June is the anniversary of the ruling that overturned the federal marriage ban and the ruling that ended the criminalization of homosexuality. All of these cases were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Although they have endorsed the outcome in Obergefell, Ian Millhiser and Andrew Koppelman have disparaged so-called "substantive due process" -- the notion that the Due Process clause protects individual rights, including those not expressly listed in the Constitution's text, from being violated by the government.
When the chips are down and the going gets rough, and people are claiming that we need to protect ourselves from a dangerous wave of tolerance, and openness, and acceptance, I think I'm going with Jesus.
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions' Climate and Energy Program Director Jonas Monast notes that the immediate impact of the Supreme Court's decision will likely be limited because electric utilities have already taken steps to comply with the regulation.
Catholic Vote has created a video, "Not Alone," in opposition to last week's Supreme Court ruling granting same-sex couples the right to marry. On their website, they tell us that the video is about "6 courageous young people" who want to "tell the world" that they are not afraid to express their views against same-sex marriage. This video is offensive. Here's why.
How many walk down the aisle with doubt and dread that this isn't the right person, right time, or the right reason to get married? It isn't a black or white decision as Justice Kennedy makes it out to be, that marrieds are good and singles are bad.
What July will bring is anyone's guess, in other words. Obama wound up down for the month when the monthly averages were calculated, but they could very easily go right back up again in July.
At a volatile time in American democracy, where candidates by the dozens curry the favor of billionaires and citizens openly question the validity of elections, the Supreme Court this week upheld an important tool in revitalizing our democracy.
I breathed a huge sigh of relief as the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to undermine the housing law that was passed in Dr. King's memory. Yet it was hard to forget that last week also marked two years since the Court eviscerated the voting rights protections that activists like Dr. King and my father had given so much of their lives to achieve.
Sometimes, social changes require a little nudge from the law. But when it comes to marriage for same-sex couples, Americans have managed to open their hearts to equality without any help from the Supreme Court.
In just 20 years, I've seen my sexuality change in public opinion from leper to fashionable. For me, it's always just been who I was. To those of you have been there all along, and also to those who have caught up, evolved, and had the courage to stand up even today - I thank you.
Despite all of the talk about how Roberts saved Obamacare, he actually helped kill a part of it, concluding that the law's expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's Spending Clause. Although the Court allowed the expansion to go forward so long as states would not lose existing Medicaid funds if they chose not to expand Medicaid
Legalizing same-sex marriage is a huge victory, but it is not the finish line of justice. Inequality takes many forms, and people are still waiting on their ability to live freely, safely, or, just to live.
With this landmark decision from the United States Supreme Court, there is no longer anything called "same-sex marriage" or even "same-sex divorce." In its place, is now something we can all inclusively refer to as a marriage or divorce. This is the way it should have been all along.
Robert in Wisconsin called and talked about how he went to work to find his sisters waiting for him. They then told him a story about their deceased father that had listeners -- and all of us in the studio -- tearing up and realizing how much this decision meant to so many people, far beyond the rights and benefits of marriage. Listen in.
Whatever Glossip's formal holding, the body language of the Justices suggests that the death penalty is in a precarious position.