Sounds like the SCOTUS is finding an ‘out’ to avoid ruling on this matter. Cowards.
No. That is exactly what I want. This is a states’ right issue. If they punt on standing, that allows both sides another bite at the apple - of the culture war - in the rest of the 50 states. That was the purpose of the 10th Amendment.
Hopefully, they will rule that the petitioners do not have standing in any federal court and that the CA Supreme Court has the right to grant standing in its own jurisdiction. (I think. IANAL.)
if they want a way out then this is easy, send it back to congress and let them try to get a federal constitutional amendment of which we know woudl never work.
The left understands that they would never get tat either even as they try and tell us polls say otherwise
Not so fast on the coward thing.
I think everyone on the court up there, with the exception, maybe, of Kagan, is truly not overjoyed this ended up in their lap.
Standing is a clean, legitimate way out of being arbiters of social policy, which is exactly what SCOTUS IS NOT.
It takes the matter back to Status Quo Ante - let the states decide.
CA can put another initiative up there and decide that now they are for gay marriage.
Roe v. Wade was a gigantic mistake for SCOTUS, and an acceleration of a general slide in SCOTUS credibility and general history of their contribution to our system of government.
No matter HOW THEY RULE, nobody justice is going to come out of this historically clean. Roberts has already compromised himself, at least for the moment, until ‘actual harm’ has been done by Obamacare, on the Obamacare whiff.
The very BEST play is to say that the 9th Circus overstepped, and is reversed based on lack of standing, which is something the 9th is known for anyway.
Let them wear it. Invite more squinting at the Constitution looking for more ‘penumbras and emanations’ from the 14th again?
Standing is a clean way out if they reverse based on that. Let the people decide, since this is social policy, and nothing more.