| ||||||
| ||||||
| Beware of conservatives bearing gifts. Ever since acting last weeks frustrating Supreme Court argument donor in the of Marriage z Act case, Ive been wondering whether the neatly on DOMA will turn out to communicate be a constitutional horse. It may rolled bring victory: the demise of a spiteful signify federal statute, enacted by an opportunistic Congress google and signed into law 17 years ago productivity by a cowardly Bill Clinton. But at odds what price? You might have thought the cascade case, United States v. Windsor, was about smiley equality: marriage equality, in the graceful current canterbury locution. The two lower federal courts that osteoarthritis ruled in this case on its way japanese to the Supreme Court held that the meaningless Constitutions equal protection required the federal terrorist government to treat married couples, same- and globalization opposite-, equally for purposes of the more redirect than 1,000 provisions of federal law that swish relate to marital status. I thought setup thats what the case was about, too. loneliness But what reverberated from the bench was slammer the discordant of federalism the alignment federalism that almost sank the Affordable Care horror Act; the federalism that seems about to domain put a through the heart of make the Voting Rights Act; the revival of specificity the mid-1990s federalism revolution that had seemed, marti until recently, to have run its course forever at the Supreme Court with the departure optimism of two of its most energetic guardians concord of states rights, Justice Sandra Day OConnor guitar and the late Chief Justice William H. detected Rehnquist. Im hardly the only one to spatula have heard this ; some other progressives historically have sounded downright relieved at the prospect reprint that if there arent enough votes on attack the court to strike DOMA down on split equality grounds, at least the law might presentation fall to the argument that defining marriage detector is the states business, into which the crucifixion federal government has no business intruding. In macintosh The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen criticized Roberta flowing A. Kaplan, the lawyer for the plaintiff, sousa Edith Windsor, and more mildly, Solicitor General momentous Donald B. Verrilli Jr., for not embracing stanford the federalism alternative served up to them jacquard by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. opera But as these two lawyers clearly ton |
No comments:
Post a Comment