3:14 PM, Jun 29, 2015 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
Over at the blog Legal Insurrection, law professor William Jacobson reminds us of this answer Elena Kagan gave to Senator John Cornyn in her confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General in 2009:
1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.
a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
Emphasis added. Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
Hosted by Michael Graham.3:50 PM, Jun 26, 2014 • By TWS PODCAST
The WEEKLY STANDARD podcast with frequent contributor Adam White on today's Supreme Court rulings.
Nov 4, 2013, Vol. 19, No. 08 • By TERRY EASTLAND
Among the first cases heard by the Supreme Court in its new term is one from Michigan. The state stands accused of violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee by requiring equal treatment in public-university admissions decisions. Michigan has committed no such violation. Yet to judge by the oral argument in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Court, surprisingly, is closely divided. A decision against Michigan would be a setback for equal protection.
Hosted by Michael Graham.6:00 AM, Jul 7, 2013 • By TWS PODCAST
WEEKLY STANDARD executive editor Terry Eastland reviews the Supreme Court's decisions in Fisher v. University of Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
9:32 AM, Jun 28, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
President Obama stopped by the press cabin on Air Force One, as the presidential plane made its way to South Africa. While there, the press had a chance to ask the president about major issues concerning Americans: the scandals, the controversial Supreme Court decisions, immigration, and many others.
Instead, the press asked about Obama's Africa legacy (or lack thereof), China's relationship with Africa, the commitment of U.S. companies to Africa, and whether he'll visit the ailing Nelson Mandela.
Here are the questions asked by the press to the commander in chief:
A dispute among conservatives over the administrative state. Jun 17, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 38 • By TERRY EASTLAND
Last month, in City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court’s five judicial conservatives divided on a question concerning the relationship between federal courts and federal regulators. Justice Scalia wrote the decision for a majority that included Justice Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts wrote the only dissent in the case, which was joined by Justices Alito and Kennedy.
With Fisher v. University of Texas, the High Court can finally put an end to racial preferences in university admissionsOct 1, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 03 • By CARL COHEN
Abigail Fisher, a white applicant to the University of Texas, contends that the university, in giving preference to minority applicants while rejecting her, discriminated against her unlawfully because of her color. The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall; it is likely that Fisher will prevail. The Texas 10 percent law and the special circumstances of that university present complications, of course, but the makeup of the Supreme Court today differs importantly from that of the Court that decided Grutter v.
Advocates of small government shouldn’t look to the Supreme Court for help.
Jul 16, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 41 • By ROBERT F. NAGEL
As is abundantly demonstrated by the commentary on the June 28 decision upholding Obamacare, the drama of constitutional decision-making by the Supreme Court is irresistible. Such a significant issue decided, in effect, by one man! And that man, Chief Justice John Roberts—is he a lawless sellout to political pressure or a brilliant legal statesman? Is the fundamental constitutional principle of limited national powers gone forever? Or has Roberts laid down a subtle doctrinal roadmap that will eventually allow the Court to save our republic?
7:20 PM, Mar 26, 2012 • By ADAM J. WHITE
The solicitor general had an interesting morning. He argued before the Supreme Court's nine justices that Obamacare's individual mandate isn't a "tax"—even though he'll argue tomorrow that the mandate is a "tax." And then the government's top litigator invoked the possibility of incompetent government litigators as a reason to reject an argument raised by the plaintiffs
Welcome to the Supreme Court's review of Obamacare. One day down, two more to go.
The special interests you don't need protection from.3:03 PM, Jul 7, 2010 • By MARY KATHARINE HAM
To hear liberals tell it, the Citizens United decision unleashed a torrent of frightful, unregulated free political speech that will drown out the voices of regular citizens in favor of powerful and nefarious corporate forces.
I happen to be a fan of free speech. I'm not a fan of the alternative, which the government's lawyer in Citizens United admitted would allow the banning of books to "protect" the free speech of non-corporate entities.