Actually it does. SCOTUS can plainly see that Gay and Lesbian Americans are being denied their Equal Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as lower courts have ruled almost unanimously on. And that's a tough sell to have to contend with even at their level.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Each time a federal district judge or circuit panel struck down a ban with immediate effect, the Supreme Court overturned the immediate effect. Now, they are allowing all previous rulings that were heard at the circuit level to stand. That makes no sense. They could have just refused to grant a stay. Granting a stay implies they want to hear it.
But the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court and can act with whatever reason they so wish and their word is final in these United States as there is no higher court to overrule their decisions.
Interesting question. I think it really boils down to the legal process itself. Decisions are almost always stayed when they involve controversial issues like this. I also believe only one justice is required to grant a stay, whereas four are required to hear a case. Additionally, by granting stays, SCOTUS reduces the likelihood of a conservative backlash and allows it to appear more objective, even if ultimately it will dismiss the case.
I just wanted to add that the U.S. Supreme Court being the nation's highest court does not even have to give any reason for why they do what they do in granting stays or not granting stays, taking cases or not or anything else. Again, their word is final in all cases.
TO SUBVERT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND CREATE ANARCHY BECAUSE once GAYS MARRY GOD WILL TURN HIS BACK ON AMERICA
I smell a change of heart. There were those on the court who supported the stay because they didn't want to be mooted by too many same-sex marriages to reasonably un-happen. They were aware that beyond a certain period of time, turning back the clock would have meant financial, parental, and other life-defining entanglements that could not be reasonably unwound. On the other hand, they were under considerable pressure given the appeals court rulings, to do something. And let's face it, this was a Kennedy-only decision to make. The other 8 justices were irrelevant to any actual decision. And Kennedy was too unpredictable - he's Republican and Catholic, but he wrote the Windsor decision and has been favorably disposed to gay rights. Neither side wanted to risk what they saw as a permanently binding coin-flip on a matter of major national importance. So they decided to kick the can. Chances are, a Republican will be elected in 2016, during whose administration Ginsberg will retire or die, to be replaced by another conservative. Which will mean Kennedy won't be personally deciding such cases - Scalia will be. So at that point, the issue for the conservatives was whether Ginsberg could be replaced soon enough so that the number (and circumstances) of same-sex marriages wouldn't have placed the issue beyond unraveling. Possibly importantly, there would be no actual decision that might need to be reversed. And additionally, by that time national sentiment would be clearly obvious, so that the court could follow public opinion rather than try to lead it. Bottom line: the court DID finally decide, in effect, because those stays are now discontinued.
True as that may be, it is also true that the court tends to rely heavily on standards and procedures in order to enhance its legitimacy, much of which pre-date even the US constitution. A court which has lost its legitimacy is a court that can't have their rulings enforced and a court that could be easily undone by the other two branches of government (through impeachment, by packing the court with new justices, and/or by modifying its jurisdiction). Their word is only final in theory, in reality it relies on tradition and respect. With that said, I think that there are "good" reasons and "bad" reasons that the justices issued the stay, only to not take the case. . The best reason I can think of is that it's possible the justices didn't know which side would have the majority at the time when the stays were issued, so they were issued to prevent the possibility of allowing marriages to start in some parts of the country, only to have to suddenly reverse course and invalidate a bunch of marriages later. Putting the stays in place while lower courts continued to deliberate gave the justices more time to come to their own conclusions. It may have since become clear that the liberal side has the majority. At this point, they can undo the stay simply because there is no split in the circuits and they no longer feel the need to review it on their own. It is also possible that the decision was a little more calculated.... perhaps the "conservative" side is likely in no rush to legalize it nation-wide by granting a hearing, and the "liberal" side likely isn't in a rush either, wanting to give as much time as possible for lower courts to rule and for public opinion to continue to shift in their favor to enhance legitimacy. And that's where I agree with what Liberalis said, that at least one of the reasons for the stays issued earlier by the court was to enhance their legitimacy, to make them look like they are being careful, thoughtful and deliberate as they put the appeals court rulings on hold rather than rashly discarding the issue themselves. Anyway, just speculation, but I'd say there's probably some degree of truth in all of the above reasonings.
Indeed. I was confused when I first read that. But it is a temporary stay and feela rather proceedural. The basis of the 9ths ruling is very different from the other circuits and idaho gets its chance to make a case for a stay pending appeal. My guess is these twmporary stays are easy to get as proceedure goes, but a lasting stay will be harder given that similar cases were just rejected. It might look bad not to give them even the chance to appeal. Either that ir they are just screwing with us at this point
And I just read Kennedy revised his stay and said it applies only to Idaho, since only Idaho requested it. He said marriages can begin in Nevada. I really think they are being careful to follow procedure to appear legitimate. Otherwise if they do end up ruling in favor of same-sex marriage (which I expect them to do when a case from one of the southern circuits upholds bans) people will point fingers at every little thing and say the court is corrupt, political, etc.
