The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
SCOTUS will eventually have to determine level of scrutiny for gays
| Azure State Telephone | 06/27/15 |
| cracking erotic dopamine parlor | 06/27/15 |
| Azure State Telephone | 06/27/15 |
| cracking erotic dopamine parlor | 06/27/15 |
| heady new version | 06/27/15 |
| cracking erotic dopamine parlor | 06/27/15 |
| heady new version | 06/27/15 |
| Glassy marvelous forum sex offender | 06/27/15 |
| Azure State Telephone | 06/27/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:00 PM Author: Azure State Telephone Kennedy again dodged the question in Obergefell, but there's a circuit split coming.
The Ninth Circuit, in striking down state laws banning gay marriage, concluded that classifications on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to intermediate scrutiny under Equal Protection jurisprudence. Nothing in Obergefell abrogates that ruling.
Meanwhile Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit struck down Wisconsin and Indiana's gay marriage bans under rational basis analysis. He went one by one through the states' purported interests and found that none constituted a rational basis for banning same-sex marriage. Nothing in Obergefell abrogates that ruling, either.
The cases aren't irreconcilable: one might read Posner's opinion as leaving the door open to heightened scrutiny; he just didn't declare it because he didn't need to go there. But I doubt all the other circuits are going to follow the Ninth Circuit here.
Eventually, the issue will reach the Supreme Court (again). When that time comes, I just hope it isn't Kennedy writing the opinion. |
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:05 PM Author: cracking erotic dopamine parlor give up bro its over
unless by miracle republicans get the presidency and manage to replace ginsburg/breyer its done
kennedy will try to protect his legacy at all costs |
 |
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:09 PM Author: Azure State Telephone I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm for gay marriage by the way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921227&forum_id=2#28213074) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:15 PM Author: cracking erotic dopamine parlor ok i thought you were a reptile/conservatard hoping to repeal gay marriage
sorry |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:45 PM Author: heady new version lmao. i love how you libs are walking around thumping your chests like badasses over this laughable bullshit. but my dignity!111 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921227&forum_id=2#28213227) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:46 PM Author: cracking erotic dopamine parlor i am a lib? lol ok thanks i guess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921227&forum_id=2#28213236) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:47 PM Author: heady new version ok you openminded, principled, totally rational gay marriage supporters, whatever. same level of mental illness, same shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921227&forum_id=2#28213241) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:13 PM Author: Glassy marvelous forum sex offender forgive my retardation, but is it possible for more than one level of scrutiny to apply to gays depending on the issue being decided? say, gay marriage vs. employment/housing discrimination? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2921227&forum_id=2#28213098) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 7:20 PM Author: Azure State Telephone It's possible, but I'm not aware of this being officially done for any other kind of classification (race, gender, etc.). Of course it's done unofficially when SCOTUS upholds affirmative action under "strict scrutiny" because it enhances the "compelling state interest" of fostering diversity.
So, yeah, the courts could in practice apply different tests for different situations. But they'll probably still insist on a uniform standard of scrutiny -- be it strict, intermediate, or rational basis. |