Roberts had a constitutionally sound reason for his part of the majority ruling on Obamacare. Obviously, Justices Thomas and Scalia might question that assertion. Roberts will be highly likely to remain the conservative justice he’s always been. The case only serves to point out that elections matter. Which is something the ideologically pure should bear in mind come November when they waste their vote on someone other than Romney. I didn’t think the Republicans in general, or McCain in particular, deserved my vote in 2008, but I had no trouble envisioning that, despite my misgivings regarding McCain, an Obama administration would be much worse, as it’s proven to be. Yeah, it’d have been nice if Roberts had bailed us out on Obamacare, but only children cry over the actual USSC vote, when they should be asking, ‘where’d all those Democrats, and their votes, come from?’. Oh, yeah…they came from wasted votes on “principle”, the last refuge of the immature and the whiner. Of course they’re insane; they’re expecting a different result this time.
It’s long past due that the portions of the Voting Rights Act, that empower the Justice Department to oversee select state and local elections in some areas, be overturned. It is obvious that there is no evidence that will meet Justice Department, or congressional, approval that it is no longer necessary, in spite of the facts upon the ground that it is not. It is an infringement on state’s rights that probably should never have been passed in the first place and only continues to exist because, to vote against it is the political equivalent of answering, “are you still beating your wife?” type of a question. It’s not particularly fair to blame GW Bush for not vetoing the extension, which has been passed ever time it has been up for renewal, as the numbers in favor of the extension, in both House and Senate, were sufficient to override his veto. It’s fair to say that he didn’t have the political capital to expend, while he was trying to reform Social Security, to veto something that congress was going to pass over that veto.
We should remember that in most, if not all, of the federal cases regarding DOMA there hasn’t been a ruling by a court, but by only one justice on the specific court in a hearing before that court. I expect the chances of it being overturned no better than even, and probably a good deal less. Despite Cam’s flawed view, the Court will not find a right to marriage as there is no such right within the constitution, and they won’t be ruling on whether there is or not. Even were they to want to find one, that is not what the cases on the matter before the Court are about. I expect that they will uphold DOMA because the alternative is to require the review of thousands of pieces on legislation, now established law, so as to redefine the intent of congress in passing. I think the Court will narrowly find for upholding it, if only upon the basis that the state cannot dictate to the federal government what the federal government shall pay for based up whatever state laws the states may respectively pass.
I also think the Court will narrowly rule on the 1789 law which makes US federal courts available for resolution of disputes originating on foreign soil but now emigrated to the US. I expect they’ll keep the law, but put the kibosh on venue-seeking in such cases. There are cases where such a law and procedure is valuable…which is why it’s been around since 1789.
If they fail to uphold Prop 8 it is not going to go well for Americans going forward. If they strike it down, it will never matter again what is accomplished under state-wide referendum, state constitutional ballot initiative, or any other democratically passed state law or constitutional amendment, so long as one can find one federal judge to over rule it. Let’s hope Ted Olson was right in asserting that a USSC case was not the way to go…if you supported homosexual marriage, because if lost, it would set that cause back decades. One may only hope.