[cotton1706]

I think the court will ultimately rule along the lines of what Michael McConnell recommended in his WSJ article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324281004578354300151597848.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[EDINVA]

Justice Ginsburg might go for that option, She’s often expressed concern that Roe was badly decided and created more problems than it solved while agreeing personally with the outcome.

[Servant of the Cross]

Exactly. Roberts can just resurrect his one-liner from his vomit-inducing decision last year ....

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” . This is BJ Clinton's law and it stands until Congress passes a law to change it.

[1010RD]

Per your link: If Mr. Dellinger is right (and I think he is), the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide the Proposition 8 case, and neither did the Ninth Circuit. The court should vacate the decision striking down Proposition 8, leaving in place the original district-court order that prompted the case by allowing two same-sex couples to marry, but depriving Hollingsworth of precedential effect.

Shouldn't it simply allow the original ruling by the California SC to stand? If it is a state issue then that ruling by the state's highest court should decide it for that particular state. McConnell is having it both ways still, that is homosexuals get everything they want - overturning the voters vote for Prop. 8 and undoing DOMA.