 |  |  |
AS says he's interested in continuing to "make the case". Putting aside whether court cases are "wise" strategy, if there is one up, how is that not a prime opportunity, a rally point, for awareness? What level of "make the case" does he have in mind?
Meanwhile, Cass Sunstein worries aloud:
But Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who is not involved in the case, said concern about public reaction is a legitimate basis for judicial restraint.
What is at risk these days? Almost every state that is going to get one has a constitutional amendment, so ... the "punishment" for having sought something "too soon" is already meted out. A "chill" on civil unions and DP? The CA cases, as I understand them, are not about CU directly, but the constitutionality of a ban on gay marriage in Prop 22. So far, the legislature is willing to go forward, not fall back, so this is clearing an impediment, not "imposing" something, necessarily.Sunstein said he favors allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but fears that such a ruling in California "would have undue influence over the upcoming presidential election, would polarize the country in ways that are not desirable and would short-circuit a continuing process of democratic debate over this issue."
As for the national election, what's the dividing line that is at issue? All of the National candidates are against marriage for gays and lesbians... The GOP are putatively for Federalism, even though no one really believes that they believe in it whatsoever, except as a tool to their own ends.
