Well, actually, Kennedy’s not all the conservative these days, so it won’t be a surprise. He’s into the “evolving standards of decency” doctrine that’s been used is left-wing decisions on the death penalty; and more importantly, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas , which struck down sodomy laws in 2003. I’d have to research it, but the Court often hesitates to overturn state-level initiatives, arguing that the judgment of the Court can’t be assumed superior to the voters in those states where a case originates. That said, here’s David Savage, at Los Angeles Times , ” Gay marriage fight may hinge on Supreme Court’s Anthony Kennedy “: The Supreme Court has nine justices, but if the constitutional fight over same-sex marriage reaches them this year, the decision will probably come down to just one: a California Republican and Reagan-era conservative who has nonetheless written the court’s two leading gay rights opinions. JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy, 75, often holds the court’s deciding vote on the major issues that divide its liberals and conservatives. More often than not, that vote has swung the court to the right. But on gay rights, Kennedy has been anything but a “culture wars” conservative. One of his opinions lauded the intimacy between same-sex couples and demanded “respect for their private lives,” provoking Justice Antonin Scalia to accuse him of having “signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” “He is a California establishment Republican with moderately libertarian instincts,” Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan said of Kennedy. “He travels in circles where he has met and likes lots of gay people.” Based on Kennedy’s past opinions, Karlan is confident that if the Supreme Court takes up the issue of California’s same-sex marriage ban, “it meansProp. 8is going down to defeat,” she said. “There is no way he will take it to reinstate” the ban. Not all court observers share her prediction, but the uncertainty about how Kennedy might vote may, by itself, be enough to deter the high court from hearing an appeal of the decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Four justices must vote for the court to consider a case, but a majority is needed to issue a ruling. When an appeal reaches the high court, the four most conservative justices will face a tough choice: Vote to have the court hear the case and run the risk that Kennedy would side with the more liberal justices to go beyond the 9th Circuit decision and establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Or turn the case aside, leaving same-sex marriage intact in California but setting no national precedent. More at the link .
Continued here:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Might Cast Deciding Vote Striking Down Proposition 8
Well, chalk that up for common sense, for the moment at least. At LAT , ” Arizona Supreme Court bars candidate with limited English “: A would-be city council candidate in Arizona will not appear on an upcoming ballot because her English skills are insufficient, the state’s Supreme Court decided Tuesday. In a brief two-page order, the high court affirmed a Superior Court judge’s ruling, which struck Alejandrina Cabrera’s name from the March ballot in the town of San Luis. The case, which attracted international media attention, was closely watched because of possible legal repercussions for other border communities where Spanish predominates. Cabrera’s lawyers argued that the court should not set a standard for English and that the issue should be decided by San Luis voters. Cabrera acknowledged her English is weak, but said she knew enough of the language to represent San Luis. Almost 99% of the town’s residents are Latino, and Spanish is spoken virtually everywhere. Continue reading .
Excerpt from:
Arizona Supreme Court Rules to Keep Limited-English Candidate Off the Ballot
No surprises here: California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, according to a ruling announced Tuesday by an appeals court. The long-awaited ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court is likely to lead to more appeals, and marriages probably will remain on hold until that process ends. The case was pending for months because the court wanted a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing under the state’s citizen’s initiative process to appeal the ruling. Here’s the decision: 10-16696 #398_Decision What’s next? Appeals and more appeals : ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday’s decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote. Gays and lesbians were entitled to marry in California for six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban in May 2008. The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment of the California Constitution. While the Proposition 8 case was still pending in state court, two same-sex couples sued in federal court to challenge the ban on federal constitutional grounds. *** Tweet of the day: @ arizonashane “Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional.
The rest is here:
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
AP – A second term for President Barack Obama would allow him to expand his replacement of Republican-appointed majorities with Democratic ones on the nation’s appeals courts, the final stop for almost all challenged federal court rulings.
