Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was questioned on Wednesday about marriage case law in Minnesota. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, pressed Sotomayor about same-sex marriage precedent — without actually mentioning gays or marriage — by using Baker v. Nelson, a 1971 ruling by the Minnesota Supreme outlawing same-sex marriage in Minnesota. It was the first court challenge relating to same-sex marriage in U.S. history.
Asked Grassley, “Are you saying to me that Baker v. Nelson is not a precedent? Because I assume if it is precedent, based on everything you told us yesterday, you are going to follow it.”
“No sir, I just haven’t reviewed Baker in a while,” Sotomayor replied. “It’s not that I’m attempting to not answer your question, Sen. Grassley.”
“Why are you hedging on this?” Grassley pressed.
Sotomayor responded, “It’s been a while since I looked at that case.”
She told Grassley that she couldn’t make a determination about what precedent the Baker case would have on future cases coming before that Supreme Court without going back to review it. Same-sex marriage is likely to hit the court within the next year.
She promised to review the case and return on Thursday.
In 1970, two gay University of Minnesota students, Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County District Court and were denied. They sued, and the Minnesota Supreme court denied their case saying Minnesota’s marriage law “does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
The couple took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, but unlike some cases, the court’s denial was a binding precedent, which means the case is applicable to all lower courts.
Here is the full exchange between Grassley and Sotomayor.













3 Comments »
Pingback posted July 17, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
[...] post: Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Sotomayor … :actually-mentioning, area, bullock, chuck-grassley, human-activity, Marriage, sonia-sotomayor, [...]
Comment posted July 18, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Will anyone be surprised if Sotomayor carries forth all sorts of new, fashionable ideas about abortion on demand, marriage, truth…?
It’s called (in language of our grandparents) following “the spirit of the age”.
And it’s a mostly BAD spirit. No real tests for truth!
Comment posted July 18, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
I believe that if the precedent has been set already and it has been said that it does NOT break any Constitutional law, it is one that should be respected and followed just like any other binding precedent that the court uses to rule. It should not be considered void or overlooked because of the opinions of those who disagree with it. What was law then is still law now. the Constitution has not changed and it is not right to change the rules to a game you are already playing.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment