Discussing SCOTUS Decisions on Blaze TV

I was on Blaze TV twice to discuss the final round of SCOTUS decisions.  You can see me on the Glenn Beck show, talking with Tara Setmayer, here:  http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=28526135

And I also joined the panel on Real News to discuss Affirmative Action and Voting Rights, here:  http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=28526135

The DOMA Decision: A National Rule Masquerading as Federalism

After making us wait so long for a decision, at least SCOTUS could have delivered a coherent opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act. Instead, the majority’s opinion in United States v. Windsor is an incoherent mess. Justice Kennedy, joined by the four liberal justices held that DOMA “violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.”

The bottom line is that this decision creates a national mandate in favor of same-sex marriages. The majority attempts to deny this, insisting that its decision is limited only to the application of DOMA, but the majority’s reasoning must lead inexorably to the destruction of all traditional marriage laws. 

Read more on Ricochet: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-DOMA-Travesty-A-National-Rule-Masquerading-as-Federalism

A Partial Victory on Voting Rights

In an interesting decision — typical of the Court’s recent split-the-baby approach — the  Supreme Court left the Voting Rights Act intact, but forced Congress to update it.

Section 5 of the VRA requires that certain “covered jurisdictions” have to get federal pre-clearance before making any changes to their voting laws (down to things like the locations of polling places). Section 4 of the Act contains a “coverage formula” that determines which jurisdictions are covered — basically 9 states and a handful of counties are covered and have been since the 1960s (with a slight tweak in the early 70s). 

In its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court did not strike down Section 5, but did strike down Section 4.  So Congress can still force states or counties to pre-clear election law changes, but Congress first has to rewrite the coverage formula to reflect 2013, rather than 1965.  The Court’s reasoning is based on the VRA’s invasion of state sovereignty

Read more on Ricochet.http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Breaking-SCOTUS-Partially-Strikes-Down-the-Voting-Rights-Act

My Analysis of Affirmative Action at NRO

In June 24’s Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas, affirmative
action suffered a tactical setback, but it gained a strategic victory: the Court
refused to dismantle the basic legal theory that allows state universities to
discriminate on the basis of race.  The nation’s collegiate diversity police
remain safe in their sinecures. I’ve got a piece at NRO’s The Corner explaining why.

%d bloggers like this: