Three Major Supreme Court Decisions

Three major Supreme Court decisions in the space of two days and all guaranteed to cause a great deal of discussion.  Two of which I agree with and one of which I do not.

The first was a with respect to the reauthorization of the Voters Rights Acts, originally passed in 1965 and continually reauthorized, this last time by an overwhelming majority in 2006 for 25 years. The Court found that article 4 was flawed and struck it down as unconstitutional based on the formula used to determine that there was a need for Federal intervention. The court acknowledged the need for legislation in 1965 but said that the basis for it in 2006 failed to take into account changed circumstances and that control over elections rests with the 10th Amendment powers reserved to the States. 

While a case can be made that Congress should have based the renewal on something other than 40 year old statistics, the more important issue was and is whether there is a continuing need for the law to protect the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  On a statewide basis the statistics point to some positive change, yet numerous local entities certainly show a continuing and incipient attempt  to circumvent the 14th Amendment and the VRA, including communities in Michigan, New York and California, so it is not just a Southern states issue. Nor one that can be stated to no long need federal intervention. The decision will simply open the door to more and  more attempts to deny the right to vote to individuals or groups.

The next day two separate but yet related decisions were issued with respect to Gay Rights, specifically the rights of gay couples to marry and be granted the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual couple.  One had to do with the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA and the other with California Proposition 8.

In the case of DOMA the federal law stated that a marriage was between a man and a woman not two men or two women.  The court found that the law violated the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and struck it down.  The law affected over 1000 federal statutes and fundamentally changed a long standing rule that the regulation of marriage (and divorce) were the province of the individual states not the federal government (under Article 10) In his dissent Justice Scalia, with Justice Thomas concurring and Chief Justice Roberts concurring in part, states: “It [the majority opinion]is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role”. Twenty-four hours earlier the same justices  (Scalia and Thomas) took virtually a diametrically opposed view with respect to the Voting Rights Act.

Proposition 8 was a California referendum that abnegated a law allowing for gays to marry. Suit was brought by two couples and the State declined to defend the case in Federal District Court. The District court allowed the originators of the Referendum to be heard as “interested parties” but found the California referendum  to be unconstitutional. The State declined to appeal. The interested parties then appealed and eventually the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court found that under Article 3 of the Constitution (and under Common Law precedent as well, though not used in the decision), the  “interested parties” had no standing to appeal, reversed the circuit court decision and remanded the case, thus leaving the District Court decision on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 in force. Some will say that the Court “ducked” the direct issue and used a technicality for its decision but in so doing it both effectively confirmed the District Court decision, as well as reconfirming long standing precedent