But thus broadening the stakes in these lawsuits is a mistake. The better—and accurate—tack is that opponents’ route to interpreting federal exchanges into self-immolation is so hyper-blinkered that it flouts bedrock axioms common to all legitimate interpretational theologies.
You are here
Articles & Commentary
Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — Judges Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, and Martha Craig Daughtrey — heard oral arguments in cases from four states (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) in which lower court judges have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage and bans on the recognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into elsewhere.
Fortunately, Virginia's "traditional" view of marriage has been consigned to the dustbin of history. I'm confident that when all is said and done on the issue of marriage equality for gay men and lesbians, that's where we'll find Virginia's current laws as well. As the majority recognized in Bostic, the Fourteenth Amendment requires no less.
The D.C. Circuit's decision got basically everything wrong. It misunderstood the text, structure and purpose of the Affordable Care Act. The Justice Department has already indicated that it will ask the entire D.C. Circuit to review the Halbig v. Burwell decision, and when it does, it will no doubt reverse it.
On civil liberties, where right- and left-leaning libertarians concur—in particular, Fourth Amendment protection for smartphones—the Court moved the law to the left. But, likewise reflecting libertarian ascendance, the Court continues to veer sharply right on issues touching on corporate autonomy and regulation of business.
In the Roberts Court, the First Amendment is a powerful weapon, not for the street corner speaker, but for corporations and wealthy seeking to squelch regulation.
The Hobby Lobby majority may claim otherwise, but its ruling is far from narrow -- and its breadth starts with the sweeping and novel recognition that for-profit corporations share in the right to free exercise of religion.
The alliance of liberal and libertarian advocates will only get stronger in future terms because obviously the justices are listening. Even one of the most conservative courts in our country’s history has moments when it’s not so conservative.
In effect, three of the five conservative justices recognized that inaction on climate change is not a sound option, and that implicit exceptions must be read into the literal text of the Clean Air Act to make action possible. They made clear that it is they who retain the power, ultimately to decide when to make those policy and political choices, and, to an undefined but significant extent, how to make them.
Do we need a constitutional amendment to overturn Roberts' court rulings that have eviscerated our nation's campaign finance laws and opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending? That question was front and center last week as senators gathered for a historic hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in which both Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell testified. The answer may well be yes.