re: #378 klys

Oh, this is just something that’s bugged me for a long time, not just this ruling. Rational basis allows what you say, essentially - that as long as the state can show they have some interest, very little direct scrutiny applies. To discriminate in law based on race/gender/religion, however, they have to show a much more compelling reason - heightened scrutiny. They can still do it if they show that there is some very necessary/compelling reason for the State to do so, but the bar is higher.

I believe it should be that way for sexual orientation, but thus far the courts have not applied that standard - which this ruling particularly calls out as a reason why he sticks to rational basis, which leads to his THINK OF THE CHILDREN call. Because that is a perfectly legit reason to deny equal protection to all citizens. My childless marriage does not thank him.

Fair enough. My impression of pretty much all lawyers is that they decide what they want their conclusion to be and work backwards from there. I don’t particularly mind - in fact I think it’s what everyone does in terms of moral decisions, so why should lawyers be any different?

I only get slightly worked up about it when they go out of their way to claim they’re doing anything different, which is usually in cases of “this ruling may seem like I’m being an asshole but really the constitution is making me do it” (exhibit A of this tendency being Scalia).