You searched for we v. me - Page 4 of 19

Same Sex Marriage; The Battle Continues

July 13, 2015

GOP Texas Judge Will Only Marry Same-Sex Couples If They Sign a Form Saying He’d Rather Not is the headline from a short report by Caitlin Cruz for Talking Points Memo. Denton County Judge James DePiazza told a television station

It’s my personal belief that individuals who want to conduct a marriage ceremony understand my convictions. If it was me, I would prefer to have someone who was in agreement with me.

I’m suspect Judge DePiazza’s religious beliefs form the basis for his position. I’ll allow for the possibility that he just wants a defense against someone who runs to his Religious Right in the next election, claiming he’s a bad man for marrying “those people.” One way or another,

Ken Paxton, Roy Moore, same sex marriage

Law

1 Comment

It’s a Wrap at the U.S. Supreme Court

June 29, 2015

Mark Rubin

It’s a Wrap at the U.S. Supreme Court – 6/29/2015

It’s a wrap! The U.S. Supreme Court issued its last three opinions for the 2014-15 Term this morning. (Links are to SCOTUSblog pages, which have links to the Court opinions and other material.)

In Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, the lethal injection/cruel and unusual punishment case, a 5-4 majority ruled against death row inmates on a claim about the use of midazolam, a part of the three-drug protocol for lethal injections. The inmates claimed using midazolam—used because states cannot purchase other drugs,. because manufacturers will not sell them for use in the execution process—may cause them to suffer unreasonable harm when the other two drugs are administered. According to

EPA, Independent Redistricting Commission, U.S. Supreme Court

Law

Obergefell v. Hodges

June 27, 2015

Mark Rubin

In Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, the U.S. Supreme Court held that

… the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. … and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.

The Court divided 5-4 along the

Jim Obergefell, Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage, U.S. Supreme Court

Law

4 Comments

More on King v. Burwell

June 25, 2015

Mark Rubin

Well, well, well! A fine day it’s been for Americans, what with the ruling in King v. Burwell, No. 14-114. (Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371, the important housing/disparate impact case, also provided plenty to cheer about. Because its issues are more complicated, I’m sticking the King and the Affordable Care Act for now.)

At lunch today my old Wingnut friend started on a rant about Obamacare being forced through Congress with no opportunities for R input. I bit for a moment, and then a sense of calm passed over me and I uttered these words: “What the f*ck am I arguing about? Your side lost.” By the by,

King v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court

Law

1 Comment

Supreme Court Update

June 25, 2015

Mark Rubin

Two decisions today. In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, No. 13-137, the Court upheld the right to bring disparate impact claims involving housing discrimination. MRW was wrong.

And in today’s Big Dog case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, the Affordable Care Act/subsidies case, subsidies, and the ACA structure, survive, 6-3. MRW called it 6-3, although we had Justice Scalia in the majority. Roll up that net, fellas, for I’m not falling off the limb on the tree today.

Presently, MRW is 3-2 on predictions, with an asterick for the missed Scalia call.

More later

Law

2 Comments

Supreme Court Update

June 22, 2015

Mark Rubin

Here’s the Supreme Court update for Monday, June 22. Four opinions issued. First up was Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, No. 13-720, which is the Spiderman patent case. (Details from MRW are at Spiderman Goes to the Supreme Court.) We called this one 6-3 or 7-2 for Marvel, hoping for a ruling in favor of friends Steve Kimble and Bob Grabb. Unfortunately, Marvel prevailed 6-3.

The other three cases the Court decided were: City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175; Kingsley v. Hendrickson, No. 14-6368; and Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275. In Patel the Court affirmed a Ninth Circuit decision, finding that a statute which required hoteliers to provide a registry without

U.S. Supreme Court

Law

Fear and Blame, as Policy

June 19, 2015

Mark Rubin

Curating on Wednesdays—71 weeks without a miss, I’m pretty sure—gives me a chance to share with you what others have written. Alas—a word I’ve overused to many times—life happens, and this Friday post depends primarily on what others have written.

I stay away from Israel generally, as my life has all of the tsouris it needs right now. That said, in the last few days my friend Larry Gellman has shared pieces by Peter Beinart for Haaretz, J.J. Goldberg for the Forward (where a great-uncle of mine was what would be, today, the CFO, 85 years ago), and Jeremy Ben-Ami (the President of J Street), whose piece also appeared in Haaretz. When I read the three columns—all articulate, fact and

The Rest of Everything

1 Comment

U.S. Supreme Court – What’s Left?

June 15, 2015

Mark Rubin

On June 15 the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO, No. 14-103, Reyes Mata v. Lynch, No. 14-185, and Kerry v. Din, No. 13-1402. The cases dealt, respectively, with: (1) a law firm’s right to get fees from a reorganized debtor for work associated with defending a fee application (No Go); (2) a procedural issue in immigration law; and (3) a woman’s liberty interest in having her “civil servant in the Taliban regime” Afghani husband get priority immigrant status. “No go” on the last one, too, and Justice Scalia—writing for himself, the Chief Justice, and Justice Thomas—beat up on the dissent. (Justices Kennedy and Alito concurred, but did not agree with Justice

King v. Burwell, Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. Supreme Court

Law

2 Comments

The Wednesday Curator – 6/10/15

June 9, 2015

Mark Rubin

For The Atlantic Adam Chandler wrote “Jerusalem, Blank” on June 9, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry. In just 10 paragraphs Mr. Chandler captures very well the tragic nature of the interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sometimes a book review gives me a reason to read the book. In The Hillary in Our Future Michael Tomasky reviews Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by Peter Schweizer for the new issue of the New York Review of Books. I will not be reading Clinton Cash, but I very much enjoyed Mr. Tomasky’s analysis—concerning the book

Wednesday Curator

2 Comments

From the Court: Zivotofsky v. Kerry

June 8, 2015

Mark Rubin

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision today in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, No. 13-628. I mentioned this case in Welcome Back, Justices! last October. It is one of the big deal cases of the term, and it’s likely that the politics will eclipse the legal principles.

The decision was 6-3. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. The Chief Justice and Justices Alito and Scalia dissented, and Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment but dissenting in part. The opinions total 93 pages, so you’re getting a “down and dirty” for today.

Court opinions usually have a syllabus. Here, the syllabus provides a good summary of the facts and the legal issue:

Petitioner Zivotofsky was born to United States citizens living

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Law