Working on the assumption that Section 3 of DOMA survives before the Supreme Court because the Court will determine it satisfies rational basis scrutiny, what then? Obviously, Section 3- the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman for federal purposes- is the framework as concerns the federal government that holds together the remainder of the law. As stated in previous entries, | Read More »
The 2011-2012 US Supreme Court is now history and will forever be known for its ruling in the Obamacare cases. There is no shortage of analysis and punditry regarding this complicated case and there will be for some time. However, the Court decided over 70 cases again this term and some have wide-reaching effects on all Americans. If one thing stands out that distinguishes this | Read More »
All legislation generally creates classifications that work to the advantage or the disadvantage of certain people. For example, 20-year olds can drive; 12-year-olds cannot. You can legally drink at 21, but not at 16. An indigent single parent is entitled to government financial aid, but millionaires are not. And so on. The Equal Protection Clause does not mean that government must treat everyone equally, only | Read More »
There is a tremendous amount of vitriol on these pages and other sites directed at Chief Justice John Roberts for his recent decision in the Obamacare cases. This writer has read and reread the decision, the concurrence and the dissenting opinion. I am still left with the impression that this opinion was, as one writer called it, a “deft decision.” Since Sandra Day O’Connor left | Read More »
Following the health care decision this morning on the Internet as it unfolded with CNN blaring in the background, I was, like most readers here, surprised. Incidentally, while CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was announcing the mandate was struck down and lining up liberal talking heads to comment, the Internet was reporting, correctly, the opposite. Jeffrey Toobin apologies aside for the initial confusion, it is quite evident | Read More »
WOW!!! Just wow!!!
The big day has finally arrived and all eyes and ears will be on the United States Supreme Court. This is certainly the biggest and most momentous case they have had since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It should come as no surprise that this writer lives and breathes Supreme Court decisions and dynamics, reading everything written about the Court and its members, every opinion | Read More »
Overlooked in the coverage of the Supreme Court’s recent Arizona immigration law decision and anticipation of the health care decisions, is the summary reversal of the case that originated out of Montana. To summarize, Montana law campaign finance law dictated that corporations were prohibited from making campaign contributions or from engaging in political advocacy. On its face, this would appear to be in direct conflict | Read More »
Today, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision (with Justice Kagan recusing herself), mainly gutted Arizona’s SB 1070, the state’s immigration law. Make no mistake, although prevailing on the most publicized aspect of the case, Arizona lost. What is somewhat surprising is the legal rationale used and if you are a conservative proponent of state laws that address the problem of illegal aliens | Read More »
In a previous entry, I discussed the Court’s ruling in Knox v. SEIU regarding assessment fees by the union with respect to political advocacy and whether a non-member’s First Amendment rights were violated as a result of these assessments. The Court ruled that their rights were violated. However, most of the coverage of the Supreme Court yesterday by the lamestream media centered around the long | Read More »
![[RS]](/t/img/logo-footer.jpg){kind=logo}