Open Thread: SCOTUS Christmas 2013

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In the next two days, we're likely going to get two rulings of significance to the United States:

* Cases regarding California's Proposition 8, a citizen-led ballot initiative which banned gay marriage in the state, and a case regarding the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed through Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, which allows states the ability to choose to not recognize marriages in other states and codifies marriage as between a man and a woman in regards to federal benefits on the national level. The Proposition 8 case is Hollingsworth v. Perry and the DOMA case is United States v. Windsor.

* A case regarding the "preclearance" portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires certain localities to submit changes to voting procedure to the Department of Justice for clearance before implementation. A basic overview is here, via the New York Times.

The Supreme Court ruled on an affirmative action case yesterday, and sent the case back to Texas for further review while showing some further hostility regarding racial preferences of any sort, a hallmark of the Roberts Court. Whether that gives any insight into how the Court will rule regarding the VRA, I don't know, but oral arguments at least suggested that there are five votes to overturn section 5, with Breyer being an unlikely but possible 6th vote.

Regarding the gay marriage cases, there's a decent chance that few, if anyone, will go home completely happy on the matter. Court watchers that I follow on both ends of the spectrum have predicted that DOMA is overturned and Proposition 8 is dismissed on grounds of standing (given the strange path of those trying to push the case through as well as defend it), although a good argument can be made on the basic merits that DOMA should stay in place and Proposition 8 is upheld, but I think we might end up seeing DOMA overturned but Prop 8 upheld if the standing issue is not in the way. Much of the debate on the issue has been less about the Constitution and more about the Court being on "the right side of history" and of policy discussions - discussions that will likely be moot within the end of the decade anyway.

Anyhow, open thread. Thoughts on these cases, other cases, and so on welcome.

Comments

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Other cases...how about South Dakota vs. Dole? Not that I like the idea of the Federal Government taking absolute control and telling states 'You can do it however you want, as long as you do it this way' - but they have that power, and while I'm sure it wouldn't take much for that power to be abused, they've done it before - would the ends justify the means?

Just tell the states - you don't have to let gays marry, and we don't have to give you 14 million dollars to fuck away by grinding up a one lane three mile stretch of interstate so you can line it with orange road cones and drop the goddamn speed limit down to 40 miles an hour and take 3+ years re-paving it because you have nothing better to do and I'm going to stop now before I start slamming this monitor into my head out of frustration.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Other cases...how about South Dakota vs. Dole? Not that I like the idea of the Federal Government taking absolute control and telling states 'You can do it however you want, as long as you do it this way' - but they have that power, and while I'm sure it wouldn't take much for that power to be abused, they've done it before - would the ends justify the means?

Not familiar with this one at all, although I didn't realize Baby Girl was up. The Radiolab about it was ridiculously heartbreaking, and I'm still not sure where I stand on it.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

It's an old case - where they decided it was okay for the Federal government to withhold funds from states that wouldn't set the drinking age at 21.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

SD v. Dole is different. First, the state could've chosen to go without that money, which is a fair choice, according to SCOTUS. Congress can't "tak[e] absolute control and [tell] states" what to do, or how to do it. See New York v. United States. That's a general principle. However, the VRA is quite different, because the Fifteenth Amendment specifically empowers Congress to enforce the Amendment on the states.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Yes, they had a choice - but they were being nudged to choose a certain way. That's what I meant by 'You can do it however you want, as long as you do it this way'.

The drinking age is technically a state issue, but it's not a state issue at all.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Ah, for some reason I mis-read the first half as talking about the VRA case. Please go back to ignoring me, it's been a long day.