The final battle America same-sex marriage legalization: Utah

Today USA federal district judge Robert J. Shelby ruled Friday after a Utah a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional laws, once again rejected the Utah government suspended sentence request, this also means that before a court intervention Utah gay people can continue to receive a marriage certificate.

Born in 1970, judge Robert Shelby in Utah National Guard in eight years, as the first-line engineers took part in the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, won several medals. To retire from office in later admitted to the famous University of Virginia law school JD degree. As one's local district soldiers born lawyer, his record has been approved by both Democrats and Republicans (the President nominated federal judge in traditional areas will consult the area Senator).

Utah State America about is one of the most conservative, banning same-sex marriage legal but Utah law voters approved, you can be said to reflect the mainstream public opinion in utah. Now the problem is that the state law is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution.

Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution is one of the fundamental constitutional American by bloody civil war established, inside the most famous words has been one of the most powerful means of federal legislation constraint states:"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

"Any state shall make or enforce, limiting the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States law; without due process of law, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property; in the state jurisdiction, it shall not refuse to give anyone to equal protection of the laws."

The question now is: when the vote Utah voters passed time banning same-sex marriage legal, if without due process of law deprives the gay freedom?

Since the chief judge Marshall in the wake of the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, the judicial system has been hold USA overthrow in addition to the Federal Constitution and the federal constitutional amendment of any legal authority. Robert Shelby, as the great power of the judicial system in the bottom of the judge, make their own judgment, to judge whether a person to overthrow the Utah voters.

The fight has just begun.

The state will no doubt to the federal court of appeals to set aside (stay) Robert Shelby the judge's decision,ShelveThe significance lies in a lengthy appeal process does not allow the Utah gay time rushing to get married. If the appeals court denied, they only begged USA supreme court intervention.

But the appeal itself is a risky thing, because American is case law, case law. Judge Robert Shelby's decision is only effective against Utah, Utah once appeal, must go to the tenth federal appellate court, and the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals including Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, six states, Oklahoma and new mexico! Once again lost, these six states do not prohibit same-sex marriage.

But conservatives at the helm of Utah's view, this is no retreat battle, if a federal appeals court in tenth and lost again they will resort to the USA Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will again face the problem of legitimacy, same-sex marriage in the wake of last year's United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry two case and this time, justice our Supreme Court no wiggle room, must decide to give the answer.

In my book IOyez, Oyez, Oyez, the justices to the Supreme Court on - USA dynamic (eight) June 26, 2013Once carefully discussed the United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry two case. In the United States v. Windsor, a moderate conservative justice Kennedy led four liberal judges overturned a ban on same-sex marriage federal law, because all of Kennedy Be's liberal judges are senior (Kennedy in Roberts and Scalia under), he controls the majority opinion. Chief justice Roberts in a book that a majority opinion of Kennedy's biggest problem, Kenny in the Windsor case is basically said: New York state law allows same-sex marriage, federal law banning same-sex marriage in fact violated the New York state power. The question becomes, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, California's ban on gay marriage law, the law of California is legal?

Roberts showed why he before becoming chief justice is called the lawyer's greatest generation in the case of Hollingsworth, he uses this fact to people not the government of California, on a procedural question from the key issue: when a state law banning same-sex marriage in this the law is constitutional?

Because the government of California to give up his power, gave Roberts a temporary respite. Now the Utah voters passed the ban on same-sex marriage legal, Utah government decided to appeal in the end, they took Roberts and the Supreme Court to force the back no retreat.

Roberts no retreat, he either to unite Kennedy support the Utah law banning same-sex marriage. But the difficulty is not small, Kennedy in the 1996 Romer v. Evans and 2003 Lawrence v. Texas in leadership and the formation of 6:3 majority support gay rights, of course, that Kennedy O Conner to help form a majority of three votes, hardcore conservatives Alito to replace the moderate conservative O Conner result is now only a rickety Kennedy a majority of votes.

Either Roberts jumped into the support of gay marriage in the camp, because he is Kennedy senior, he once in most camps can control the majority opinion. If Roberts felt the legalization of same-sex marriage is represent the general trend, he is likely to switch sides in order to control the case method.

In the final analysis, America is a case law country, the chief justice has great power for life. When Obama retired after many years when I taught his grandson playing basketball, Roberts and chief justice, also can affect to USA brick by brick law in case law. The two parties can spend billions of dollars to elect the president, members of Congress, but they want by law may be a judge swept into a garbage heap. They can indirectly influence the law through the appointment of judges, but unless a party for more than ten years in power, otherwise it is difficult to fundamentally change the composition of the Supreme court.

Roberts shows in the medical health insurance in the case of him as this generation's greatest lawyer wisdom, also showed him to be the next such as Marshall and Rehnquist the Great Chief Justice potential, in years to come we will see if Roberts can reach a new height.