Kagan just said she wouldn't answer whether marriage was a state issue ... wait for it ... because there's a case coming down the pike. This is a load of horsepucky. It is perfectly legitimate to answer whether the federal constitution mandates man-horse marriage, even if Mr. Ed's human lover is filing a case.
Then she said she wasn't going to use the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson as precedential value - a case that stated that the question of marriage was not a federal question under the Constitution - and she followed that whopper up by saying "there is a question about the precedential weight to be given to summary disposition ... what most people think is that these summary dispositions get some precedential weight, but they don't get the full weight."
Unreal. Grassley rightly asked her if the 14th Amendment has suddenly changed since 1972. She doesn't answer, and just says she thinks she might want to hear argument.
In other words, she's pro-gay marriage mandated by the Constitution.
