In Case You Missed It (And You Probably Did...)
In just over two weeks, marriage equality could return to California. On September 24th, the Supreme Court will decide whether to take up Perry (the Prop 8 case). If they choose not to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional will stand, and same-sex marriages will be restored to California (after what most people feel is just a few days of formally dotting i's and crossing t's). The Justices should announce their decision on the 25th.
As with the health care decision, no one really knows what the Supreme Court will do, but lots of people who should know something agree that there is a pretty reasonable chance the Supreme Court will choose not to hear the case. (If they do hear the case, a decision would be expected in late Spring, very nearly five years after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right).
Those in favor of marriage equality are now rooting for the Supreme Court not to hear the case, even though the initial intent of the case was to go for a High Court decision. Those against are rooting for the Nine to take the case, because otherwise they lose California, and in most experts opinion, because of the nature of the Ninth Circuit ruling, there is very little chance that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental right across the entire United States. So they are basically freerolling (from a bad position, but freerolling nonetheless) at the moment.
It turns out that there is (or should be...) a lot of gamesmanship in whether the Court decides to hear a case. Four out of the nine Justices have to vote to accept the case. They vote in order of seniority, but the Chief Justice votes last. One doesn't want to have a case heard where it's clear you are going to lose -- especially if the lower court has ruled in your favor, but if the lower court ruled against you you're in a kind of a bind. And if you aren't sure which way the fifth vote will go then you are really in a quandry.
There's also presumably a limit on the number of cases the Court is going to hear, so you want to make sure cases which are both most important and most favorable to your point of view get heard.
Each Justice should probably be employing a game-theorist, however unlikely that is to happen in reality.
As with the health care decision, no one really knows what the Supreme Court will do, but lots of people who should know something agree that there is a pretty reasonable chance the Supreme Court will choose not to hear the case. (If they do hear the case, a decision would be expected in late Spring, very nearly five years after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right).
Those in favor of marriage equality are now rooting for the Supreme Court not to hear the case, even though the initial intent of the case was to go for a High Court decision. Those against are rooting for the Nine to take the case, because otherwise they lose California, and in most experts opinion, because of the nature of the Ninth Circuit ruling, there is very little chance that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental right across the entire United States. So they are basically freerolling (from a bad position, but freerolling nonetheless) at the moment.
It turns out that there is (or should be...) a lot of gamesmanship in whether the Court decides to hear a case. Four out of the nine Justices have to vote to accept the case. They vote in order of seniority, but the Chief Justice votes last. One doesn't want to have a case heard where it's clear you are going to lose -- especially if the lower court has ruled in your favor, but if the lower court ruled against you you're in a kind of a bind. And if you aren't sure which way the fifth vote will go then you are really in a quandry.
There's also presumably a limit on the number of cases the Court is going to hear, so you want to make sure cases which are both most important and most favorable to your point of view get heard.
Each Justice should probably be employing a game-theorist, however unlikely that is to happen in reality.