Wouldn't you think that each case would not appeal to a different set of rights....if they are so blatantly obvious and fundamental.
Most of the rulings have come down around several points. The due process clause, the equal protection clause, and the failure to meet either the 'Compelling State Interest' standard or the Rational Basis Review. These are precedent based standards of weighing rights against the States authority to legislate. Other factors that play significant roles in these rulings are the long history of discrimination of gays and lesbians. And as a lessor but still noteworthy standard.....the fact that such laws demeaen the dignity of gays and lesbians (mirroring language in Romer V. Evans).
The case most central to Prop 8's demise was Perry V. Schwarzenegger. The history of discrimination against homosexuals has been cited in this case. Due process violations also appear to play prominently in that decision. Equal protection violates played a lesser role. And the failure of gay marriage bans to meet the Compelling State Interest rule or a Rational Basis review were very prominent.
They weren't 'completely different sets of rights cited in each case'. But about 5 to 7 substantial arguments that were used in different combinations, and with different emphases. Perry V. Schwarzenegger didn't really hit the 'equal protection' drum as much as it focused on Due Process. Other rulings focused more on equal protection and much less on due process.
As to overruling laws. Hasn't it become a game of work it up the chain in the hopes that somewhere along the four or five stops you might make....one will rule in your favor ? If a state supreme court rules....it only goes to the fed it something conflicts with the limited scope of the federal constitution.
There are three stops. The State Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit Appellant Court. And the USSC. The first deals with the law under the State constitution. The constitution and caselaw of California can be substantially different than that of say, Idaho. The second and third are federal courts, and typically deal with 14th amendment violations. The States violating the rights of Federal Citizens.
The Federal Circuit Appealant courts are the highest court in their district.....and I believe there are 10 such districts. Their rulings are binding on any lower federal court in their district. But have no effect on the federal courts outside their district. Rulings can be appealed to the USSC by petitioning for a writ of Certorari....requesting that the USSC take up the case. If the SCOTUS denies this petition, then the lower court ruling stands and is binding in that district.
If the SCOTUS takes up the case, then their ruling is final. And it applies across the entire United States.
As to the 14th....I still can't buy into your basic assertions. If it were as universal as you claim, they really should just get rid of state courts...in fact they might as well dissolve the boundaries between states and just call it one big mess.
The federal courts take up a very small percentage of the cases in State court. At least 99% of the State rulings remain untouched by federal judicial oversight. The Feds typically get involved if there's a substantial question of the rights of federal citizens being violated by the states.
This wasn't a power that the Federal Judiciary possessed under the unamended Constitution. Originally the role of the judiciary was a referee and tie breaker between States, and as a check on legislative and executive power in the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was a document that applies only to the Federal Government. It didn't apply to the States at all. In a case called Barron V. Baltimore, the SCOTUS straight up said this.
This allowed the states to commit some pretty egregious violations of the rights of US citizens within its borders. And the Feds could do exactly dick about it. So...they wrote the 14th amendment, with its two primary backers being Congressman John Binngham and Senator Jacob Howard. Their goal (among many) was to apply the Bill of Right to the States.
And around the turn of the century, the Bill of Rights started being applied to the States. If the States created a law that violated the rights of Federal Citizens, the US government could something about it now. They took on a role they had never had before: as an balance against the authority of the State v. the rights of the people.
That's the basis of Federal judicial review of State laws in regard to their citizens.
