she was suggesting something different from those 56 years.

What is 'perking' within this context?

Cooking, reaching doneness in time.

I was really hoping I was misunderstanding. On the face of things, this doesn't sound very good. Someone down thread said they read the transcript, I hope to read it myself.

This really doesn't sound like something Sotomayor would say without more context.

She wasn't endorsing letting this issue 'perk' at all.

She was actually asking why Cooper -- (the guy who REALLY defending Prop 8) feels why it is so critical for the SCOTUS to rule. I kinda got the feeling that she was being a bit snarky.

In a totally good way. Cooper got spanked today.

percolated coffee is STILL better than K-cups.

My big concession was to stop pouring boiling water through my Melitta in favor of an electric coffee maker.

I've got a friend who really loves her Keurig, but when I'm there I feel like I'm burning money, and the coffee is just okay.

Oh, and yes, marriage is marriage.

And we want to support the K-cups since they were developed in our home town, but, gee... there is nothing like real coffee.

And, WOW, I just saw a commercial for Captain Morgan with the Dropkick Murphys. I'm happy.

are frequently not representative of their thinking. They're frequently giving the lawyers a chance to convince other justices.

I read the transcript and it seems pretty clear Sotomayor will vote to overturn prop 8.

What we're seeking is a broad ruling that finds that marriage is a fundamental right and strikes down any existing state laws or amendments that mandate discrimination against gay or lesbian couples.

I expect the decision to be as narrow as possible.

I mean, there is some reason to be hopeful that Kennedy might side with the liberals on this issue, but I wouldn't exactly be prepared to bet the farm on it. And even Kennedy today seemed to be leaning in the direction of dismissing the case with no ruling at all. A foregone conclusion? Hardly!

The ruling was stayed, pending high court review. If scotus does nothing, prop 8 is history regardless.

This case is far too state specific for that.

The difference is the construct of the court. The Warren court was willing to lead public opinion.
This one is barely willing to follow.

Few places in the US had laws against interracial marriage, and even fewer consistently supported them. It's one thing to ask the SCOTUS to kick out laws that are way out of step with the majority of US jurisdictions that were adopted a century ago in the wake of a civil war, and another to ask them to repudiate laws that are less than two decades old, passed by popular support in a majority of the states.

I feared that this case was too soon, but I do have better hopes for the repeal of DOMA. Marriage has always been left to the states to decide, generally, and the Federal government has always decided to treat each state's definition of marriage as being valid for tax and other purposes.

When that decision was made, the majority of Americans were strongly opposed to marriages between members of different races. If put to a popular vote it would have failed.

But that's way less than the 32 states that have rather recently stained their constitutions with homophobia. Also, if I'm not mistaken, most of them recognized an interracial marriage performed in a state where it was legal. Virginia was not one of them, that gave standing for Loving to take the case through the Federal court system. None of the 38 states that do not have equal marriage recognize the same-gender marriages of the progressive ones.

I admit, the political climate was hostile to interracial marriage in 1967, but legally, the atmosphere is somewhat different with equal marriage today. Laws that were recently passed with popular support are more difficult for courts to overturn than ones enacted by legislatures a century earlier.

My prediction: No standing for the California case, which means the lower court decision prevails and equal marriage is again the law of the land in that state, without the finding of a Constitutional right to marriage for gay and lesbian people, and the part of DOMA that prevents the Federal government from conferring tax and other benefits on same-gender couples is struck down. Another case will have to be brought before the Court to strike down the other parts of DOMA.

This case has a state recognizing same-sex marriage, the people voting to take that away and a court finding the removal of that right unconstitutional. To further complicate it and make it more state specific, the state didn't appeal, so the five bigots took it on.

The five bigots should not be granted standing. That would be a poor precedent to come from this case.

Loving applicants had proper standing, they had been charged with a felony for interracial marriage. Loving was a statute, the history was not complicated.

I don't think this case was too soon or that it shouldn't have been moved forward. The decision will protect marriage equality in CA, and provide the next stepping stone for the Court to make a larger holding.

and hand-wringing for which DU is famous.

for caring about such trivia!

It must be me, but I am of the opinion that there could never be enough hand wringing over something this important.

The complaint is about handwringing over the way the Supreme Court works. I doubt anyone here wishes anything more than full marriage equality. The Court doesn't work that way; never has, never will.

Expecting the court to provide it the first time around is questionable. Being realistic about the way the Court works isn't shameful.

about sabrina1's posts here.

Hold up a hand mirror and read your own posts if you are looking for silly.

She was asking a very rhetorical question to Cooper.

I'm not worried about Sotomayor.

"Oh, well, an extra half-century of racial injustice, no biggie."

for further wrong-headed judicial action.

Which is really a demonstration that the court is concerned about the political implications rather than the justness of their rulings.

That's how I read it.

I heard her quip.

She was being sarcastic and challenging that shit, Scalia.

Hell, I've been with my partner 27 years and we can't get married YET.

Ain't that enough damn time?

and, come to think of it, in ALL my decades on this planet, I personally know of only three happily married couples past the honeymoon stage.

just that we were still together

...and simply let the Ninth Circuit decision stand, thereby killing Prop 8 without addressing the broader civil rights issue. That would be a real shame, but courage does not seem in overwhelming supply in American leadership these days.

is worse than crystal-ball gazing.

You don't seriously think Sotomayor was suggesting that the cause not be taken up for another 50 years, do you?

Sid

That would go completely against her character.

I think she may very well favor a limited decision, either on standing or in favor of tossing prop 8 and nothing more.

I just got done reading the transcript, and to be really honest, it only makes sense after reading the whole thing.

