It appears that part of this case is a flurry of senators scrambling to announce support for marriage equality, as in "I was for it before I had to be." Yeah a few GOP senators have done so, but so many Democratic senators have announced their support people are now studying the dwindling list of who hasn't. There are a few holdouts, but the list is fluid.
There was a lot of interest in being in the audience during arguments. I heard of some wanting to see the facial expressions of the justices. A few people were in line since Thursday evening.
By this morning a huge crowd had formed outside the Court, overflowing the plaza. And that was before the anti-gay marchers arrived.
It is rare for the Supremes to release an audio and transcript of the proceedings the same day. Usually, they wait until the end of the week. Not this time. I haven’t read or listened yet, instead relying on the analysis.
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post uses 3 charts so show why marriage equality will eventually win. The youth are way out ahead and they'll soon be in charge.
Is the Supreme Court becoming more liberal or more conservative. Depends on who you ask -- and how you measure it. Another Washington Post page shows two ways the computation was done. Alas, both methods show the swing vote has tended to be on the conservative side of center.
Robin Tyler was part of the suit in Calif. that prompted the state Supremes to rule in favor of marriage equality -- the ruling that was overturned by the vote in 2008. She was in the courtroom today and had this reaction:
I’m angry. I felt like a second class citizen. I felt that some of the questions by the Justices were degrading. How dare they sit in front of a room of such accomplished LGBT people and refer to us like this was all something new! And when Scalia asked, ‘Where in the Constitution is there discrimination against gay people?’ I mean – women are not in the Constitution, either, but there’s implied discrimination. Some of their questions were demeaning and insulting to the audience – and the court was filled with people they were talking about! I just hope they do the right thing.Now on to the issue -- what happened in the courtroom today?
Ari Ezra Waldman, the writer lawyer on the blog Towleroad, has a review of the proceedings. Charles Cooper represented the supporters of the gay marriage ban. I won't give his whole argument, only that his reasoning was pretty lame (we knew that) and the justices went straight for he weak points.
Then came Ted Olson, representing our side. He fared a lot better, though had to deal with Scalia. The final presenter was Don Verrilli, Obama's Solicitor General, making the case for the 8-state solution. He had to deal with illogic of his position and then deal with the justices remarking this gay marriage thing is moving too fast -- we're dealing with something that is newer that cell phones and the internet (Kennedy said it has only been 5 years -- Mass. started allowing gays to marry almost 9 years ago). Roberts wants the public debate to continue.
Nina Totenberg of NPR summarizes the arguments.
The ruling will be handed down in June, but that hasn't stopped prognosticators from spouting opinions on what the justices might do.
Tom Goldstein of Scotusblog sees two possible outcomes:
* The anti-gay side doesn't have standing to bring the case to the Supremes. That means the 9th Circuit decision is tossed out and the district court decision remains -- and gay marriage comes to only Calif.
* The justices can't reach a majority -- Kennedy thinking it's too soon to decide and refusing to join either side -- leaving the 9th Circuit decision in place -- and gay marriage comes to only Calif.
Even so, Goldstein says the justices were clear in implying if gay marriage is legal in Calif. it should be legal everywhere. That's another reason why the justices might look for a way not to rule in this case.
But such guesses have been wrong before -- such as in the Affordable Care Act.
After teaching this afternoon (and spending an hour reading most the links I included above) I put on my flannel-lined jeans and wool sweater and headed down to the marriage equality rally in Detroit. I got there around 6:30 and the gang had assembled about a half hour before then. The site was chosen because it is in front of the federal courthouse in Detroit. Alas, in the evening there isn't much traffic -- we didn't have an audience.
Here's what the group looked like when I got there:
A couple of the protesters.
I think this is the guy who organized the event.
And some of the home-made posters.
I took a candle and matches with me and, in spite of the wind, managed to keep the candle lit most of the time -- I had to relight it only once. A few others had candles and many had glowsticks. I left at 8:00 -- my feet were cold and it seemed to be just us. The event was to go for another hour.
During my time there I counted the number of participants. The highest number I got was 55. Since several people came and went I guess the total participation was above 75.
No comments:
Post a Comment