Same-sex marriage became legal in more states through cert. denials (18) than through the Court's June 2015 ruling in Obergefell (13). Strategic voting by Chief Justice Roberts is a big part of why.
I was bewildered: how can 14-566 be lower than 14-562. Your fact-checking team failed you. Obergefell's docket number is 14-556. Just helping to keep the numbers straight.
Less of "fact-checking team" and more of the "editing team"- which I is apparently head by a "Steve V.", whoever that is. But yes, that is one of those little mistakes I imagine is embarrassing for someone to make.
I can’t help but think that Roberts’s failed attempt to keep the Court out of this battle explains his pouty, sour grapes dissent in Obergefell. He basically concludes the dissent by saying “sure, you win, but you should feel bad about how you did it.” Guess what — all the people who are now able to marry who they love don’t feel bad about it at all.
Question: The rule of four isn't in the Court's rules, and IIRC from the description of it from justices' papers and previous clerks, it takes the form of a courtesy fifth vote to hear the case if four justices want to. How do we know that it is still operative in the same form? Is a courtesy vote ever denied (how discourteous!)?
The “courtesy fifth” isn’t about granting certiorari; it’s about granting a stay of a lower-court ruling once four justices have agreed to hear an appeal from it. And there’s still some evidence that it happens every once in a while—but much less than was true, say, 20 years ago.
Chris Geidner also wrote an article about this topic. Alito's vote is interesting.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-shadow-docket-steve-vladeck
Steve,
I was bewildered: how can 14-566 be lower than 14-562. Your fact-checking team failed you. Obergefell's docket number is 14-556. Just helping to keep the numbers straight.
Thanks for all your thoughts on this. Mike L.
My fact-checking team is me—and yeah, that was an unfortunate typo (that I’ve corrected in the online version). Thanks!!
Had the same question - thanks!
Less of "fact-checking team" and more of the "editing team"- which I is apparently head by a "Steve V.", whoever that is. But yes, that is one of those little mistakes I imagine is embarrassing for someone to make.
Obergefell at No. 14-566 sounds like it was second to No. 14-562. Typo?
Yes—it was 14-556. Whoops.
I can’t help but think that Roberts’s failed attempt to keep the Court out of this battle explains his pouty, sour grapes dissent in Obergefell. He basically concludes the dissent by saying “sure, you win, but you should feel bad about how you did it.” Guess what — all the people who are now able to marry who they love don’t feel bad about it at all.
"Summary, unsigned and unexplained," just like BvG. The star chamber speaks to each other, never to us. King Roberts answers to no one but himself.
Question: The rule of four isn't in the Court's rules, and IIRC from the description of it from justices' papers and previous clerks, it takes the form of a courtesy fifth vote to hear the case if four justices want to. How do we know that it is still operative in the same form? Is a courtesy vote ever denied (how discourteous!)?
The “courtesy fifth” isn’t about granting certiorari; it’s about granting a stay of a lower-court ruling once four justices have agreed to hear an appeal from it. And there’s still some evidence that it happens every once in a while—but much less than was true, say, 20 years ago.