SCOTUS REGIME OF RELIGIOUS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS | But What Will I Wear?! How Fashion Meets Voting This Month | SEVENS WAYS POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING DECISION COULD GO
June 7, 2018
SCOTUS HISTORY
|Yesterday marked the anniversary of two important Supreme Court decisions. On June 6, 1965 the high court ruled 7-2 in Griswold v. Connecticut striking down a Connecticut law used to prosecute a Planned Parenthood clinic for providing contraceptives to married couples. And on June 6, 1993, justices ruled that religious groups could sometimes meet on school property after hours.
TOP-ED
|“Those of us who were afraid that the Supreme Court would use the Masterpiece Cakeshopcase to issue a license to discriminate against gay people in the name of religion breathed a sigh of relief on Monday. The court’s insistence that the dignity and equality of gay individuals ‘must be given great weight and respect by the courts’ made clear that no such general license will be forthcoming as long as the majority opinion’s author, JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, remains on the bench.” That’s Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision this week and how it avoided the toughest issues presented in the case. She worries for the implications of the high court’s “unfounded conclusion that Colorado officials expressed such deep ‘hostility’ to religion as to have inflicted an injury of constitutional dimension on a baker.” And she argues, “My fear is that the Supreme Court has imposed a regime of constitutional political correctness on how we talk about religion.”
GO FASTER, GO SLOWER, LIKE CONTROLLA
|Robert Barnes with The Washington Post ponders in his latest how quickly the Supreme Court will choose to follow up on their Masterpiece Cakeshop decision and actually address the major outstanding questions about marriage and religious rights. He reports that justices meet privately today to review a petition from a florist in Washington state who refused to provide a floral arrangement for a longtime customer when he told her it was for his wedding to another man. Apparently, the state supreme court found unanimously that the florist violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. Sound familiar? Let’s see if SCOTUS takes the bait.
PLAYING DRESS UP
|Tuesday marked one of the most closely-watched election days before November’s midterm elections, with major primary races held across the country. Did you vote? Did you get your sticker? Did you put any thought whatsoever into the outfit you wore to the polls? No worries if you didn’t — that’s been a job for the Supreme Court this term. The justices will decide this month whether the First Amendment protects messages on clothing that people wear to polling places. Scott Bomboy with Constiution Daily reports on the “under-the-radar dispute” from Minnesota that should be resolved sometime this month.
LET ME SHOW YOU HOW IT'S DONE
|Galen Druke for FiveThirtyEight explains how SCOTUS could end partisan gerrymandering this month and “alter a fundamental part of how we structure our democracy.” Covering all the bases, Druke writes, “So, rather than guess what will happen, we’ve occupied ourselves by reporting out what could happen. I spoke to five constitutional scholars1about the court’s much-anticipated rulings, and based on those conversations, I outlined seven potential paths the court could take. The possibilities range from overhauling the way we divide ourselves into districts to clearing a legal path for extreme partisan gerrymandering to continue.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
In Masterpiece, Kennedy Solidifies His LGBT Legacy
The New York Times“The most talented and subtle politician in the country showed this week, once again, that he has L.G.B.T. Americans’ back. Justice Anthony Kennedy led a seven-member Supreme Court majority in a decision that superficially looks like a defeat for gay and lesbian people — but is, in reality, one more rung quietly added to the rising ladder of equality.”
Feeling Even More Uncertain About LGBT Rights After The Supreme Court's Wedding Cake Ruling
The Washington Post“Yes, this ruling — by not stating definitively that anti-gay discrimination is intolerable — has again stigmatized LGBTQ people as second-class citizens. It smacks doubly hard coming on the heels of the 2015 Obergefell ruling legalizing civil marriage between same-sex couples nationwide, which made us feel downright human.”
Congress Should Take A Lesson On Civility From The Supreme Court
The Hill“So what’s the secret to the Supreme Court’s civility? The justices may tell you it’s simple: Spend more time with your colleagues. In interviews, the justices have spoken fondly about the court’s commitment to group lunches, birthday parties and ‘pre-State of the Union feasts.’ And through these experiences, many of the justices have developed strong friendships.”
OTHER NEWS
Sports Betting Bill Expected To Pass New Jersey Legislature
Reuters“New Jersey’s legislature is expected to pass a bill on Thursday to regulate and tax sports betting at casinos and racetracks, which would make it one of the first states to legalize the activity following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month. Governor Phil Murphy still would have to sign the legislation before operators could start taking sports wagers.”
In The "Making A Murderer" Case, The Supreme Court Could Help Address The Problem Of False Confessions
The New Yorker“This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to review the case of Brendan Dassey, the Wisconsin man who, as a teen-ager, confessed to the 2005 rape and murder of a young photographer named Teresa Halbach. Dassey’s videotaped confession to police, portions of which were included in the 2015 Netflix documentary ‘Making a Murderer,’ bore so many hallmarks of coercion that, after the documentary aired, hundreds of thousands of viewers signed petitions calling for his pardon.”