The SCOTUS Speaks, I Snooze

yawningBoring. That’s what I have to say, legally speaking, about the much-anticipated SCOTUS cases related to same-sex marriage. In U.S. v. Windsor the SCOTUS took on the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a statutory refusal to recognize same-sex marriage for purposes of a myriad of federal laws. In Hollingsworth v. Perry they might have decided the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, under which gay unions would not be granted the title of “marriage.”

Here’s why the DOMA case was boring:

  • Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted together. Rumor has it that they eat from the same plate of fries in the SCOTUS dining hall.
  • Kennedy was the key swing vote. Like that’s never happened before.
  • The majority opinion was purposefully vague. Was it based on federalism? Equal protection? Substantive due process? What was the level of scrutiny?

Here’s why the Prop. 8 case was boring:

  • There was no determination on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
  • The decision was based on standing.
  • It read like this: “it is hornbook law that ‘a principal has a duty to indem­nify the agent against expenses and other losses incurred by the agent in defending against actions brought by third parties if the agent acted with actual authority in taking the action challenged by the third party’s suit.’ [citation omitted] If the issue of fees is entirely distinct from the authority question, then authority cannot be based on agency.” Doesn’t that just make your blood boil?

But now we’ll take a look at the most interesting aspects of the two cases. The Prop. 8 case can be disposed of rather quickly. First, there was an unusual alignment of judges. The majority opinion had Roberts joined by Scalia – no surprise so far – joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan while the dissent brought Alito and Thomas together with Kennedy and Sotomayor. Second, the dissent mildly “called out” the majority for dodging the constitutional issues:

the Court must be cautious before entering a realm of controversy where the legal community and society at large are still formulating ideas and approaches to a most difficult subject. But it is shortsighted to mis­construe principles of justiciability to avoid that subject.

Clearly Kennedy needs lessons in rhetoric from Scalia, whose tone in his DOMA case dissent was not so subtle:

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that dis­agreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial tem­perament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide. But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.

So what do we make of the two decisions? The unusual alignment of judges in the Prop 8 case is an indicator that the justices truly came to distinct conclusions in legal theory. The decision then gets sent back down, eventually landing in the California Supreme Court which had overturned Prop 8. Conclusion: blame the California Supreme Court for not letting the popular vote decide on “marriage.”

As for the DOMA case, they were dealing with legislation that doesn’t live up to its label. There wasn’t one less gay marriage because of DOMA and there won’t be a flood of them now that it’s been struck down. And Kennedy rightly pointed out a harmful aspect of DOMA:

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same­sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. [citations omitted] And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

As for the effect of the DOMA case on future legal proceedings, only time will tell whether its vagueness and purported intention of rendering a limited decision will, indeed, limit its precedential value. And we can hope Scalia was wrong in saying “The result will be a judicial distor­tion of our society’s debate over marriage.”


Filed under Courts, Culture Wars, evangelical politics

11 responses to “The SCOTUS Speaks, I Snooze

  1. Richard

    Hey, man, where’s your sense of outrage? Yawns don’t drive up your readership list, nor bring in the money from people whom you’ve convinced the sky is falling.

    • I’m seeing mass hysteria on both sides. The Prop 8 case was essentially a non-decision by the SCOTUS. Although the DOMA majority opinion was a little overboard on its rhetoric, its precedential value is pretty murky. And, on the whole, I’d rather have states resolve marriage issues than the feds anyway.

    • Here’s Marvin Olasky’s (World Magazine) assessment:

      Now that the Supreme Court has blessed the gay lobby’s tendency to declare anyone who does not toe the line is a straight consumed by hate, it will seem perfectly proper to take away the tax exemption of churches and schools that stand by Scripture. (How can a church or school be serving the public interest if it is degrading, demeaning, and humiliating others?) It will seem proper to deny Pell Grants or other financial help to students attending colleges that stand by Scripture.
      Churches and schools that have become entangled with government—that’s just about all of them—should immediately start planning for the time they’ll either have to give up those connections or give up the Bible. Pastors and teachers who say anything negative about homosexuality should think through how they’ll react if hauled into court: That’s already happened in other countries, and it can happen here.

      I guess his worldview helped him to make that analysis.

      • Richard

        This is part of the game. Some on the religious right need to keep yelling “The sky is falling!” to keep those donations coming in. See Cal Thomas’ book, “Blinded by Might.”

    • Nothing but net for Dreher.

      • Richard

        I love that comment from Pete Wehner: “We all get the game that’s being played: the Supreme Court renders a verdict on a hot-button social issue –and within hours “Jesus wept” is used as a fundraising tool. One has to strike while the iron is hot, after all. Still, you might think that a Christian would use a good deal of caution when it comes to leveraging poignant verses about Jesus into three dollar donations for HuckPAC.”

    • Plausible, Richard. But I’m left wondering why Kennedy wasn’t clearer and why Scalia couldn’t figure out what he was saying. And then the libs are pro-federalism while the conservatives are against it? Curious.

  2. It seems like the DOMA decision returns the question of whether or not to allow gay marriage back to the states. The Court did not grant a “fundamental right of gays to marry”, trumping state laws a la Roe v. Wade. Now if they would only apply that same logic in revisiting Roe v. Wade. If the states decide these contentious issues then people can then decide whether or not they want to live in that particular state. When we instead ask the Supreme Court to decide these issues for us the people have no recourse unless they are willing to leave the country.

    • Right, they stopped short of establishing a fundamental right. The more I think about it, the more I think they drafted a decision susceptible either to be built upon or to be ignored (“distinguished”). So there’s a bit of a spin toward gary marriage but not one that can’t be avoided with a plausible legal argument. so I don’t see it as the ace card up the sleeve for reviewing state laws on gay marriage at all, but it might be thrown in with Bowers v. Hardwick to show a generic trend of the SCOTUS. There’s probably a lot of guesses out there about what this will mean but only time will tell.

      More crystal ball gazing: I really can’t see this court reversing Roe v. Wade but I could see them allowing some erosion, possibly by refusing to consider a challenge to a state law restricting abortion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s