Justice Anthony Kennedy To Decide on Gay Marriage In April

TheDailyBeast.com:

The other shoe has dropped for same-sex marriage.

The first hit the floor last November, when the Sixth Circuit upheld the “traditional marriage” restrictions in four states, thus creating a split among the federal circuits.

This was exactly what was not present a month earlier, when the Supreme Court let stand lower courts’ rulings on the same issue. Back then, Justice Ginsberg said, “there is no need to rush.”

But once the Sixth Circuit diverged from the opinions of the 4^th, 7^th, 9^th, and 10^th, such a need arose—if not to rush, then at least to decide the matter, perhaps once and for all.

That need was answered today, as the Supreme Court agreed to take up four cases (now consolidated into one) challenging state marriage bans. Oral argument will be in April and May, and the decision likely rendered in June.

For now, let the tea-leaf-reading begin.

On the one hand, same sex marriage has been described as “inevitable” by many august legal pundits (including this one). It is legal in 35 states plus the District of Columbia, with nine more states in the appeals process, and four now at the Supreme Court Bar. That’s just about everywhere.

Heck, even conservatives have grudgingly come around.  Several of the recent judicial opinions upholding marriage equality have been written by conservative judges.

Republicans including George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush are on board. Even Christian Right poster boy Kirk Cameron said Christians should blame themselves, not others, for the “decay” in marriage—an analysis borne out by economic data.

On the other hand, there are several signs that indicate this may turn into yet another partisan battle, with Justice Kennedy deciding once again.

First, Justice Thomas said in an official statement that he would’ve liked the Court to take up the marriage cases last fall. “For reasons that escape me,” he said, “we have not done so.” No matter how inevitable same-sex marriage may seem, ultimately the decision will come down to these nine judges.

Second, the Court has bifurcated the current appeal into two distinct questions: first, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and second, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

These are legitimately distinct legal questions. Yet if we are looking for signs and portents, the fact that the Court has so clearly teased them apart indicates that it might rule one way on the former question, another way on the latter. That kind of “split the baby” reasoning would be of a piece with the current court’s judicial conservatism—especially that of Justice Kennedy himself.

Third, and most importantly, the actual holding in Windsor—the case that invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act and got the ball rolling on same sex marriage—was actually far more narrowly written than the way it has been construed by lower courts. Although the precise connection between the two arguments of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was not entirely clear—indeed, Justice Scalia called it “argle bargle”—the fact is that federalism (and the traditional role of the states in defining the ambit of marriage) had as much to do with the result as did the Fourteenth Amendment.

Subsequent judicial opinions have largely ignored this point, focusing instead on Justice Kennedy’s holding that there was no rational basis for DOMA’s discriminatory measures. And if there’s no rational basis for DOMA, there’s no rational basis for state laws either.

To be sure, the Sixth Circuit, now under review, provided not one but a half dozen such bases. And here are those bases: Allowing the democratic process to proceed, that state marriage laws are not a federal question at all, constitutional originalism, natural law, multiple motivations for anti-gay laws, gay people are not a ‘discrete and insular’ class, and that the meaning of marriage only evolves when the majority says it does.

But with concerns of federalism cutting the other way—that is, in favor of allowing state definitions to stand—perhaps a more important question is whether that’s the right standard of review at all.

I mean, let's be honest...it's really going to come down to what one guy thinks. 

RELATED: The Supreme Court’s possible gay marriage gift to the GOP in 2016

Supreme Court Allows Texas to Go Ahead with Voter ID Law

Mediaite.com:

The Supreme Court today officially permitted the state of Texas to proceed with its controversial voter ID law for this November’s midterm elections. A majority of justices earlier today rejected a Department of Justice request to prohibit Texas from engaging in a practice it believed to be discriminatory.

A federal judge sided with the DOJ and struck down the law just last week, ruling that it “creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.” He even compared it to the poll tax.

