Oral argument for the California Proposition 8 case has ended in Washington, D.C., and the Supreme Court audio and transcript are now up. It’s pretty inconclusive from today’s session what kind of ruling the Justices are going to come up with, but that didn’t stop the Twittersphere from exploding into varying degrees of rage, joy and punditry. Here is a brief recap in tweet form, culled from legal commentators, journalists and the rest of the peanut gallery:
Sotomayor: is any ‘rational basis’ for the state to treat homosexual couples differently Cooper: I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER YOU
— NewYork,ILoveU (@NYCiLOVEu) March 26, 2013
Kennedy says it’s a close question whether Prop 8 makes a gender classification. Maybe suggests he doubts it could pass heightened scrutiny.
— Marco Lopez (@maloprop) March 26, 2013
Supreme Ct update: J. Kennedy asks about 40,000 CA kids in LGBT families.“The voices of those children is important in this case, isn’t it?”
— Adam Winkler (@adamwinkler) March 26, 2013
If someone is using the corny phrase “the voice of these children” it’s gotta be Kennedy.
— Irin Carmon (@irincarmon) March 26, 2013
Scalia: “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude gays?” Olson: “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude interracial couples?”
— Patrick O’Neil (@PaddyoNeilio) March 26, 2013
J. Kennedy emphasized uncharted waters; indicated that Loving was new here, but not everywhere, ie, Loving not terribly persuasive to him.
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) March 26, 2013
Maybe the most awkward moment in today’s gay marriage arguments: Scalia name-dropping Strom Thurmond, regarding old, fertile people.
— David Ingram (@David_Ingram) March 26, 2013
One issue for Justices, incl Breyer: Would ruling that says states w/ civil unions must offer marriage discourage states from civil unions?
— Michael Crowley (@CrowleyTIME) March 26, 2013
You mean allowing them to own automatic weapons isn’t enough to satisfy gay people?
— Paul Todd (@ptodd62) March 26, 2013
It’s worth nothing that Cooper’s rebuttal focused almost exclusively on Verrilli’s (weaker) argument rather than Olson’s.
— Charles Crain (@charlescrain) March 26, 2013
SCOTUS doesn’t rule immediately after oral arguments. First they carefully review and discuss all your blog comments and tweets.
— pourmecoffee (@pourmecoffee) March 26, 2013