DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341, is one of six cases, consolidated on appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing same sex marriage. In a 2-1 decision on November 6, the 6th Circuit became the first circuit court which refused to permit same sex marriage in the aftermath of Windsor v. United States.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a well-known conservative judge from Ohio. The case is about process, Judge Sutton tells us. His second sentence reads:  “From the vantage point of 2014, it would now seem, the question is not whether American law will allow gay couples to marry; it is when and how that will happen.”

Judge Sutton

I was writing about the 6th Circuit decision in DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341. In a 2-1 ruling the Court reversed trial court rulings which gave same-sex couples the right to marry. The majority opinion is long, interesting and engaging and, in the opinion of the dissenting judge (and me), it totally misses the point. Nevertheless, the decision creates a split in the circuits, making it highly likely that the Court will take up same-sex marriage. (I will write about DeBoer soon.)

Alas, on Friday the Court granted certiorari in King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, so I it comes first. In King, “victims” of the Affordable Care Act challenged the federal government’s authority to provide

On Sunday from noon until 4 p.m. I’ll be at the Tucson Jewish Community Center for the Family Wellness Expo @ the J. Details are here. Along with an associate I’ll be staffing the Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C. booth, providing information about basic estate planning for families. (Yes, wellness includes taking care of minor issues like “what happens when I’m gone.” And no, estate planning isn’t just for rich people!)

Kudos to the J for hosting/putting this fine event together. Stop by, say hello, learn a bit about basic estate planning issues, and take advantage of our special offer. (I believe the event, in its first year, has 50+ booths.)

Finally, look for my Take on Tuesday, most

Tuesday is Supreme Court day here at Mark Rubin Writes. Alas, on the first Tuesday in November in even numbered years, we also have federal elections, which brings to mind a natural nexus between the Court and elections. What‘s the nexus, you ask. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205.

Many have heard much about Citizens United. The big play is “corporations are people, my friend,” the statement from Governor Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign. Here’s a bit of reality about what Citizens United did and did not do, and why it has helped in furthering the destruction of our politics.

Citizens United began as a case about whether the Federal Elections Commission has the constitutional

Not too much going on at the Supreme Court, as the justices get ready for oral arguments beginning on November 3. Before you read on, though, do take a look at Jeffrey Toobin’s October 27 article for the New Yorker, The Obama Brief. It’s a fine review of what is not evident in the day-to-day hubbub:  If not another federal judge gets confirmed—and this could happen if the Senate turns—President Obama has left his mark on the federal judiciary for many, many years.

I ran across Novels Every Supreme Court Justice Should Read by Garrett Epps for The Atlantic on December 17, 2013. Not a single modern novel or best seller appears. Recommenders are Robert Ferguson, a law

Monday afternoon, I attended a lecture at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe spoke for two hours, with a final one-hour panel—I had to dash—led by MRW reader Gary Stuart. For lay readers, it takes someone special for me to give up an afternoon, drive to Tempe, walking onto the ASU campus, etc., and this one was an easy call! (Three hours of continuing education credits—the early departure left me with two—factored into my decision to attend.)

The lecture grew out of Professor Tribe’s new book, Uncertain Justice:  The Roberts Court and the Constitution. Professor Tribe focused on four segments, or quartets, given each about 30 minutes.

Here’s Lyle Denniston for SCOTUSblog, reporting on Wisconsin Voter ID Law Blocked. Say “Former Governor Scott Walker,” and if you live in Wisconsin, vote! (Note that I want everyone to vote. When  history discusses “present time” one of the great shames will be efforts to limit voting!)

Judges and elections. It’s that time in the cycle—it’s a 24-month cycle—when ballots appear and people call/email/instant message me about the judges. “Who do I vote for” is the common question.

Arizona has a modified merit selection plan. Merit selection applies to our Supreme Court, Court of Appeals (Divisions 1 and 2), and to Superior Court (trial court) judges in counties with more than 250,000 people. (Right now, there are three:  Maricopa; Pima; and Pinal.)

In non-merit selection counties, trial judges get elected. They raise money, they holler about being tougher on crime than their opponent, and absent a scandal or one candidate being a real jerk, they’re popularity contests.

In merit selection counties and for the appellate courts,