Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Prop 8 Preview: The “Basis” Is The Thing

August 4, 2010 By fake-consultant 5 Comments

We have a long discussion available, here and here, that explains exactly what happened in Massachusetts a few weeks ago, but the short version is something like this: a series of Plaintiffs, including private persons and the State of Massachusetts, sued the Federal Government, alleging that DOMA violates the Constitution.

Judge Joseph Tauro, of the District of Massachusetts, ruled in two rulings, released on the same day, that DOMA does indeed fail Constitutional muster, but he added a rather unusual twist to the ruling, and to explain that twist, we now need to talk about the concepts of “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis”.

It works like this: according to the Supreme Court, some rights are more “fundamental” than others. If a government seeks to intrude upon one of these fundamental rights, they need a very good reason…one that’s so good, in fact, that it can survive the “strict scrutiny” of an examining Court.

Marriage for the purpose of procreation has already been established as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the 1967 ruling Loving v Virginia; nobody’s ever really specifically addressed the question of whether those who do not intend to have children have that same fundamental right to marriage.

Other rights are considered less fundamental; governments can intrude upon those “liberty interests” if the intrusion:

“…is “narrow enough in scope and grounded in a sufficient factual context for [the Court] to ascertain some relation between the classification and the purpose it serve[s]… …As such, a law must fail rational basis review where the “purported justifications…[make] no sense in light of how the [government] treated other groups similarly situated in relevant respects…”

That intrusion is far easier to justify under this “rational basis” standard than it is under strict scrutiny.

So here’s the twist: in the Massachusetts cases, Plaintiffs argued that DOMA failed the strict scrutiny test-and if marriage without procreation is considered to be a fundamental right, then the Plaintiffs should prevail, and DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional.

But the Judge ignored that argument.

Instead, he analyzed the case from a rational basis point of view-and even under that far less restrictive standard, he ruled that there was no rational basis for the existence of DOMA. In fact, during rational basis review the Defendant’s attorneys, or even the Judge, can invent their own “rational bases” for the law, during the trial, and apply those to the argument, and even with all that help nobody could figure out any reason for DOMA to exist-except for the possibility that a majority of the Congress at the time just didn’t like gay people.

Again, from Tauro’s opinion in Gill v Office of Personnel Management:

“In sum, this Court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government’s proffered rationales, past and current, are without “footing in the realities of the subject addressed by [DOMA].” And “when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing Court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. [Because] animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest,” this Court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it…

…As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this Court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

And that’s what I want you to be looking for today: does the opinion from California look beyond strict scrutiny and analyze this case under rational basis review-and if they do, will the challenge to Prop 8 be upheld, even under a standard that is easier to defend?

If Prop 8 fails, even under rational basis, it’s going to be a lot tougher for the Supreme Court, who we assume will eventually be getting this case, to justify keeping the law alive. That’s because they would presumably have to find some rational basis of their own to assign to the law, which, so far, has proven to be rather a tough thing to do.

There’s still a few hours to wait, so go grab a coffee, settle back, and wait for the fun…but it will indeed be a big legal deal, especially if a rational basis analysis is applied, and Prop 8 still fails.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: constitutional-law, doma, rational-basis, strict-scrutiny

Comments

  1. fake-consultant says

    August 4, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    …between 4-6 pm eastern time.

    Log in to Reply
  2. davemb says

    August 4, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    The coverage on TPM says that this judge found Prop 8 to fail the “rational basis” test.  On to the Supreme Court, I guess…

    Log in to Reply
    • fake-consultant says

      August 7, 2010 at 1:39 pm

      …but you can add to that that he also said prop 8 failed strict scrutiny analysis, which is sort of a “win-win-win” for the plaintiffs.

      Log in to Reply
  3. jconway says

    August 4, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    I am really happy that this was a judicially minimalistic decision that stuck to the core principles of the due process clause inherit in the 14th Amendment and really iterated that the court is not acting as an agent of social change, but rather as a defender of basic freedoms to due process and equal treatment at the hands of the state as enshrined in the Constitution. Additionally the judge concluded that the proposition failed the rational basis test-the lowest form of constitutional muster. Hopefully advocates of traditional marriage will understand that there is no rational basis for the state enforcing their preferred code of morality upon the populace. As a practicing Catholic I respect and defend the traditional Christian understanding of marriage, but this understanding has to be confined to the various religious and their respective flocks, it cannot be enforced by the state. The Constitution is neutral on questions of morality, but certainly does have a say on questions of basic fairness and equality. It would be pretty hard for an intellectually consistent judicial conservative to defend Proposition 8 as anything other than a power grab by an activist majority against the rights of a minority, things they typically frown upon. In fact Ted Olsen, one of the lead plaintiffs is an ardent originalist, Fed Soc member, and once a leading candidate under Bush II for a Supreme Court seat. His arguments are an embodiment of judicial restraint, and in my view, the Robert Court would be irresponsibly activist in imposing its own value system upon the populace if it decided against gay marriage. Churches are free to marry whom they please, the state has to marry everyone. Its as simple as that.

