Are the leaders of National Organization for Marriage collectively delusional, blatantly dishonest or desperate? It seems likely that all three apply. As religious fundamentalists and a proxy for the Catholic Church they honestly believe that God is on their side. They consistently misstate facts to suit their agenda and, after so many legal losses following losses at the polls in 2012, they must be desperate. NOM only exists for as long as big donors are willing to pay for it to exist.
If one looks at this objectively, there is absolutely nothing that NOM can do to affect either the rising tide of public opinion in favor of equality or what the Supreme Court will, or won’t, do.
In other words, NOM now exists solely to raise money to continue to exist. It has no other real purpose; At least none that it could realize.
According to the Supreme Court Reporter’s Guide to Applications [PDF]:
Case law has established four general criteria that
applicant normally must satisfy in order for the
Court to grant a stay
- that there is a “reasonable probability” that four
Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review
the merits of the case;
- that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of
the Court will conclude upon review that the
decision below on the merits was erroneous;
- that irreparable harm will result from the denial
of the stay;
, in a close case, the Circuit Justice may
find it appropriate to balance the equities, by exploring the relative harms to the applicant
and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.
In a blog post today titled “Worth Your Attention: TN and VA Court Decisions” NOM has created their own criteria for stay by the Supreme Court:
The justice in charge of reviewing petitions in the 4th circuit (Justice Roberts) referred the [Virginia] matter to the full court. And once again — just as was the case in Utah earlier this year — there was no dissent from a single justice in granting the stay!
Let me remind you that one of the conditions for overturning a lower court’s decision in granting a stay is the reasonable expectation of victory on appeal!
“Fair prospect” of a reversal (per item 2) is not the same as NOM’s claim of a “reasonable expectation of victory on appeal.” “Reasonable probability” applies to the Court agreeing to hear the case which only requires four justices.