A federal appeals court overturned that ruling this Tuesday, and now the Supreme Court has weighed in and will allow Texas to proceed with the law in place.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent warning that the law “risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

RELATED:  Hard Evidence Supports the Need for Voter ID Laws

Supreme Court Declines Gay Marriage Appeals

Mediaite.com:

Surprising most court observers, the Supreme Court declined to take up multiple same sex marriage appeals, letting stand lower court rulings overturning the bans on gay marriage in five states (with implications for six more). The Court issued its decision without comment.

Thirty-one states still prohibit same sex marriages, but SCOTUS’ decision to let the three lower court decisions stand would appear to effectively legalize the practice in the five states directly involved in the appeals plus six other states within the appellate courts’ jurisdictions, including Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Since the Court overturned DOMA last summer three appellate courts have struck down five state-level bans on same sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The court’s 2013 decision required the federal government to recognize gay marriages in states that legally allow them, but declined to rule on whether the federal government could compel a state to allow same sex marriages. 

The decision is certainly a victory for gay rights advocates, though it stops short once again of implementing a nationwide right to same sex marriage.

What a bunch of lazy cowards.

RELATED: CNN’s Toobin Blasts ‘Outrageous’ SCOTUS Decision to Not Hear Same-Sex Marriage Appeals

Far-Left Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg: Citizens United Was The Current Supreme Court's Worst Ruling

HuffPo.com:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her extreme regret over several of the current Court's rulings in a wide-ranging interview published in The New Republic Sunday evening, including their rejecting the commerce clause of President Barack Obama's health care law, and issuing a huge blow to the Voting Rights Act in their Shelby County v. Holder decision.

But the first Supreme Court ruling Ginsburg would send to the guillotine would be the Court's decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, giving corporations and unions the green light to give and spend unlimited sums of money on independent political activity. "If there was one decision I would overrule," Ginsburg told The New Republic, it would be Citizens United.

"I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be," she said.

Ginsburg said that the Court, in CItizens United as well as in the case of Shelby County, "should have respected the legislative judgment."

"Legislators know much more about elections than the Court does. ... I think members of the legislature, people who have to run for office, know the connection between money and influence on what laws get passed."

According to Ginsburg, things may have played out differently had Justice Sandra Day O'Connor not retired so soon. She told The New Republic that O'Connor would have sided with the minority on Citizens United, Shelby County, as well as the Court's Hobby Lobby ruling.

"I think she must be concerned about some of the court’s rulings, those that veer away from opinions she wrote," Ginsburg said.

This woman is nothing but a fraud. A leftist extremist. It's a wonder conservatives don't call her out more for what a predictable justice she is. And hell if she cares, as in her rapid senility, she could care less what people think of her rigid ideology what with every decision she makes coming down to which side conservatives are on

RELATED: Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Explains Why She Won’t Retire

How Gullible Liberals Misread Birth-Control Ruling

Bloombergview.com:

Liberals should spend less time lauding the dissents in last week's Hobby Lobby decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and more time reading them. If they did, they'd notice that some of their main arguments find little support -- even from liberal justices. 

President Barack Obama's administration has sought to require almost all employers that offer health insurance to cover contraceptives. The court's majority ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and similar companies could refuse to cover contraceptives to which they have religious objections. 

Many liberals say that this ruling was flawed because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- the 1993 law the case turned on -- doesn't protect for-profit corporations. Yet only two of the justices took that view; the other two dissenters refused to endorse it.

And not one of the justices chose to question the relevant beliefs of Hobby Lobby's owners: that the contraceptives to which they object can cause human embryos to die. Unlike many liberal commentators, all the justices grasped that whether the owners' objection has a strong evidentiary basis -- which it does -- is irrelevant to their legal claim. A government that respects religious liberty doesn't subject religious claims to such scrutiny. When the Volstead Act exempted communion wine from Prohibition, lawmakers didn't inquire about whether it really became the blood of Jesus.

