Justice Kennedy Comes Out Swinging Against DOMA

Washington, D.C.—The Supreme Court heard oral argument today on Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing state-level same-sex marriages. Judging by what I saw in the courtroom this morning, DOMA could be in serious trouble.

“The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage,” declared Justice Anthony Kennedy, who repeatedly suggested that he saw DOMA as an unconstitutional federal intrusion on “the essence of the State police power.”

Notably, at least one member of the Court’s liberal wing appeared to share Kennedy’s worries about DOMA and federalism. “What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The remainder of the Court’s liberal bloc, meanwhile, expressed doubt as to whether Section 3 of DOMA could survive under the searching judicial scrutiny required by the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence. For Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DOMA amounted to a clear example of unequal treatment by the government. It’s “two kinds of marriage,” she said. “The full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”

Justice Elena Kagan expanded on that point, emphasizing what she saw as DOMA’s discriminatory intent. “When Congress targets a group that is not everybody’s favorite group in the world,” she told Paul Clement, the attorney and former solicitor general arguing in defense of DOMA, “we look at those cases...with some rigor” to see if “Congress’ judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus.” The Defense of Marriage Act, she continued, “sends up a pretty good red flag.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, on the other hand, appeared unwilling to rule against DOMA on either federalism or equal protection grounds. “Just to be clear,” Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, “you don’t think there is a federalism problem with what Congress has done in DOMA?” No, “we don’t,” Verrilli conceded, an answer that the chief justice may later emphasize if he drafts his own opinion in favor of upholding the law.

In addition to these major constitutional questions, the Supreme Court also waded into the thorny jurisdictional problems created by the Obama administration’s decision last year to stop defending DOMA in court while still enforcing it. In practical terms, Obama’s approach meant that Edith Windsor, the woman who brought the case, had to pay nearly $400,000 in taxes after her spouse died, money she would not have had to pay absent DOMA. So while the Obama administration now agrees with Windsor that the law is unfair, that has not stopped the federal government from taking her money.

That approach did not appear to impress any of the justices today. Obama’s enforce-but-don’t-defend stance could give you “intellectual whiplash,” quipped Justice Kennedy, while Chief Justice Roberts wondered why the president “doesn’t have the courage of his convictions...rather than saying, oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”

Unlike Tuesday’s oral arguments over California’s Proposition 8, however, where similar jurisdictional concerns may prevent the Court from ruling on the constitutional merits, that result seemed to be less likely for DOMA.

In the end, the combination of Kennedy’s federalism stance and Kagan’s equal protection analysis could prove to be more than enough to attract the five votes necessary to send Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to its grave.

Watch Damon Root and Katherine Mangu-Ward discuss today's oral arguments and what they mean for marriage equality and personal freedoms:

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Good riddance DOMA. May ye burn in the fiery hells beside John's and Sarcasmic's abundant fallacies.

  • John||

    I am actually sympathetic to the federalism arguments here. But that is because I think about these issues rather than just emote about how wonderful gay people are and how evil all of those fundies are.

    Thinking instead of emoting can be really fun. You should try it on this issue sometime.

  • ||

    Yes, you should check out my emo band, the Beta Conspiracy. All our songs are about how mean people like you are.

    "Thinking instead of emoting can be really fun. You should try it on this issue sometime."

    I agree, which is why "Spot the Fallacy" is one of my favorite games and playing it on you is so much fun. "Those cosmotarians just hate religious people and are totally cool with liberals violating their rights because liberals are cool and religious people are icky. These nice traditional folks simply want government to discriminate against special interests who want the same privileges they have already, and libertarians want to grow government and violate their rights by telling them they can't do that. How dare they?"

  • Enough About Palin||

    I'm having difficulty finding any value in this.

  • ||

    I'm having difficulty finding any value in this.

  • ||

    There's difficulty finding value all the way down.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's all a telescoping series of valueless statements that add up to nihilism.

  • ||

    Meh, not like that matters anyway.

  • Linda518||

    until I looked at the paycheck for $7906, I have faith that my neighbours mother was like realie making money part time from there new laptop.. there aunt haz done this 4 only about nineteen months and just now cleard the mortgage on their apartment and bourt a new Car. this is where I went, jump15.com

  • Ted S.||

    Yes, you should check out my emo band, the Beta Conspiracy. All our songs are about how mean people like you are.

    So you're just stealing from Taylor Swift?

  • ||

    She's my biggest inspiration lyrically. Musically it's more Dashboard Confessional.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    May ye burn in the fiery hells beside John's and Sarcasmic's abundant fallacies.

    Chubbies versus anorexics?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    “The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage,” declared Justice Anthony Kennedy, who repeatedly suggested that he saw DOMA as an unconstitutional federal intrusion on “the essence of the State police power.”

    Perhaps, but it's avoiding the real issue--whether prohibiting gay marraige as an institution is unconstitutional.

    If gay partners can claim all the legal benefits provided in a typical marraige contract in their home state through civil union laws, then the question of the legality of the word "marraige" becomes one of semantics rather than constitutionality.

    As others have pointed out here, the real danger from a libertarian perspective is that by providing gay couples with the protections afforded under the Civil Rights Act, it will open up churches and various businesses to innumerable lawsuits, thereby violating the principle of free association. A better solution is simply to treat any committed partnership as a legalized contract vis a vis civil unions, while leaving the question of "marraige" to churches where, gay or straight, you can have the Glorified Prom Night For Adults that constitutes a wedding.

  • ChrisO||

    Perhaps, but it's avoiding the real issue--whether prohibiting gay marraige as an institution is unconstitutional.

    Actually, no. In terms of constitutional jurisprudence, Kennedy's question is dead-on accurate. The Constitution's primary purpose is to set forth the limited power of federal government. As far as I know, the DOMA is the first time Congress has ever attempted to limit the states' power to regulate marriage.

    If this was a state law measure at issue, then your point about the "real issue" would be apt. And whether or not the Court punts the ball on the California Measure 8 case, they're going to have to address the equal protection issue eventually.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's a good point.

