Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://abovethelaw.com/2014/08/judge-posners-blistering-benchslaps-at-the-same-sex-marriage-arguments/">http://abovethelaw.com/2014/08...guments/</a> Appeals court justices frequently play devil's advocate, but this is just brutal. Sure, they went a bit hard on the attorneys fighting for marriage equality, but it's nothing compared to the attorneys trying to justify Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban. Since "gay marriage makes baby Jesus cry," isn't much of a courtroom argument, anti-gay activists have had to rely on other points, usually a variation on "tradition" and "procreation." Judge Richard Posner was having none of it: >>“How can tradition be the reason?” Posner asked, mocking the answer by responding that saying “we’ve been doing a stupid thing” for a long time certainly wouldn’t be enough of a justification to uphold a law or practice.<< Posner, just another judicial activist...who was appointed by RINO Ronald Reagan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 This appellate court (the 7th) seems likely to go the same way as the 10th (UT, OK), and the 4th (VA). The 6th Circuit was the one where it's possible that a decision could go against equality. There, one judge (a Clinton appointee) was quite clearly in favor of equality, and one of the Bush II appointees clearly hostile. The other Bush appointee was harder to read but possibly leaning against. If that circuit rules against equality, that makes it more likely, though not mandatory, that SCOTUS will take up the matter in the next session. This circuit, however, looks likely to rule for equality, which could mean a couple more states enter the fold soon. SCOTUS may take up the issue anyway, even if the 6th Circuit rules in favor, as the others have done. In an unusual move, the WINNING side in the 4th and 10th Circuit cases are asking for that to happen: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/27/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0GR1UL20140827">http://www.reuters.com/article...20140827</a> "In a bold legal move that few litigants try, gay marriage advocates plan to urge the U.S. Supreme Court in three pending cases across the country to decide once and for all whether states can ban same-sex unions. Gay and lesbian plaintiffs won before appeals courts in cases involving bans in Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma, and lawyers for those states have already asked the justices to take up their appeals. Lawyers defending the bans contend that the U.S. Constitution gives the states the role of defining marriage. In what is a relatively unusual strategy, all three sets of challengers have said they want the justices to review the lower court rulings, even though those decisions favored their side by striking down individual state bans. The parties that won in lower courts do not usually seek review. It is seen as a sign of the plaintiffs' optimism that the justices would side with them that they are joining the appeals."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 AND... the 7th Circuit ruled as Judge Posner's comments made it seem like they would (unanimously): <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-gay-marriage-bans-indiana-wisconsin-20140904-story.html">http://www.chicagotribune.com/...ory.html</a> We'll see if WI and IN ask for a stay pending an appeal to SCOTUS (which was granted to OK, UT and VA). If they don't ask for one, we could have marriage equality in IN and WI very soon. But if they do, I can't imagine them not getting it, since it was granted to the other states.
Originally Posted By ecdc Please to enjoy Posner's excellent deconstruction of the pathetic arguments against marriage equality. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014%2FD09-04%2FC%3A14-2526%3AJ%3APosner%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A1412339%3AS%3A0">http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/...%3AS%3A0</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If only Reagan had appointed this guy to the Supreme Court and Scalia to the appellate instead of vice versa.