More here:
Obama could alter stance of federal appeals courts
(AP)
My latest column examines the Obama administration’s continuing war on religious health care professionals, which I spotlighted when the ACLU first launched its salvo against Catholic hospitals in 2010. What’s noteworthy now is the united front that Catholic bishops (who have traditionally taken big government positions) are now taking against the Obamacare abortion edict. Better late than never. The Anchoress and LifeNews have excellent coverage of the controversy — see here , here , here , and here . As I mention below, the Becket Fund is representing two schools suing over the unconstitutional abortion mandate in federal court. Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio is sponsoring a bill to restore the conscience clause protections for health care providers of faith. This outrageous power grab is one which both fiscal and social conservative can rally behind. Every one of the GOP presidential candidates should be raising it on the campaign trail, in debates, and media interviews. Send messages to @HHSGov and @WhiteHouse . The grass-roots revolt is growing. NCHLA has a petition and action alert info here . Where’s the MSM? Mostly AWOL, as usual. Related news: Susan G. Komen foundation for breast cancer research has finally halted grants to Planned Parenthood. And: Pfizer recalls 28 lots of birth control pills . *** First, they came for the Catholics by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2012 President Obama and his radical feminist enforcers have had it in for Catholic medical providers from the get-go. It’s about time all people of faith fought back against this unprecedented encroachment on religious liberty. First, they came for the Catholics. Who’s next? This weekend, Catholic bishops informed parishioners of the recent White House edict forcing religious hospitals, schools, charities, and other health and social service providers to provide “free” abortifacient pills, sterilizations, and contraception on demand in their insurance plans – even if it violates their moral consciences and teachings of their churches. NARAL, NOW, Ms. Magazine, and the Feminist Majority Foundation all cheered the administration’s abuse of the Obamacare law to ram abortion down pro-life medical professionals’ throats. Femme dinosaur Eleanor Smeal gloated over the news that the administration had rejected church officials’ pleas for compromises: “At last,” she exulted, the Left’s goal of “no-cost birth control” for all had been achieved. As always, tolerance is a one-way street in the Age of Obama. “Choice” is in the eye (and iron fist) of the First Amendment usurper. Like the rising number of states who have revolted against the individual health care care mandate at the ballot box and in the courts, targeted Catholics have risen up against the Obamacare regime. Arlington (Va.) Bishop Paul Loverde didn’t mince words, calling the U.S. Department Health and Human Services order “a direct attack against religious liberty. This ill-considered policy comprises a truly radical break with the liberties that have underpinned our nation since its founding.” Several bishops vowed publicly to fight the mandate. Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan asserted plainly: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.” It’s not just rabid right-wing politicos defying the Obama machine. Pro-life Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania denounced the “wrong decision.” Left-leaning Bishop Robert Lynch threatened “civil disobedience” in St. Petersburg, Florida, over the power grab. Lefty Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote that Obama “botched” the controversy and “threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus” by refusing to “ balance the competing liberty interests here .” White House press secretary Jay Carney blithely denied on Tuesday that “there are any constitutional rights issues” involved in the brewing battle. Yet, the Shut Up and Hand Out Abortion Pills order undermines a unanimous Supreme Court ruling issued just last week upholding a religious employer’s right to determine whom to hire and fire. And two private colleges have filed federal suits against the government to overturn the unconstitutional abortion coverage decree. Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the non-profit law firm, the Becket Fund, which is representing the schools boiled it down for Bloomberg News: “ This is not really about access to contraception. The mandate is about forcing these religious groups to pay for it against their beliefs .” How did we get here? The first salvo came in December 2010, when the American Civil Liberties Union pushed HHS and its Planned Parenthood-championing secretary, Kathleen “The Shredder” Sebelius , to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions in violation of their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn. The ACLU called for a litigious fishing expedition against Catholic hospitals nationwide that refuse to provide “emergency” contraception and abortions to women. In their sights: Devout Phoenix Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted, who revoked the Catholic status of a rogue hospital that performed several direct abortions, provided birth control pills and presided over sterilizations against the church’s ethical and religious directives for health care. ACLU and the feminists have joined with Obama to threaten and sabotage the First Amendment rights of religious-based health care entities. The agenda is not increased “access” to health care services. The ultimate goal is to shut down health care providers – Catholic health care institutions employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers – whose religious views cannot be tolerated by secular zealots and radical social engineers. Is it any surprise their counterparts in the “Occupy” movement have moved from protesting “Wall Street” to harassing pro-life marchers in Washington, D.C., and hurling condoms at Catholic school girls in Rhode Island? Birds of a lawless, bigoted feather bully together.
See original here:
First, they came for the Catholics
Last night on Real News I argued that Right to Work laws – like the one Indiana is looking to pass – are a necessary, but unfortunate, solution to labor relations. But they are not a free market solution.
