Quote:
|
The last time such divisive social/cultural issues were legislated from the judge's bench, we ended up with Roe vs. Wade, and has that settled anything? No, its 40 years later and the abortion issue is still as divisive as ever. That is what happens when choices are taken from people, and given to a select few judges. This just delays cultural evolution, IMO.
|
Just out of curiosity, what did you make of Brown v. Board of Education?
Anyway, the procedural issue with this case is that it was decided by a judge in the District Court for Massachusetts. In the federal (as opposed to state) court system, there are 89 District Courts which make up the lowest level. Then there are 13 (depending how you count) Circuit Courts or Appeals Courts which each preside over several of the District Courts. And then over the Circuit Courts are the Supreme Court.
My understanding is that the a ruling by a District Court does not create a binding precedent. Other District Courts can look to this ruling and use it as a suggestion, but they are not bound to rule the same way. If the case is appealed to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court affirms the ruling of the District Court, then the ruling becomes binding upon all the District Courts in the 1st Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island). Then if the ruling is appealed again to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court affirms or declines to hear the case, the ruling becomes the law of the land.
Here's the problem though: the only people who can appeal this case are the two parties, namely the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal Government (i.e. Obama's Justice Department). There's every reason to believe that this ruling is exactly what both Massachusetts and Obama want. So the only reason they would appeal it is to try to get the ruling made into a binding precedent on everyone. I'm not sure they want to take that risk.
Then again, the flipside of this is that if the case plays all the way out and the Supreme Court ends up striking down DOMA, then gay couples in states where marriage is legal will get federal marriage benefits. Maybe Massachusetts or Obama will think that's worth fighting for. But like you, I think they might both decide they don't want to be distracted right now.