by Patrick Appel
How Ted Olson sees the Prop 8 ruling:
Eugene Volokh bets that SCOTUS will hear the Prop 8 case:
This is going up to the Supreme Court. I suspect that the backers of Prop. 8 won’t even ask for en banc review by the Ninth Circuit, since they’re unlikely to win there. Depending on how quickly they file their petition for certiorari, the Court will either decide in late September to hear the case, or will decide this late this Spring. Either way, the Court will hear the case next Term, though probably not before the election. Though, for reasons I describe below, the decision only applies to states, like California, that recognized civil unions but not same-sex marriages, it’s still a conclusion of national importance, one on which the Supreme Court is likely want to speak. And even if, as described below, the decision is limited just to California, I think the Court will still think it’s important for it to resolve the question.
Andrew Cohen is optimistic about the case's chances:
Right now, I believe, there are at least five votes at the Supreme Court that will recognize the validity of same-sex marriage in some form. It is even conceivable that Justice Kennedy would lead the Court beyond Romer and thus beyond where the 9th Circuit took it Tuesday. Don't laugh. Stranger things have happened.
Jason Mazzone, who supports equality, calls the 9th circuit decision "dishonest and foolish":
The problem is that Proposition 8 is nothing like Amendment 2 in Romer. Reinhardt throughout his opinion presents Proposition 8 as a measure that undid rights that California once gave to same-sex couples–in the same way that Amendment 2 undid protections that municipalities in Colorado gave to gays and lesbians. But the origin of the right to marriage in California was the California Supreme Court which read that state's constitution to require the state to allow same-sex couples to marry. Proposition 8 amended the California constitution to overturn the state court's interpretation of the state constitution. Romer by contrast was about about a constitutional amendment to overturn a whole series of protections obtained through the political process.
Jeffrey Toobin marvels at how far we've come:
Ten years ago, same-sex marriage did not exist in the United States; soon, assuming the California decision holds and a bill now pending in Washington’s state legislature passes, close to a quarter of the American people will live in a state that permits same-sex marriage. Compared to the fight for racial equality, that is change at the speed of lightning.
The Dish 