Reading the dissenters would also keep people from misunderstanding the court's subsequent ruling on Wheaton College, which has led to a similar liberal freak-out. The school wasn't subject to the same contraceptive mandate as Hobby Lobby. Instead, it qualified for what the White House calls an "accommodation": It would merely have to sign a form authorizing others to provide the contraceptive coverage. 

The evangelical school's representatives objected, saying that signing the form would itself violate their religious beliefs. On Thursday, the court said that Wheaton didn't have to sign the form until its case had been heard in court.

Three of the dissenting justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- accused the majority of going back on its word. Supposedly the majority had blessed the accommodation in the Hobby Lobby case and was now showing "disregard" for its own new precedent. 

Liberal commentators went nuts. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones said the court's behavior was "shameful" because "the obvious implication" of the Hobby Lobby case was that the accommodation was OK. Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West, writing in Slate, attacked the court for declaring the accommodation "unconstitutional."

The court did no such thing. It didn't even declare the accommodation illegal. It lifted the requirement temporarily while litigation proceeds. That it did so should be no surprise: The majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case specifically declared that it wasn't deciding whether the accommodation was legal, noting that other lawsuits on that issue were before the court and that another organization, Little Sisters of the Poor, had been told it didn't have to sign the form until these lawsuits are settled. 

All of the dissenting justices were aware of this fact: They criticized the majority opinion for being "noncommittal" instead of embracing the accommodation. The confusion in the commentariat arises because of a misreading of the majority's analysis. 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act says that when the government imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, it has to show that it has used the least burdensome means possible. The majority relied on the administration's account that the accommodation is less burdensome than the full-blown mandate, and it said the mandate was therefore illegal. That didn't mean that the accommodation itself passed legal muster. The court wasn't saying that the accommodation is the right way to promote the government's coverage goals while respecting religious freedom -- it was saying that its existence shows that the mandate can't be the right way.

To review: The court majority, in the Hobby Lobby case, declined to rule on whether the accommodation is compatible with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and put off consideration of that issue for another case. In its Wheaton order, it again declined to rule on the legality of the accommodation while it awaits a full review. There is no inconsistency, no "retreat" (as Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor put it). 

The three justices who dissented on Wheaton, on the other hand, have gone in a few days from complaining that the majority hadn't blessed the accommodation to complaining that they had taken back their blessing.

The language they use seems designed to fool gullible or ignorant commentators. Drum condemned the "PR games" at the Supreme Court. He's right about that; he just has the wrong justices in mind.

RELATED:  Cyndi Lauper Pens Op-Ed Blasting Hobby Lobby Decision

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/29/14

Supreme Court Narrows Obama’s Recess-Appointment Power

Same Sex Marriage: Big Government Power Grab

Appeals Court Orders Atheists to Justify Lawsuit Against 9/11 Cross

Reince Priebus: People Tired of the Clintons' Show

Give It Back! Students Ask Selfish Hillary to Return $225K Speaking Fee

Al Gore Denounced in Australian Press as Money Hungry 'Ferengi' for Suspicious Mining Magnate Alliance

Pastors Rise Up To Challenge Same-sex Bathrooms

MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry: GOP Wants To 'Humble' 'Uppity' Obama

Soros Offered Ex-Girlfriend $6.9 Million Settlement

Egos And Infighting: The GOP’s Biggest Opponent In November

Rachel Maddow Lies About Supreme Court Decision On Massachusetts Abortion Buffer Zones

Don't get your way, spin the facts and lie to your simpleton viewers--they'll believe just about anything that comes out your mouth anyway. All SCOTUS did with their ruling here was protect the rights of anyone who expresses their opposition to abortion, this ruling won't interfere with anyone's right to not be harassed or intimidated by abortion foes:

Rachel Maddow opened her show last night by highlighting instances of angry confrontation, and even violence, by pro-life advocates outside abortion clinics to rail against the Supreme Court decision striking down the “buffer zone” for protestors. And Maddow found it wildly hypocritical that the Supreme Court itself actually has a buffer zone.

