Posted by AzBlueMeanie: I had expected to see some orders today. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog reports Again, no gay marriage orders: The Supreme Court on Monday released additional orders from its Friday Conference, but the list did not include any action on the ten cases dealing with the same-sex marriage issue. It now appears that … Read more
by Pamela Powers Hannley I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of the constant, absurd, expensive court battles between our boneheaded state government and the feds. How many MILLIONS of dollars have Governor Jan Brewer and her clown posse in the Arizona Legislature wasted on Quixotic court battles over right-wing ideology? … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed
an appeal by Liberty University to go forward with new challenges to two key
sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and
employer mandates to have insurance coverage. Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSbog,
Way cleared for health care challenge (UPDATED):
The Court did so by returning the case of Liberty University v. Geithner
(docket 11-438) to the Fourth Circuit Court to consider those
challenges. The Court last Term had simply denied review of Liberty
University’s appeal, but on Monday wiped out that order and agreed to
send the case back to the appeals court in Richmond for further review.
* * *
The Court’s decision last Term on the new health care law upheld,
under Congress’s power to tax, the requirement that virtually all
Americans have health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty. That is the
individual mandate. The law also contains a somewhat similar mandate,
requiring all employers with more than fifty employees to provide them
with adequate insurance coverage. The Court had declined to rule on
that issue last Term.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to wade into historic and controversial territory. The Court is considering 10 petitions for review today regarding same-sex marriage, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The orders granting or denying certiorari are likely to be announced on Monday.
Tim Goldstein at SCOTUSblog has posted this wonderfully written commentary. History:
At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions
raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage.
These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever
considered, and probably that they will ever decide.
I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now. Bush v. Gore
and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks. The government’s assertion of
the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to
recognize such a marriage, is profound. So is the opposite claim that
five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of
the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social
institution.
The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment. The
plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an
irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law. On the other hand,
that describes some moral judgments. The Constitution does not forbid
every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some
grave ones) themselves, legislatively.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Arizona Republic(an) columnist E.J. Montini nailed it in this post about Senator Obstruction, Jon Kyl, and his bogus ACHIEVE Act. Kyl's irrelevant final act:
What good is introducing a piece of legislation that you KNOW isn’t going to pass while you’re in office?
Because it’s for show.
It makes you look conciliatory. It makes you look statesmanlike.
All the things you should have been doing all those years when you were in office and NOT about to retire.
But that’s how politics works. Not exactly a profile in courage.
Arizona’s
retiring Sen. Jon Kyl and Texas’s retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
introduced a meaningless piece of legislation that is an alternative to
the Dream Act. Their proposal would offer kids brought illegally into
the country by their parents a chance to remain here, but without a path
to citizenship.
"We
need to have a discussion that is sensible, that is calm," Sen. Kyl is
quoted as saying. "This particular piece of immigration reform seemed a
logical place to begin."
That’s true. We should have a calm, sensible conversation about the Dream Act kids.
We should have had it years ago.