Jun
24
2013

Does the Supreme Court think that it has standing to review the Big Four?

Chris Geidner (H/T: AoSHQ) asks that question.

Although the country is waiting on the Supreme Court’s decisions in four major cases — involving California’s Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, affirmative action policies, and the Voting Rights Act — the court’s decision in all four cases could be not to decide.

How?

Standing.

My answer is still: I think that the court will decide that it has standing.  Of course, this is mostly based on the assumption that, if the Supreme Court was going to toss any or all of this out anyway, why didn’t it just do so at the beginning of the month and save us the anticipation?

Publicity?  What, you think that they want to drum up business for the Supreme Court’s online store?

Moe Lane

PS: For those wondering: ‘standing’ in this context essentially means that you can’t appeal a case to the Supreme Court unless the ruling affects you significantly.  You can offer the courts your opinion on the subject (amicus curiae) if you aren’t involved, but somebody involved in the situation has to be involved in the court case.  Yes, I am hideously over-simplifying and I am not a lawyer. It’s all part of my, to use a flattering word, charm.

PPS: It’s SCOTUS Day!

10 Comments

  • Spegen says:

    I miss the days when a SCOTUS day would come and go without a ripple. Too much power given to too few.

  • BigGator5 says:

    I suspect they will uphold California’s Prop 8 vote. The law is not set in stone, it can be repealed if they want another vote. They cannot take away our right to vote on constitutional amendments. It would be a unforgiviable violation of everything this nation is supposed to stand for and I for one will NOT passively let it pass.

    • Aruges says:

      Well, they’ve done it before. Who’s to say they won’t again.

      • BigGator5 says:

        WHEN?!? When have they ever overturn a state constitutional amendment before? Where does the US Constitution give SCOTUS power over STATE CONSTITUTIONS?!? We are talking about the vote of the people, in a sovereign state, of an issue protected by the 10th Amendment.

        • Luke says:

          Federal courts have ruled that federal regulations (not even laws) supersede state constitutions.
          Here in Idaho, water is a big frigging deal (being largely a desert and all). How water is allocated comprises a large percentage of our state constitution.
          Enter the federal government and the Endangered Species Act. They wanted to use water owned by others to save the local strain of sockeye salmon, but didn’t want to pay for the property they were seizing.
          So the federal government found a compliant federal judge who was willing to rule that because the federal government “owned” the state back when it was a territory, that the federal government had senior water rights to any and all water in the state.
          The President at the time? George W. Bush.

        • Aruges says:

          Federal courts knocked down the CA proposition that passed years back that would have prevented illegal aliens from getting state benefits.

        • Moe_Lane says:

          Lincoln v. Davis, 1865. 5-4 split for the plaintiff.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com