What's interesting is how much of the case the judge agreed with. He said the plaintiffs had standing. He said the Guaratnee Clause was justiciable on this issue. And he reviewed in detail whether the Mass SJC had jurisdiction in the case. He ended up agreeing with (all seven of) the SJC justices that the legislature had indeed given them jurisdiction in this matter, but the fact that he thought that was reviewable seems remarkable.

I don't see how to reconcile this with Forsyth v. City of Hammond which stated that it was entirely up to the Indiana Supreme Court to determine whether the legislature had given it jurisdiction in a matter of state law. Other than the lower court case that was reversed there, has a federal court ever deemed it proper to review whether a state court had proper jurisdiction in an entirely state matter? The idea that a federal court could review such cases seems to open up a whole bunch of state decisions to attack in the federal court. But perhaps I am missing something here.

I'm just going to grin at the fact that he said they had standing! ;)

Damn activist judge.

While the 5-4 SCROTUS decision in Bush v. Gore includes a statement that suggests it should not be considered "precedential", might at least Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas apply aspects of Bush v. Gore if the appeal reaches the Supreme Court?

Yes, it seems any Massachusetts resident would have had standing. J. Tauro wrote, "[T]he deprivation of the right to a republican form of government, that is, the injury that Plaintiffs have alleged in this case, is sufficient to establish standing." It seems anyone who thinks a state court improperly took jurisdiction in any case, even one to which he was not a party, can bring suit in federal court on the basis of being denied his individual right to a republican form of government.

What if a resident of a state claims that a U.S. Supreme Court decision (to which he was not a party) deprives his state from providing him a republican form of government? What constitutional claim can he assert and against whom?

My favorite quote, by anti-gay counsel in response to the ruling: "This shows how four individuals can affect the entire country."

Counsel, isn't it YOU who are attempting to alter the entire federalist balance of states' rights in our nation through the use of a single, "individual" judge?

Wow, Republican Form of Government Clause? That's what you call desperation.

It's almost as bad as when they thought about dragging out the Incompatability Clause on poor Hillary... they would have argued that First Lady was an actual office!

Gotta love it.

What if a resident of a state claims that a U.S. Supreme Court decision (to which he was not a party) deprives his state from providing him a republican form of government? What constitutional claim can he assert and against whom?

Anyone an expert at Bivens actions?

Counsel, isn't it YOU who are attempting to alter the entire federalist balance of states' rights in our nation through the use of a single, "individual" judge?

Sorry, UCL, I normally like your comments, but that's clearly inane.

The counsel of liberty is fighting in a situation where four judges changed the law. He's foreclosed by procedural rules from preventing homosexual marriage democratically through an amendment. What is he supposed to do?

Presuming one thinks that judicial overreach is an injustice, it does not follow that one can't use the court systems to try to correct it. That's expecting your opponents to argue with one hand tied behind their back, for your sole convenience.