Sounds like the best option for a conservative court and GOP handlers who don't want the bad publicity of ruling against a popular stand.

edit: ie, saying "No, that's not really a matter for the Supremes."

DOMA is a federal law and they may have to be more definitive about dealing with it, rather than ruling on a state law.

Norwegian Fjord Horses with extra cool haircuts.

(Mane-cuts. . . trimmed or roached manes.)

San Franciscans! My good friend and her hubs are going to be in your city next week. Any suggestions of things to do, see, eat and shop? They like beer, crafty things, books, history and her DH likes baseball. (I know they are doing a Napa tour one day, and they are going to an A's game. Alcatraz is on the list and they are planning to get a city pass.)

Correction: If they dismiss the prop 8 case, the 9th Cir case would be vacated, but he district court decision would remain in place (it invalidated prop 8).

unless they can't reach a majority, and then the 9th cir decision stands . . .

Procedure matters!

This [link] is interesting--I didn't know that FB advertisers can pick specifically which users to advertise to, like "all of my current patients" for instance.

DOMA is a federal law and they may have to be more definitive about dealing with it, rather than ruling on a state law

Yeah, the problem with DOMA is that, IIRC, there is a split in the district courts on its constitutionality. So there's justification for taking it, and I don't know about any problems with standing, but given sufficient incentive I'm sure the Supremes can come up with an argument for not getting to the merits.

I do think they could invalidate DOMA without getting to the merits by finding it a violation of the full faith and credit clause, which has always been a weakness. But given how reluctant they are to address Prop 8, that seems unlikely.

Procedure matters!

Yes, except in either instance they end up with an invalidated Prop 8. Finding no standing gives you a broader ruling based on the Walker decision, though, compared with the 9th Circuit decision, which was all about taking away a right that had been previously granted.

So I think this is good news for California, almost any way it turns out, but the ramifications outside the state will vary, depending.

The standing problems with the DOMA case were briefed (at the request of the court) by a professor from Harvard, and are much more complex (because you have two entities who want to be "the gov't" in the case).

Ms. Jackson filed her brief in late January. In it, she argues that BLAG does not have a right to appear in court to defend DOMA because even the full Congress wouldn’t have the right to do so. But even if Congress did, she adds, that still wouldn’t be enough for BLAG, because only Congress – not BLAG – would be injured by the Obama administration’s failure to enforce the statute. Moreover, the Court can’t review the case for the additional reason that the federal government agreed with both Ms. Windsor and the lower court decision that it is now asking the Court to review, and so the case lacks the kind of “case or controversy” that the Constitution requires for the courts to rule.

Which would mean that marriage equality would be re-established in California, but wouldn't establish a precedent for the rest of the country, and wouldn't commit them to saying there's an equal protection right to marriage regardless of gender.

This is consistent with what some of the Supremes have been saying about Roe v. Wade - that it was too much, too soon and should have been played out on a state by state basis. That it would have been less polarizing that way.

I don't agree with that, but it seems like they're going to let gay marriage trickle out.

it seems like they're going to let gay marriage trickle out

Which is so ridiculous. I do wonder whether any of the evidence presented in the briefs is from any of the other developed nations that have had marriage equality for years without the end of civilization as we know it. Or do they need 2 or 3 generations worth of proof?