Maddow pointed out that the Supreme Court has made sure it has a wide space around the building where protestors cannot show up so that they can’t, say, directly harass justices or other federal employees as they enter and exit the building. “Must be nice,” she said.

She pointed to a number of Supreme Court decisions where the concept of a “buffer zone” has been upheld, with respect to polling places and military funerals. (The latter ruling being decided after objections to the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.) Maddow declared, “From inside its own protective buffer zone, the Supreme Court issued its majority ruling striking down the one outside abortion clinics.”

And given all the horrible history of violence and intimidation outside abortion clinics, Maddow found it bewildering that the Supreme Court decision read that pro-life protestors just “wish to converse” with people.

RELATED: Networks: Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones Protect Women From 'Violent' and 'Offensive' Pro-Life Protests

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Obama Recess Appointments

HotAir.com:

The Supreme Court dropped a huge bomb on the Obama administration, unanimously rebuking the President for arrogating to himself the determination of when Congress is in session for the purpose of making recess appointments. According to reports on the opinion, the court may have taken a middle path on what a recess actually is, toning down one appellate court ruling that only allowed for recess appointments between formal sessions:

The US Supreme Court today limited a president’s power to make recess appointments when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties, scaling back a presidential authority as old as the republic.

The case arose from a political dispute between President Obama and Senate Republicans, who claimed he had no authority to put three people on the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 when the Senate was out of town.

He used a president’s power, granted by the Constitution, to “fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” But the Republicans said the Senate was not in recess at the time the appointments were made, because every three days a senator went into the chamber, gaveled it to order, and then immediately called a recess.

By a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court agreed that the Senate was not in recess, holding that it’s up to both houses of Congress to define when they’re in session or in recess. As a result of the decision, the Senate can frustrate a president’s ability to make recess appointments simply by holding periodic pro forma sessions, a tactic used in recent years by both political parties.

According to NBC’s Pete Williams, the opinion provides a timeframe for Congress and the White House to follow in the future:

That will certainly make it easier to play keep-away from the President. A minority on the court wanted to limit the recess power to strictly the period between sessions, as did one appellate court, but in the end a 5-4 majority decided to allow for a looser interpretation of “recess.” Certainly, if Congress wants to stop recess appointments from being made, it will be fairly easy to gavel into session every nine days.

The question will now be what happens to the NLRB rulings during the period when recess appointments provided a quorum. The answer appears to be that they can be successfully challenged and set aside. That was the context of the challenge to the recess appointments in the first place — lawsuits against regulation created in that period that alleged they were illegitimate. This ruling means that the Supreme Court 
unanimously agrees on that point, a severe rebuke to the “constitutional scholar” President and his abuse of power. More practically, though, the recent appointments to the NLRB can reconstitute that regulation if they wish, so the victory may be short lived for the plaintiffs.

RELATED:  Krauthammer: Obama Feels He Can ‘Abuse the Constitution’ to Push Agenda

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/18/14

Romney Calls for NH Police Commissioner to Apologize, Resign for Obama Slur

Taser Death Could Get Supreme Court Review

Christians Sin by Putting Kids in Public School

The Pill Kills Families

Catholic Cardinal: Obamacare Regulation ‘Violates God’s Law’

Karl Rove Is Right About Hillary's Health

Suspend Your Reality For Godzilla: It’s An Anti-Global-Warming Alarmism Smash

Sports Illustrated's McCann Lumps Pro-Traditional Marriage Supporters With Actual Criminals
 
10,000 Young Toddlers Are on Stimulant Drugs for ADHD
 
GOP Iraq War Vet Blasts ‘Democratic Hacks’ Who Called Him a ‘Coward’

The God of Liberalism

Kristol on NYT: Liberals Worried About ‘Persecution’ of Someone Making $750K