Do you wonder if there was a deal? DOMA in exchange for Section 4?

[phantom power]

[NightWatcher]

1. You can't do deals or quid pro quo on constitutionality

[phantom power]

2. You must mean they ought not to. Because sure they can.

What would stop them? Who would know?

[closeupready]

3. The timeline is thought-provoking.

I won't speculate any further, but yes, I also thought about the interesting sequence in which the decisions were released.

[morningfog]

4. No. The Justices voted along their legal philosophies. Really no surprise in the results.

THe ruling in Section 4 was bad, but the reasoning was there. The swing vote, Kennedy, wielded the power in each.

[graham4anything]

5. I think the SCOTUS would have been 9 to 0 had Jimmy Carter won in 1980 and Al Gore was seated.

Ralph Nader lied, and Democracy died.
Even to those that don't think it was Nader's fault, no one can say that Ralph told the truth when he said Bush and Gore were the same.

Blame whomever you want.

but that statement is 100% true.
Sonia, Elana, Stephen and Ruth have proved it.

Scalia, Thomas and Alito have proved it.

[pscot]

17. lighten up, francis

[justiceischeap]

6. The thing that bothers me about this question and thinking

is that there was plenty of bad blood between the African-American community and the gay community after Prop 8 (not all but a lot). This kinda stirs that pot again if we go down that road.

[uponit7771]

8. I never notice "plenty" of bad blood, why would this decision split any community seeing

...it's from the extreme hack stupids from the USSC

DOMA was low hanging fruit IMHO, I would've been surprised but not shocked if it wasn't overturned

[justiceischeap]

10. You must have had your eyes and ears closed in 2008

when a lot of people, including some on DU, blamed the African-American community for voting Prop 8 in.

Yesterday, SCOTUS basically voted against minorities and today voted to give another minority group rights. Two groups that have had recent animosity towards one another. Again, not all within the two communities but some very vocal few.

[uponit7771]

13. DU isn't a good tell tale of reality, we're politcal heads where most are not....

...

I don't think your description of animosity is accurate...

The relative few doesn't represent the whole

[justiceischeap]

15. Use these keywords in a search

"prop 8 african americans blamed"

[cthulu2016]

7. There's no deal to be had. Kennedy decided both (5-4) cases personally.

Kennedy has the power to decide every close issue so there is no deal to be made. There is nothing to offer Kennedy... he already has all the power.

He just happens to be a gay-friendly wing-nut... like Dick Cheney. It's a thing.

Bear in mind, even a racist may end up with a gay baby and they know that. On the other hand, they are pretty confident that their kids and friend's kids (all white and rich) will not be harmed by gutting the VRA. It is "about somebody else."

[uponit7771]

9. +1

[phantom power]

11. Hmm, I can see that logic.

[Skidmore]

12. I don't think that is the case.

However, the last thing we need now is shit stirring to divide the greater coalition out here. Too much important work ahead.

[Starry Messenger]

14. No.

[bhikkhu]

16. I don't see a deal

though the same reasoning was applied to both.

Yesterday they covered the Affirmative Action ruling on NPR, including some of Roberts' opinion. It was hard to disagree with him. You can say on practical grounds or for pragmatic reasons that the result might be bad, but only because we have a crippled-up congress that seems incapable of managing anything. The bill needs updating, as the point was well made, and its not entirely reasonable to ask the courts to look the other way on a real issue just because the legislative branch has lost its capacity to legislate.

[onenote]

18. Who were the parties to this deal? Kennedy and Kennedy?

He was the swing vote in both cases so if you're suggesting he made a deal with himself, I suppose that's possible, although silly.