Earlier, in reaction to the Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman said that the Supreme Court “can’t undo the Holy word of God.” Whatever you may think of that statement, when asked for a response by ABC’s John Parkinson, the self-proclaimed devout Catholic House minority leader said, “who cares?”
In a 5 – 4 decision the Supreme Court ruled DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The majority opinion – Justice Kennedy joined the liberal justices – and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages. Roberts dissents, joined by Scalia who is joined by Thomas – Chief Justice joins in part.
The Supreme Court issued opinions on several high-profile and contentious cases thus far this week, including Fisher vs. University of Texas. AEI Visiting Fellow and Director of the Project on Fair Representation, Edward Blum, hosted a media conference featuring Abigail Fisher to respond to the opinion.
Rev. Jesse Jackson began to bash the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act saying that civil rights activists have “bled too much” to be “stabbed in the heart” this way. The so-called civil rights leader told CNN’s Jake Tapper:
The right to vote is too precious. We’ve bled too much, we’ve died too young, the price has been too great to now watch it be stabbed in the heart by the Supreme Court today.
The Supreme court has issues a decision on the Alabama case involving the 1960’s era Voting Rights Act, and it is outdated and unconstitutional. In a 5 – 4 decision, along the usual lines, the formula for “covered jurisdictions” are a thing of the past, and there is no longer contemporary data to make the law justifiable. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:
FILE – In this Oct. 10, 2012 file photo, Abigail Fisher, right, who sued the University of Texas, walks outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has sent a Texas case on race-based college admissions back to a lower court for another look. The court’s 7-1 decision Monday leaves unsettled many of the basic questions about the continued use of race as a factor in college admissions. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
The affirmative action case brought by Abigail Fisher regarding college admissions survived a Supreme Court review Monday in a consensus decision that side stepped the difficult constitutional issues surrounding a challenge to the University of Texas admission plan.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up, and/or fraud much easier.
Source: Pew Research Center; USA TODAY/Gallup; National Conference of State Legislatures Eileen Rivers, Michelle Poblete and Frank Pompa, USA TODAY
The Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage has been long-awaited and is soon expected. Depending on what the court decides, one thing for sure is that we are likely to have a very confusing situation, as you can see from the chart this is not a one-size fits all issue.
Both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decisions on two cases challenging the constitutionality of laws – one federal and one state – that deny recognition for same-sex marriage.
In United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of government policies that reflect traditional marriage—that is, marriage as a union between one man and one woman. If the Court does not dismiss these cases on jurisdictional grounds, it should act to uphold traditional marriage. Nothing in the Court’s jurisprudence suggests that the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages is so fundamental as to be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Nor does the Equal Protection Clause require that result, given the societal purpose and value of marriage as furthering procreation and child-rearing. Because the Constitution does not speak to this question, it is one that is left to ordinary political processes, not to judicial fiat.