Active Users:161 Time:02/06/2024 01:16:18 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 864 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 240 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 663 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 426 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 590 Views
I wonder about that one as well. - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 542 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 575 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 654 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 219 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 675 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 605 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 462 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 566 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 533 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 551 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 478 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 504 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 243 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 233 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 237 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 468 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 444 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 468 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 520 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 674 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 589 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 553 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 517 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 498 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 503 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 544 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 482 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 494 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 463 Views

Reply to Message