The following is an editorial by Linda Greenhouse,
the NY Times reporter who covers the US Supreme Court.
Usually, her articles are straight reporting, with little to no "editorializing"
For a long time, I have followed her reporting and have respect for her knowledge and expertise.
But here is an article that is strictly her opinions.
I believe it is well worth reading in it's entirety because she speaks to
the Voting Rights Act and voter suppression, to equal rights for gay/lesbians,
and California's Proposition 8 vs the Obama Dept of Justice's
refusal to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
NY Times
LINDA GREENHOUSE
11/14/12
Changing Times
Quote:
When people talked during the presidential campaign about the potential impact
of the election on the Supreme Court,most meant the impact on the court’s membership:
whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would get to fill any vacancies during the next four years.
The vote on Nov. 6 settled that question, obviously, but it also raised another tantalizing one:
what impact will other developments during this election season,
beyond the presidential vote itself, have on the nine justices?
If time is on the side of preserving the Voting Rights Act, it’s also on the side
of recognizing the right to, and federal recognition of, same-sex marriage.
Note that this observation is something well short of a prediction that the Supreme Court
will declare a constitutional right to marriage equality during its current term.
A vehicle for doing so, the Proposition 8 case from California (Hollingsworth v. Perry)
is sitting on the court’s docket, awaiting the justices’ decision on whether to take it.<snip>
The most likely scenario to emerge from the conference is a grant of review
in one of the DOMA cases, most likely Windsor v. United States,
decided last month by the federal appeals court in New York.
Along with the federal appeals court in Boston, in another case also now pending
before the Supreme Court, the New York-based United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit declared unconstitutional the statute that withholds
the many benefits of marriage available under federal law from same-sex couples
who are legally married in their state of residence.<snip>
Assuming the court grants one of the DOMA cases, I think the justices are likely
to put the Proposition 8 case on hold until the DOMA issue is decided.<snip>
I think there’s an excellent chance that the Supreme Court will overturn DOMA.<snip>
When the history of how same-sex marriage became the law of the land is eventually written,
as it will be in the not too distant future, there will be many turning points to mark.
The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which held that
gay relationships could not be criminalized, will certainly be one landmark.
But last week’s election results, when voters in four states had the choice
to say yes or no to marriage equality and said yes in all four, will stand,
I think, as the more important development.
It didn’t necessarily tell the justices how to decide the cases now on their docket.
But in showing them that times are changing, it told them a lot.
|