  • Adam330||

    But DOMA Section 3 (the provision at issue in this case) doesn't limit the states' power to regulate marriage. All it does is provide a federal definition for the purpose of federal law (income tax, SS, etc.) States are still free to have whatever definition they want.

  • Calidissident||

    Adam, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to define marriage. Therefore it is up to the states to do so under the 10th amendment

  • Adam330||

    Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to define mortgage interest. Therefore it is up to the states to define do so under the 10th amendment. Does that make any sense? Of course not.

    Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It also has the power "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." In order to lay and collect taxes, Congress has define the what the tax unit is, what income is, etc. There's absolutely no reason that Congress has to rely on the states' definitions to carry out its own powers.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Isn't this essentially the Robert's penaltax argument?

  • Adam330||

    no

  • ||

    Yes.

  • Adam330||

    the penaltax argument had nothing to do with any state definition of penalty or tax or any other term for that matter.

  • ||

    Of course it did, you moron. It specifically was about the feds deciding what was and wasn't a tax, under the necessary and proper clause.

  • Calidissident||

    Marriage is a legal status. Mortgage interest isn't.

    Also, I know that hardly anyone actually takes the real meaning of the clause seriously, but necessary and proper actually fucking means necessary. It is not necessary for the feds to have their own definition of marriage separate from the states. In any case, the feds are already relying on the states to determine who is married, except that they're arbitrarily excluding particular licenses.

  • ||

    Cali, Adam330 is Retarded Poster of the Day. Earlier I thought that was John, but Adam has proven me wrong.

  • John||

    Why Darius? Because he makes a reasonable argument you don't have an answer for?

    Gay marriage makes libertarians stupid. It really does. Stupid and unprincipled.

  • ||

    Yes, I'm just trying to time when I come out of the closet as a proud statist for the right moment when all my cool liberal friends are paying attention.

  • ||

    Yes, I disagree with you because I'm "unprincipled", not because I think you misunderstand the issue.

    Thanks for contending so strongly for the position, John, but Adam330 had it down with his "Congress can do anything" stance. A stance you disagreed with, by the way, claiming at the very top of the comment thread that you agree with the federalist arguments against DOMA. Thanks for showing that the "wrong people" supporting something can get you to change your mind on an issue. Thanks for playing.

  • Calidissident||

    The ironic part of John's post is that for some reason, gay marriage makes him go from fairly reasonable (usually) to Full Retard. Tony-esque projection

  • Willfiredog||

    "In order to lay and collect taxes, Congress has define the what the tax unit is, what income is, etc. There's absolutely no reason that Congress has to rely on the states' definitions to carry out its own powers."

    There's absolutely no reason for Congress to make a distinction between singles and married tax filers.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This this this... and some more of this.

    States define marriage. If the FedGov wants to make some benefit contingent on marriage, then they're just gonna have to deal with the fact that some states have different definitions of same than others, and always have.

  • Adam330||

    States define fruit too. Does that mean that if Congress regulates the interstate trade in fruit, it has to rely on the states' definitions. This argument is really too ridiculous for words.

  • ||

    IT'S MAGIC. CONGRESS CAN DO ANYTHING!

  • IceTrey||

    Yes, but the federal fruit definition falls under the supremacy clause.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What IceTrey said.

    I would say it's a "soft" Constitutional issue (i.e., one could make a reasonable case that it is a justified invokation of implied powers doctrine), but it is on essentially the same Constitutional grounds as national banking.

  • ||

    I put it to you, that gays already have the right to marry under 9A. AND states cannot deny it.

  • ||

    And a case could be made under 14A to support the same.

  • John||

    And polygamists don't? Those who want to marry their 12 year old daughters don't? Nothing in the Constitution says they can't.

  • ||

    Of course polygamy should be legal. Ain't nothing wrong with a man or woman getting as many partners as will take 'em.

  • RightNut||

    12 year olds cant give consent for something like marriage. And really their is no reason polygamist cant get married.

  • ||

    John, how long have you been posting here? What part of you can do as you please provided you don't infringe on the rights of others don't you get?

    Of course polygamy is okay. It doesn't hurt anyone. Of course those who want to marry a 12 year old isn't as she cannot consent. Her rights are violated.

    Your rights are limitless under 9A, provided they don't conflict with other's rights.

    This isn't a foreign concept to you is it? For Christ sake, you've been posting here longer than I. Either you haven't been paying attention or you are willfully ignorant of libertarian philosophy. Fuck, you are as bad as Tony sometimes.

  • grey||

    What kind of fallacious argument is it if you connect polygamy which is ethical (no harm - free association) and marrying a minor which is not ethical (Child Can't Consent - Pedophilia) in order to prove a different application (what the hell was John trying to prove)?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    After Kennedy's ridiculous interpretation of the commerce clause in other rulings he can't suddenly become an enumerated powers doctrine aficionado now. Well, he can of course, but it's pure outcome-driven shit.

  • DarrenM||

    Perhaps, but it's avoiding the real issue--whether prohibiting gay marraige as an institution is unconstitutional.

    Is recognition of marriage at all constitutional, then? Don't government sponsorted privileges or penalties related to marriage discriminate against the unmarried?

  • ||

    Absolutely. The government should not be treating married and unmarried persons any differently.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    As of yet - under the 14th Amendment and other legislation, couple are not a protected status - neither is sexual orientation.

    It may well become a protected status, but for me - expanding the 14th to cover couples and things such as sexual orientation is leading us down a road we should fear.

    Rights are for individuals. They aren't for couples.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    BTW - like John, I make this argument while simultaneously believing gays should be able to get married just as anyone else.

    But providing government benefits to a specific type of union and not another should not fall under equal protection.

  • Tony||

    then the question of the legality of the word "marraige" becomes one of semantics rather than constitutionality.

    But surely a uniform an 100% equal institution is preferable and more pro-liberty than two separate systems. Two different names are two different situations even if all the benefits are the same, which they're not on the federal level as long as this law is in place. It would be separate but equal and obviously not constitutional.

    Marriage is what the institution is called, whether in the civil or religious context. Nobody tells their children that Mommy and me are civilly unioned. And straights aren't going to pick up that habit.

    If the word matters, then you can't discriminate. If it doesn't matter, then why protect it?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'd take your argument a lot more seriously if the SWPL status-signalers were as passionate about making polygamy legal as they were gay marriage.

  • ||

    Yo, we've already had this conversation and determined that the logic was fallacious. Since not all people like the same thing for the same reasons. The polygamy slippery slope is lodged by people trying to tie gay marriage with a less popular policy so it will be defeated by those on the fence who don't want to open Pandora's box of man-dog or woman-child marriages, even though none of those other policies are currently up for debate.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    They said the same thing about Obamacare - libertarian and conservative writers and think tanks all asked this question:

    If we're paying for everyone's health care, won't we necessarily increase governmental control as your neighbor's bad behavior starts costing us.

    Liberal reply: Stupid slippery slope arguments - this will never happen.

    Roll forward a few years - Bloomberg passes soda ban and the same people who told us the slippery slop argument with respect to Obamacare was fallacious - are now proudly telling us how we need government to control these decisions because they do cost and people are too stupid to do the right thing absent the all-knowing and all-loving government.

    SO it's not a Pandora's Box to logically point out if marriage cannot be defined legislatively as one way due to innate "rights" everyone has, then polygamy is an obvious consequence.

    Again - I am not against gay marriage.

  • ||

    The difference is that socialization of costs was a direct result of Obamacare itself, while polygamy is not inherently a direct result of granting legal marital status to gays. One is cause and effect (and I agree that there is risk that the effect of a real pro-gay marriage policy would violate freedom of association, but none of the libertarians here are supporting that), while the other is applying one logical basis for why gay marriage should be legal to a different subject. But there are more than one. Not all gay marriage advocates are arguing from the libertarian stance that also logically supports polygamy and sibling marriage for consenting adults.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed that polygamy isn't necessarily inherent to gay marriage being recognized...

    However, *if* gay marriage is recognized under the idea of "equal protection" then I think polygamy is an obvious consequence.

    As if you (re: the government) cannot discriminate at all wrt marriage - then polygamists should enjoy that same "rights" as gay couples.

    As for what people are arguing - that was my point wrt Obamacare - it doesn't matter what they are arguing or not arguing.

    Everyone selling an "idea" always comfortably leaves out the strongest arguments against them (most anyway).

    So IMHO, just because SSM proponents are ignoring the polygamist portion of their argument for equal rights does not make it invalid.

    Bush ignored the argument about winning the peace after all...

    Disclaimer: With the exception of polygamists in cults which force marriages to children - I see nothing necessarily wrong with people choosing for themselves polygamy or gay or monogamous heterosexual unions.

    As a libertarian though - I think being against the "right" to marry is philosophically consistent with non-coercion principle.

    After all - expanding marriage isn't about gaining rights we all have anyway - it's about being (legally anyway) in the same class with the additional positive rights (inheritance, spousal privilege, insurance etc, etc).

  • califernian||

    The polygamy slippery slope is lodged by people trying to tie gay marriage with a less popular policy so it will be defeated by those on the fence

    I usually bring it up to point out the hypocrisy of the so called "equal rights under the law" folks who are usually soft-headed liberals who are disgusted by them redneck polygamists (and conflicted about muslims haha) or gay folks who really don't want to risk their pet project by having a consistent principle.

  • Tony||

    Why do you have to support legal recognition of polygamy (an action) if you support marriage equality for gays (a class of people)? This argument is completely ridiculous.

    Why should straights be allowed marriage if they don't all endorse polygamy?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The polygamy slippery slope is lodged by people trying to tie gay marriage with a less popular policy so it will be defeated by those on the fence who don't want to open Pandora's box of man-dog or woman-child marriages

    Nonsense. There's no "slippery slope" about bringing up polygamy in this context at all. In fact, it's just as relevant because it shows that the furor over gay marriage is founded on a crusade of convenience for the Oppressed Minority Group of the Moment rather than a principle of personal liberty. If the social status of the groups were reversed, the same principle would apply--if polygamy should be legal but not SSM, that argument is no more legitimate.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is born a polygamist.

  • Money||

    But Tony, you and your fuckbuddy can't have children, so you don';t have to worry about having the government tell him your lifetyle is okay.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "But surely a uniform an 100% equal institution is preferable and more pro-liberty than two separate systems. "

    Sure. And the best system would be one of general kinship (possibly with priorities, much as one might have in their will), without limiting it to relationships ostensibly based on fucking, because fucking is none of the government's fucking business.

    Then the government also doesn't need to adopt a term that is in common use as a status of religious significance, thus introducing unnecessary conflict and raising church/state questions.

  • califernian||

    But surely a uniform an 100% equal institution is preferable and more pro-liberty than two separate systems.

    I coudln't agree more. That's why you support polygamy, polyandry and other forms of marriage too right?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Why not take uniformity one step further - right now gays can marry in France, but it's not recognized in most other countries.

    :)

    Not saying there's anything wrong with consistency between state and international laws - just don't see how consistency is an argument for SSM.

    (not that you were claiming it was)

  • Tony||

    No. Discriminating against a type of people is not the same thing as discriminating against actions, which government does all the time for legitimate reasons.

  • califernian||

    If the word matters, then you can't discriminate. If it doesn't matter, then why protect it?

    Couldn't agree more! SO you support legalizing polygamy, incestuous marriages, etc right?

  • Tony||

    Nope.

  • grey||

    Civil Unions for committed partnerships of whatever kind is the only solution I've read that doesn't cause predictable problems. As progress, don't we also need to unwind all marriage/union tax benefits vs single choice individusals, child tax credits,Social Security advantages? While I'm comfortable with inheritance, spousal privilige, etc, additional entitlement advantages need done away for all parties.

    Many murky bad choices, since I'd also argue against the existance of those same entitlements that I'm saying there should be no civil union advantage. The Government creates a problem by making someone pay into SS instead of saving it, savings would go to the spouse, and SS benefits would not under my scenerio. Now the government stole and I'm trying to fix problem stolen property possession issue. I give up, the government's fucking pretzel of problems can not be unwound without seriously unwinding government first.

    If you grant civil unions to everyone won't it speed up the necessity to unwind entitlments altogether as the entitlment systems gets (a) more complicated and unmanagable and (b) even more economically unfeasible?

  • ||

    Chief Justice John Roberts, on the other hand, appeared unwilling to rule against DOMA on either federalism or equal protection grounds. “Just to be clear,” Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, “you don’t think there is a federalism problem with what Congress has done in DOMA?”

    Sounds at least skeptical based upon the "federalism problem" verbiage to me...

  • mgd||

    “What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    My, my. Suddenly concerned about the source of federal interest in regulating our lives? Here's the answer we always get, Justice Sotomayor: Because FUCK YOU, that's why.

  • John||

    Leave the Magic Latina alone. She hasn't been as bad as I thought she might be. Now, Kegan on the other hand, has to be squirming at how to be a party line hack without recognizing any real power beyond the feds.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Notice she did use the word "right" and not "authority" or "power." So she's still sucking the all-powerful state tit there.

  • IceTrey||

    Federal taxes are involved. The whole case is about taxes.

  • califernian||

    ^^ THIS.

    No doubt this is the only reason the powers in charge are even talking about it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If for no other reason than someone is going to have to pay an assload of taxes because of Bubba's law, DOMA needs to die.

  • John||

    I can't believe they collected the money on a bill they refuse to defend. The solicitor general is under every bit as much legal duty to defend the law as the IRS is to collect the money. Why am I not surprised which duty they chose to follow.

    It would serve them right if the Supreme Court refused to rule on the Constitutionality because Obama didn't defend the law. It is a very bad precedent to say the President can pick and choose which laws he bothers to defend in court.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It would serve them right if the Supreme Court refused to rule on the Constitutionality because Obama didn't defend the law.

    But then BO could have averted the Citizens United decision by refusing to defend McCain Feingold in court. There's no substitute for having an at least marginally honorable executive branch.

  • Tony||

    Obama took the conservative compromise by refusing to defend but still enforcing. It was a hesitation to exercise too much executive authority. Normally you'd be happy about this, but because it's Obama you fail to see straight.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    That's a tough one - I wondered the same.

    If a state passed gun control laws as strict as NYC's, through a ballot measure - the NRA brought a lawsuit - but before it came to court a change in State government brings in pro-gun legislators and a governor who has no desire to see the law stay in place.

    Even though I'm adamantly pro-2A - it seems to me the state, or in the case the feds, cannot just seek to "not defend" the law anymore.

    Or they have to allow for others to defend it on their behalf.

    Especially ballot measures supported by the majority of the population, but against what the current executive administration agrees with...

    OR SCOTUS will basically say, that even if a law is put into place with a 90% vote in favor, if one stupid court decision determines it's "unConstitutional" and the executive refuses to appeal - the people, the ones who put the law into place, seem to have little recourse.

    Except of course paying attention and voting :)

  • Adam330||

    “When Congress targets a group that is not everybody’s favorite group in the world,” she told Paul Clement, the attorney and former solicitor general arguing in defense of DOMA, “we look at those cases...with some rigor” to see if “Congress’ judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus.”

    So I take it she is questioning the constitutionality of the progressive income tax then?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you threw out the laws that weren't motivated by dislike, fear, and animus, you'd lose 3/4 of the US code and all the current AUMFs, too.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ....that were motivated by...

  • Calidissident||

    And this is bad ... why?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's not.

    I'd take a wild guess and say that the 3/4s Kagan would do away with aren't the same as the 3/4s the rest of us could do without.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Not only that - but since many people see Obamacare as increasing overall freedom - we need to define what it means to "get rid of government" from whatever sphere we're discussing.

    In a world where the NYTs actively engages in doublespeak - "getting rid of" could well mean creating an entirely new right and governmental agencies with special powers to administer :)

  • Zeb||

    Sounds good to me.

  • Tony||

    The wealthy are not at risk of harm from any hatred directed their way. They are by definition the most privileged members of society. Which is to say, they are not a suspect class.

  • ||

    So it's perfectly legitimate to discriminate against them, right asshole.

    God you are immoral.

  • Tony||

    It's practically incoherent to talk about discriminating against rich people. How are they discriminated against?

  • Money||

    "The wealthy are not at risk of harm from any hatred directed their way"

    You've never heard of thew pogroms directed against Jews, kulacks, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, the Indians in Africa, Armenians in the Ottoman empire, or whites in Africa?(though they don't really count, do they) All those examples were dpely tied to differences in group wealth. Now,name one homosexual who has been killed in this country(because that's the only gay-rights issue that matters, the treatment of gays in Iran is a non-issue) because he was a faggot, and don';t name Mathew Shepard, because I know the truth about him.

  • ||

    What's "the truth"?

    Also, Harvey Milk, ldo.

  • ||

    Wikipedia "History of violence against LGBT people in the US". I would post a link, but Reason has a retarded 50 character limit for words.

  • Tony||

    You forgot the Bourbons of France.

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    Where was all this federalism talk when the ACA went to court? Seems to me that the court bends its opinions as much as pols do, depending on the outcome (or desired outcome) of the disputed law. The ACA "provided free health care for all" which is a good, right? So it's constitutional. DOMA discriminates against gays, which is bad, so it's unconstitutional.

    Turns out both issues are beyond the scope of the federal (and state) government to regulate. But we're so far beyond that concept, it isn't even argued anymore, except by radicals on the internet. If the government were not involved in the approval of relationships, the marriage argument would disappear.

  • Adam330||

    It's beyond Congress' power to decide how to distribute Social Security benefits (assuming the SS is constitutional in the first place)? Or how to impose the income tax? Why is Congress bound by the state's definitions of marriage for the purpose of administering federal programs?

  • Calidissident||

    Adam, first off SS is unconstitutional. Secondly, because nowhere in the Constitution are the feds given the power to define marriage. Therefore they have to rely on the states' definitions.

  • Adam330||

    Congress has the power to spend. It also has the power "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." In order to spend, Congress has define who is going to get the money. There's absolutely no reason that Congress has to rely on the states' definitions to carry out its own powers.

  • ||

    It's like the Commerce Clause! It can do ANYTHING!

  • Adam330||

    No, it can't do anything. But it can write laws using terms that it defines.

  • ||

    According to you, Congress can do any damn thing it pleases if it has some conceivable connection to Federal duties. That's pretty much anything and everything.

  • Calidissident||

    I didn't realize John Roberts posted on H&R.

  • Calidissident||

    "Congress has the power to spend."

    In order to carry out its enumerated powers. Which doesn't include SS

    "Congress has define who is going to get the money. There's absolutely no reason that Congress has to rely on the states' definitions to carry out its own powers."

    How exactly do you think the feds determine who is married? They rely on who has a state marriage license. Except that in this case they're arbitrarily excluding certain licenses. The only other way to determine who is married would be to issue federal licenses, which would also be unconstitutional, as it is not an enumerated power.

  • ||

    One Commerce Clause to rule them all.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Seems to me that the court bends its opinions as much as pols do, depending on the outcome (or desired outcome) of the disputed law"

    That's because they swing both ways.

  • John||

    That is exactly what they do. And everyone on here thinks it is great, provided they get their pony. Somehow I don't think that philosophy is going to end well.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Exactly. Outcome-driven judiciaries are *horrible* as a systematic way to preserve liberty. There is no country which endorses outcome-driven or politically-motivated judiciaries which approximates a free system or society.

    A society without rule of law sucks. Libertarians would be the first to complain about it were they to experience "emergent justice" firsthand in a third-world country.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Ditto.

    & As the founding fathers asked: do we want to live by the rule of law, or the rules of men?

    Today of course rules of men is considered the same as rule of law :) but for those patient enough to see the difference, it's obvious without consistent rule of law, we have nothing.

  • Tony||

    The ACA "provided free health care for all"

    No, it required that people obtain health insurance. Some of that insurance, private or social, is purchased by tax moneys.

    The controversial part of the ACA was the individual mandate, which, though it should be fine under the commerce clause, is now constitutional because it's considered tantamount to a tax, a clear congressional power.

    DOMA discriminates against gays, which is bad, so it's unconstitutional.

    It's both bad and unconstitutional. There is no constitutional right of the government to discriminate against suspect minority classes for no good reason. Discrimination is the positive congressional act that violates freedom. Why do you have a problem with that?

  • Money||

    You seem to think the government can do whatever it wants in terms of giving outn free shit, powers never given in the consitution, but cannot discriminate? I get that you're gay and tolerance and all that, but don't try to wrap that crap in the constitution.

  • ||

    Can you point me to tw line in the Constitution that refers to "suspect classes" because I can't seem to find that in my copy.

  • Tony||

    Suspect classification is an aspect of jurisprudence and affects the level of scrutiny a court applied.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Given the SCOTUS' ridiculously expansive commerce clause jurisprudence, how the hell can they claim that marriage is outside the enumerated powers of the federal govt to regulate?

    It's going to be a laugher to see the 4 "commerce clause regulates inactivity" liberal justices suddenly turn around and find something the feds can't regulate.

  • Tony||

    There is very strong legal tradition of states handling marriage in the context of their police power. I'm not aware of many federal powers the liberal justices endorse that are whatsoever out of mainstream acceptance.

    But you seem more concerned with playing poke the liberal hypocrite than with being happy that they're siding with state's rights and against a mean-spirited anti-freedom law.

  • Money||

    The is a very strong legal traditiona of the fedgov considering marriage in all the free shit it doles oput, and I know how you feel about that free shit. Unlike many libertarians I don't consider laws defining marriage the way it always has for ever as "anti-freedom." And I really don't care that it's "mean spiritied." Cry me a fucking river tony.

  • Calidissident||

    "Unlike many libertarians I don't consider laws defining marriage the way it always has for ever as 'anti-freedom.'"

    That's because your obviously not a libertarian if you think it's ok to use government force to define a word relating to a private agreement. And I call major bullshit on the idea that marriage has "always been defined" as between one man and one woman. Blatantly false.

  • Money||

    Marriage is not a private agreement. It is a government insitution. I guess it is anti-freedom to have that institution, but prop 8 itself is not. In Anglo-Saxon civilization marriage always has, since recorded history, been between one man and one woman.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Tradition is such a shitty excuse.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Tradition is such a shitty excuse.

    Yup. Hell isn't that why the Brits still support the richest welfare recipients in the world, i.e. the royal family?

    In Anglo-Saxon civilization marriage always has, since recorded history, been between one man and one woman.

    Fuckin' anglo-saxons got nothin' against buggery in their ships or private schools.

  • Calidissident||

    "Marriage is not a private agreement. It is a government insitution."

    It's both at the moment. It can be a private agreement without being a government institution. You said that the government making the laws was not "anti-freedom" which is what I was responding to. And as Cavpitalist said, tradition is a shitty argument, regardless of how you feel about this topic or any other topic it may be used in.

  • ||

    Except for several Roman emperors and stuff..."it's always been this way" is a fallacy, by the way.

  • AlmightyJB||

    But was Kennedy swinging both ways?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "“What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor."

    She's got to be joking. When has she ever questioned the government's right to be "concerned" about something before?

  • Marla Singer||

    Yes, not to mention that if the federal government has no right to be concerned about the definition of marriage, then it has no right to propagate regulations that depend on that definition.

    Unfortunately, libertarians on the whole are just as unprincipled on this matter as she is.

  • Calidissident||

    "Yes, not to mention that if the federal government has no right to be concerned about the definition of marriage, then it has no right to propagate regulations that depend on that definition."

    I think you'd find that libertarians think a great deal of the federal regulations on the matter ARE unconstitutional

  • widget||

    "...while Chief Justice Roberts wondered why the president “doesn’t have the courage of his convictions...rather than saying, oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”"

    But Obama does have the courage of his convictions on a lot of other subjects along with a disregard for the rule of law. What is Roberts' complaint here?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    “When Congress targets a group that is not everybody’s favorite group in the world,” she told Paul Clement, the attorney and former solicitor general arguing in defense of DOMA, “we look at those cases...with some rigor” to see if “Congress’ judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus.”

