Blog

The lecture notes are here. The live chat is here.

Individual Liberty III

• Romer v. Evans (1432-1441).
• Lawrence v. Texas (1557-1571).
• Notes (1571-1572).
• Substantive due process review (1572).
• United States v. Windsor
• Same-Sex Marriage Cases

 

Lawrence v. Texas

Here are photographs of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, the Houston residents prosecuted under Texas’s sodomy statute.

United States v. Windsor

This is Edie Windsor, the face of U.S. v. Windsor.

On the steps of the Supreme Court.

 

 

In 2012, 538 forecasted support of same-sex marriage over the next eight years. This did not turn out to be accurate.

Please listen to this exchange between Justice Kagan and Paul Clement in United States v. Windsor.

Following up on his previous comments (here and here), the President weighed in once again on King v. Burwell.

President Obama said Monday expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold a key portion of his healthcare law this summer.

“I’m confident in the Supreme Court applying its own rules of interpreting laws [and] will uphold the law,” Obama said in an interview with Portland, Maine, NBC affiliate WCSH. “It’s pretty clear cut.”

On Monday at noon I will be speaking at Stetson Law School on the constitutional challenge to Obamacare, as well as Hobby Lobby and King v. Burwell. Fittingly, I will be speaking the state where the challenge was born–not too far from Pensacola, where the initial complaint was filed by Florida and other states. If you are in the Tampa area, please stop by!

Judge Posner’s opinion in Aircraft Check Services Company v. Verizon Wireless has no citations to caselaw in its analysis section. None. Not one. The only citations are to the underly proceedings. After a lengthy blockquote from a previous case that ends on page 5, there is not a single citation to any other case. Forget about any citations to the record. In case you were curious, the case was argued on Feb. 10 and decided on April 9.

Posner being Posner.

The Hill reports on an interview President Obama gave on CNN concerning King v. Burwell.

First, he commented on the challenge to the IRS Rule:

“I think this is sort of the last gasp of folks who’ve been fighting against this for ideological reasons,” Obama said in an interview with CNN.

Second, he stuck to the party line that there is no Plan B if the Court invalidates the IRS Rule

“The truth is, is that there aren’t that many options available if, in fact, they don’t have tax credits,” Obama said. “They can’t afford to get the health insurance that’s being provided out there.”

The Supreme Court case, which will likely be decided in June, rests on the language in ObamaCare related to insurance subsidies, which the president defended as “pretty straightforward.”

Third, he offered a prediction of how the Court will rule:

“I don’t think the Supreme Court is going to adopt the arguments of those who are arguing that, somehow, tax credits given to people who live in Texas don’t apply where somebody who lives in Massachusetts does get the tax credits,” Obama said, repeating his previous explanation of the origin of the King v. Burwell controversy.

Fourth, the President explained that the impact of the ACA “will be factored in when the” Court decides the case:

Obama stressed that the healthcare law is already working to expand access and reduce costs for millions of people in the U.S. — something he believes the Supreme Court justices are likely to take into account.

“I get letters every day from people who say, you know what, the Affordable Care Act saved my life, or saved my kid’s life because I got insurance,” he said.

“We hear stories about that all the time and I think that will be factored in when the Supreme Court takes a look at this case.”

Update: TPM has extended quotes from POTUS:

“If you read the statute, it’s pretty straightforward and it’s pretty clear. So I’m not anticipating that the Supreme Court would make such a bad decision,” he said. “If the Supreme Court made a ruling that said the folks who have federal exchanges don’t get the tax credits what you’d end up seeing is millions of people losing their health insurance. And the truth is that there aren’t that many options available if in fact they don’t have tax credits, they can’t afford to get the health insurance that’s being provided out there.”

The President has pre-emptively labeled the Court ruling against him a “bad decision.” Flashbacks to 2012.