MCAULIFFE SIDE STEPS COURT TO AIDE EX-FELONS IN VOTING RIGHTS

Gov. Terry McAuliffe is taking action to restore the voting rights of thousands of ex-offenders in the state after a court decision Friday put them in jeopardy. He’s getting around the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling against him by signing 200,000 individual clemency grants to the state’s ex-offenders to ensure their right to vote in November.

In a 4 to 3 decision late Friday, the Supreme Court of Virginia stripped away the voting rights from 200,000 ex-offenders who had recently regained full civil rights through one of McAuliffe’s executive orders, effectively disenfranchising one in five of the state’s African American voters.

The court said the governor lacks the authority under the state constitution to issue a blanket rights restoration to everyone in the state with a felony record who has already served their full sentence. A study earlier this year found that the vast majority of those impacted — 80 percent — committed non-violent crimes. Most have been out of prison for more than a decade, and African Americans are disproportionately represented. Forty-six percent of the ex-offenders are black, though blacks make up less than 20 percent of the state’s population.

The non-partisan group that has for months been leading the charge on registering ex-offenders to vote, New Virginia Majority, released a statement saying the ruling “reaffirms the Commonwealth’s Jim Crow legacy,” noting that the vast majority of states restore voting rights upon release from prison.

“Excluding Virginians from the ballot, even after they’ve paid their debts to society, is a cruel, inhumane reminder of past mistakes,” said Tram Nguyen, the group’s executive director. “Importantly, today’s ruling validates entrenched interests in the Virginia General Assembly bent on silencing a large swath of Black Virginians in order to maximize their political power.”

But just hours after the decision, McAuliffe vowed to push back by signing clemency grants for the state’s ex-offenders one by one.

“The struggle for civil rights has always been a long and difficult one, but the fight goes on,” he wrote. “I remain committed to moving past our Commonwealth’s history of injustice to embrace an honest process for restoring the rights of our citizens, and I believe history and the vast majority of Virginians are on our side.”

With the November election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump just few months away, Republicans have accused McAuliffe of pushing the voting rights restoration to help Clinton carry the swing state in the fall.

Virginia, a long-time conservative stronghold, was key to President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 victories, and is considered a toss-up for 2016. Theoretically, if all 206,000 ex-offenders register to vote before the October deadline, they could decide who sits in the White House next year. The governor’s office says just 13,000 have registered so far, and the new need for individual clemency orders will likely slow down the registration process.

This means legal uncertainty for people like Virginia native Randy Tyler, who lost his voting rights in 1995 due to a grand larceny conviction, and just regained them through the governor’s executive order this year.

“Before, I felt like I was left out. I felt like even though I live in America, I wasn’t a part of it,” he said. “But now, I have the privilege of saying who I want to elect for the presidency. I might be the one vote that makes a difference. I feel like a citizen of the United States again.”

[Cross-Posted from thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

MITCH MCCONNELLSAYS THE UNTHINKABLE

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 

McConnell offered this unusual view of the confirmation process during an interview with Fox News Sunday. In response to a question from host Chris Wallace, who asked if Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the election if Hillary Clinton prevails, McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.”

The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that his previously stated position that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” is a sham. Simply put, it’s unlikely that the NRA or the NFIB will change their position on a nominee just because Hillary Clinton is president and not Barack Obama.

But it’s also worth examining exactly who McConnell would give a veto power over nominees. The NFIB, of course, was a plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Supreme Court case seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That lawsuit called upon the justices to impose limits on federal power that even the late Justice Antonin Scalia refused to impose in previous cases (although it’s worth noting that Scalia abandoned his previous principled stance when given the opportunity to cast a vote against Obamacare). When the NFIB isn’t fighting to take health care away from millions of Americans, it fights equally hard against raising the minimum wage.

The NRA, meanwhile, is known for its increasingly absolutist opposition to gun safety laws. Though Garland’s record on guns is fairly thin, the NRA opposes Garland’s nomination based on two cases he considered as a judge.

In the first of these two cases, Parker v. District of Columbia, Garland played a very limited role. InParker, two conservative members of a three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s strict handgun laws, over the dissent of another conservative, George H.W. Bush appointee Judge Karen Henderson. The District then asked the full appeals court to reconsider this decision in a process known as en banc review. Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case, as was Judge A. Raymond Randolph, an extraordinarily conservative H.W. Bush appointee.

A 5-4 Supreme Court eventually agreed with the three-judge panel in District of Columbia v. Heller, the first decision in American history to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The second case cited by the NRA is National Rifle Association v. Reno, where Garland joined a decision by Judge David Tatel upholding a database the FBI uses to audit the background check system used to screen potential firearm buyers. The FBI retained information regarding individuals who sought to purchase firearms for six months after they attempted to make this purchase, and used this information to perform “quality control checks on the [background check] system’s operation by reviewing the accuracy of the responses given by the NICS record examiners to gun dealers,” among other things.

After six months, information in this database was destroyed. Nevertheless, the NRA claimed that the FBI was required to destroy this information much sooner.

Judge Tatel’s opinion rejecting the NRA’s argument relies on several interlocking provisions of federal law, as well as longstanding Supreme Court doctrines calling for deference to federal agencies, so it is not easily summarized in just a few paragraphs. You can read his opinion and assess his reasoning here. It’s worth noting, however, that NRA v. Reno is a classic case of gun groups seeking to win a victory in the courts that they repeatedly lost in Congress.

A provision of federal law requires the government to “destroy all records . . . relating to the person” who seeks to purchase a firearm — something the FBI did after six months — but does not order the government to do so within a specific time frame. As Judge Tatel notes in the opinion joined by Garland, members of Congress attempted multiple times to change this law to require the government to “immediately” destroy records produced by the background check system, and these efforts repeatedly failed. Thus, having failed to write the word “immediately” into the statute, the NRA asked the courts to do it for them. Tatel and Garland refused to take up this invitation.

