Now we are looking at a 5-4 overturn by the usual suspects.

Take the long view. I think this could end a 5-4 the OTHER way. This same court abrogated some parts of DOMA last year.

The Windsor case can be used to argue both sides. Some parts of the opinion suggest its a state issue and some suggest marriage equality is a universal right.

This is up in the air.

but won't hold my breath.

But recent history has boded well.

The issue is trending our way across the board.

Why run the risk the Scalia-Roberts-Alito-Thomas Axis of Evil fucks it up somehow?

I'm convinced that some of the "swing votes" are actually horse-trading in exchange for votes on other issues, probably the ones where the judges have their own money at stake.

Marriage Equality isn't one of those issues, unless Clarence Thomas has a fortune invested a gay bridal registry company. So, I think issues like this may be a bargaining chip.

"If You vote in favor of Marriage Equality, I'll vote in favor of Monsanto."

Or maybe, "If you don't vote against Marriage Equality, I won't vote in favor of those drone strikes, and your stock in Boeing will plummet."

Here's the AP story:

ASSOCIATED PRESS – JANUARY 6, 2014, 10:35 AM EST
Updated 10:45 A.M. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state.

The order follows an emergency appeal by the state following the Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights. More than 900 gay and lesbian couples have married since then.

The high court order will remain in effect until the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to uphold Shelby's ruling.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/utah_gay_marriage_on_hold

then claim she supported marriage equality. Kind of like Lieberman voting against filibustering Roberts/Alito, then voting against them on the main vote. The important vote was the filibuster vote, not the confirmation vote.

She is referring it back to the 10th to take the heat. If they affirm, she can leave the affirmation intact and they get the blame for gay marriage. If they reverse, she could affirm the reversal, but would suffer the ire of the LGBT community. So, she will punt to the full court where she can vote without blame. If it passes, she gets the credit from the LGBT and Kennedy gets the blame from the religious loonies. If it fails Kennedy gets the blame from the LGBT crowd and she skates by saying she voted for it, but Kennedy was the swing.

The case never left the 10th Circuit.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

that sums up all that is wrong with this country. Too many people are totally unwilling to take a stand.

It's still in the 10th district appeals court. The Tenth district appeals court did not grant a stay; the state of UT then appealed the denial of a stay to the SC, and the stay has now been granted by the whole court. But the SC isn't going to hear the case itself.

arcane ways this can play out.

Hopefully only a temporary setback.

At least that one dumbfuck bigot can go eat a cheeseburger now...

makes sense to me. What do other DU'ers think?

SocioSam 6 minutes ago

This is only a temporary halt. The issue has been redefined from one of "sin" to "constitutional rights." Now, the bigots are on the side of fighting against the Constitution. Plus, the Supreme Court rulings have created such a legal mess with couples married on Federal taxes but not some States. Are married couple unmarried if they move from Iowa to Kentucky? Can gay/lesbian spouses get benefits in one State but not another?

I think the "sin" argument is becoming moot in many ways. And that's great. But here in IA there are still a lot of people that say it's a sin and that courts are interpreting the constitution incorrectly. Apparently the constitution only applies to heterosexuals.

On the whole though, the trend toward equality is promising.

Now we run the risk of the people who got married having there marriages invalidated.

the District Court judge should have issued a stay pending appeal.

While I doubt the marriages performed to date would be invalidated it is certainly a risk.

But to create an atmosphere of expectation when we all know this will ultimately be decided either by the 10th Circuit for Utah or the Supreme Court was not the best.

Courts generally only grant or deny things that people ask for.

Maddow was explaining how they forgot to ask for a stay just in case they lost. Had that happened, the request for a stay might not have gone all the way to the SC.

I don't recall exactly where I heard (or read) that though.

She is a sellout, a fraud, that doesn't give a shit about equality for all Americans.



AND FUCK OBAMA FOR APPOINTING HER!!!!!!!!!!

the petition was presented to her because she oversees the appeals for the 10th but because it was referred to the entire court this was a 9 justice vote.

second even if she did vote for the stay the fact remains that this is procedural not substantive. it only holds until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is in session and can take a look at the pending court case.

dial it back until we actually have something substantive.

