SCOTUS deals big blow to DOMA

Good day to be a liberal. I''m not one to drink the bitter tears of my opponents, but admit I'm enjoying the moment and wallowing in the joy exploding all over my internets. SCOTUS delivered two big victories for gay rights this morning.

The two cases, both decided on 5-4 votes, concerned the constitutionality of a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied benefits to same-sex married couples, and a voter-approved California state law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.

The Court struck down the use of the theocrats' strict definition of marriage as a criteria for federal benefits as unconstiutional and weaseled out of the PropH8 decision by denying standing to the plaintiffs, which allows the lower court decision that found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional to stand.

Doubt this will be the end of it, nothing is forever in the law, but good to see the attack on equal rights thwarted for now. [photo via]

Read More

Scalia's surprising dissent

This is bad news for civil rights advocates. In a dismal 5-4 decision Breyer jumped in with the cons and Scalia joined the liberals in opposing this breach against our bedrock right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.

Scalia said it "taxes the credulity of the credulous" to argue that DNA testing is simply a means of identification. It's a way to gather evidence — and thus Maryland's law doesn't pass constitutional muster, he wrote.

"The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence," Scalia said. "That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment."

This is a horrifying decision. It may look harmless to some because in this case it's confined to violent crime but you give the authoritarians an inch and they'll keep chipping away. Before you know it they could be taking random swabs at traffic stops.

Read More

She's so sorry

I'm sure you heard retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor issued a sort of pseudo-mea culpa the other day. She didn't apologize for inflicting the Bush years on us by voting to appoint him president, but she was very sorry SCOTUS took the case at all because, in retrospect, it made the court look like a gaggle of politicking assclowns.

Today Linda Hirschman at TNR unearths a tasty bit of historical trivia making it rather clear Justice O'Connor voted her personal politics in Bush v. Gore.

Although most of O’Connor’s papers are private, her legendary secrecy could not prevent the publication of her correspondence with others, including Goldwater, who saved her letters to him. On November 1, 1988, then-sitting Justice O’Connor wrote to Goldwater to bemoan the state of the nation on the eve of the presidential contest between Democrat Michael Dukakis and Republican George H.W. Bush.

"A week until election day," Justice O'Connor wrote. "Despite your advice, the campaign never really hit the basic issues. People are tired of it all. Many will not vote. I will be thankful if George B. wins. It is vital for the Court and the nation that he does.” (emphasis mine.)

Not hard to imagine she felt the same way about his son.

Read More

All the dope on DOMA

Day two of marriage equality at SCOTUS. Today my Senator Kay Hagan came out in support for equality. I appreciate her courage. Even given my longstanding belief that red state Dems should act like real Democrats and forget the Blue Dog GOP lite positions, it was just less than a year ago an anti-equality measure passed in this state. Don't blame her for hestitating.

Other than that, I don't have much to say about today's arguments. For one thing I'm superstitious about predictions and as I said before, think it's pointless to even try. SCOTUS has surprised me more often than not. But there's loads of earnest analysis on the internets if you go for that sort of thing. Me, I'll just leave you with my hopes and Tom Toles perfect toon.



And one last side note, Greg Sargent reminds us Boehner's Congress is spending big bucks on defending DOMA. Funny you don't hear any complaints from the austerity crowd about that wasteful spending. Last I heard House Republicans sank well over a million bucks into this dopey case. No surprise they don't want to talk about it at all.

Of course, when they hired the guy to defend DOMA, the GOPers were feeling all powerful and mandated by some illusionary silent majority. Which leaves them in something of a quandry now. How do they convince everyone else they really care about "teh ghey" after all and placate their crackpot base who want a theocracy and want it now dammit at the same time?

As John McCain might say, "You can't do it my friends."

Read More

SCOTUS fever

The most amusing thing about every time SCOTUS gets to oral arguments is, everybody is either an expert on the case law or has discovered their inner mindreader and is certain they know what the Justice's questions really mean.

Me, I stopped trying to divine the future years ago. We won't know for a few more months how it all shakes out. What is most interesting about this particular round is how many politicians have been inspired to come out in favor of equal marriage rights. Clearly they're opportunists for the most part, but I welcome them all. Even if they're "coming out" for the wrong reasons, every voice raised in support helps move the public mood towards tolerance. That can only be a good thing.

Read More