    Clearly, Kagan wasn't talking about gays here -- who have appeared in popular culture and the news in a much more flattering light than perhaps any other group not associated with government, and which is increasingly integrating into US society as part of the upper class. So I take it that instead the "animus" she is referring to is wrt the 2nd Am rights of gun owners, or perhaps the private property rights of investors and those who are currently considered "wealthy" or "wasteful".

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Heh heh...good one. Kagan will get right on that.

  • Money||

    Where is the consitutional prohibition against "targeting a specific group that isn't everybody's favorite in the world?"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    [angelic music]

    Footnote 4 of Carolene Products in 1938.

    [end angelic music]

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Kagan's perfectly happy to show you where that prohibition came from, but she'll have to take off her pants first.

    Hope you're OK with that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The word "no" is simply not adequate to convey my views on that issue.

  • Tony||

    Neither gun owners nor the wealthy have a history of suffering harmful discrimination in this country. Being wealthy is by definition to be in the most privileged class in society. You don't understand this principle very well, and what's sad is that all of libertarianism seems to hang on this ridiculous, mind-boggling Marie Antoinette-esque parody of the rich being a downtrodden class.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't think in terms of class or group. Subsequently, I have never (and will never) said that the rich or anyone else is part of a "downtrodden class".

    I think in terms of rights, and the 2nd Am rights of gun owners is a far more pertinent Constitutional question than the "right" to obtain a specific piece of paper from your state government.

  • Tony||

    It's not about the right to marry, which already exists, it's about not discriminating for no good reason in allowing access to that right.

    Gun owners have extremely liberal rights, emphasis on extremely. There is a perfectly legitimate public safety conflict with the right to own firearms, so a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line tends to forever leap in the direction the NRA wants it to.

  • Money||

    "It's not about the right to marry, which already exists"

    Citation needed. You marring your fellow sodomite is not the same as interracial marriage.

  • Calidissident||

    "You marring your fellow sodomite is not the same as interracial marriage."

    They are not the same thing, but they're are plenty of people that believe both are immoral and/or contrary to their religion

  • Money||

    They are not the same thing, but they're are plenty of people that believe both are immoral and/or contrary to their religion

    Whether interracial marriage is okay or not is a seperate issue, but there is a clear consitutional legal principle against discriminating on the basis of race. There is no consitutional principle that forbids the government from recognizing the normal way humans reproduce as the normal way humans reproduce, and establishing a system that pertains to it.

  • Calidissident||

    I would agree that it's not unconstitutional for a state to not recognize gay marriage, though I think they should as long as they're granting marriage licenses.

  • ||

    Gay marriage is discrimination based upon the sex of the parties involved. How is that any less wrong or protected than interracial marriage?

  • Calidissident||

    I think it's wrong. I don't think it's as protected because the 14th amendment clearly was intended to ensure racial equality, not sexual orientation, as much as I may agree with the notion that the government shouldn't discriminate on that basis. I think the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, not judicial fiat, and unfortunately, I have to be consistent even in cases where violating the Constitution would have a favorable result for me

  • Tony||

    It doesn't matter what the text allegedly was intended to mean, it actually matters what the text is.

  • ||

    This is going to stretch belief, but technically SSM is more discrimination on sex than on sexual orientation. Two straight dudes could have their reasons for a marriage even if it's never consummated, and there would be nothing wrong with it imo. Now, obviously state sex discrimination is still around with selective service laws but that doesn't mean it's legitimate and not covered by the equal protections clause.

    Also "intention" has little to do with application. The Founding Fathers never intended the First Amendment to cover the Internet. Our understanding of sexual orientation has come far since that time, to the point where science agrees there is a biological basis (if not exclusively) for homosexuality, and biological discrimination violates equal protections.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Gun owners have extremely liberal rights, emphasis on extremely.

    Is that so? Is there another right enshrined in the Bill of Rights which requires a background check to enjoy, or that fundamentally changes from state to state and county to county, or is effectively neutered everywhere in public?

    There is a perfectly legitimate public safety conflict with the right to own firearms

    Show evidence, or shut the fuck up. Public safety is not influenced by legal firearm ownership, and no data exists that says other wise. So, no, you saying it does not make it true, and does not make you the authority on how I can enjoy my fundamental rights, you morality-legislating hypocrite.

    so a line has to be drawn somewhere,

    It has been. "shall not be infringed".

    and that line tends to forever leap in the direction the NRA wants it to

    And violent crime continues to go down, and none of the predicted mayhem from the same people still predicting mayhem came to pass. Not an NRA fan, but I'm sure they appreciate your accidental endorsement.

    You just shit stupid all over the screen.

  • Willfiredog||

    There is a more legitimate public safety concern with vehicle ownership than gun ownership, yet we have no issue handing a 2800 lb wrecking ball to hormonal 16 year olds.

  • Money||

    "suffering harmful discrimination"

    Poor babies....

  • Tony||

    "I have to pay taxes"

    Free me and my oppressed brethren!

  • Money||

    "He got a twenty dollar tax break that I didn't"

    We're suffering from so much discrimination, I'm going to go kill myself now!

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Look loserdopians, the government is clearly allowed to do whatever it wants now that Dear Leader is in charge, unless it's something to do with my butthole. Because, as every sane American knows, my butthole is sacred ground. It's the only place where the constitution is valid. God told me so. Taxes, mandate, the children, Somalia, etc..."

  • Money||

    "They think me buttfucking Johnny isn't normal"

    Call the supreme court!

  • ant1sthenes||

    I don't know, I think openly exercising your right to bear arms in New York City circa 2013 might get you in at least as much hot water as exercising your right to drink from a white fountain in Alabama circa 1950.

  • DarrenM||

    This is funny. Since when do liberals care about Federalism?

  • DarrenM||

    Chief Justice Roberts wondered why the president “doesn’t have the courage of his convictions...rather than saying, oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”

    I thought this was SOP.

  • Money||

    "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is"

    That's rich.What gives the federal government the power to create a social security insurance scheme? And how will that play out, considering that and a bilion federal programs are dependedt on marriage? These liberals sure are hypocrits.

