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.
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.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1150 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
714 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
768 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
839 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
858 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
327 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
807 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
811 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
710 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
764 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
867 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen
- 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM
912 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
858 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
363 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
921 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
826 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
751 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
342 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
343 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
821 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
837 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
753 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
356 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
369 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
341 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
338 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
747 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
730 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
794 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
861 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
348 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
736 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
681 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
706 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
845 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
758 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
922 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
829 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
807 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
756 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
853 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
894 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
758 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
755 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
676 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
780 Views
