I hope she's correct.

Could the Creeps really try to limit marriage and then allow marriages to only be recognized here and there? It would be an absolute train wreck.

Roberts probably won't go there. He's too political.

and I have been saying that for a while.

Roberts and Kennedy will be in the majority. Roberts is a chief justice and they worry about their legacies. Roberts will not want to be seen as being on the wrong side of history; the SCOTUS isn't leading on this, it's just acknowledging historical inevitability. Also, it's not an issue where corporate/elite power or money is at stake. The billionaire class doesn't care about this issue much, and to the extent they do, they think it's good business.

Kennedy has been very receptive to gay rights arguments for a while now and I don't see him changing course.

And no judge in his or her right mind wants to take on Judge Posner's scorched-earth demolition of the Wisconsin and Indiana anti-equality statutes. Posner left no justification standing, burned the village and limed the earth. Judges very seldom write opinions that say, albeit in a carefully crafted way, "your position is so breathtakingly stupid and indefensible that we can't believe you actually made arguments this moronic before this court" and that is what the Seventh Circuit did. And that opinion is going to be cited/quoted twice a page in the pro-equality briefs. Posner wrote that opinion for a reason - to be cited in front of the Supreme Court. It is a virtual amicus brief with great judicial weight behind it.

Fat Tony, Soapy Sam and Uncle Ruckus will dissent in furious opinions that will be equal parts frighteningly fascistic and comedy gold.

Retired, but won the book award as best student in Constitutional Law way back in the day, and your analysis is spot on. Can't wait to read Scalia's blistering dissent. Will be breathtakingly bad.

He broke ranks on another issue a while back, but I think 6-3 is a good bet. Good analysis.

I could see Thomas and Scalia getting into a hissy fit with each other over Scalia wanted to ban it, and Thomas wanting to leave it up to states.

Edit: Ah, shit. Math is hard.

Justice Sleepy will be a no. He doesn't think Americans should have any rights at all. He'd vote against Loving v. Virginia even though it would specifically invalidate his own marriage.

Uncle Ruckus is something else.

They don't want to have different rules for employees in different states.

They want to be able to move employees to what ever state makes the company the best return - and they don't want a valued employee refuse to move to Alabama because their marriage wouldn't be recognized.

Wall Street wants this settled, so they can make money without the headache.

Of the group. Others too partisan unfortunately.

I respect in government today.

She is wonderful! I worry about losing her.

May she serve a long while.

He holds the key

and has been decidedly receptive to gay rights arguments for a while. I don't think he's going to go down a different track now.

They are not idiots. They know what the case is about. They are just thinking about what they want in the majority/dissenting opinions.

I knew my stand decades ago, and so did she