  • Money||

    I nieither support nor oppose government sponsered homosexual marriage. Homosexuals should have the same right to governmnet benefits as everyone else, considering they in theory pay the same amount of taxes. However homosexual marriage is about more things than government benefits. Important amoung the "benefits" of marriage is also preferential treatment by private entities. Insurance companies and health care providers are amoung the private entities which would be forced, under the current legal syustem and political climate, to treat homosexuals who are married the same way they treat other married Americans. For this reason I don't see homosexual marriage as a liberty-expanding thing, and I would not vote for it if it came up in my state. Many libertarians seem to ignore this, and this worries me.

  • Calidissident||

    "Insurance companies and health care providers are amoung the private entities which would be forced, under the current legal syustem and political climate, to treat homosexuals who are married the same way they treat other married Americans"

    The problem is with laws that require insurance companies and private entities to treat married people of any orientation in any particular way, not allowing gay people to get married.

  • Money||

    Those laws are a problem as well, but are not the problem I was refering to. If an employer volentarily has a policy of giving insurance coverage to spouses of its employees, the law as it exists now will force that employer to give the same benefit to homosexual employees.

  • Calidissident||

    The law as it is now also requires that employer to give the same benefits to interracial couples, interfaith couples, couples where at least one spouse has remarried, and any other marriage he/she may disapprove of. Again, the issue is with the laws requiring recognition of marriage by businesses and forbidding private discrimination, not gays getting married.

  • Money||

    The problem is with gays getting married, because gays getting married is the thing that does this. This would not happen if there is no gay marriage, it will happen if there is. It's as simple as that, you can't get around that fact. You talk just like a liberal, as if "getting married" is some negative right, just like having sex or buying orange juice. Marriage as it exists today is a positive right, based on getting equal shit from both government and private buisness. Why should I support gays getting married if the purpose is to force private buisnesses to give them benefits? Private buisnesses can already votentarily give them benefits, a few already have. This is NOT a liberty-expanding law.

  • Calidissident||

    "The problem is with gays getting married, because gays getting married is the thing that does this."

    Why do you act like the only effect marriage has is on employment benefits? As I said, gays would simply be added to the list of all the straight marriages businesses are forced to accept if they want to offer benefits to their employees.

    "You talk just like a liberal, as if "getting married" is some negative right, just like having sex or buying orange juice. Marriage as it exists today is a positive right, based on getting equal shit from both government and private buisness."

    Certain aspects of marriage as it exists involve negative rights and others involve positive rights. In either case, although I disagree with the "positive rights" parts of marriage law, that doesn't mean I think the government should be allowed to discriminate against gay couples regarding marriage anymore than I think they should be able to discriminate against interracial couples or restrict, say, Social Security benefits to only people of a particular race.

  • Money||

    gays would simply be added to the list of all the straight marriages businesses are forced to accept if they want to offer benefits to their employees.
    Why is that a good thing? Why should I vote for it if it is going to do that? Why is the equal free shit for gays enough to offset this offense against liberty?

    Certain aspects of marriage as it exists involve negative rights and others involve positive rights
    I can't think of a single benefit of marriage that is a negative right.

  • Calidissident||

    "Why is that a good thing? Why should I vote for it if it is going to do that? Why is the equal free shit for gays enough to offset this offense against liberty?"

    The point is even if you consider this a necessary consequence of gay marriage, it doesn't represent some radical change that some people suggest it does. Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of any fair legal system, and liberty requires it. Your line of reasoning could justify discriminating on almost any basis as long as it possibly reduces taxes, spending, or regulation. Would you support a law that required only white people (or black, or Latinos, or whatever one group you want to choose) to pay taxes?

    "I can't think of a single benefit of marriage that is a negative right."

    The parts regarding children, inheritance, medical decisions, reduced taxes (in some instances), immigration, etc. Some of that can be handled by private contract, but in the current legal environment, that isn't necessarily given the same respect a license is.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Why is the equal free shit for gays enough to offset this offense against liberty?

    If we're offering free shit from funds taken from the population through forced confiscation, we have to offer it to the gays, too. That's the rules of a society pretending to be free - regardless of what you think private individuals should be able to do, the government should not be able to take someone's money with force, and then deny them participation in the system they fund.

    If you have a problem with the way government manipulates fiscal policy to create desired societal results, I'm with you. If you have a problem with the Federal government telling states which licenses from other states they can discriminate on, I'm with you. If you think that gay marriage being a thing is in any way part of the problem, I ask you what's to stop all of the gays from forming 4-person clusters of two gay dudes and two gay chicks with companies with similar health insurance policies, and getting hetero marriage licenses? Same effect, same rules, same terms, same deviant sexual lifestyles, but without any of that stupid "love and commitment" shit. That took me 30 seconds to think of, and I'm straight and high.

    Somehow, if the push was to eliminate "marriages of those not registered R or D", I would imagine we'd be less interested in the immediate-result practicality of preserving liberty.

  • IceTrey||

    This whole thing is really about licensing. Do the Feds have to accept a state issued license for purposes of federal law? I don't think they do. In fact I'm pretty sure the States don't have to accept each others licenses. As I understand it marriage and drivers licenses are accepted only as a courtesy. If I have a law license in New York I can't go practice law in Texas. I can't run a business in Florida with a Georgia business license. What if Utah started licensing polygamy? As long as they apply it the the STATES equally then it's Constitutional.

  • Calidissident||

    The feds can't determine who is married without relying on state licenses. The only other way to do it would be to issue a federal license, which isn't Constitutional

    "In fact I'm pretty sure the States don't have to accept each others licenses."

    That has nothing to do with the federal government.

  • IceTrey||

    Sure they can. The Feds can define marriage any way they want, just like the States can. The part about the States accepting each others licenses was to show that if they don't have to do it why do the Feds.

  • Calidissident||

    "The Feds can define marriage any way they want, just like the States can."

    No they can't. States have more powers than the feds do.

    "The part about the States accepting each others licenses was to show that if they don't have to do it why do the Feds."

