Supreme Court roundup


  • ” “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.