Freepmail BuckeyeTexan if you want to get on the 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
Societal morals find their outworking in politics. You are so correct. The degree to which the barbarians will be emboldened by opinions favoring them will cause a tsunami of wickedness to wash over us, the likes of which we have never seen before, as they push for ever more debased behavior at the point of a gun.
This is going to be heard in a day or two before they recess for the summer?
Oh my! You have my FiveseveN on your homepage! I also got the AR57 upper for my AR15.
CTD had the Federal 40 grain for $29 a box a few days ago. Then they raised it back to $50 I see.
No, these cases have already been argued. We’re awaiting decisions.
Here’s the money quote: “The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”
Thank You for all the ping updates.
Big bunch of nuttin’ today. Sorry.
Thank you much, Perdogg. I didn’t plan to post the other decisions, but if you feel froggy ...
The next day will probably be Wednesday. It looks like that Kennedy was probably the swing vote in Shelby case (decision unknown).
They’re sitting again tomorrow at 10:00 AM. We could get a big decision then. According to SCOTUSblog, we will probably have two more decision days this week. They said the Chief Justice usually makes an announcement on the second to last day of the term and he didn’t do so today.
Yep....I see it’s up on a thread now.
Thanks for the png.
What do you mean “your FiveseveN?” That’s my FiveseveN. [smiles]
Thanks. If we have another decision day, I bet they wait until tomorrow for same-sex marriage.
Only two boxes of copied opinions for the press. I don’t expect same-sex marriage today. 5 minute buzzer.
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.