The link in the OP was misleading. (NOT the OP -- the link.)

that's why context is so Important!

She was wanting him to say why it was appropriate to allow segregation and discrimination go on for 50 years. There is no good answer to that. Which is one reason Scalia quickly cut off the line of questioning.

Time and time again. Can't wait for a decision. We have to guess.

Well, bless her heart.

Sometimes, justices will ask questions which are designed to make people think. In other words, questions which purposely are difficult and challenging to answer. So at first blush, it looks like she's saying, "we should hold off, shouldn't we?" But you don't get to be a Supreme Court judge by being so easy to read.

the lawyers rather than the justice whose opinions they are accustomed to dismissing.

court justice of the US or you don't. I didn't know the SC was supposed to be 'fuzzy' about such matters. But that's just me. I personally admire direct statements on issues as important as this.

Eg, a better question might have been 'should we have to wait 50 years to end the denial of Civil Rights to any US Citizen'? That might make people think also.

Thomas, Scalia and Alito are going to vote against gay marriage. So of the others, she may have been targeting either Roberts or Kennedy because their votes may be able to go either way.

To simply show up and say, "I made up my mind, let's vote!" is to do something that would lie at the polar opposite of what function judges are supposed to serve in our democracy.

In posing a softball question, it seems to me that she is actually quite confident in the opposing view, and is merely setting up the Alito/Scalia/Thomas side of the court, in order - perhaps - to more resoundingly persuade Roberts (behind closed doors) that the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to deny gay people their civil rights.

people have been engaging in here whenever our Democratic leaders don't act the way we expect them to. Rather than simply call it as it is, we get all this speculation, excuses for the behavior which if it was a Republican, we WOULD take it on face value and make no excuses for it.

A commitment to fairness? Is there something fair about denying people their civil rights? Are we required to be 'fair' to those who would deny anyone their civil rights? Sorry, but this is not a fuzzy issue. People are being denied civil rights. I see no reason whatsoever to play any games. I know I would not want anyone playing games, legal, political or otherwise with MY civil rights.

It's simple, something needs to be fixed, so fix it.

that the justices who wish to rule in favor of gay marriage are asking those opposed, who insisted in hearing this case, why they took the case if they only intend on upholding the 9th circuit's ruling...why not just let the 9th circuits ruling stand for now..I suspect it was a bit rhetorical..and sideways jab at the conservative 4..

hence my hunch that they are more likely to decide on the basis of standing rather than finding a constitutional right to marriage that includes homosexuals.

it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was 'well timed' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'"

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

i mean come on.

of softball questions, asked for the specific reason of allowing Counsel to hit it out of the park.

to Counsel so they can hit them out of the park.

That is what happened there. Classic example of it.

Are you suggesting Sotomayor was lobbing a softball to a noxious right-winger, Charles Cooper of "protect marriage.com" so he could hit it out of the park?

If you knew her politics, you'd know that she doesn't believe that. It was a question.

And I'm very aware of her past positions, which is why this is disturbing.

Or maybe you've discovered something totally NEW! She's actually a conservative! Good catch.

and prefers to move with more caution. It might behoove you to actually read the transcript.

Do a little reading on interpreting questions asked by Justices during oral arguments. It's interesting and enlightening. Having sat in on few oral arguments at the Supreme Court myself, it is quite something. Especially when the decisions come down later when you compare what the Justices asked asked of the attorneys at the oral arguments.

He couldn't do it.

They're hoping the conservative court will rule in their favor.

Basically it would be a win as far as killing Prop 8. But it won't legalize gay marriage nationwide. In football terms, SCOTUS is punting the ball.

This case is very case specific, but it will lay the ground work for a nationwide ban of denying equality.

die of a chronic oversupply of bile and Thomas to retire once his mouthpiece is gone so that we can get a more sensible bunch on the bench.

Personally, I expect them to throw this right back to the states, an equivalent to Loving vs. Virginia not being possible with all the wingnuts on the bench. They're going to want to protect bigotry in Dixie and possibly elsewhere.

And I value much of what you have to say.

I don't want to wait any longer. Neither do most of the gay and lesbian couples that I know.

They'll either uphold Prop 8 or punt and send it back to the states.

I would love to eat my words, believe me. I put my job and license on the line too many times to sneak life partners in over family bans on having them visit.

After the speech about both parties in a marriage being over 55, and not producing babies. Mr Cooper had to be schooled by Justice Sotomayor that women over 55 do not get pregnant and have babies, after he went on about men keeping their fertility.

It's always a bad sign when the peanut gallery at the Supreme Court laughs at you.

These guys live on some planet devoid of women of reproductive age, and have no way to find out about female bodily functions.

Well, except for Cooper.

life as it were.

And posts like this make me really miss the unrec.

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to share that concern. “If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction,” she said, “why is taking a case now the answer?”"


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The justices ask all sorts of intentional questions of both sides to try and filter the arguments down to something they can make a decision on.

She is not literally arguing that we should wait longer. She's asking the question to see the response.

You 100% misread her statement the wrong way in the rush to judgement against Justice Sotomayor.

I'm reporting them and indicating my disappointment. I've seen nothing to indicate that their read of her remarks is off base. Hopefully any valid concerns and/or criticisms wil help alter her approach in the future.

And Justice Sotomoyer roped the dopes beautifully

Why would you be disappointed in legalizing gay marriage?

It is why the SCOTUS should never be seen/heard til the verdict comes in.
Nuance is not told.

Obviously, Justice Sotomoyer who was a victim of racial injustice would be against those opposed to segregation. It is a given.

I thought only republican/tea/libertarians didn't get farce, sarcasm and irony.
My bad in that assumption.

move on her part to make it happen now and not be delayed.