Liberals Just Had An Amazing Week At The Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- The conservative Roberts Supreme Court just gave American liberals the most joyous judicial week they could have asked for.

In a span of just two days, the rightward-leaning court all but settled Obamacare as the law of the land; reaffirmed key components of housing discrimination law meant to protect minorities; and granted gay Americans the right to get married in any state they wish.

People gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on June 26, 2015 after its historic decision on gay marriage. The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay marriage is a nationwide right, a landmark decision in one of the most keenly awaited announcements in decades and sparking scenes of jubilation. The nation's highest court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, said the US Constitution requires all states to carry out and recognize marriage between people of the same sex. AFP PHOTO/ MLADEN ANTONO | MLADEN ANTONOV via Getty Images

The string of progressive victories left officials hugging and high-fiving at the White House, gay couples crying tears of joy on the courthouse steps, and hardline conservatives wondering on Twitter whether their erstwhile judicial heroes were now traitors.

To recap:

In King v. Burwell, decided Thursday, the court ruled 6-3 to reject a lawsuitbrought by conservatives that would have stripped Obamacare subsidies from people who purchased their health coverage on the federal exchanges. A ruling in the plaintiffs' favor threatened to unravel the system created by the Affordable Care Act, potentially causing millions to lose their health care coverage and wreaking havoc on state insurance markets.

The ruling marked the second time in three years the court had rejected an existential threat to Obamacare. As in the previous case, 2012's NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the court, this time along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, to keep the president's signature law intact. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in a typically scathing dissent, lambasted the majority's reasoning as "interpretive jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce."

In Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities, also decided Thursday, the court handed a victory to civil rights groups with a 5-4 decision that upheld so-called disparate impact claims. Joined by Kennedy, who often plays the swing vote, the liberal justices ruled that someone suing under fair housing law doesn't need to prove that a developer or the government knowingly discriminated -- only that the policy had a disparate impact, something that can often be demonstrated with statistics.

Had the conservative wing prevailed, plaintiffs bringing claims would have had the far more difficult task of proving intentional discrimination, which typically isn't documented by those who practice it. Civil rights groups so feared an unfavorable ruling in such a case that the Obama administration sought to keep the question of disparate impact away from the Roberts court.

Finally, in Obergefell v. Hodges, issued Friday, the justices ruled 5-4 to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, marking a triumph for the gay rights movement decades in the making. The liberal justices, who were joined again by Kennedy, determined that the Constitution grants anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, the right to marry, effectively invalidating the bans against same-sex unions that still exist in 13 states. "No longer may this liberty be denied," Kennedy wrote in his highly quotable decision for the majority.

Scalia penned another memorably incredulous dissent, opening by saying he chose to write separately from Roberts in order to "call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy." Insisting his concern was not the merit or lack thereof of gay marriage, he wrote that the majority's "pretentious" and "egotistic" opinion lacked "even a thin veneer of law" and was chock full of "mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages." "[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch," he seethed.

The good news for liberals wasn't confined to just the high-profile cases. In Friday's Johnson v. United States decision, which was overshadowed by the Obergefell case, the court ruled 8-1 that a section of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which is used to extend prison sentences, is "unconstitutionally vague." The ruling may compel Congress to address the language of the law as thousands of prisoners seek to have their sentences reduced.

The majority opinion in the Johnson case was written by Scalia, giving progressive court watchers another reason to celebrate. As ThinkProgress's Ian Millhiser explains, the Johnson opinion makes Scalia one of just two justices who've penned as many as eight majority opinions this term. If tradition is any indication, then Scalia probably won't be writing another majority opinion before the court breaks, likely leaving the duty to one of his less conservative colleagues.

Source: The Huffington Post

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love.

The decision is a historic victory for gay rights activists who have fought for years in the lower courts. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia already recognize marriage equality. The remaining 13 states ban these unions, even as public support has reached record levels nationwide.

The justices found that, under the 14th Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex unions that have been legally performed in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In a rare move, the four dissenting justices each wrote an opinion.

The lead plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges is Ohio resident Jim Obergefell, who wanted to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate. In 2013, Obergefell married his partner of two decades, John Arthur, who suffered from ALS. Arthur passed away in October of that year, three months after the couple filed their lawsuit.

Obergefell was joined by several dozen other gay plaintiffs from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee who were fighting to be able to marry and to have their marriage recognized in every state in the country.

In the majority opinion, the justices outlined several reasons same-sex marriage should be allowed. They wrote that the right to marriage is an inherent aspect of individual autonomy, since "decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." They also said gay Americans have a right to "intimate association" beyond merely freedom from laws that ban homosexuality.

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. These five justices were in the majority in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. (Photos: Getty)

Extending the right to marry protects families and "without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser," the justices wrote.

The majority concluded that the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected under the 14th Amendment, citing the clauses that guarantee equal protection and due process.

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, argued that same-sex marriage is not endorsed by the Constitution. "Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits," they wrote. "But do not celebrate the Constitution."

Scalia, in his own scathing dissent, complained that the majority opinion lacked "even a thin veneer of law." He quipped, "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

The country's views of same-sex marriage have transformed since 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to wed. In 2013, the Supreme Court began chipping away at the country's legacy of discrimination against same-sex couples when it struck down part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized by their home state from receiving the hundreds of benefits available to other married couples under federal law.

In its opinion, the majority recognized the profound cultural shifts in marriage views, citing both the Chinese educator Confucius and the Roman philosopher Cicero. The justices noted how marriage has been transformed from a union arranged by a couple's parents for financial reasons to a voluntary contract, and from a male-dominated relationship to an agreement where women have "equal dignity." These changes, the majority wrote, have strengthened the institution of marriage.

"Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations," the majority wrote.

President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to support marriage equality when he came out in favor of it in 2012, the same year that the Democratic Party made it part of its platform for the first time. On Friday, Obama called the ruling "a victory for America."

The Republican Party and its slate of 2016 presidential aspirants, however, remainopposed to same-sex marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) support a constitutional amendment protecting states that want to ban marriage equality.

Some conservatives have advocated for a civil disobedience effort against a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage. However, officials in red states told The Huffington Post recently that they are prepared to implement the decision, going so far as to ready gender-neutral marriage licenses and set later office hours. Gerard Rickhoff, who oversees marriage licenses in Bexar County, Texas, said that if same-sex couples are discriminated against elsewhere in the state, "Just get in your car and come on down the highway. You'll be embraced here."

As the majority wrote in its opinion, the petitioners' "hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the

eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Read the court's opinion here:

Obergefell v. Hodges

Source: The Huffington Post

Obamacare ruling puts Supreme Court on hot seat in U.S. presidential race

A supporter of the Affordable Care Act celebrates after the Supreme Court up held the law in the 6-3 vote at the Supreme Court in Washington June 25, 2015.

REUTERS/JOSHUA ROBERTS

Infuriated by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that kept President Barack Obama’s healthcare program intact, conservative activists and Republican presidential candidates vowed on Thursday to make the role of the high court a central issue in the 2016 presidential election.

Conservative ire was trained particularly on Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion that preserved the subsidy regime underpinning the Affordable Care Act, even though another Republican appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, also voted with the majority.

Roberts, who was appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush, has voted with court conservatives on many landmark cases, including ones involving campaign-finance laws and voting rights. But he also enraged opponents of the Affordable Care Act three years ago when he cast a deciding vote in rejecting a different legal challenge to the law.

“He’s let down the [conservative] movement,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, which advocates for conservative judicial nominees. “He may feel he has no obligation to the movement.”

Some conservatives have been skeptical of Roberts from the start, saying he was maddeningly opaque about his judicial philosophy during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings. Roberts had spent only about two years as a federal appeals court judge, which meant a sparse paper trail illuminating his judicial philosophy.

In opening remarks during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate judiciary committee in 2005, Roberts spoke neutrally, noting that "Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes" and vowing to "confront every case with an open mind."

“We wanted to be supportive, but there were these nagging doubts,” said Carrie Severino, policy director of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network. “You can’t assume someone is going to go south, but it appears the concerns were warranted. It’s what happens when you nominate someone who doesn’t have a clear record.”

Levey said that the pressure will now fall on Republican presidential hopefuls to spell out in detail their views on court appointments - and simple generalities about being faithful to the letter of the U.S. Constitution won’t cut it.

“It might have been enough before today for presidential candidates to spout the usual things about appointing someone who interprets rather than writes the law. I think you’ll have to say more now,” he said. “Each candidate will have to do something to show the base how they will avoid appointing another Roberts.”

Mark Levin, a frequent critic of the court who heads the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation, said Republican senators, too, will “need to take their responsibility far more seriously and much more aggressively scrutinize these nominees.”

Beyond that, Jay Sekulow, a prominent conservative lawyer who has argued a dozen cases before the high court, suggested that the healthcare ruling will prompt a debate on the presidential campaign trail over the justices’ proper function. “What the court said that is that if legislation is written poorly, we can fix it,” he said. “That’s very different from the traditional role of the court.”

Indeed, some Republican candidates were scathing Thursday in their assessment of the decision. Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, termed it “an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny.” Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas, accused the high court of usurping the role of Congress. “Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that,” he said.

In that vein, the ruling, along with a decision on the legality of same-sex marriage bans that could come as early as Friday, could hand Republicans a twin-barreled weapon with which to galvanize conservative voters into action. Four years ago, conversely, it was Democrats who made a Supreme Court ruling a centerpiece of their election message, blasting the court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which opened the door for massive corporate campaign expenditures.

Obama’s successor, whether Republican or Democrat, could play an outsized role in shaping the future of the court, said Severino. 

“The next president could replace Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg or possibly [Justices] Kennedy and Scalia,” she said. “It would be World War III in terms of the amount of influence that president would have.”

Source: Reuters