So McConnell isn’t simply delegating his duty to evaluate potential Supreme Court nominees to the NRA, he’s deferring to the NRA despite the fact that the gun lobby group’s case against Garland is very thin. It consists of Garland’s single vote to rehear a case that one of his court’s most conservative members also voted to rehear, along with a decision to allow the FBI to continue to perform audits on the background check system after lawmakers sympathetic to the NRA tried and failed to shut those audits down.

[Cross posted from thinkprogress]




NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief
Roger West

PORN MOGUL FLYNT SAYS DEATH OF SCALIA, “IT COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED TO A NICER GUY”

Hustler porn mogul Larry Flynt may have scored a unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court in
Hustler v. Falwell but that doesn’t mean he’s a fan of deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In an interview with Larry King on his RT.com show “PoliticKING,” the host asked how he felt about Scalia’s death given that Scalia was part of the vote in favor of Flynt in 1988.

“I don’t like to speak ill of someone that passed on,” Flynt began. “But it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. He’s done more damage to that court than any other human being in 250 years. He moved it to the right. This goes to the right of Attila the Hun. A lot of bad legislation come out of there that he was guiding. He was often the fifth vote and anyone will tell ya that 5-4 decisions make bad law ’cause you got four votes and then you got five votes to make the deciding factor just like Gore v. Bush it pushed the election in the 2000 campaign.”

Flynt went on to say that he prefers a more centrist judge on the court because it’s more reflective of America as a whole. “I don’t believe that this country is to the left or to that it’s to the right. And when it comes to the Supreme Court, they want fairness. They want somebody that is right down the middle. And I don’t know if we’ll get that but when Ronald Reagan was president at the end of his term, he nominated Kennedy with a democratic senate and they approved him.”

VIDEO COURTESY OF PoliticKING

He continued talking about the threats the GOP has been making to hold up the nomination regardless of who is nominated. Reiterating the concern of having a 4-4 split that defers to the lower court’s ruling, he said that it would be problematic in the Texas abortion case or on immigration. 

“Both those could end up with a 4-4 split and the lower court decision would stand which would be bad.”

“I think they need to get someone in there they can all agree on and get him confirmed,” Flint said. “I think it could have ramifications that will really backfire if the Senate tries to hold that over.”

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

WHY A FULL ENSEMBLE IN THE SUPREME COURT IS A MUST

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC dismantled Republicans’ reasons on Monday for pushing to resist any Supreme Court nominations until after this year’s election.

“There are now eight justices on the United States Supreme Court, which requires nine justices, and we suddenly — in the midst of what is already a chaotic political season — have bumbled into what appears to be not yet a constitutional crisis, but right now a giant stress test for our democracy. We haven’t had a Supreme Court seat held open for a year in this country since the US Civil War,” she said, tapping her desk loudly for emphasis. “And the reason we had one held over then was because of the US Civil War. What’s the excuse now?”

VIDEO COURTESY OF MSNBC



The vacancy created by the sudden death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, she said, was different by “an order of magnitude” from typical partisan disputes, yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and several GOP presidential candidates have already vowed to block any nominations President Barack Obama might submit to restore the high court to nine members.

“That is a position of almost unprecedented radicalism in American history and in American politics,” she argued.

To illustrate the importance of having a full court in place before the election, Maddow outlined a scenario in which this year’s contest could produce a tie in the Electoral College vote or a result so close it could produce a contested recount in one state.

“In an incredibly close election, that can happen,” she said. “And it’s all happening at the level of one state. But it puts the country, basically, into crisis. Because there’s this impasse as to how the election is gonna be decided. and that is hilarious and amazing and exciting on election night. But then you wake up the next morning and you realize there’s no pick.”

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

KIM DAVIS, KENTUCKY CLERK SUFFERS FROM SABS

KENTUCKY CLERK AND SABS SUFFERER KIM DAVIS

Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has staged a weeks-long campaign of resistance to marriage equality, came under fire from an unexpected source on Tuesday — the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Davis, who suffers from the hypocritical Christian disease - which allows ignoramuses like Davis to invoke SABS [Selective Application of the Bible Syndrome] while on the job. Davis a three time divorcee; on her fourth marriage, two kids out of wedlock, and once again, refused yesterday to issue marriage licenses to a same-sex couple despite a recent order from the Supreme Court denying her request for a temporary stay enabling her to ignore the Constitution. Just a few hours later, a federal judge ordered her to appear in court this Thursday, where she is likely to be held in contempt.

RELATED: Dan Savage destroys thrice-divorced Kim Davis: ‘This is about someone hypocritically cashing in’

According to Ryan Anderson, Heritage’s most visible anti-gay voice, Davis is indeed wrong to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether in order to spite same-sex couples who wish to marry. “The citizens of Rowan County have a right to receive in a timely and efficient manner the various government provisions—including licenses—to which they are entitled,” Anderson writes for one of Heritage’s websites.

He adds, in an argument that closely maps criticisms of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, that “saying your religion requires your entire office to stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone . . . cannot be reasonably accommodated without placing undue hardships on the citizens unable to receive their licenses in their county and forced to drive to another.”

Anderson’s solicitude for the Constitution, it should be noted, only goes so far. He devotes much of his piece denouncing Davis to an alternative proposal that permits individual state officials to recuse from issuing licenses to same-sex couples while also “mak[ing] clear that no one can be denied a marriage license.”

This proposal is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court explained in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Constitution “does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” So if an opposite-sex couple will be served by whichever clerk happens to be on duty when they arrive seeking a marriage license, a same-sex couple must be allowed to obtain a license on the same terms.

Nevertheless, the fact that this prominent anti-gay luminary believes that Davis has gone off the deep end - is a sign of just how off the reservation this lunatic is.

Kim Davis, you are today’s asshat and worst person of the world. Congrats numbnuts!

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

WHY IS IT GETTING HARDER FOR THE POOR TO GET MEDICARE YOU ASK?

According to a lawsuit filed in 2009, Idaho illegally underpaid home health care providers that enable Medicaid patients to live at home rather than being confined to a hospital or nursing facility. These providers, however, will not even be able to pursue their lawsuit, thanks to a 5-4 decision handed down by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The decision largely broke down on familiar partisan lines, although conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy crossed over to vote with three members of the Court’s liberal bloc and Clinton-appointee Justice Stephen Breyer joined most of Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion announcing the Court’s judgment.

