Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(18,115 posts)

4. No. The Justices voted along their legal philosophies. Really no surprise in the results.

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:13 AM

Jun 2013

THe ruling in Section 4 was bad, but the reasoning was there. The swing vote, Kennedy, wielded the power in each.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you wonder if there was a deal? DOMA in exchange for Section 4? [View all] phantom power Jun 2013 OP

You can't do deals or quid pro quo on constitutionality NightWatcher Jun 2013 #1

You must mean they ought not to. Because sure they can. phantom power Jun 2013 #2

The timeline is thought-provoking. closeupready Jun 2013 #3

lighten up, francis pscot Jun 2013 #17

The thing that bothers me about this question and thinking justiceischeap Jun 2013 #6

You must have had your eyes and ears closed in 2008 justiceischeap Jun 2013 #10

Use these keywords in a search justiceischeap Jun 2013 #15

There's no deal to be had. Kennedy decided both (5-4) cases personally. cthulu2016 Jun 2013 #7

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2013 #9

Hmm, I can see that logic. phantom power Jun 2013 #11

I don't think that is the case. Skidmore Jun 2013 #12

No. Starry Messenger Jun 2013 #14

I don't see a deal bhikkhu Jun 2013 #16

Who were the parties to this deal? Kennedy and Kennedy? onenote Jun 2013 #18