Active Users:952 Time:14/09/2025 06:53:59 AM
There is a good chance it won't happen Roland00 Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM
There is a good chance it won't happen for Judge Roberts is a legal minimalist and he hates sweep judicial decisions that affect large theory of law. The reason why he hates them for he is a judicial conservative in his own way
1) Large sweeping changes of law can have unintended consequences
2) Furthermore it makes the courts look less like umpires and more like lawmakers. Perception is a big deal for if courts are perceived as lawmakers the courts will become greater politicalized.

Most likely John Roberts would rather take up a DOMA case for he can make the decision much more narrow.

---------------------------------------------

Now it isn't just up to John Roberts for it only needs 4 justices to grant a writ of certiorari. The 4 liberals on the court though won't grant a writ though unless they are sure they will have 5 justices on their side so that way they won't create bad precedent by losing the case.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1017 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 291 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 795 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 549 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause? - 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM 720 Views
I wonder about that one as well. - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 670 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 718 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 778 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 273 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 798 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 714 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 599 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 682 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 661 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 671 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 598 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 631 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 289 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 283 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 292 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 594 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 563 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 584 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 639 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 797 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 716 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 677 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 648 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 620 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 632 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 670 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 601 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 617 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 588 Views

Reply to Message