Scalia’s opinion in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center rests on a distinction that even many lawyers are likely to find confusing. Just because something is illegal, Scalia explains on behalf of the Court, does not mean that individuals or businesses that are hurt by the illegal action can enforce the law in court.

The federal Medicaid law requires states to set payment rates for services “to assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” Thus, because health providers may choose not to accept Medicaid patients if they are not paid enough for doing so, state Medicaid programs must pay providers sufficiently high rates to ensure that the program’s beneficiaries have the same access to medical care as non-Medicaid patients.

Armstrong was originally filed in 2009, when Idaho hadn’t raised its Medicaid reimbursement rates since 2006. The plaintiffs claimed that these low rates did not keep up with the cost of caring for Medicaid patients, and thus violated Medicaid law.

The crux of Scalia’s opinion, however, is that this provision of the Medicaid law cannot be enforced through lawsuits. “The sole remedy Congress provided for a State’s failure to comply with Medicaid’s requirements” according to Scalia, “is the withholding of Medicaid funds by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Though this holding does permit the federal government to pressure Idaho to raise its rates by threatening to cut off Medicaid funds to that state, it also places federal health officials in a bind. Under Scalia’s decision, the sole consequence for a state that fails to meet its obligations to Medicaid patients is to lose funding that it would otherwise use to provide medical care to Medicaid patients. Federal officials, for good reason, should be reluctant to invoke a power that could make conditions even worse for poor people in Idaho.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS
STAFF WRITTER

THAT AWKWARD MOMENT WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT BULL-SHITTING ABOUT OBAMACARE

The Republican attorneys general of six states, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia, all signed a brief asking the Supreme Court to gut the Affordable Care Act. Yet one of the central claims in this brief — a claim that cuts to the heart of whether the Supreme Court should shred much of Obamacare or leave it intact — is at odds with a pile of evidence to the contrary. This evidence includes explicitly contradictory statements from the Republican governors of several states, including three of the states represented by these six attorneys general. And the six attorneys general were unable to muster any contrary evidence that supports their central claim.

This weakness in their case is unlikely to be unnoticed by the justices, however, as a brief filed Wednesday by a much larger group of state officials rounds up much of the considerable evidence undercutting the six Republican attorneys general’s claim.

To explain, the Affordable Care Act explicitly says that states should have “flexibility” to decide whether they want to operate health exchanges where their residents can buy health insurance, or whether the federal government should operate an exchange for them. Nevertheless, a lawsuit called King v. Burwell alleges that the residents of states who chose the second option lose access to tax credits intended to help them pay for insurance. If this lawsuit prevails, 13 million people, many of them children, could become uninsured.

To prevail, however, the plaintiffs in King must do more than simply show that they have discovered the best way to read Obamacare’s text. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, a state cannot be bound by an alleged condition tucked into a federal grant program “if a State is unaware of the conditions or is unable to ascertain what is expected of it.” Rather, when Congress says that it will only pay out money if a state takes a particular action, the Supreme Court insists “that Congress speak with a clear voice.” Thus, if there is uncertainty about how to read the law, that uncertainty must be resolved against the plaintiffs’ reading and in favor of the view that the law does not make tax credits conditional upon anything.

And that’s not all the bad news for the King plaintiffs. Under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy, the question of whether a state is able to ascertain whether federal money comes with conditions must be evaluated “from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept . . . the obligations that go with those funds.” Thus, if there is a wealth of evidence showing that state officials did not read Obamacare in the same way the King plaintiffs do — and it turns out that there is — that evidence also cuts strongly against a decision for the plaintiffs in King.

The brief filed by the six Republican attorneys general appears designed to address this weakness in the plaintiffs’ argument. It claims that state officials were “well aware” that the Affordable Care Act “conditioned the availability of tax credits on States establishing exchanges,” although it cites no actual evidence to support this claim.

On Wednesday, a much larger bloc of 22 states plus the District of Columbia filed their own brief opposing the King plaintiffs’ attempt to cut of tax credits. After reading that brief, it is not hard to guess why the smaller group of anti-Obamacare attorneys general were not able to muster any evidence for their position — there are piles of evidence demonstrating that the six attorneys general are simply wrong about how state officials understood the law.

Recall that the six attorneys general who filed in opposition to Obamacare include officials from Nebraska, South Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia and Oklahoma.

In Nebraska, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman explained his decision to allow the federal government to set up his state’s exchange by stating that “[o]n the key issues, there is no real operational difference between a federal exchange and a state exchange.”

In South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley wrote that “[b]y refusing to implement state-based exchanges, the state is ceding nothing,” a statement that is incompatible with the view that the state was actually ceding tax credits for its citizens.

In Georgia, an advisory committee established by Republican Gov. Nathan Deal determined that “Georgians will be eligible for [tax credits under Obamacare] whether the AHBE in Georgia is established by the state or federal government.” When Deal announced that his state would not set up its own exchange, deal made no mention of whether tax credits would be available, though he did complain about “Obamacare’s one-size fits all approach,” an approach which suggests that the law would operate similarly in every state.

In West Virginia, according to the brief by the pro-Obamacare states, “State officials answered ‘yes’ in June 2012 to the question ‘Will individuals who are enrolled in coverage through a federally facilitated Exchange have access to premium tax credits.'”
Only in Oklahoma is there any evidence that state officials might have thought that tax credits were unavailable in federally-run exchanges. There, Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) brought a similar challenge to Obamacare to the one advanced by the King plaintiffs, and Gov. Mary Fallin (R) cited her support for this lawsuit when she announced her decision not to operate a state-run exchange. Nevertheless, Fallin contradicted herself in a 2013 press release entitled “Governor Fallin Announces Extension of Insure Oklahoma.” That press release explains that “those individuals above 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level qualify for the federal Health Insurance Marketplace and related advance premium tax credits, which will be offered to individuals and families earning up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.”

Nor is this the extent of the evidence showing that state officials were not “well aware” that they risked losing tax credits if they did not set up their own exchange. Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell said that he was unaware of any “clear benefits of a state run exchange to our citizens.” Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker said that “there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange.” A brief filed by the governors or attorneys general of 24 states the last time the fate of Obamacare was before the Supreme Court explained that the law “can only operate in the manner that Congress intended” if the tax credits are “intact.”

On Tuesday, the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent quoted multiple state officials who explained that the subject of whether a state risked tax credits by opting for a federally-run exchange never even came up. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, a Republican, told Sargent that “the discussion was never about what happens to the subsidies.” Rather, “[h]ad it occurred to us that not doing a state exchange would somehow jeopardize citizens in Kansas being eligible for subsides, we would have made that argument loud and clear. And we never did. It never entered our minds.”

Similarly, Cindi Jones was appointed by Virginia’s McDonnell to lead the governor’s Virginia Health Reform Initiative panel. Jones told Sargent that “there was no discussion at any meeting that one of the reasons we would want to do a state based exchange was that it would be the only way we would get subsidies.”

Now, however, the plaintiffs in King and the six attorneys general who support them want the justices to believe that states were “well aware” that many of their citizens would lose their ability to afford health insurance if the state elected for a federally-run exchange. This claim simply cannot be squared with the clearly stated views of multiple state officials, all of whom were “engaged in the process of deciding whether the State” should set up its own exchange, and many of whom are Republicans.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

DARK MONEY CONNOISSEUR BRAGS HOW SUPREME COURT AIDED IN GOP WIN LAST TUESDAY

DAVID BOSSIE DARK MONEY MINION

A flood of outside spending, much of it undisclosed “dark money,” helped Republicans make significant gains in Tuesday’s elections. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision helped trigger the campaign spending avalanche, and so it came as no surprise that Citizens United’s leader and Dark Money Connoisseur David Bossie took a victory lap in a press conference of conservative activists reacting to the election results.

“Citizens United, our Supreme Court case, leveled the playing field and we’re very proud of the impact that had in last night’s election,” he said. “A robust conversation, which is what a level playing field allows, really creates an opportunity for the American people to get information and make good decisions.”

Bossie also accused Senate Democrats of trying to “gut the First Amendment” by voting in favor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the case.

BOSSIE BRAGGING




As I've said all week, several variables go into factoring why the democrats got their asses handed to them. Dark Money is a severe problem, but when only 38% of the electoral votes are counted, which seems a bigger problem to this blogger than Dark Money - you have little chance of winning anything.

Governments should not be for sale, but when the cards are stacked against you - that being the Supreme Court and its rulings that Corporations are indeed people and that these "people" - that they do indeed have unlimited freedom of speech in politics - What more can be said, our country at all levels is not for sale, they've already been sold.

What I find more disturbing is this Bossie numb-nuts saying the playing field has been leveled. Make no mistake, what Bossie and his kind pulled off, was to circumvent our democracy, the only thing leveled was the conservative pathway to purchasing politicians.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Alito, care to comment?

Only and idiot with a negative IQ would see this as a good thing, someone who puts their parties loyalty before the welfare of his country. But we are accustomed to the selfish conservative "patriots", who parade the moniker of all for me and none for all.

To Citizens United, the Supreme Beings, and David Bossie, congratulations asshats, your actions have weakened a country, be proud, be very very proud!

David Bossie, welcome to NFTOS' "today's worst person of the world" award, wear it proudly numb-nuts!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SCOTUS Punts Appeals From Five States, Clearing Way For Same-Sex Marriage

KU KLUX KOURT PUNTS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE RULING

BREAKING:

This rejection lets three federal appeals decisions take effect, legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected calls for a nationwide ruling on same-sex marriage, a rebuff that lets gays marry in as many as 11 new states and leaves legal uncertainty elsewhere.

The denial today of seven pending appeals defied predictions. Advocates on both sides had urged the justices to resolve the issue following a wave of lower court rulings that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights.

The rejection lets three federal appeals decisions take effect, legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana. Six other states -- Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina -- will likely follow because they fall under the jurisdiction of those appellate courts.

Those additions will bring the number of gay-marriage states to 30, plus the District of Columbia.

As a practical matter, however, this decision, to not to hear these cases is an earthquake for gay rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, refused to issue a stay halting its order favoring marriage equality. Although the Supreme Court later stepped in with its own stay order, that order provides that the Supreme Court’s stay will “terminate automatically” if the Supreme Court denies review of the case. Now that the justices have done so, there should be no further legal barriers preventing marriages from beginning in those five states — although it is possible that there may be some delay before marriages may begin due to procedural steps that need to be taken by the judiciary.

One thing that should be noted is that there are still marriage equality cases pending before conservative circuits that could rule against equality. Nevertheless, the fact that marriages are likely to begin very shortly in the states currently subject to court orders will make it very difficult for the Supreme Court to reverse course — and retroactively invalidate those marriages — in a subsequent opinion.

RELATED: Virginia same sex marriages to begin later today

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE SATANIC TEMPLE DEMANDS EXEMPTION FROM ABORTION CITING HOBBY LOBBY SUPREME COURT FINDING

THE SATANIC TEMPLE

The Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed some for-profit companies to claim a religious exemption to Obamacare’s contraception mandate, has sparked a heated debate over the definition of religious liberty and its role in modern society. At this point, even a Satantic cult has decided to weigh in.

The Satanic Temple — a faith community that describes itself as facilitating “the communication and mobilization of politically aware Satanists, secularists, and advocates for individual liberty” — has launched a new campaign seeking a religious exemption to certain anti-abortion laws that attempt to dissuade women from ending a pregnancy. The group says they have deeply held beliefs about bodily autonomy and scientific accuracy, and those beliefs are violated by state-level “informed consent” laws that rely on misleading information about abortion risks.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Satanists point out, it strengthens their own quest to opt out of laws related to women’s health care that go against their religious liberty. “Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them,” a spokesperson for the organization said in a statement.

