11 ms·

Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is rea

Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. > As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19. > Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.

andor436 11y ago
I don't know. They had to start by striking down the federal benefits part of DoMA, and then return the issue to the lower courts to build up sufficient decisions (and precedent.) It takes time to do this. Frankly I'm astonished (and proud) that public opinion has shifted so quickly.
- mkr-hn 11y ago
  It's all the people coming over the last 15 years. It's easier to hate an abstract notion of a person--all those gay stereotypes, plus what you hear in church--than someone you know and care about.
rayiner 11y ago
> Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I'm glad the Court waited until the consensus was clear. At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the dictates of the Constitution. Nobody in 1789 would have said that gay marriage is a fundamental right. We acknowledge the right today for the same reason we acknowledge many other rights we did not acknowledge then--society as a whole has agreed to recognize the right and bind itself to enforcing it. It is important that the Court not act ahead of society. I'm also a strong supporter of abortion rights, but I can't help but wonder if in the long run abortion rights wouldn't be in a stronger position today had the Court waited a bit longer for public consensus to catch up before dictating a result.
- sigzero 11y ago
  The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    > The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      Congress is not supposed to be a consensus-enforcing machine. The Supreme Court is supposed to make sure the words of the Constitution and the words of the laws mean something. If they don't, then the country is ruled by people, not by laws.
    - lmm 11y ago
      The Supreme Court is a literal oligarchy - it's 9 people who are accountable to no-one. The Senate is a more democratic body, since they can be held to account by voters.
      - ebiggs 11y ago
        I don't know if this was meant to be a joke but it's rather preposterous. Justices do not make laws, they interpret and apply them, and must do so while being rationally bound and yes accountable to laws and precedent under the framework of common law. Judicial activism is a pejorative term for good reason: they're not there to create or destroy laws. If they did start abusing their power to interpret laws they would be impeached: they actually ARE accountable to congress same as the president. Also, if the equal protection clause was misinterpreted by the judicial branch, the legislative bodies of the federal and state governments have the power to revise and make it clear that the law was never to be interpreted that way.
masklinn 11y ago
They really waited until they had no choice: they refused to hear all cases until there was a circuit split, then they had no choice but to resolve the split.
- __z 11y ago
  RGB specifically addressed why the supreme court wasn't previously hearing marriage cases at that time - they don't generally hear cases when the circuit courts are in agreement. Once the circuit split then they addressed the issue, but only then. In fact the dissent in DeBoer v. Snyder (which is one of the four cases that was combined for the Supreme Court) said "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."

andor436 11y ago

I don't know. They had to start by striking down the federal benefits part of DoMA, and then return the issue to the lower courts to build up sufficient decisions (and precedent.) It takes time to do this. Frankly I'm astonished (and proud) that public opinion has shifted so quickly.

mkr-hn 11y ago
It's all the people coming over the last 15 years. It's easier to hate an abstract notion of a person--all those gay stereotypes, plus what you hear in church--than someone you know and care about.

rayiner 11y ago

> Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I'm glad the Court waited until the consensus was clear. At bottom, this isn't a right flowing from the dictates of the Constitution. Nobody in 1789 would have said that gay marriage is a fundamental right. We acknowledge the right today for the same reason we acknowledge many other rights we did not acknowledge then--society as a whole has agreed to recognize the right and bind itself to enforcing it. It is important that the Court not act ahead of society. I'm also a strong supporter of abortion rights, but I can't help but wonder if in the long run abortion rights wouldn't be in a stronger position today had the Court waited a bit longer for public consensus to catch up before dictating a result.

sigzero 11y ago
The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. If it is not, send it back to Congress to fix. While I agree with the ruling, this court has been doing things clearly outside its purview.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > The SCOTUS shouldn't wait on consensus. They don't need that. They need to decide if it is legal or not. This is a really bad idea, you're basically describing an oligarchy. The Supreme Court is really a consensus-enforcing machine, for the most part.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Congress is not supposed to be a consensus-enforcing machine. The Supreme Court is supposed to make sure the words of the Constitution and the words of the laws mean something. If they don't, then the country is ruled by people, not by laws.
  - lmm 11y ago
    The Supreme Court is a literal oligarchy - it's 9 people who are accountable to no-one. The Senate is a more democratic body, since they can be held to account by voters.
    - ebiggs 11y ago
      I don't know if this was meant to be a joke but it's rather preposterous. Justices do not make laws, they interpret and apply them, and must do so while being rationally bound and yes accountable to laws and precedent under the framework of common law. Judicial activism is a pejorative term for good reason: they're not there to create or destroy laws. If they did start abusing their power to interpret laws they would be impeached: they actually ARE accountable to congress same as the president. Also, if the equal protection clause was misinterpreted by the judicial branch, the legislative bodies of the federal and state governments have the power to revise and make it clear that the law was never to be interpreted that way.

masklinn 11y ago

They really waited until they had no choice: they refused to hear all cases until there was a circuit split, then they had no choice but to resolve the split.

__z 11y ago
RGB specifically addressed why the supreme court wasn't previously hearing marriage cases at that time - they don't generally hear cases when the circuit courts are in agreement. Once the circuit split then they addressed the issue, but only then. In fact the dissent in DeBoer v. Snyder (which is one of the four cases that was combined for the Supreme Court) said "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."