Justices will soon decide whether to take up same-sex marriage appeals

[alp227]

Source: CNN

The divisive issue of same-sex marriage was expected to be discussed privately by the Supreme Court Monday, and the justices could soon announce if they will hear a constitutional challenge to a federal law denying financial benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

An order from the court announcing whether they will take up either or both of two separate issues could come as early as Tuesday morning. If so, oral arguments and an eventual ruling would not happen until next year, but the current appeals are sure to re-ignite the hot-button social debate in a presidential election.

At issue is whether guarantees of "equal protection" in the U.S. Constitution should invalidate a California law -- and the separate 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which for federal purposes defines marriage as the legal union only between one man and one woman.

A New York woman sued, saying the congressional law unfairly treats same-sex couples who are lawfully married under the laws of their own states.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage/index.html

[marshall]

1. I hope the court takes this case

It would be interesting to see if any of the conservatives take Ted Olson's approach, that marriage in itself is a conservative value.

It would certainly be refreshing to see some of the judges vote in a way other than party line ideology.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. The decision will be 5-4

against. Which will then lead to legislation to re-legalize DADT, and the court confirming it.

The SCOTUS is broken beyond repair, and will remain so for at least two decades. There is nothing the Court can do which will cause it to be impeached.

[Robeysays]

6. doood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[Kelvin Mace]

10. That was then

this is now.

Vincent Bugliosi outlined an excellent case to impeach Scalia and his cronies, but it didn't happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi#George_W._Bush

The article was called "None Dare Call It Treason", and he was right, they didn't.

[Robeysays]

7. fer thee restof yeaaa

A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[2] George W. English,[3] and Samuel B. Kent,[4] chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. If they didn't impeach

after the misconduct in 2000, they will never impeach.

[bushisanidiot]

3. We need to get another judge on the SCOTUS first

Otherwise this will be another 5-4 defeat.

I believe Roberts wants to squeeze it in quickly while the republicans still have the majority.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. The only likely people retiring are the "liberal"

justices and that is a very flawed description since the entire courts is made up of conservatives and ultra-right wing radicals.

Since 1970, every justice who retired was replaced by a more conservative justice.

Again, this assumes that the GOP would allow another SCOTUS appointment which seems unlikely.

[Heather MC]

4. To bad Justices can't be kicked off the bench

voting party lines in a court system is no Justice. What's the point in going through the farce of hearing a case.
What's the point in appoint lawyers to the court, They could get 9 monkeys to the damn job. 5 with red hats just always vote no. 4 with blue hats just always vote yes. They get paid in bananas and we don't have to pay Judges anymore. I think would could replace the entire Republican Congress with trained monkeys no one would notice the difference

[Robeysays]

5. doooooood... come on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[Heather MC]

8. Kewl glad it's happened before but I doubt it will happen again

[Kelvin Mace]

12. But it won't happen again

No one in government has the spine to impeach anyone on the SCOTUS no matter the crime.