- Court hears oral argument in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the CAFA evasion case [transcript in PDF, Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog rounding up links, Federalist Society podcast with Brian Fitzpatrick, earlier here, here]
- Shelby County case invites SCOTUS to revisit Voting Rights Act [Ilya Shapiro, Cato; Eric Posner and Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Slate] But does Jeffrey Toobin understand the VRA? [Derek Muller, Prawfs]
- Speaking of that New Yorker writer, Toobin’s account of the Heller Second Amendment case is definitely not one for the history books [Tim Lynch, Cato]
- On gay marriage cases, jurisdiction/standing issues could leave Court fractured like Turkish taffy [Art Leonard] Best result for gays, argues Jonathan Rauch, might be narrow or mixed decision [TNR] Beyond the Court, idea of local option could offer national GOP a graceful retreat from its current untenable position [Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle quotes me arguing to that effect]
- SCOTUS asked to consider tribalism-trumps-adoption Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 [NYT]
- Despite amicus urgings from various good guys, Supreme Court declines to review Hettinga, the economic liberty case with the blazing Janice Rogers Brown/David Sentelle concurrence [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, Damon Root, Tim Sandefur/PLF, earlier here and here]
- Is the Sixth Circuit replacing the Ninth as perennial SCOTUS reversee? [Adler]
Filed under: adoption, Class Action Fairness Act, guns, Indian tribes, same-sex marriage, Sixth Circuit, Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act
4 Comments
” “Let’s come up with a solution that allows New York to go one way and Texas to go the other way,” [Olson] said.”
Except that’s what California did with Proposition 8, and now that’s in the Supreme Court.
It’s not clear to me why “under challenge in the Supreme Court” is inconsistent with the idea of “potentially stable and workable position for the Republicans to endorse.” Opponents challenged Obamacare in the Supreme Court and came within one vote of overturning it, but no one thinks that’s a reason the Democrats shouldn’t have felt free to support it in their platform.
The point being that even when states do take action on their own, that’s no guarantee that it won’t end up a Federal matter after all. If the Supreme Court thought that same-sex marriage was entirely a question for the states to resolve, then why are they hearing argument over it?
s the Sixth Circuit replacing the Ninth as perennial SCOTUS reversee?
Not possible. It may be joining the Ninth as perennial reversee. The Ninth continues to pump out ludicrous rulings at a prodigious rate.