SCOTUS; DOMA might be dead

[^_^ 5,021]

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I hope so. A huge step in the right direction.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Supreme Court DOMA Case: Justices Question Whether They Can Even Decide Dispute

WASHINGTON -- A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday morning appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman.

Judging from Wednesday's first 50 minutes of oral arguments, however, the case may instead be decided on whether the justices have the power to hear the case at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/supreme-court-doma_n_2952611.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

SCOTUS Speculation: Justices Skeptical of DOMA, but Wary of Striking It Down

The early analysis coming from the courtroom suggests that a majority of the justices were skeptical of the Defense of Marriage Act that bans the federal recognition of gay marriage, but—not unlike yesterday—they appeared somewhat reluctant to take up the matter.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/27/scotus_doma_justices_appear_wary_of_taking_up_defense_of_marriage_act.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It appears from even the liberal blogs, that SCOTUS will not make any decision that changes the status quo, but will rely on the states individually to decide the issue marriage issue for their state, and for Congress to decide the issue for the Federal government.

Edited March 27, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now Fox fully expects DOMA to be struck down:

Supreme Court justices raise doubts about federal marriage law

A majority of Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism Wednesday about the legitimacy of a federal provision that prevents married gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits, raising questions about whether the Defense of Marriage Act will stand.

It also is possible the court could dismiss the case for procedural reasons, though that prospect seemed less likely than it did in Tuesday's argument over gay marriage in California.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/27/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-over-challenge-to-federal-law-in-second-gay

Both sides seem to be lowering expectations.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Are you trying to meet a post quota today?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Are you trying to meet a post quota today?

No, but thanks for helping.

[^_^ 5,021]

Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble

If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.

That would happen, it appeared, primarily because Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed persuaded that the federal law intruded too deeply into the power of the states to regulate marriage, and that the federal definition cannot prevail. The only barrier to such a ruling, it appeared, was the chance – an outside one, though — that the Court majority might conclude that there is no live case before it at this point.

After a sometimes bewilderingly complex first hour, discussing the Court’s power to decide the case of United States v. Windsor (12-307), the Court moved on to explore DOMA’s constitutionality. And one of the most talented lawyers appearing these days before the Court — Washington attorney Paul D. Clement — faced fervent opposition to his defense of DOMA from enough members of the Court to make the difference. He was there on behalf of the Republican leaders of the House (as majority members of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group), defending the law because the Obama administration has stopped doing so.

Justice Kennedy told Clement that there was “a real risk” that DOMA would interfere with the traditional authority of states to regulate marriage. Kennedy also seemed troubled about the sweeping breadth of DOMA’s Section 3, noting that its ban on benefits to already married same-sex couples under 1,100 laws and programs would mean that the federal government was “intertwined with citizens’ daily lives.” He questioned Congress’s very authority to pass such a broad law.

Moreover, Kennedy questioned Clement’s most basic argument — that Congress was only reaching for uniformity, so that federal agencies would not have to sort out who was or was not married legally in deciding who could qualify for federal marital benefits, because some states were on the verge of recognizing same-sex marriage.

Along with sharply negative comments about DOMA by the Court’s four more liberal members, Kennedy’s stance could put the law on the edge of constitutional extinction. But, if the Court were to do that based on states’ rights premises, the final ruling might not say much at all about whether same-sex couples were any closer to gaining an equal right to marry under the Constitution.

There did not appear to be a majority of Justices willing to strike down the 1996 law based on the argument that the Obama administration and gay rights advocates have been pressing: that is, the law violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of legal equality in general.

If the House GOP leaders’ lawyer had trouble on Wednesday, so did the federal government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., who was pushing for a wide-ranging ruling that might have the potential to outlaw any ban on same-sex marriage. It was not apparent that Verrilli was making much headway with his argument that any law that treats gays and lesbians less favorably, because of their sexual identity, should have to satisfy a stricter constitutional test.

The Court, although it has been dealing with gay rights cases for years, has never spelled out a specific constitutional standard for judging laws that allegedly discriminate based on homosexuality. The indications on Wednesday were that the DOMA case might be decided without supplying such a standard, since a decision based on interference with states’ prerogatives would not require the creation of a test based on equality principles.

There was a third lawyer in the case to discuss the constitutional issue, New York City attorney Roberta A. Kaplan, representing the New York City woman who had successfully challenged DOMA in this case — Edith Schlain Windsor, an eighty-three-year-old widow of a same-sex marriage, who sat in the second row of the audience to watch the Court deal with her case. Kaplan seemingly missed several opportunities, in answering the Justices’ questions, to the apparent consternation of gay rights lawyers in the attorney section.

[SMOKE 1,426]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364406304' post='6086190]

Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble

Flashback: Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law. March 28, 2012

[^_^ 5,021]

Flashback: Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law. March 28, 2012

Yes, impressions based on oral argument are often wrong.

But they're all we have to go on right now.

What do you think should happen here?

[SMOKE 1,426]

[quote name=' timestamp='1364408278' post='6086324]

Yes, impressions based on oral argument are often wrong.

But they're all we have to go on right now.

What do you think should happen here?

i think DOMA should be overturned & same sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

[^_^ 5,021]

i think DOMA should be overturned & same sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Well, that's boring.