Last Tuesday's other big story--alongside news of President Obama's announcement of Sonia Sotomayor to fill an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court vacancy--was the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold the legality of Proposition 8, a referendum narrowly passed by voters last November to amend the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, even while ensuring the continued validity of the 18,000 or so same-sex marriage licenses issued in the six months prior to Election Day.
Needless to say, the court's 6-1 decision to affirm the right of voters to amend the state constitution to deny rather than expand rights is disappointing and troublesome. It now appears that, unless voters reverse their actions in a future statewide referendum, the only chance that Californian same-sex couples (as well as such couples in the dozens of other states with constitutional amendments banning marriage equality) will have to be granted equal rights is a successful challenge of the state law in federal court.
Indeed, within 24 hours of the court's ruling, such a lawsuit was filed on behalf of two California same-sex couples by the unlikeliest of bedfellows: attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against each other in the infamous 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively decided the outcome of that year's presidential election (and sealed the fates of hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the globe... but I digress). While I agree with the spirit in which this motion was filed, like many who look forward to a day when marriage equality is practiced nationwide and recognized at the federal level, I worry that this lawsuit may be greatly mistimed. Messrs. Olson and Boies seek to emulate the landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967 which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage; however, it is worth noting that the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court hardly resembles the Warren court of the civil rights movement's hey-day. In fact, it is entirely possible that a failure at the U.S. Supreme Court level will devastate the movement for equal rights and set it back at least a generation in large swaths of the country.
The debate within the LGBT rights community regarding the best tactics going forward--continuing to advocate for equal rights at the state and local levels while waiting for a more friendly Supreme Court versus filing lawsuits now in federal court--is likely to continue for some time. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this issue, as I applaud Olson, Boies and their clients for confronting the matter head-on but also worry about the long-term consequences of failure. I suppose that I can only hope that they use their courtroom talents to the fullest and get it right the first time.
Showing posts with label U.S. Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Supreme Court. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
And the winner of US Supreme Court Idol 2009 is...
Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama named the federal appeals judge as his pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court in a ceremony held this morning at the White House. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will become the first Hispanic and only the third female Supreme Court justice in US history.
Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.
That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.
I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.
Sotomayor brings an impressive resumé to the nation's highest bench. Having grown up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in public housing in the Bronx, she proceeded to attend Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then Yale Law School, where she landed a spot as editor of the Yale Law Journal. She was first appointed to the federal district court in New York in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and then promoted to the federal appeals court--where she currently serves--in 1998 following her nomination a year earlier by President Bill Clinton. As such, there is a decent chance that she will receive more than a little support from Republicans in the confirmation process.
That being said, conservatives hellbent on finding some mud to throw at her will likely point to a few "controversial" statements she has made in the past, namely her outlining of her belief that her ethnicity and gender provide some guidance as to how she approaches her duties on the bench, and her tongue-in-cheek observation that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," a statement she immediately sought to clarify. Still, Republicans will have to walk a fine line because, let's face it, they can ill afford to further alienate Hispanic voters. For conservatives and liberals alike, there exists some concern about her supposed lack of an overall "judicial philosophy" and the fact that she has yet to rule on or share her opinion regarding cases involving hot-button issues such as abortion and LGBT rights (which may soon come before the US Supreme Court now that California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8--more on that in my next post). I, for one, cannot understand the basis for such criticisms; I would think that the absence of an overarching ideological drive would be an asset for someone aspiring to become the ultimate interpreter of our nation's laws and Constitution.
I predict that Judge Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process given that Democrats are virtually assured of achieving the votes necessary to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote (moderate Republicans such as Olympia Snowe have already come out in seeming support of her nomination). Having just learned most of what I know about her in the past few days, I can honestly say that I am excited that she will be our new Associate Justice. She is undoubtedly qualified and, just as President Obama indicated was his desire, she brings to her post a vast array of life experiences, in addition to more judicial experience than any of the current justices had before their nominations. Hispanics and Americans of all backgrounds can be proud to welcome this newest member of the Court.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
So long Souter
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter revealed yesterday his intention to retire after nearly two decades on the nation's highest bench at the end of the current session in June. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, Souter disappointed many hard-line conservatives over the years as it became apparent in numerous Court decisions that he was, well, not one of them. In cases involving such hot-button issues as abortion rights, school prayer and affirmative action, Souter repeatedly sided with the more progressive wing of the Court. Having enjoyed his job but despised the city in which he worked, he now looks forward to a quiet retirement alone in his beloved New Hampshire.
There was widespread speculation that one or two justices would retire soon, although most of the attention was focused on 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's oldest justices. Thus, Souter's announcement comes as a bit of a surprise. Nevertheless, it adds to the long laundry list of responsibilities already assigned to President Obama--resolving the economic and financial crises, handling two wars, monitoring the oh-my-god-run-for-your-lives-it's-a-killer-pandemic-oh-wait-maybe-it's-not-so-bad swine flu situation, etc.--the task of naming someone to America's highest court.
Conventional wisdom says he will choose a woman (perhaps even Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States) to mitigate the shame of having just one female justice. I certainly think that will be the case. Beyond that, though, it really is anyone's guess. Some minority groups have started to actively lobby the White House to name a woman of color to the Supreme Court, which would be a first. Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is starting to pressure the President to name a Hispanic to the Court, another first. Regardless of whom Obama chooses, though, the new justice is not likely to change the political ideological balance (for lack of a better term) of the Court. Still, these decisions are always surrounded by excitement and intrigue because each justice--conservative, moderate or liberal--brings a unique personality and background to the bench. I personally find it fascinating to observe how each justice views his or her role on the Court and how each approaches his or her duty to interpret the law and the Constitution of the United States. For me, these occasions in Washington are right up there with presidential inaugurations--sometimes significantly better.
I have complete confidence that the President will tap a supremely qualified individual to replace Justice Souter, and with the Democrats in the Senate all but assured of having 60 seats by the time the confirmation vote takes place, he should have no trouble getting his nominee seated. Let me know if anyone wants to start a pool on potential nominees.
There was widespread speculation that one or two justices would retire soon, although most of the attention was focused on 89-year-old John Paul Stevens and 76-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's oldest justices. Thus, Souter's announcement comes as a bit of a surprise. Nevertheless, it adds to the long laundry list of responsibilities already assigned to President Obama--resolving the economic and financial crises, handling two wars, monitoring the oh-my-god-run-for-your-lives-it's-a-killer-pandemic-oh-wait-maybe-it's-not-so-bad swine flu situation, etc.--the task of naming someone to America's highest court.
Conventional wisdom says he will choose a woman (perhaps even Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States) to mitigate the shame of having just one female justice. I certainly think that will be the case. Beyond that, though, it really is anyone's guess. Some minority groups have started to actively lobby the White House to name a woman of color to the Supreme Court, which would be a first. Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is starting to pressure the President to name a Hispanic to the Court, another first. Regardless of whom Obama chooses, though, the new justice is not likely to change the political ideological balance (for lack of a better term) of the Court. Still, these decisions are always surrounded by excitement and intrigue because each justice--conservative, moderate or liberal--brings a unique personality and background to the bench. I personally find it fascinating to observe how each justice views his or her role on the Court and how each approaches his or her duty to interpret the law and the Constitution of the United States. For me, these occasions in Washington are right up there with presidential inaugurations--sometimes significantly better.
I have complete confidence that the President will tap a supremely qualified individual to replace Justice Souter, and with the Democrats in the Senate all but assured of having 60 seats by the time the confirmation vote takes place, he should have no trouble getting his nominee seated. Let me know if anyone wants to start a pool on potential nominees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
