Does the Supreme Court enjoy dealing with the gay marriage issue ad nauseum?

Does the Supreme Court enjoy dealing with the gay marriage issue ad nauseum? Topic: Court case sound
June 15, 2019 / By Merlin
Question: Although the recent ruling in California is a victory for gay marriage, the Supreme Court could've done a whole lot more. This is just one battle that's been won in a war that is still far from being over. Gay marriage is still illegal in 70% of the nation. The SC could've easily taken care of it already, but apparently, they have nothing better to do. Are they seriously going to deliberate over each state one at a time? I don't see how it's so complicated. Discrimination is unconstitutional. Case closed. @MzCalypso Excuse me? How do I sound like a "bible-banging homophobe"?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Does the Supreme Court enjoy dealing with the gay marriage issue ad nauseum?

Jools Jools | 5 days ago
Your missing an important part. The State of California did not take the case to SCOTUS. It was brought by citizens that had no standing.
👍 138 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Does the Supreme Court enjoy dealing with the gay marriage issue ad nauseum? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Court case sound

Jools Originally Answered: Does the Supreme Court enjoy dealing with the gay marriage issue ad nauseum?
Your missing an important part. The State of California did not take the case to SCOTUS. It was brought by citizens that had no standing.

Hamilton Hamilton
I think they are wise to not declare gay marriage a constitutional right. The foundations of the victory will be much stronger if they let the issue percolate more before they finally rule on it. American society does not let social issues rest easy, to halt debate on the issue now would not be the best way imo. I know i am beginning to sound like the lawyer for the prop 8 proponents. u_u To rule on it they would need a tighter case. Watch how the EU deals with it. Might be lessons to be learned there when the EU pushes gay marriage for the remaining member states. It will increase resentment tenfold.
👍 50 | 👎 4

Eber Eber
You don't see how it's so complicated because you are not a lawyer or a judge. The legal system is big and specific and every Supreme Court decision affects thousands of other cases and issues tangentially. 4 of the 9 supremes are homophobes, and only ONE of the right-wing judges has any respect for the Constitution -- which is why only PART of DOMA was thrown out. If you aren't trying to sound like a bible-banging homophobe, don't just state your uninformed opinion and then say "case closed." That's childish.
👍 46 | 👎 3

Cal Cal
Such cases are very specific. A ruling has to be made on a case by case basis and cannot be a blanket ruling (no matter how much I'd have liked to see that this time around). Each US state has its own legislative power, and in the case of marriage equality, that clause of DOMA was not challenged. Therefore, SCOTUS could not rule on it. It would take a new case and a new challenge of the whole of DOMA to examine that and try to get it repealed. Until then, it is still a state-by-state basis, unfortunately.
👍 42 | 👎 2

Cal Originally Answered: What are qualifications of a Supreme Court justice?
From wikipedia, "Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices Article II of the United States Constitution provides the power to appoint Justices belongs to the President of the United States, acting with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. However, nominees whose views are perceived as extreme may be blocked by the Senate (see List of Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made"[2]. While the President may nominate anyone (there are no qualifications listed in the Constitution regarding prior legal or judicial experience, nor are there any exclusions of foreign-born nominees), the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for appointment. The confirmation process often attracts considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which lobby senators to confirm or to reject. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence Thomas's nomination was hampered by allegations of sexual harassment, but the Senate eventually confirmed him by a vote of 52-48. Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. For example, a nominee may be filibustered. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs debate thereby preventing a final vote on the nominee. It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's name at any time before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination before even a committee hearing had been scheduled, citing her concerns about Senate requests for access to internal White House documents during the confirmation process. Prior to that, President Ronald Reagan in 1987 withdrew the name of Douglas H. Ginsburg soon after the announcement of his nomination because allegations of marijuana use had arisen concerning him. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently quick. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration through the current administration of George W. Bush, however, the process took much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasingly political role Justices are said to play.[1] When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a full term. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts. The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life tenure. However, Justices may resign, retire, or be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy arose for the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994 and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death in 2005. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is often evaluated with respect to the service of a particular Chief Justice. Thus, for example, the Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (for Chief Justice Rehnquist)."

If you have your own answer to the question court case sound, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.