Photo credit: ProtestShooter, from last year’s March for Life celebration Today marks the 39th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. As I note every year, it has become an annual ritual to watch the national media and liberal commentariat strain to ignore or marginalize the burgeoning movement of increasingly young and minority activists taking to the street to stand up for the unborn. If you’re in D.C., it’s not too late to join. Schedule of events and maps are here . March for Life rallies will also take place at state capitols across the country and thousands gathered this weekend. You can also tune in online to the Pro Life Con gathering taking place all day. House Speaker John Boehner will be a featured speaker this afternoon. Danielle Bean explains why she marches: The young people at the annual March for Life assert the unpopular truth that women deserve better than abortion, and instead offer women real choices: genuine alternatives to the harm that abortions cause. When a woman decides that her best “choice” is the destruction of innocent human life growing within her, we have failed her. The government, the community, the church, and we – her friends, neighbors, co-workers, brothers, and sisters – have failed her. Young pro-lifers are determined not to fail women. They know that abortion is a “choice” that ends a human life, stops a heartbeat, and denies a defenseless human being the right to live. They know that the “pro-choice” idea that abortion has no moral, emotional, or psychological consequences is a lie – a lie that women pay for, and a lie that denies every one of us the right to make informed decisions about our own bodies. Everywhere I look at this year’s March for Life, I see young people who reject the lies of previous generations, seek the truth, and stand up as a voice for women and the unborn. I am encouraged as I march alongside these young prolifers and proud that some of my own children are among them. Legalized abortion is a tragic part of our nation’s history, but I see the future here in Washington, D.C. today. And you know what? The kids are all right. Yalies march for life: Over two dozen Yalies will march in Washington, D.C. today along with thousands of pro-life supporters in protest of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision which ruled that the Constitution protects abortion rights. As part of the 39th annual March for Life, 15 undergraduate members of Choose Life at Yale and 11 members of the Yale Divinity School’s Right to Life Fellowship will march from the National Mall to the steps of the Supreme Court in an event that has drawn over 200,000 people in past years. Students attending the march said the annual event, which falls on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, re-energizes them to promote their pro-life views, which are not widely held on Yale’s campus. “It’s an uphill battle when you’re a smaller group and you’re unpopular on campus,” Eduardo Andino ’13, CLAY president, said. “When you have a conscience that tells you that you’re fighting for something as precious as human life, it makes it much easier to continue.” Follow Jill Stanek and support Live Action Films today and every day. *** Side note: Sen. Rand Paul tweeted this morning that he would be speaking to the March for Life rally in D.C. Today I’ll speak to the March for Life in DC. A nation cannot long endure w/o respect for the right to Life. Our Liberty depends on it . #ky But his press secretary tweeted this morning that Sen. Paul was detained by TSA in Nashville . Daily Caller reports: “Just got a call from @senrandpaul,” Bagley tweeted at about 10 a.m. on Monday. “He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.” Bagley hasn’t immediately responded to The Daily Caller’s request for comment for more details. Texas Congressman and current Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul – Sen. Rand Paul’s father – placed a post on Facebook about the news as well. “My son Rand is currently being detained by the TSA at the Nashville Airport,” Ron Paul posted. “I’ll share more details as the situation unfolds.” Sen. Rand Paul’s Facebook page has a post about the incident too. “Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA,” Sen. Rand Paul’s Facebook post reads. “We will update you as the situation develops.” Here’s the follow-up on Sen. Paul’s detention. *** Occupiers crashed a pro-life gathering this weekend. Classy as ever. *** Boehner’s address to March for Life here courtesy of LifeNews.com. Rick Santorum’s fight for life , WSJ op-ed today.
Read more from the original source:
The March for Life 2012
The Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade turned 40 years old Monday. Rick Santorum , who has made family and tradition a cornerstone of his campaign, used the occasion to contrast his voting record on abortion against President Barack Obama and each of the Republican candidates still standing. “[Obama's] record of support for abortion is radical and extreme,” Santorum wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. “He supported federal funds for abortion through ObamaCare and told Catholic Charities that there was no room in the inn if they wanted to help women abused by sex traffickers and be pro-life at the same time.” Of Ron Paul ‘s libertarian streak, he said, “what is liberty without the right to life?” Santorum accused Newt Gingrich of having “pushed social issues to the back bench.” But the sharpest barbs were saved for Mitt Romney . “Romney’s passion for life was apparently overwhelmed by Democrats when he put Planned Parenthood on the advisory board for RomneyCare and did not fight government-funded abortions while governor of Massachusetts,” Santorum wrote. “He was, it seems, too intimidated to support judges who understood the plain meaning of the Constitution on the right to life.”
Read the original post:
Santorum’s tit for tat on Roe v. Wade anniversary
