ohio case amounted to pissing in the face of the great state of Alabama and (2) not granting a stay would be read by the great unwashed as tipping the court's hand on the Ohio case, something the Court traditionally dislikes to do.

So basically he's grumbling about the majority not showing much respect for our federal system of government and not wanting to give the appearance of having pre-decided a pending case. A case can be made for both his points.

PS

But, with these guys, you just never know.

I agree with Oz. The marriage equality cases present some tricky legal questions and the Court, in its call for briefs, focused precisely on the diciest issues (for our side). So as Oz says, don't reserve the wedding hall just yet unless you can get a full refund on your deposit.

[lookin]

Thanks, MsGuy! Very helpful.

[AdamSmith]

Constitutional scholar Noah Feldman opines that the U.S. Supreme Court "may have been motivated to deny the stay at least in part by the desire to signal to Moore that it's unhappy with his shenanigans. Admittedly, the court would probably have denied the stay anyway. But by directly confronting the Supreme Court's authority, Moore may have guaranteed that Justice Anthony Kennedy would vote against any stay, because it would look like judicial weakness."

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-09/alabama-s-gay-marriage-showdown

[MsGuy]

Well, sometimes folks spend so much time reading between the lines, they start seeing things that aren't there.

Not saying the Supremes haven't been known to piss on someone's shoes when they felt dis-respected.

And not saying Moore hasn't gone off the reservation in his efforts to pander to the good Christians of Alabama.

But the vote was 7/2 against a stay, not 5/4, and, as the article notes, also tracts the latest actions of the Court in not issuing stays in marriage equality cases.

So maybe it's only that Mr. Feldman got pissing drunk last weekend, woke up shortly before his deadline at Bloomberg and filled some column inches with raw speculation. I'd say that's as likely an explanation as any.

[AdamSmith]

Having faced journalistic deadlines myself, that is very often exactly the way these things go.

[AdamSmith]

Chief Alabama judge would defy Supreme Court in gay marriage ruling

CNN.com

Washington (CNN) The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted Thursday he will continue to resist efforts to implement same-sex marriage in his state, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage later this year.

Chief Justice Roy Moore likened an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy v. Ferguson, two 19th century Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation, respectively.

"If it's an unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court," Moore said in a testy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "I will follow the law as I interpret it."

Moore has ordered lower court judges in Alabama not to implement a federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Moore's actions come despite the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to stay the federal ruling, effectively allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state for the first time on Monday.

Judges in some of the state's counties refused to allow same-sex couples to marry in spite of the federal court ruling.

"That's not the federal law. What you're confusing is law with the opinion of a justice," Moore told Cuomo. "What one lone federal judge says is not law."

Moore is personally opposed to gay marriage and steadfastly against legalizing gay marriage, insisting that Alabama recognizes the "divine" nature of the definition of marriage.

Moore also characterized the federal judge's ruling that overturned the state's ban as an "attempt by the federal court to control the state," which he called a "federal intrusion into state sovereignty."

The battle Moore is waging is just the latest for a controversial judge who sticks to his guns and won't bend to federal law when he believes it is wrong.

Moore was booted from the state's supreme court when he refused to implement a federal ruling ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments at an Alabama judicial building in 2003.

He won a statewide reelection to reclaim his chief justiceship in 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/ray-moore-alabama-gay-marraige-supreme-court-slavery/index.html

[AdamSmith]

Federal judge orders Alabama official to issue marriage licenses to gay couples

Standoff intensifies as US district court judge targets Mobile County official in ruling that reinforces previous decision striking down same-sex marriage ban

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/12/alabama-same-sex-marriages-federal-judge

[Guest callipygian]

[AdamSmith]

Today's federal district court order here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255598034/1-14-cv-00424-55-Order

[MsGuy]

Wonder if Chief Justice Moore will go stand in the courthouse door? I'm pretty sure there's an Alabama precedent for that.

"Segregation Now. Segregation Tomorrow. Segregation Forever!"

[AdamSmith]

"...About an hour after U.S. District Judge Callie Granade's ruling, Mobile County opened up its marriage license office and started granting the documents to gay couples, according to David Kennedy, an attorney for one of the couples who wed." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-alabama-county-must-marry-same-sex-couples/

Now to see whether the resisters in other counties relent.

[MsGuy]

Now to see whether the resisters in other counties relent.

One of our local restaurateurs called Senator Eastland (an old buddy of his) shortly after passage of the Public Accommodations Law and asked what he could do. Big Jim advised he had three options:

1) Close his restaurant;

2) Integrate his restaurant;

3) Go to jail.

LOL police departments, schools, retailers, all the die hard segs I knew back then, not one of them chose to go to jail.

Well, one did beat the ever loving hell out of a Yankee kid who accompanied 2 black guys asking for service in his restaurant (it being his opinion that the Civil Rights Act didn't cover uppity white boys), but that's another story.

[RA1]

Didn't Roy Moore already stand in the courthouse door? But that was a religious issue (just like this one?).

To some extent uppity white boys and other white boys do not necessarily have civil rights. Or, so it seems.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest callipygian]

So far....apparently, the homosexuals are behaving themselves - or at least so says Jeremy Todd Addaway, a self-styled reporter from "Redneck News" as he provides a live report on gay marriage in Alabama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hJQFX0Wn58