Courts & Law

(Update) Redistricting trial in U.S. District Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Hopefully you were all following reporting by Steve Muratore at the Arizona Eagletarian blog last week as I recommended because, I have to be honest, the corporate media reporting on this case has been so pedestrian and politicized it appears to have been culled from press releases from the conservative media entertainment complex. Bloomberg News, Arizona Capitol Times, and The Arizona Republic in particular were horrible.

This poor court reporting occurred the same week that a legend of court reporting, Anthony Lewis, the great New York Times reporter and columnist, passed away at the age of 85. On Anthony Lewis:

As a journalist, Lewis is best known for revolutionizing the coverage of the Supreme Court. In his remembrance of Lewis, current New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak wrote:

As a reporter, Mr. Lewis brought an entirely new approach to
coverage of the Supreme Court, for which he won his second Pulitzer, in
1963.

Rep. Matt Salmon is the antithesis to ‘evolved’ Sen. Rob Portman

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Screenshot-21A couple of weeks ago, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) revealed that his son is gay and that he has now decided to support gay marriage. By Sen. Portman’s own account,  he opposed gay marriage
until he realized that opposition to gay marriage stands in the way of
his own son’s happiness.

The Washington Post reports today, Rep. Matt Salmon: Gay son hasn’t changed my views on marriage:

In an interview aired over the weekend, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) told a
local news station that his son’s homosexuality has not led him to
change his position on gay marriage.

“I don’t support the gay marriage,” the social conservative said. But
Salmon emphasized that he loved and respected his son and did not
consider homosexuality a choice.

“My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love
him more than I can say,” an emotional Salmon told 3TV. “It doesn’t
mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize
with some of the issues. It just means I haven’t evolved to that stage.” (video below the fold).

SCOTUS appears ready to strike down DOMA

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral argument in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com has posted his first impression of today's oral argument. Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble:

If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural
thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that
defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone,
after a seventeen-year existence.  That was the overriding impression
after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the
Defense of Marriage Act.

That would happen, it appeared, primarily because Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy seemed persuaded that the federal law intruded too deeply into
the power of the states to regulate marriage, and that the federal
definition cannot prevail.   The only barrier to such a ruling, it
appeared, was the chance – an outside one, though — that the Court
majority might conclude that there is no live case before it at this
point.

SCOTUS grants review of second affirmative action case

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the University of Texas affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas (11-345). It is widely speculated that the Court may issue its decision in this case this week.

But on Monday, the Court granted review in another affirmative action case with broader implications, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Michigan's Proposition 2, the so-called "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" (2006) promoted by anti-affirmative action proponent Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute. Similar Ward Connerly measures were enacted in California, Proposition 209 (1995), in Nebraska, Initiative 424 (2008), and in Arizona, Proposition 107 (2010).

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Court to rule on affirmative action ban:

In a surprise development, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed
to decide whether a state may constitutionally ban the use of race in
deciding who gets admitted to public colleges or universities.   The
Court chose not to await the outcome of an already pending case on the
constitutionality of an admissions plan at the University of Texas that
makes some use of race. The new case is significantly broader.

SCOTUS appears ready to punt on California’s Prop. 8

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case involving a challenge to California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. It appears as if pre-hearing legal analysis questioning whether the parties have proper legal standing to be litigants before the Court may carry the day after all. Justice Kennedy openly questioned "Why are we here?," indicating that the Court may punt on a decision on the merits and instead issue a procedural ruling.

The argument transcript is here (updated link). Argument audio  is here. (h/t SCOTUSblog.com).

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog.com has posted his first impression of The Proposition 8 oral argument:

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument.  The
bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the
five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly
will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8
is constitutional.