Tag Archives: DOMA

Krathhammer analyzes DOMA decision. Gets it absolutely right.

When he is bad, he is very very bad, but when he is good, he is very very good. Here in his Washington Post column Charles Krauthammer (also senior serious intellectual, FOX News) looks at SCOTUS’ DOMA decision and explains quite well what it means.

He’s not particularly judgmental about either the issue or about the Court’s action. He breaks the decision down to its essentials and says – as I believe – that Federal recognition is now inevitable. Because, as he noted, the Court used the rationale of ‘equal protection under the law’. By saying so in the decision, he says, they pretty much guarantee that full recognition is on the docket next session and it will happen.

. . . if the argument is equal protection, one question is left hanging. Why should equal protection apply only in states that recognize gay marriage? Why doesn’t it apply equally — indeed, even perhaps more forcefully — to gays who want to marry in states that refuse to marry them?

If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal, by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas, where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place?

Krauthammer finds none. He notes the broad smile on the face of David Boise who argued for the Prop 8 ruling and says:

He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

Yup. I think Boise and Charles have it exactly right. This week’s half measure is temporary. The fat lady hasn’t quite finished singing yet.

 

It can’t be stopped: there’s a new one every day of the week

I usually try to stay away from these kinds of stories but honestly . . . to me, today, these two no longer look like outliers. From the always amusing and sometimes squirm-worthy Dependable Renegade, where mockery of the stupid is an art form:

  • The Safety Net – North Carolina (motto: “We’re Number 45!”) has cut unemployment benefits so far that they are disqualified from a federal compensation program for the long-term jobless. The changes go into effect Sunday for North Carolina, which has the country’s fifth-worst jobless rate.
  •  Free Speech! – Xristian Xrazie Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Satan’s Hollow) decided that allowing sodomite colleagues to speak on the floor of the legislature about DOMA was a bridge too far: [he said] “I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God’s law.”

Okeydokee.

Whoops – Friday on Saturday

I think this is just the song for this week.

Say no more

scaliaScalia on DOMA (passed by Congress almost 20 years ago ago by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House):

We have no power to decide this case,” Scalia wrote. “And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.

Scalia on Affirmative Action (law was extended by Congress in 2006 for 25 more years by a vote of  98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House):

Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes… It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress

And jkust for the heck of it, here’s somerthig else he wrote:

DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages

Some Constitutional rigor there, eh?

Two (and a half) out of three ain’t bad

I think I did pretty well with my SCOTUS predictions, which means everyone must “bow to my majesty” (much preferable to being “mocked without mercy”).

  • DOMA – The Supremes knock it down as unconstitutional.  NAILED IT!
  • California Prop 8 – Unconstitutional. NAILED IT! (Sheepish Update: Turns out this one is limited to CA and is based on standing. So maybe only half for me here. Can I count the two ‘halfs’ as ‘one’. I say yes. So still Two Out of Three. So there.)
  • Affirmative Action – limited decision, but basically will say the program has – in some instances – run its course. They side for the Plaintiff. ALMOST HALF RIGHT? They held back for sure by sending it back and hinted at future favorable rulings if a Plaintiff has ‘standing’.

(Here’s something from back when this lad had a voice, a beautiful one):

Oh boy, this one is dead, dead, dead.

DOMA is so going down. CSpan has started broadcasting the audio from today’s arguments at SCOTUS on the challenge to DOMA, that most elegant construct of an insane Congress. They did the deed 13  17  years ago (and got ole Bill Clinton to sign it in an election year when he was already winding his presidency down and didn’t have to do it).

Back in November, your humble blogger predicted (in comments) that the Court would overturn DOMA, and as I listen to today’s audio, it sure sounds like they will do just that and with a healthy majority. We won’t know till May or June.

I haven’t had time yet to listen to yesterday’s arguments on Prop 8, but even if I had, after listening to and reading the observations of  the commentaries I wouldn’t dare predict except for one thing of which I am certain: the Court will not actually uphold Prop 8. There are many ways they can dodge or they can issue what they call a ‘narrow ruling’. They can even decide not to decide. 

I don’t know if they can do this in the Prop 8 case, but a happy outcome would be if they can say that every State must recognize marriages that are legal in other States. That would pretty much do it. I wonder if that’s similar to using the ‘Commerce clause’ as they did in Obamacare?

But in both cases I absolutely trust the Court will not issue any rulings that would actually restrict or deny rights. That’s not the business they’re in.

 (And, like with the ACA opinion, Roberts will buck the politics of the issue and vote to strike down DOMA.)

It’ll happen now

The Supreme Court has just said they’ll ‘take up’ the gay marriage case. They’re almost certain to  find DOMA and other State laws unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court is not in the business of codifying denials of human rights.

So sometime next spring, expect full rights to be established as the law in the United States.

Tony Perkins needs a drink. Hope someone offers one to the poor guy.

(and I will finally get to wear that dress to my best old buddies wedding . . . )

The next big story

Life will go on. Sandy will pass and elections will conclude too. And damage will be done all around. But the world will still turn, especially up in that big white palace of justice in DC. Details at scotusblog, here.