In response to:

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Cyc Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 6:48 PM
That might be justified in the case of a law enacted by a state not not in the case of a law that is enacted against the entirety of the nation. In those cases the original intent of SCOTUS and its primary purpose comes into play. And that purpose is to determine the constitutionality of the law. It should be noted that SCOTUS does have the right not to hear a case, but by taking the case up they are then obligated to render a desicion based on the briefs brought before them. In the case of Obamacare the tax justification was never part of the federal govt. reasoning for the constitutionality of the law, and as such Robert overstepped his limits in considering it for his decision.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Dec 07, 2012 8:16 PM

They are not obligated to "render a decision based on the briefs brought before them." You are confusing the role of an appellate court with the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. As the forum of last resort for constitutionality, they have a DUTY to uphold the constitutionality of a statute if it can be done at all. The argument need not be contained in briefs, or even presented at oral arguments, for the court to find that it is sufficient to support the statute.

The Supreme Court decided today it will hear two cases surrouding gay marriage with rulings coming down as Spring 2013. More from POLITICO:

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up same-sex marriage, hearing both a case stemming from California’s Proposition 8 voter-approved ban on gay marriage and a case from New York challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The pair of moves greatly increase the chances that the justices will rule this term on whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. However,...

Related Tags: Supreme Court Gay Marriage