    Log in to Reply
    • fake-consultant says

      August 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm

      …i would also note the similarity in reasoning between the doma decisions here in mass and the prop 8 ruling, as in all three cases the judge could not find a rational basis–nor could one be “developed” for consideration at trial.

      <

      p>i would suggest that it is going to be a challenge for the supremes to find such a rational basis–but it may be that the “go slow” rational basis argument is the one that is the easiest to overturn on appeal, and i would keep a close eye on how that argument fares on appeal.

      <

      p>we have more today from the ruling; this time an examination of tactics used by the prop 8 proponents.

      Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recommended Posts

  • There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This Timing (3)
  • Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid Primaries (2)
  • Promises made, promises kept (2)
  • IRA passes 51- 50! (1)
  • Real “Center” is Economically Nationalist/Culturally Moderate (1)

Recent User Posts

Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid Primaries

August 12, 2022 By jconway 1 Comment

There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This Timing

August 10, 2022 By terrymcginty 8 Comments

Site issue: Unable to reply to comments

August 10, 2022 By SomervilleTom 2 Comments

Why do PUKES oppose $35 insulin for diabetics with private insurance?

August 8, 2022 By fredrichlariccia 3 Comments

Promises made, promises kept

August 8, 2022 By fredrichlariccia Leave a Comment

Schedule F

August 7, 2022 By johntmay 4 Comments

Recent Comments

  • SomervilleTom on Progressive Mass Shouldn’t Back Stupid PrimariesI appreciate you writing this diary. This primary seems…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingKLEPTOCRAT GRIFTERINO is not the VICTIM; he's the PERPET…
  • Christopher on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingRepublicans: How dare Merrick Garland politicize the DOJ…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingThe Court has just given Trump until 3 pm tomorrow to ap…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingAG Garland just announced the search warrant has been un…
  • johntmay on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingI would not be surprised at all to learn that Trump deli…
  • fredrichlariccia on There Is Not A Chance the White House is Happy With This TimingCould it also mean that KARM-A-LAGO might want to divert…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

aaron_rw17 Aaron @aaron_rw17 ·
1h

Who are ppl voting for attorney general? Currently undecided

*** give reasons why too btw #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1558507288662614016 Retweet on Twitter 1558507288662614016 Like on Twitter 1558507288662614016 1 Twitter 1558507288662614016
cdempc Chris Dempsey @cdempc ·
1h

Join Mayor @wutrain and me this Monday, 8/15, at 7PM for a *Virtual Meet & Greet* and grassroots fundraiser. All are invited! Thank you to @votehalbert @mdmcclos @RachelPoliner @JeremyComeau and so many other amazing Co-Hosts!

#mapoli #bospoli

http://www.actblue.com/donate/081522virtualmg

Reply on Twitter 1558504578856910856 Retweet on Twitter 1558504578856910856 1 Like on Twitter 1558504578856910856 4 Twitter 1558504578856910856
robyn4senate Robyn Kennedy @robyn4senate ·
2h

Beautiful morning with @repkatehogan at the Bolton Fair. Agriculture is core to our district’s economy and vibrancy. I look forward to partnering with Representative Hogan to ensure our state continues to invest in and uplift our farmers and fairs. #mapoli

4

Reply on Twitter 1558501518873186307 Retweet on Twitter 1558501518873186307 Like on Twitter 1558501518873186307 4 Twitter 1558501518873186307
chrisforma Chris Doughty @chrisforma ·
2h

Thank you @RepSoter for your support! #magov #mapoli #massgop

Reply on Twitter 1558501112306614285 Retweet on Twitter 1558501112306614285 6 Like on Twitter 1558501112306614285 13 Twitter 1558501112306614285
kevinkalkut Kalkut for State Rep @kevinkalkut ·
2h

The Norfolk Cup trophy has made it to #NorfolkMA!

There is still time to register you and your little golfer for our tourney tomorrow at 11a at @ForeKicks. Visit https://www.kalkut4rep.com/event-details/norfolk-cup-parent-child-golf-tournament to sign up and we’ll see you there tomorrow! #kalkut4rep #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1558500623535972356 Retweet on Twitter 1558500623535972356 Like on Twitter 1558500623535972356 Twitter 1558500623535972356
massaflcio Massachusetts AFL-CIO // Build Back Better @massaflcio ·
2h

Great morning hitting the doors for @VoteCosta #1u #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1558499489211731969 Retweet on Twitter 1558499489211731969 Like on Twitter 1558499489211731969 1 Twitter 1558499489211731969
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2022 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.