SCOTUS: An Odds-on Betting Guide

image: courtesy of Scissorhead Wagonjak

image: courtesy of Scissorhead Wagonjak

So last night at one of the (many) family gatherings this week, I managed to horn my way into the lawyers conversation about the SCOTUS and Marriage Equality case, lowly and squat mere mortal that I am. After assuring them that I would not blog about it (haha, they believed me!), I can report the following:

  • Anyone who tells you that they know, Know, KNOW how the case will be decided should get a job at The Hoover Institute (Wingnuttian think tank high command) as a Kremlinologist. (100% of all lawyers in the discussion)
  • Justice John Roberts is likely to be the surprise switch vote; his question about sex discrimination apparently cut through the noise. (80% of all lawyers in the discussion.)
  • Kennedy might not be the sure thing everyone thinks he is. (60% of all lawyers in the discussion.)
  • However the case goes, Scalia’s opinion (for the majority or dissent) will be one for the ages (100%). They were split (50-50!) on whether or not Scalia will be opposed, which sort of shocked everyone.
  • And as always, Thomas will echo whatever Scalia says, you know, what with being so independent and best qualified to be on the SCOTUS (that was unanimous opinion of all the lawyers present, so drink-up bitches).

Odds are good that Chief Justice John Roberts will being signing Garland at the SCOTUS piano bar, Pink Squirrel in one hand, feather boa in the other. Though Clarence Thomas will not say anything, his wife will drunk dial someone.

So there you have it: 5-4 the SCOTUS will affirm that being married in one state will mean you are married in all states, regardless if that state allows gay people to marry, which as I understand it, this is the real issue that even Scalia will stand up for.

This entry was posted in marriage equality, SCOTUS and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to SCOTUS: An Odds-on Betting Guide

  1. roket says:

    All of Scalia’s opinions are one for the ages. Bygone ages of 1915 or older, but still, ages.


  2. Knowdoubt says:

    SCOTUS stole the election in 2000 blessing us with Bush, because all wingnuttia knew that the party that occupied the White House was likely going to get to appoint some Supremes which meant packing the court. George blessed us with Sam Alito and John Roberts, God help us or our survivors. The court is pretty well packed with some wing nuts – nothing would surprise me, but I can’t make myself believe anything good can ever come out of the likes of Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Alito and John Roberts – corrupt sobs one and all, it just takes one more and we have a mess. IMHO.


    • I have to agree with TG – Roberts, for reasons all his own, and probably not good (in the sense of ‘not evil’, fucking monster), is a wild card, and not just because his wife is sick of being a beard when he clearly wants a bear. Scalia and Thomas will be in lockstep, hard not to be when Tony Teh Tripesnorter has his hand up Clarence’s ass to the clavicle, so that’s two against. Kennedy just wants to be important and be courted, so another wild card. Alito’s a swine. 3 against. While I’d be willing to put a small wager for 5-4 the good guys, or a smaller wager against, I see a small chance of 6-3 and Imma marry the RBG.

      (Gonna be a tough conversation with the wife on the last point.)

      (Also bearing in mind my predictions for Elections 2014, I suck at this.)


  3. joey the b says:

    My lawyer buds say it’ll be 6-3 with Rogers (potential excommunication in his future? ) and Kennedy (likely lightning strike victim) joining the nice lady Justices and Breyer. The opposition will be lead by the usual suspect who will argue some arcane reference to an ancient mythological saga pertaining to nothing in particular with Thomas and Alito nodding agreement with no further comment. Celebrations will be subdued.


    • Mike B. says:

      This would be my guess, too. I think Kennedy will vote to legalize SSM everywhere. If so, then Roberts can either go along, or sign on to a ridiculous opinion that will lose anyway (I assume that the opinion of opponents of SSM on the court will be ridiculous). Roberts might want to limit his ridiculous opinions to those that actually make a difference.


Comments are closed.