FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/23/2013 9:35:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
As the Supreme Court heads into its summer recess at the end of June, we're still awaiting decisions this week in four landmark cases. "In the court’s modern history, I don’t think there has ever been one week with so much at stake,” said Tom Goldstein, founder of the respected SCOTUSblog website. “We have four pending cases that may be cited for at least a century.”
Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas
Petitioner Abigail Fisher, a white Texan, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin for the Fall 2008 entering class. Fisher sued the university, arguing that the denial violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection because she was denied admission to the public university in favor of minority applicants with lesser credentials. Fisher contends that the university’s admission policy cannot survive strict scrutiny as required by Grutter v. Bollinger. The university argues that its admissions policy is essentially identical to the policy upheld in Grutter. It asserts that its use of a holistic admissions process, considering race as one factor for admission, creates a diverse student body that benefits the entire university. This case allows the Supreme Court to reexamine Grutter, and it will have far-reaching implications for university admissions policies and racial demographics in schools throughout the United States.
Voting Rights Act: Shelby County v. Holder
n 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”) for 25 years. Section 5 of the VRA requires certain “covered” jurisdictions to obtain federal preclearance before making any alterations to their election laws. Section 4(b) sets forth a formula for determining if a jurisdiction is covered. Petitioner Shelby County, Alabama, a covered jurisdiction, asserts that the preclearance regime exceeds Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV. Other covered jurisdictions, amicihere, complain that the VRA’s restrictions subject them to a double standard and infringe on their state sovereignty rights. Attorney General Holder, the Respondent, contends that these restrictions are necessary to fight regression among states with a history of voting rights abuses. Shelby County argues that current conditions no longer justify preclearance at all, and that the coverage formula is antiquated in any case. Holder argues that preclearance remains a valid exercise of congressional power and that the formula, in combination with the VRA’s “bailout” provision, creates a coverage regime that meets the requirements of the Constitution.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
Decisions in argued cases will be issued at 10:00 AM
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Thank You. This is going to be an interesting week. I cannot find another word besides interesting to remain on the forum.
And in every case they will come down on the side of the left. The fix is in, folks. It’s a kangaroo court.
After last years ruling on Obamacare, I no longer have any hope that SCOTUS will do the right thing. On any ruling....
To put it bluntly, these decisions will tell us where this country is headed both politically and morally. Prayers up.
Amen ... Prayers Up.
California Proposition 8- I am praying they do not throw out the right of those voters. There’s not a lot of respect for this court just from Roberts changing his mind in deciding to write Obamacare as a tax. Justice Roberts is responsible for the hell that he has forced people to live under. That man should not be on the court by his actions of that case alone. I think they will rule in the way to hurt society because of their pattern. Not much confidence in that court.
Ping
The country is finished, these rulings will just speed it up or slow it down just a hair.
The best that we can hope for in that case is that SCOTUS denies standing in all federal courts, which would leave in place the CA Supreme Court decision upholding Prop 8 as constitutional. It would be a victory for States’ Rights if not for the institution of marriage. I think SCOTUS wants to leave the same-sex marriage debate to the states.
I’m not making any bets, since I no longer trust our courts.
Same here, but continuing to ask for His forgiveness and providence.
After examining the ideological makeup of the majority in recent decisions, I am at a loss myself. When Scalia and Thomas are at odds in a decision, it blows my mind.
Roberts was put in place for a reason....
Ping-a-ling
(Used an outdated ping list for this thread.)
Add to those 4 decisions the amnesty vote in the senate and this could be remembered as the week when the “fundamental transformation of America” actually took place.
yes ... guess onward to whatever happens. May the week be blessed with God’s Mercy.
I can’t believe we’re still fighting reverse discrimination. That’s the only one I feel they may decide correctly on, “feel” being the operative word, as I have no well-informed analysis to back up my hunch. I just think diversity is overworked these days and is not a strong enough interest to outweigh fairness to the individual.
These are battles for things rightly belonging to the states and individuals not the federal government. The only involvement SCOTUS should have is to declare these a states' issue and remand back to the states accordingly.
As was once penned by Lincoln in the Gettysburg address, "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." The difference in this war is the right is FOR states' rights and individual freedom AGAINST the coercion and tyranny of a rogue federal government with ever increasing unconstitutional powers.
May God by his mercy and grace grant that "this nation, under God have a new birth of freedom", not just politically, in right decisions here by decentralizing federal government power, but more importantly, spiritually among the American people. May God once again save and bless America.
Thanks BuckeyeTexan - keep us posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.