The Satanic Temple, sometimes referred to as “the nicest Satanic cult in the world,” falls somewhere between satire, performance art, and activism. The group says its central mission is to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will.” It has a set of seven tenets that closely track with humanism. Typically, wherever issues of church and state are overlapping, the Satanic Temple isn't far behind.

Members of the Satanic Temple first made national headlines when they rallied in support of Florida Gov. Rick Scott for approving a bill that allows prayer in public schools, saying they’re glad the new policy will allow children to pray to Satan.

Since then, they've also held “a formal ceremony celebrating same-sex unions” on the grave of the mother of the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, declaring that she has posthumously become a lesbian, and commissioned a seven-foot-tall Satanic statue near a monument to the Ten Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol.

And now, the Satanic Temple is turning its attention to “campaigns to assert our religious protection for women with health needs that are being complicated by unreasonable laws,” focusing on the abortion-related legislation that goes against science.

State-level abortion restrictions that aren't actually based in medicine have swept the nation. “Informed consent” laws, which typically require women to receive biased counseling before being allowed to proceed with an abortion procedure, are now in place in 35 states. Many of those laws require doctors to tell their patients misleading information about abortion’s potential link to mental health issues and breast cancer. Some of them put words directly in doctors’ mouths, forcing them to refer to the fetus as an “whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Members of the Temple of Satan are encouraging all women who share their belief in medical accuracy to seek their own exemption from these laws, even if they don’t personally identify as Satanists. They've drawn up a sample letter to help women talk to their doctors about the issue, as well as created “Right to Accurate Medical Information” t-shirts for purchase.

Satanists aren't the only activists fighting back against the junk science used to justify anti-abortion laws.
The secular humanist group Center for Inquiry recently launched a “Keep Health Care Safe and Secular”
campaign to encourage more Americans to fight back against laws limiting women’s access to health services. Similarly, NARAL Pro-Choice America sometimes uses the slogan “Politicians Make Crappy Doctors.”

O' the can O'worms this ruling has unearthed. 

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

JUSTICE GINSBURG BLISTERS FELLOW SUPREME BEINGS OVER HOBBY LOBBY RULING

RADICAL CONSERVATIVE MEN RULE AGAINST WOMEN AT WORK

Justice Ginsburg has some problems with the Hobby Lobby 5-4 decision. Some excerpts from her dissent via Mother Jones:

 "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community." 

 "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults." 

 "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." 

 "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

You can read the full dissent here. (It starts on page 60.)

In other words, your boss has more of a right to free exercise of his religion than you have because, well, money!

Voting has consequences, screw who is POTUS, they only have 8 years to screw the pooch, their selections of Supreme Beings, can have generational effects, as these folks stay until they rot, which can be decades. 

The damage done today is a major setback for women, let alone ACA.

For-profit companies have religious rights, and those rights trump the rights of women who work for them. ~ Justice Alito

Quoting Col. Nathan R. Jessup in a few good men: "all you did was weaken a country, that's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.....................

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SCOTUS SAYS NO LYING ABOUT GUN PURCHASES

Lying about your gun purchase is never okay, the U.S. Supreme Court held Monday in a divided 5-4 ruling that upheld a robust interpretation of federal gun law. The ruling preserves the ability of federal prosecutors to crack down on what are known as “straw purchases,” one of the most common ways of illegally trafficking a gun.

Straw purchasing works like this. An individual who wants to buy a gun with the intent to commit a crime does not go to the store himself to buy it. He gets a third party to buy it. That third party goes through the background check. That third party’s name goes into the database, and the individual who ultimately desires the gun may not be traced back to the purchase.

Prosecutors have sought to crack down on those purchases by enforcing gun law provisions that make it illegal to lie about who the gun is for. But gun activists raised legal arguments that these purchases are not necessarily banned if the third party could have also been a legal purchaser. And they found a sympathetic plaintiff to become the face of this issue in the case decided Monday.

Bruce Abramski is a former police officer. He said he sought to buy a gun for his uncle, who lived in another state, because he thought he could get a discount using his police ID. So when Abramski purchased the gun, he said it was for him. In doing so, he checked “Yes” on a form asking whether he was the actual buyer, and signed a form stating that he understood lying was a violation of federal law. His uncle, Angel Alvarez, was also legally entitled to possess a gun. So Abramski was not aiming to skirt the law on who is legally entitled to possess a gun with the transfer.But in lying about his purchase of the gun, the government now had Abramski’s name on record, rather than Alvarez’s, preventing them from tracking later uses of the gun to Alvarez.

Police searched Abramski’s home when he was a suspect in a bank robbery, though he was later cleared of any role. They found the receipt showing that Abramski had sold the gun to his uncle, and later learned that Alvarez had sent him a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun” written in the subject line two days before he purchased the gun.

Prosecutors then charged Abramski for falsely claiming he was the buyer. But Abramski has argued that his false purchase is not a crime unless Alvarez were an unlawful purchaser. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that distinction, in a majority opinion by Justice Elena Kagan that recognized the centrality of identifying gun buyers to federal gun law.

“We hold that such a misrepresentation is punishable under the statute, whether or not the true buyer could have purchased the gun without the straw.”

“The overarching reason,” she explained, “is that Abramski’s reading would undermine—indeed, for all important purposes, would virtually repeal—the gun law’s core provisions,” which establish “an elaborate system to verify a would-be gun purchaser’s identity and check on his background.”

There are several reasons for prosecuting these straw purchases, related to the dual purposes of federal gun law identified by Justice Kagan. One goal of federal gun law is to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them.” Abramski argued that so long as Alvarez is a legal purchaser, that goal is not threatened by their transfer. But the dynamic between third-party purchasers and the ultimate user of a gun is more complex than the picture painted here. In gun trafficking schemes, there may be two, three, or more go-betweens who hold the gun before it gets to the ultimate end user, who may be banned from purchasing a gun. Alvarez, for example, could have later sold the gun to another person, who sold it to another. Punishing the person who lies about their purchase in the first place prevents gun traffickers from skirting the law by arguing the legality of the immediate third party.

There is also a second goal of federal gun law, which is to “assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes.” This pursuit is severely thwarted by Abramski’s purchase of a gun. If Alvarez were to later commit a crime using the gun purchased by Abramski, that gun might be traced to Abramski — the first purchaser on the background check form — rather than Alvarez, shielding Alvarez from the gun used in the crime.

Making it a crime to lie about the actual buyer allows prosecutors to enforce the federal law’s fundamental purpose of identifying and vetting gun purchasers, in a climate in which straw purchases are a key component of illicit gun trafficking. Of the gun trafficking cases studied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 2000, 48 percent involved straw purchases.

The majority ruling, therefore, preserved prosecutors’ ability to enforce existing federal law. But existing federal law is limited, because it still leaves the loophole of private transfers. As a recent Center for American Progress report explains, it is exceedingly difficult to prove that an individual intended to purchase a gun on behalf of another because “it turns on what was in a person’s mind at the time they bought the gun.” Abramski’s case included rare direct evidence that Abramski intended to purchase the gun for Alvarez before the purchase was even made. But what if Abramski had purchased the gun and then simply decided to sell it to Alvarez a week later through a private sale? Or resolved to give it to Alvarez as a gift, rather than at the request of Alvarez? As the four dissenters point out in arguing against Ambraski’s prosecution, these transactions may or may not have broken the law, and certainly would not require background checks, under the loophole in federal law Congress failed to close in the wake of the Newtown Massacre.

If that loophole were closed, then others like Abramski would have been breaking the law in a much more obvious and enforceable way if they not only lied about their purchase, but later sold the gun to an individual such as Alvarez without requiring a background check.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

HOW CAN THIS BE? THE SUPREME COURT RULED RACISM DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE

KU KLUX KOURT

Donald Sterling, the owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers, told his girlfriend not to post pictures on Instagram of herself with black people and not to bring black people to his basketball games, according to an audio recording posted by TMZ.

In the recording, Sterling and his girlfriend are fighting over a picture she posted to Instagram of herself with NBA legend Magic Johnson, and Sterling demands that she stop “broadcasting” that she associates with black people. Sterling tells his girlfriend: “You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.”

Later, he makes the point specifically about Magic Johnson, telling her that “it’s too bad you can’t admire (Johnson) privately…bring him here, feed him, fuck him, I don’t care. You can do anything. But don’t put him on an Instagram for the world to see so they have to call me. And don’t bring him to my games. OK?”

Sterling’s comments about Johnson follow a long argument about his girlfriend — who says in the recording that she is half-black and half-Mexican — not understanding the cultural differences between white, black, and Hispanic people. At one point, Sterling asks her if she gets “a benefit” from associating with black people, and calls her “stupid” when she asks why the race of the people she associates with matters. Sterling doesn't answer when she asks if it would have been different had it been Larry Bird in the photo.

When it comes to race, the comments aren't even the most troubling incident in Sterling’s time as the Clippers owner. In 2006, he was sued in a housing discrimination lawsuit that alleged that Sterling wouldn’t rent apartments to black families in Beverly Hills and other LA neighborhoods. The suit alleged that Sterling had once said that “black tenants smell and attract vermin.”

Former Clippers executive (and NBA player) Elgin Baylor sued Sterling in 2009, alleging that the owner discriminated against him based on his age and race.

The NBA didn't take action against Sterling in either instance, even though there is precedent for doing so: in 1993, Major League Baseball suspended Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott for a full season for comments she’d made about black and Jewish people.

More than three-quarters of the NBA’s players are black, and the league has a larger share of minority fans than any of other major sports leagues. The NBA can’t take away Sterling’s team. But it needs to do something, especially because it has already let Sterling off the hook so many times before.

Congratulations Donald Sterling, you are both today's worst person in the world and our asshat of the day.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

LEGALIZED MONEY LAUNDERING

Chief Justice John Roberts begins his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC with a flourish: “[t]here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” He then spends the next forty pages explaining why that participation includes the right of rich people to attempt to buy elections. Thanks to the decision Roberts and his four fellow conservative justices handed down today (Though Thomas did not join Roberts’ opinion, he wrote a more radical opinion calling for all limits on campaign donations to be eviscerated), wealthy donors now have a broad new power to launder money to political candidates — they just have to be a bit creative about how they do it.

Prior to Wednesday’s opinion, federal law placed two complementary limits on campaign donors. During the current election cycle, donors may give no more than $5,200 per election cycle ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general) to a given federal candidate, and there are also higher limits on how much they can give to party committees and political action committees. These limits remain intact.

What McCutcheon invalidates are aggregate limits on the total amount of money that donors may give to all federal candidates ($48,600) and to all political committees ($74,600). Thus, before Wednesday, donors could spend as much as $123,200 seeking to influence the 2014 election cycle — now they can spend as much as they want. Make no mistake, this decision benefits no one except for a handful of very wealthy donors (and the candidates they give to). Who else can say that they’ve already given more than a hundred thousand dollars worth of donations and that they are upset that they cannot give even more?

A major purpose of the aggregate limits was to prevent money laundering schemes that could enable donors and political parties to evade the cap on donations to individual candidates. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer lays out what some of these schemes could look like. The Democratic or Republican Party, in one example, may set up a “Joint Party Committee” consisting of all three of their national party committees and a state party committee from each of the 50 states. Under McCutcheon, a single donor may now give as much as $1.2 million to this joint committee, which would then be distributed to the various smaller party organizations.

Once the money is distributed, however, it can legally be redistributed to the races where it is likely to have the most impact. Thus, for example, the Republican Party committees in safe red states like Idaho, Utah or Mississippi — where large infusions of money aren’t exactly needed to win elections — can redistribute their funds to battleground states like Ohio or Florida. Meanwhile, blue state Democratic committees in Vermont and Rhode Island can do the same.

Similarly, the same wealthy donor might decide to write a maximum dollar donation to every single Republican House and Senate candidate in the country — perhaps by writing a single $2.4 million check to the same “Joint Party Committee” which then distributes the funds. Once this money is distributed, candidates in safe seats can then redistribute at least some of it to candidates in disputed seats — and the rest can frequently be used to benefit candidates in tough races through “coordinated expenditures.”

Roberts denies that these money laundering schemes will actually arise, but many of the arguments he raises to defend this point betray his own naivete how modern elections work. The Chief Justice argues, for example, that for these money laundering schemes to work a donor would have to engage in “illegal earmarking” — federal law prohibits a donor from “directing funds ‘through an intermediary or conduit’ to a particular candidate.” But a wealthy donor does not need to earmark his donations for these money laundering schemes to work. Indeed, it is in both the donor’s interest and the party’s interest if the donor does not do so. A donor will typically want his money to go to the candidates who are most likely to benefit from his money — those in closely contested races. By donating to a joint party committee, the donor gives their party more flexibility to redirect their money to the candidates who appear most in need as the election approaches.

Similarly, Roberts claims that “[t]he Government provides no reason to believe that many state parties would willingly participate in a scheme to funnel money to another State’s candidates.” But this argument assumes that each state Democratic or Republican Party is an island. If Republicans control the Senate, Mississippi’s Republican senators have more clout and Mississippi Republicans benefit. The same applies to Rhode Island’s Democratic senators when Democrats control the Senate. America has two national parties and it has a national legislature. When Iowa elects Republicans to Congress, that makes it more likely that Republicans in Mississippi will see their preferred policies enacted into law.

Roberts does, however, raise one fairly strong argument in support of his belief that wealthy donors will not resort to complicated money laundering schemes — thanks to the line of cases culminating in Citizens United, they won’t have to. Before McCutcheon, wealthy donors basically had free reign to spend as much money as they wanted seeking to influence elections, just as long as they give that money to “independent” organizations such as super PACs. In light of this body of law, why would a candidate resort to an elaborate money laundering scheme when they can simply write a check to the super PAC of their choice?

It’s a good question, and not an easy one to answer. But it’s hardly an argument for eliminating even more limits on how far the wealthy can go to influence elections. If allowing a single person to spend millions of dollars to change the outcome of an election is a bad idea, then it is a bad idea no matter what kind of legal regime permits that spending to take place.

cross posted from thinkprogress

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

DOCKET SCIENCE

KU KLUX KOURT

Bill Maher's New Rules ended last night by scorching the Supreme Court and the American Taliban for their “naive” thoughts on racism and campaign finance and how America’s way past the point of not being corrupted on those two issues.

Maher first took on the ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act, mocked the idea that “racism had been cured” and that “other than shopping at Barney’s… there was no evidence anymore that black people needed special protections.”

And as for John Roberts‘ astonishment that people think the South is more racist than the North, Maher cited slavery, the KKK, and the fact that “Paula Deen lives there.”

Maher also addressed the Citizens United ruling and the assumption that more money in politics doesn't lead to corruption, “which is true except for always.” He found it troubling how “naive” conservatives appear to be about America.

“That is the problem with today’s conservatives. They are too sentimental about how wonderful America is. Racism? That’s over. Moneyed interests? They couldn't corrupt us if they tried!”

And when the Supreme Court gave more power to the people, they reacted with the line from Animal House: “You fucked up, you shouldn't have trusted us!”

NEW RULES COURTESY OF HBO

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

WELL THAT "SUCKS"

US SUPREME COURTS REJECTS THE COOCH

Say it isn't so Cooch?

Has Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli ever won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court?

Another attempted over reach by the Virginia American Taliban ended in failure - after the Supreme Court rejected Cuccinelli’s plea to overturn a lower court ruling finding the law unconstitutional.

Virginia’s state legislature tried to amend the law following the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling finding anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. As a state senator, Cuccinelli opposed the state’s efforts, having said previously that ”homosexual acts” as “intrinsically wrong” and that “in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that.” The law barred “crimes against nature,” which included oral sex between consenting adults of any sexual orientation. The law carried a penalty of between one and five years in prison for sexual acts that the National Center on Health Statistics estimates nine out of ten Americans between the age of 25 and 44 engage in.

Cuccinelli was seeking to use the law to prosecute William McDonald, a middle-aged man, for soliciting oral sex from two young women who were 16 and 17 at the time. Because both teenagers were above Virginia’s age of consent when the incident occurred, McDonald could only be convicted of a misdemeanor. Had Cuccinelli supported changes to the law so that it wouldn't turn a majority of American adults into unprosecuted felons, it might have been able to use it to seek a harsher punishment for McDonald.

Still, getting shut down by the Supreme Court is the least of Cuccinelli’s current political problems. His bid to become Virginia’s governor has been hampered by Republicans shutting down the government, his association with current Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, who is under investigation over gifts received from a campaign donor, and by an ad campaign hammering Cuccinelli over his socially conservative views. According to recent polls, Cuccinelli now trails Democratic rival Terry McAuliffe, a man who once took rum shots on live television, by five points or more.

To this day, Cuccinelli has never stated whether he or any of his staff have committed “crimes against nature” under the now-defunct Virginia law.

That awkward moment when the 21st Century finally catches up with you, and you no longer have the right to play bedroom police.

So inflexible are the right wing extremists, constantly and rigidly refusing common sense updates to the law in favor of an all or nothing radical approach - which often reflects their personal obsessions with troglodyte like mentalities - where they always end up bearing the stink of a loser.

What is this preoccupation, this neuroses form pasty white republicans and their will to control grown adults personal and legal choices?

One can only wonder what other behaviors, practices and policies the Virginia's Attorney General - and for that fact other national right wing nut jobs might find unnatural. Perhaps interracial marriage or relationships, freed slaves, morality not based on religious doctrine, birth control, atheism, not carrying a concealed weapon in public? Who really knows what goes inside of the mind of these outdated vandals.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

ROBERTS RULE OF ORDER

KU KLUX KOURT ROBERTS COURT

Voting has consequences, far beyond the eight years of a President. Supreme Court justices can reside for eons - the current sitting Supreme beings have proven that law has little relevance to their decisions made - where political ideology takes the forefront rather than case law. Often the case, historically speaking, the Supreme Court is well behind the times.

If Supreme Courts over time are arranged like boxes of chocolates, the Roberts Court defies the myth that you never know what you’re going to get.

The most basic requirement of any Supreme Court decision involving the application of the Constitution is to explain how the Constitution's text and meaning command the result the Court reaches. By that standard, Shelby County v. Holder is a colossal failure. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court struck down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act – a statute that has ensured protection of the right to vote for millions of Americans – without ever explaining what provision of the Constitution rendered this iconic, landmark statute unconstitutional.

In an interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered a grim assessment of the Court where she so often finds herself leading a four justice dissent — the Roberts Court is “one of the most activist courts in history.”

As an historic matter, this is a pretty staggering claim. The Supreme Court in 1905 handed down a decision called Lochner v. New York that is now widely taught in American law schools as an example of how judges should never, ever behave. Lochner treated any law improving workplace conditions or helping workers to obtain an adequate wage as constitutionally suspect. And Lochner was hardly an anomalous moment in the Court’s history.

Thirteen years after Lochner the Supreme Court struck down federal child labor laws in a decision that is also widely taught as an example of inexcusable judicial activism. In 1895, the Supreme Court rendered the country virtually powerless against monopolies and other powerful combinations of corporate power, and then it held an income tax on the wealthiest Americans unconstitutional just a few months later. The Supreme Court has, with rare exception, been a largely malign force in American history.

There is, however, one important way in which the Roberts Court is distinguishable from the Courts that decided cases such as Lochner. Laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act and the first federal ban on child labor arose as lawmakers with struggling with many of the negative side effects of the Industrial Revolution. The birth of the railroad and the dawn of mass production massively improved the American standard of living, but they also enabled monopolists to thrive and they resulted in mass exploitation of the working class. The Supreme Court in this era did not so much tear down established rights as it stood for a status quo that favored capital over labor and the rich over the rest of the nation.

The Roberts Court, by contrast, has actively rolled back existing laws protecting workers, women and people of color. The Nineteenth Century Supreme Court blocked America’s first meaningful efforts at racial equality, but the Roberts Court stole from minority voters rights that they had enjoyed for decades. The Lochner Court strangled basic protections for workers in their crib, but the Roberts Court takes fully matured protections for workers and carves them up a piece at a time. And, while Lochner Era courts acted out in the open, undermining human rights in published opinions. the Roberts Court pushes an alternative, corporate-run arbitration system that operates largely in secret.

None of this is to say that the world we live in now is worse than the world our great-grandparents lived in under the Lochner Court — if the Roberts Court’s goal is to bring us back to this era, they are currently shy at least one vote. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court is unusually willing to take from ordinary Americans rights they have enjoyed for a very long time. The Supreme Court has a long history of standing athwart history yelling stop. This Supreme Court, however, wants to shift history into reverse.

Conservatives like to make fun of decisions that abandon the Constitution in favor of penumbras and emanations, but that is all Chief Justice Roberts offers in the majority of his rulings.

With Roberts over seeing the Supreme Beings, with Scalia and the inept pubic hair conspirator Clearance Thomas on the bench, be scared, be very very scared!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Gays Are Now Human Beings In America, Cue Conservative Freak Out In 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Video Courtesy of MSNBC

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Supreme Court just handed down a 5-4 decision striking the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, “[t]he federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”


Video Courtesy of MSNBC

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Shortly thereafter, the Court also handed down a 5-4 decision holding that supporters of California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to appeal District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision striking the marriage ban. The likely impact of this decision is that Walker’s injunction against Prop 8 will allow California to perform same-sex marriages once again — or at least that California’s top elected officials will be able to read Walker’s opinion this way — although there is some uncertainty whether Walker actually has the power to enjoin an entire state. For this reason, the status of Prop 8 is, for the moment, unclear.

Although Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case alludes to some questionable states rights views that he expressed during oral argument, the opinion is firmly rooted in the equal rights and equal dignity that same-sex couples share with straight ones. As the Court explains:

By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

At oral argument, Kennedy appeared ready to adopt a very radical view of states rights that would strip Congress’ power to enact DOMA, but which could also potentially endanger Medicare and other federal benefits programs by stripping away the federal government’s power to define who receives these benefits. Part III of Kennedy’s opinion nods sharply at Kennedy’s states’ rights views, but it also establishes that today’s opinion is rooted in equality, not in any new attempt to shrink federal power. As Kennedy writes, “it is unnecessary to decide whether [DOMA's] federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”

Instead, Kennedy’s opinion appears to adopt a compromise position Justice Elena Kagan floated at oral argument. “In determining whether a law is motivated by an improper animus or purpose,” Kennedy writes, “‘discrimination's of an unusual character’ especially require careful consideration.” The fact that DOMA departs from the usual federal practice of let states decide who is married “is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.”


Video Courtesy of MSNBC

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yet, while Kennedy’s allusions to states’ rights do not work a revolution in the scope of federal power, they do have very unfortunate implications for gay couples in places like Texas and Alabama. For the moment, at least, a majority of the Court was unwilling to strike a law restricting same-sex marriage without speaking at length about the traditionally broad role states have enjoyed in determining who is married. This will not necessarily prevent the federal government from recognizing such marriages throughout the nation and according many benefits to same-sex couples, but it does suggest that America has a little ways to go before Texas will have to afford gay couples the same dignity they enjoy in marriage equality states.

Not yet reading the dissenting opinions by the four justices, but I'm truly curious as to why Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito believe DOMA is constitutional..... I mean, aside from the fact they are douche bags. I keep looking for one defender of "traditional marriage" that isn't a monstrous hypocrite, moron or loon.

Nancy Pelosi was asked for a response to batshit crazy Michele Bachmann's statement regarding DOMA, Pelosi responded, "who cares". I think this sentiment can be applied to any statements made by the American Taliban.

Fear not conservatives, our Supreme Court still thinks racism is okay, so you haven't lost everything.......yet!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West