Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
And why would they want that? Is there anybody who doesn't want clarity on the matter one way or the other? If they would have wanted to delay ruling on the constitutionality of inequality in marriage legislation for all of the US all they would have needed to do was, not take up the proposition 8 case at all and all that would have done was restoring marriage equality in California.
I don't expect them to do that, I just felt like sharing it because I find the idea of them doing as I outlined above to be hilarious (in a hair-tearing and crying kind of way). What I expect to happen is that they're going to bicker a lot in conference about this one and finally return a dismissal based on the lack of standing which won't really resolve anything since it'll result in a "no same-sex marriage" prop going right back on the ballot with a fair chance of passing the same was 8 passed.
As for why they would want that, a majority can want to delay as much as they wish. So long as 4 justices can be persuaded that the case should be heard, they're out of luck. And it was plainly very hard to get even those four justices on board considering how they kept delaying.