SCOTUSblog has been tweeting updates from inside the Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 this  morning. It’s never too early to consult the Magic 8-Ball.

Media and observers on the Left and Right are suspicious of @SCOTUSblog’s bold and early prediction.

https://twitter.com/jaimewoo/status/316572809172242432

  • $45065723

    Didn’t we say the same things about Nate Silver?

    I say we let SCOTUS do their job and stop trying to guess.

  • http://twitter.com/die_mich_zwei Spatial Awareness

    .@SCOTUSblog <== The Sylvia Brown of Twitter SCOTUS predictions.

  • Scott Carroll

    What seems like a realistic outcome to me based on reading past statements and judgements of the justices would be upholding Prop 8 while striking down DOMA. Thus laying the groundwork for this issue to work itself out on a state by state basis instead the sweeping clusterfark Roe V. Wade was.

  • therantinggeek

    “Magic Eight Ball, will the SCOTUS rule in favor of Prop 8, or against it?”

    *shakes 8 ball*

    *looks at reply*

    “Reply hazy. Try again later.”

  • JoeMyGodNYC

    Other news outlets are publishing the same analysis. The audio tapes and the transcript have been released. It’s pretty clear that Prop 8 will be either dismissed on grounds of standing or that it’s overturn by the Ninth will be upheld. In each case, gay marriage will return immediately to California, but only California. That means a return to the state-by-state battles with three or four added per year. There’s a slight chance that their ruling could apply to the entire Ninth, which would bring in AK, HA, MT, ID, OR, NV & AZ. That would still mean another ten years or so before the deep South would get to a majority vote, if polling trends are sustained.

  • chetnapier

    If marriage becomes defined as a civil right doe’s that mean that some one that can’t find a spouse can then sue the government to supply one

    • http://www.black-and-right.com/ IceColdTroll

      Hey! Maybe they could hook me up with that Miranda chick they’re always talking about.

      • RblDiver

        I think they’d hook us up with a bunch of mythical “Julias,” and if you complained that she didn’t exist, it’d require a long court proceeding to prove it. Meanwhile, you’d still be hit by the marriage penalty, have to pay for her insurance…..

      • RblDiver

        I think they’d hook us up with a bunch of mythical “Julias,” and if you complained that she didn’t exist, it’d require a long court proceeding to prove it. Meanwhile, you’d still be hit by the marriage penalty, have to pay for her insurance…..

      • Zanshi

        Hey. Not to get off topic, but some lefty troll said you were gone for good. No worries, though, I reverse-trolled him. 😉

  • teamfrazzled

    Have to wonder about those who actually think marriage is a ‘civil right’. Sorry, marriage isn’t one of the conditions necessary for social freedom and equality for anyone, straight or gay. There is no such thing as a ‘right’ to marry someone just because you chose to love that person! Gay couples would have you believe theirs is the only consensual adult relationship not recognized as a marriage when that is patently untrue! Marriage is a state and/or religious granted privilege everywhere on the planet, not a right. Marriage predates our government, predates every government in existence and predates those demanding it be redefined to suit themselves today -so the notion government gets to claim the ‘right’ to take over a long standing institution of our entire species, not just our country, and remake and redefine it now makes as much sense as demanding government redefine the word ‘gay’ so as to be more in inclusive of heterosexuals. And of course insisting anyone opposed to that is just a anti-heterosexual bigot spewing their hate. Even in past societies that were openly accommodating and tolerant of homosexuality, marriage went unchanged. In both instances what is meant by the word ‘gay’ and by the word ‘marriage’- it is what it is.

    in fact I think Dana Loesch is correct in her conclusion that gay marriage is incompatible with religious freedom and the 1st Amendment- and her evidence and reasoning for that conclusion spot on.

    • Hiraghm

      the phrase “gay couples” concedes the argument to the progressives. It implies that there is some homosexual equivalent of a couple, i.e. a man and a woman in a relationship.

      Marriage isn’t a privilege; it’s merely a religious/civil recognition of an inevitability; the mating of male and female humans.

      I was disappointed in the arguments I’ve heard over this issue. All of them conceded the ridiculous notion that homosexuality is a third sex.

      This is like saying vegans are a separate race from meat-eating humans. Okay, homosexuals don’t choose to be homosexual; neither do diabetics choose to be diabetic. But, unlike diabetics, homosexuals are not only in denial of their illness, they insist that society accept and enable them.

      Chris Wallace referred to an acceptance of “same sex marriage” as being “moderate”, instead of the insanely radical notion that it is! Some homosexuals, instead of seeking psychiatric help with their affliction, seek to mutilate their body to be consistent with their gender confusion. And doctors accommodate them. Then again, doctors perform abortions, too.

      This is all radical, yet the progressives rabidly promote the idea that, by some insane leap of illogic, this is all perfectly normal and unwillingness to accept insanity is just emotion-driven, *radical* bigotry.

    • Hiraghm

      the phrase “gay couples” concedes the argument to the progressives. It implies that there is some homosexual equivalent of a couple, i.e. a man and a woman in a relationship.

      Marriage isn’t a privilege; it’s merely a religious/civil recognition of an inevitability; the mating of male and female humans.

      I was disappointed in the arguments I’ve heard over this issue. All of them conceded the ridiculous notion that homosexuality is a third sex.

      This is like saying vegans are a separate race from meat-eating humans. Okay, homosexuals don’t choose to be homosexual; neither do diabetics choose to be diabetic. But, unlike diabetics, homosexuals are not only in denial of their illness, they insist that society accept and enable them.

      Chris Wallace referred to an acceptance of “same sex marriage” as being “moderate”, instead of the insanely radical notion that it is! Some homosexuals, instead of seeking psychiatric help with their affliction, seek to mutilate their body to be consistent with their gender confusion. And doctors accommodate them. Then again, doctors perform abortions, too.

      This is all radical, yet the progressives rabidly promote the idea that, by some insane leap of illogic, this is all perfectly normal and unwillingness to accept insanity is just emotion-driven, *radical* bigotry.

  • Jack Deth

    *Ironies of Ironies decision*

    Yes. Two gay people can marry.

    As long as one them is male. And the other is female.

  • DrSamHerman

    I think palmreaders are more accurate than SCATOLblog.