    One could argue they do under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Regardless, as I said above, states have powers the feds don't. The feds have only the powers granted to them by the Constitution. The states have the legal power to do pretty much whatever the want, except for that which is prohibited by the Constitution.

  • IceTrey||

    WTF are you talking about? The Feds define EVERYTHING as it relates to federal law. They define who's qualified for benefits so much, the sign up sheet for Obamacare is 60 pages long! As for the Full Faith, as I said, you can't run a business in one state with a license from another. Explain that.

  • Calidissident||

    "WTF are you talking about? The Feds define EVERYTHING as it relates to federal law. They define who's qualified for benefits so much, the sign up sheet for Obamacare is 60 pages long!"

    Why do you keep using examples of unconstitutional actions by the feds (such as Obamacare) to justify your argument?

    When it comes to marriage, the only feasible way for the feds to determine who is married is to rely on state licenses. The only alternative would be to give out federal licenses which would be unconstitutional as it's not an enumerated power.

    "As for the Full Faith, as I said, you can't run a business in one state with a license from another. Explain that."

    Note the use of the words "one could argue." Also, without saying that states not recognizing business licenses from other states is unconstitutional, simply giving examples of things the court currently considers constitutional isn't a good argument. There are tons of unconstitutional things that are given a pass by the SCOTUS.

    In any case, as I said, the feds are limited to enumerated powers, while the states have the power to do that which is not forbidden by the Constitution. So saying the states have a certain power does not imply that the feds have the same power.

  • IceTrey||

    Do you watch the news? Obamacare is completely Constitutional. The SCOTUS said so, so you are just wrong.

  • Money||

    That interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would go against most legal principle going back to the days of the founders. As IceTrey mentioned, one cannot open a buisness in one state with a license from another. Do the feds have the right to define marriage for their purposes? No, but niether do they have the right to give away all the free shit that is dependent on the definiton of marriage. Recognizing one but not the other would create a lot of problems.

  • Calidissident||

    "That interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would go against most legal principle going back to the days of the founders."

    May very well be true. In any case, it's irrelevant. States and the feds have different powers so saying "States don't have to do X!" doesn't mean shit when it comes to the federal government.

    "Do the feds have the right to define marriage for their purposes? No, but niether do they have the right to give away all the free shit that is dependent on the definiton of marriage. Recognizing one but not the other would create a lot of problems."

    How?

  • ||

    In fact I'm pretty sure the States don't have to accept each others licenses.

    Full Faith and Credit clause suggests otherwise.

  • IceTrey||

    Then why aren't law or business licenses portable? I can't run a whorehouse in Texas with a license from Nevada.

  • Marla Singer||

    There are exceptions. Some states do not recognize first-cousin marriages, even if those marriages were legal in the state where they were performed, e.g. To my knowledge, these restrictions have not been overturned on constitutional grounds.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If the Supreme Court simply says - "Because of federalism, DOMA is unconstitutional as an infringement of state authority and Prop. 8 is constitutional because we won't interfere with state authority," then there will be howls of outrage from the usual quarters. So I suspect they'll strike down DOMA with much rhetoric about federalism and equal protection, dismiss the Prop 8 case on standing grounds, and wait for state legislatures and lower courts to take the hot potato out of their hands.

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Besides, don't liberals in the courts like to take that Holmesian view of democracy? You know, where democratically elected bodies get to make as many dumb laws as they want and the courts should step aside?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There has traditionally been a slapfight in liberal jurisprudence between the Frankfurter types, who would grant broad deference to elected bodies (especially Congress) across the board, and the Brennan types, who would defer on "economic" issues (arbitrary infringement of property rights is OK!) but super-strict in the scrutiny of "civil rights" issues (like birth control, abortion, porn, you know, that sort of thing).

    On the right, there tends to be a slapfight between Bork types (let's defer the hell out of the constitution!) and genuine righty activists, with people like Scalia, if you can believe it, actually in the middle, with their originalist philosophy.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    On the left, the Brennan type of philosophy tends to win out over the Frankfurterian, which is increasingly dismissed as conservative.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Kind of weird that the right loves Bork so much, considering that the conservative view has generally been very supportive of a strong Constitutionally limited judgement (well, except for the truck-sized hole that is "national security").

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, there's lots of flavors of conservatism. Bork's problem isn't his originalism per se so much as the way he reads statism into the Constitution where an equally-originalist version would allow for more freedom.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Bork gives wide deference to all sorts of FedGov actions that aren't really within the realm of that level of government. Pornography bans, for example, are nowhere near the purview of the US government -- Bork is right in saying that the 1st Am didn't historically cover state-level obscenity/morality laws, but that's a long shot from saying that the FedGov can unilaterally impose its own pornography laws onto the states (which is ultimately what federal legislation is all about).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, he tended to support federal authority, and, specifically, Presidential authority (at least he did when the President was Republican; I presume he would have been consistent enough to defend Obama's drone-striking against the likes of Rand Paul).

  • Mickey Rat||

    The right loves Bork more for how Teddy Kennedy abused him to protect abortion than for the whole of his judicial philosophy.

  • Money||

    Liberal judicidal philosophy is an oxymnoron.

  • SumpTump||

    Comeon dude lets roll with it.

    www.GoneAnon.tk

  • herbertkperry||

    I am a member myself so I can assure you it is not a scam. By the way, they have a 4year anniversy special for Sep 2012 where the first month fee is about $22 plus a few cents. http://2tu.us/6mll

  • coradaved||

    as Raymond implied I am inspired that a student able to make $8012 in 1 month on the computer. have you read this site
    HTTP://JUMP30.COM

  • jeffcng||

    Violet. if you, thought Rachel`s rep0rt is nice, yesterday I bought themselves a Lotus Elan since getting a check for $6499 this-last/month and in excess of ten k lass month. with-out any doubt it's the nicest-job Ive ever had. I started this six months/ago and almost straight away started to earn over $79 per/hr. I follow the details here,, http://www.fly38.com

  • jili5||

    I think everyone should be married to everyone else in a giant national polygamist marriage that way we can effectively end the estate tax :)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement