U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge who ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, lifted the stay on his decision as of Wednesday, August 18, at 5pm PST. The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest. Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels against entry of the stay proponents seek. Of course, that’s assuming that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stays out of it. That’s not likely. Proponents...
Continue reading...constitution
"Irrational Prejudice"
I’m on my way out of town right now, but a pretty huge development occurred yesterday that really needs mentioning before I go. In two decisions yesterday, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. HHS and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed back in the ’90s in a cynical play against a weakened President Clinton when same-sex marriage was barely on the horizon, prohibits the federal government from recognizing either state-sanctioned or non-state-sanctioned same-sex marriages and...
Continue reading...No, John Roberts, judges are not umpires.
I had read about former Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s recent commencement address at Harvard, but it wasn’t til today that I read the entire speech, available here. The address is an eloquent and persuasive response to (and take-down of) the theory of Constitutional “originalism” espoused vehemently by Justice Scalia, among others. I’ve been thinking lately about liberals’ persistent inability to win the war of words, and conservatives’ great skill at manipulating language in their favor. Scalia, for instance, has done an excellent job of making originalism sound like duh, the only possible legitimate method of engaging in...
Continue reading...SCOTUS lifts ban on animal snuff films
The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down its ruling on U.S. v. Stevens, 08-769, and by an 8-1 decision, upheld the decision of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, nullifying a federal law banning the practice of filming cruelty against animals, citing First Amendment speech protection. The case centered around Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Virginia, who ran a business and website selling videos of pit bull fights. He was caught in an F.B.I. sting and was consequently sentenced to three years in prison for violating a 1999 law banning the sale of videos portraying...
Continue reading...
Recent Comments