Active Users:1059 Time:04/06/2026 09:26:08 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 1115 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 330 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 895 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 638 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 802 Views
I wonder about that one as well. - 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM 767 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 821 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 860 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 310 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 890 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 796 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 687 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 764 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 751 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 766 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 698 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 717 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 325 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 325 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 330 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 682 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 645 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 672 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 725 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 893 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 801 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 773 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 730 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 697 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 708 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 753 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 689 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 711 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 670 Views

Reply to Message