Can someone explain to me the logistics behind SCOTUS decisions? — Page 2

I get that JG2. But if Sanders were to do the unthinkable and get the nomination what makes you think he wouldn't be electable? Most of his positions are popular across party lines. And I'm pretty positive he could destroy any of the GOP clowns who may get the nomination in the debates.

Are we actually talking about the protest vote? You know...like all those Clinton supporters back in '08 who were going turn the election on its ear and destroy Obama's chances at winning? Yeah...I remember them. What was the outcome of that?

Same as it's going to be in '16. Hillary Clinton may or may not win the presidency, but if she doesn't, it won't be because of Bernie Sanders or any of his supporters.

Wow. In a couple of months Sanders shot up from 2%. And it's very, very early. Impressive. Considering he's the one candidate NOT taking corporate money.

And in those same months, Clinton shot up from 54% to today's 75%.

It will be interesting to see which states/counties/etc. try to deny the ruling and ban it anyways. This always happens after huge rulings like this but I'm very curious to see just how many will try to rebel against it.

The Slate article is from February.

Lawrence vs. Texas was announced on my 30th birthday and Windsor on my 40th. Hoping for marriage equality on my 42nd birthday!

Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence should be the basis for the holding in the marriage equality opinion: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982).

Simple, basic constitutional and moral standards of fairness should prevail.

"Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence should be the basis for the holding in the marriage equality opinion: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982).
Simple, basic constitutional and moral standards of fairness should prevail. "

I hope they will, but I doubt they'll go that route. If they go with Equal Protection (EPC), then I think they'd have to recognize LGBTQ as a special protected class because I can't see the Court dismantling state marriage bans on Equal Protection grounds under a rational basis analysis. If it goes EPC and goes higher than the rational basis test, then it will be the first time that the Court recognizse a new protected class of people in a very long time. The Court has done a really good job thus far (even in favorable opinions) in avoiding recognizing LGBTQ people as a special class of people that deserves to have laws, that directly adversely affects them or has a disparate impact against them, go under strict or intermediate scrutiny by courts when challenged. E

The Court does not like to add more classes if it can help it, so I expect Kennedy's opinion (I am assuming he'll be the author of that opinion) will be based on Substantive Due Process and the fundamental right of marriage. That's the safer route as marriage is already recognized as a fundamental right (thank you Loving v. Virginia), the Court will just be expanding the zone of privacy, and emphasizing individual rights. It'll also keep this issue narrow and only affect marriage this way.

I can see the more liberal justices writing concurrences saying that decision should also be based on Equal Protection thus stating that LGBTQ folks are a special class that needs extra protection from the courts, but for the actual opinion, I think Kennedy will go the fundamental rights route and may sway the likes of Roberts on his side. Though I doubt Roberts or any other conservative Justice will side with Kennedy either way, I am certain that if the opinion is for marriage equality and goes the EPC route, then there's no way any of the conservative justices will sign on it because going EPC opens the door for other laws discriminating against LGBTQ people (i.e. other than marriage) will go under a stricter level of judicial review. Therefore, making it more difficult for states to justify them. Unless of course, they find the same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional under rational basis review. I find that to be more difficult in this situation than it was in Windsor (since Windsor was more about two state-sanctioned marriages being treated unequally under federal law and finding now legitimate interest in doing that).

Of course, I'll be glad to be proven wrong and have same-sex marriage advocates win on equal protection grounds.

Updated On: 6/25/15 at 07:28 AM

Syllabus:

Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.