Live blog: Obergefell v. Hodges
-
Is it reasonable to assume the Justices have already passed around draft opinions prior to today's oral argument?
-
Is there a reason the oral arguments are only 2.5 hours long? That seems like a really short time to present a case that's been argued for over a decade.
-
FWIW: We will have a bunch more information when we get a report from the second half of argument, but I did not find Breyer's question (reported in the tweet below) at all surprising. He was strongly encouraging the petitioner to answer a question OTHER Justices had been posing. No doubt Justice Breyer himself was interested in whether the Court should be the one who decides the question at issue, or the voters instead, but he also wanted the petitioners to get their views out for other Justices as well.
-
A lot of people are asking what Justice Kennedy's references to "millennia" mean. The short answer is that we really don't know because so far, the people blogging have only seen Justice Kennedy question one side in the case, so we don't know how he will address the other side. The normal practice is for Justices who are thinking hard about a case to ask questions of both sides (Kennedy often does, the Chief Justice too), so I wouldn't read very much into it. Obviously it's not as clear a signal as if he had said, "You are clearly right," or "You are clearly wrong," but such clarity is rare.
-
If court decides, said Roberts “there will be no more debate” on same-sex marriage, which “can close minds.” #SCOTUS
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) April 28, 2015 -
Are there any indications one way or another whether this could be a unanimous (or nearly unanimous) decision? Or should we assume it will come down to Kennedy or Roberts breaking a tie?
-
One point for people asking questions: the software allows you to
either ask your question as a new question, or you can respond to an existing thread. It's much harder for us to deal with responses to existing threads, so I would ask your questions as a new post -- we're much more likely to see it that way. -
Tejinder, do you know what percentage of SC decisions are unanimous?
-
And here for your reading pleasure is Tom with some new info.
-
Starting with Justice Kennedy, his questions -- not surprisingly -- would encourage the plaintiffs.
-
For those of you with questions about how the mechanics of the day work, check out Amy's "Reporter's guide"
-
He said that his sense was that a principal purpose of marriage was to afford dignity to the couples, which is denied to same-sex couples.
-
He also said that he thought that the fact that same-sex couples raise adopted children cut strongly against the state's arguments.
-
That said, the balance between Justice Kennedy's comments in the first and second halves of the argument leaves things in a state of flux. You couldn't confidently predict the outcome.
-
He is clearly weighing two things: the definition of marriage has been the same for "millennia" versus the fact that denying marriage to same-sex couples is an affront to their dignity (and that of the children they raise)
-
The Chief Justice also raised the question whether bans on same-sex marriage amount to sex discrimination.
-
Quite a few questions about how to interpret the fact that both Kennedy and the Chief Justice have asked questions to both sides. As Tom said, on balance, it looks like Justice Kennedy is with the plaintiffs, but you can't confidently predict that outcome. As I mentioned before, it's very common for the Justices (and especially these two Justices) to ask hard questions to both sides.
-
Can we read anything into Justice Kennedy's questions to the respondents that seemed to indicate that he feels the same way in Obergefell regarding the dignity question as he did in Windsor?
-
Did Thomas ask any questions or stick with his usual bench silence?
-
Were there any good RBG or Kagan take-down quotes like 'skim milk marriage' in 2013?
-
If Kennedy comes down on the side of same-sex marriage equality, is it reasonable to assume this will be an at least 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right? (With nothing certain, of course)
-
Verrilli, for Obama admin, urged #SCOTUS not to wait on #SSM. Couples "deserve the equal protection of the laws and they deserve it now."
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) April 28, 2015 -
Verrilli began his #SCOTUS argument with a protester's shouts that #SSM supporters can "burn in hell" still echoing in the marble hallway.
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) April 28, 2015 -
Since you have all rotated through the lounge, will someone be blogging the 2nd half?
-
What's do you consider the likelihood of Roberts ruling in favor of same-sex marriage (assuming Kennedy votes that way, which would make it 6-3) in order to control or limit the impact?
-
Any speculation as to whether the in-court protestors, who are apparently all anti-SSM, are harming their cause with the Justices, lending credence to the animus argument?
-
-
Following up on Andrea's question: I know that the Chief Justice assigns the opinion whenever he is in the majority, but what if he joins the majority, assigns the opinion to himself, and then writes a much narrower pro-SSM opinion than the other five Justices in that hypothetical majority would favor. Do the others have any tools at their disposal to force him to surrender the opinion so that they can rule more broadly?
-
Do you think the Court might rule no to the first question (mandatory licenses) but yes to the second (interstate recognition)? Or is it an all-or-nothing deal?
-
Is it just me, or does it sound like the conversation was more philosophical than legal? I don't think we've heard many comments from the parties or the Court about Lawrence, Romer, and Windsor affect this case.
-
If they decide against marriage will that overturn the 37 states that have it legal now? Or will it leave the states fractured solving nothing?
-
Was there any more to the question regarding sex discrimination by the Chief Justice? Is that a possible angle that he could use to rule more narrowly for SSM?
-
Verrilli: “simply untenable” to deny same-sex couples right to marry or ask to wait for future where it's legal http://t.co/I6eGgjEeNs
— Michael Tackett (@tackettdc) April 28, 2015 -
Eric, to your point on "would face hard questions about existing marriages" wouldn't this then face an entirely new constitutional question, as licensing granted cannot simply be stripped away - and we would therefore have two classes of individuals within one state? It seems that in the unlikely situation the Court votes against SSM, they would create a serious and horrible situation not just for the married couples and the states, but also for themselves.
-
I note with interest that in the news coverage, especially Amy Howe's most excellent In Plain English preview, that there is (rightfully) a focus on the personal stories of the petitioners. Do any of the Justices seem swayed or moved by those arguments, at least from a "gut feeling" perspective? That's what's missing in the audio or transcripts that I'd like to get your reporter's sense of.
-
I understand that when asked if SSM had been recognized anywhere before 2001, Bonauto gave a clear "no". I'm surprised that she didn't say more about marriage having long been a "church" rather than "state" event, linking to more recent changes re: property & legal status of women. It seemed there was an opening for an argument that far from being stable for millennia, the definition of marriage has actually been in frequent flux. Any sense of her strategy in steering away from this?
-
FYI all, I expect that we are approximately 15 minutes away from Kevin Russell leaving the lawyers' lounge to come and update us about the second part of the oral argument.
Submit Event