NO HARM is done by allowing same-sex marriages to continue.

Plenty of harm occurs by delaying and denying equality to ALL AMERICANS

And it's the usual suspects not affected telling us how it should be done. Go figure!

Can't upset the bigots - there is a 1% chance they may vote for us if we bash teh gays.

2014 Mid-terms coming up. Can't rock the boat nationwide.

this is gonna piss off a few!

this was a substantive loss as opposed to a procedural matter that does not speak to the merits, I would say so.

It is the latter... not the former.

of substance to be angry about.... and by that I mean a substantive ruling denying gay marriage in Utah. which you do not have. you have a temporary hold until pending litigation is resolved.

all people would have been free to marry the partners of their choosing a long time ago.

But our system isn't perfectly just..... and the wheels of justice grind slow but exceedingly fine. Justice isn't linear... and waiting as procedure plays itself out is frustrating.... but why attack a Justice who has done nothing but her job?

If I thought for a second that this was anything but a procedural hold pending action in front of the 10th I would say so.

Again, no one can actually prove they would be hurt by allowing marriage to continue.

The opposite can be proven.

This stay is almost certainly temporary. History and demographics are on our side. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal nationwide.

She referred it to the whole court, which voted to issue the stay. That stay is only in effect until the 10th District appeals panel rules on the case.

She referred the appeal to SCOTUS in toto. SCOTUS as a body(apparently with NO dissent from any Justice, Liberal or Conserv.) referred the case back to the Appellate Court of jurisdiction..the 10th.
Justice Sotomayer did NOT deny equal rights to anyone and neither did SCOTUS.

Will it be appealed again after a 10th decision....probably...by the petitioner that loses.
It will more than likely be a SCOTUS decision down the road.

The fact remains that gay couples in Utah are now denied equality..

Unless you don't think gay rights to be an equality issue?

Americans DENIED equality.


But it is all just a fucking political game for you, right?

hold and will become an undisputed law in Utah. Brilliant move Justice Sotomayor!

If the 10th court upholds the original decision to allow for marriage equality then Sotomeyer could come out looking like a genius but right now, at least to me, she seems like she's copping out.

There is no excuse to deny equal rights to all citizens, but that's just my thoughts.

same sex marriage and the SC will not challenge the decision.

Even if they had denied the stay, it wouldn't have ended the fight. They would have appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the idea here is that they still could, theoretically, rule to block same-sex marriages in Utah. If that happened, it would establish a legal issue concerning the individuals already married in the state. While we all believe this issue will be resolved positively from the perspective of gay Utahns - it's no slam dunk.

It's also important that no justice recorded a dissent in this matter. So, to blame just Sotomayor is unfair.

and some of the folks here that are claiming Sotomayor sold them out can stop posting out of ignorance.

First, a federal district judge in Utah ruled that the state's ban on same sex marriage was invalid. The state then sought a stay of that ruling pending its appeal of the district court ruling to the 10th circuit. That request for a stay was denied first by the district court and then by the 10th Circuit.

At that point the state sought a stay from the Supreme Court that would put same sex marriages on hold pending a decision by the 10th Circuit on the merits of the state's appeal. The state filed that request with the Justice assigned to the 10th Circuit -- Justice Sotomayor.

At this point, Justice Sotomayor could have individually granted the stay, denied the stay, or referred the request to the entire court. If she had denied the request, the state of Utah would then be free to ask any one of the other eight justices to grant the stay. Standard court practice would be for the justice receiving such a second request to refer the matter to the entire court.

Under the circumstances, Sotomayor's decision to refer the case to the entire court offers absolutely no insight into her position on whether the stay should have been granted. In the interest of judicial efficiency and prompt resolution of the matter, she chose to put the matter before the entire court. The fact that there was no report of the 'vote' of the court doesn't tell us whether the court was or was not unanimous. All we know is that at least five justices supported granting the stay. Dissents are atypical in these types of situations.

By the way, the decision by the 10th Circuit to deny the earlier stagy request was made by two judges -- one a Bush II appointee and one an Obama appointee.