SCOTUS approves marriage equality, strikes down state bans in 5-4 vote

In order to form a more perfect Union...

Here's the opinion.  More reaction in updates here.

Amy Howe and others at SCOTUSblog:

The opinion seems to go out of its way not to state a standard of scrutiny. Instead, it says, "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." That's page 22.

The Chief Justice has the principal dissent, which is 31 29 pages long. Toward the end of it, he says, "If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

From the concluding paragraph of the majority opinion: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

From the majority opinion, addressing the role of history in the constitutional analysis: "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a character protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning."

Now-expected sneering contempt in the usage of the word 'pride' in Scalia's dissent.

(Scalia) leads off by saying that the decision is a "threat to American democracy." He concludes by saying that "Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall ... With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them -- with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court -- we move one step closer to our own impotence".

The majority bases its conclusion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right on "four principles and traditions": (1) right to person choice in marriage is "inherent in the concept of individual autonomy"; (2) "two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals"; (3) marriage safeguards children and families; (4) marriage is a keystone to our social order. "The majority finds that these principles and traditions apply with equal force to same-sex couples."

Yes, Antonin Scalia is a toad, a troll, and an execrable human being.

Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He is not happy with Justice Kennedy.

(T)he majority opinion rejects the claim that marriage is about procreation, even while saying that protecting children of same-sex couples supports the Court's ruling: "This is not to say that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State."

That's all I'll roll out from the live-blog. Here's some MSM coverage.  First, CNN:

In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet.

The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.

The far-reaching decision settles one of the major civil rights fights of this era -- one that has rapidly evolved in the minds of the American pubic and its leaders, including President Barack Obama. He struggled publicly with the issue and ultimately embraced same-sex marriage in the months before his 2012 re-election.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were."

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court's "threat to American democracy."

"The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he wrote. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch." 

This dude needs his medication.

Final Update: From Slate, the last paragraph in Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion.

Former deputy claims Garcia knew of county jail abuse

While we wait to see if the Supreme Court makes history again on June 26 (about an hour or so from this posting) let's excerpt, link, and comment on Adrian Garcia's latest headache.

When former Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia said he was kept in the dark by his top deputies about a mentally ill inmate found in a trash-filled, feces-littered cell, he was not telling the truth, according to an exclusive ABC-13 interview with Garcia's former chief deputy.

The interview with former Chief Deputy Fred Brown, who oversaw jail operations under Garcia, casts doubts on Garcia's claims that he never knew about the deplorable conditions inmate Terry Goodwin was kept in until Ted Oberg Investigates began asking questions about Goodwin in September 2014.

As late as April 24, 2015 Garcia said he knew "nothing" about Goodwin's condition before questions by ABC-13.

"What I know today is nothing that I can recall," he said in an April 24 press conference. "Not to that magnitude."

So the timing of these allegations is a little suspect, seeing as how the first poll in the mayor's race, released a couple of days ago, had Garcia in a statistical tie with Sylvester Turner.

But Brown told ABC-13 that he informed Garcia about Goodwin in October 2013, just days after a jail compliance team found that the inmate had been left in a cell for weeks. When jailers opened his cell door, Goodwin was found wearing a tattered orange jail uniform and surrounded by swarms of bugs. The compliance team took photos of Goodwin and the fetid cell.

Brown also said he showed Garcia those photos of Goodwin.

"I said, 'Sheriff, look at this,'" Brown said in a recent interview. "I told him about it. I showed him the pictures. He saw the pictures. We were in the executive conference room. He went through the pictures and looked at them."

When asked if Garcia was telling the truth in his steady and consistent denials that he knew nothing of the incident before ABC-13 broke the story on September 29, 2014, Brown was blunt in his reply.

"No he's not," Brown said. "No he's not."

Ted Oberg is as solid an investigative reporter as they come.  I'm sure he did due diligence on the veracity of Brown's claims.  The question is whether Brown is as credible as he seems in calling Garcia a liar.

Garcia launched a criminal investigation after the story broke, and ultimately called in the Harris County District Attorney, the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department to probe the incident. Brown's narrative also raise questions if Garcia waited until the Goodwin incident became public to begin acting on it.

Ultimately, two jail detention officers were indicted in April for felony tampering with a government document after they allegedly signed off on cell checks that Goodwin was in good condition, officials said. Garcia fired those two, as well as four others. In addition, he disciplined dozens other jail workers and forced Brown to retire.

What do you see or sense that seems off?

Garcia declined a request for an on-camera interview, but on Thursday maintained he had no knowledge of Goodwin's conditions until September 2014.

"When I first found out about the condition of Terry Goodwin's cell last September, I was furious," Garcia said in an emailed statement. "I took decisive action. I launched an investigation, and as a result of that investigation, I fired and disciplined those responsible. I immediately issued orders to put procedures in place to see to it that something like this would never happen again and never be tolerated.

"Had I known earlier, I would have acted earlier with the same strong and responsible actions the record shows I took when I was informed. I will always take responsibility and act rapidly to deal with problems."

There's more from Brown at the link, including the fact that his memory was a little fuzzy on what he did or didn't show and/or tell the sheriff.  I see this as probably hardening the support of Garcia's backers; he doesn't lose many votes unless something comes out that verifies Brown's somewhat shifting recollection, or if there's more bad news behind another curtain.

Keep in mind, however, that 50% of those polled said they were undecided about whom to support. What remains to be seen is whether they choose to hold this development against Garcia, or not.

As regular readers here already know, I haven't been -- and won't be -- a supporter of Garcia's, from the beginning to the end of the municipal election cycle, for reasons that have nothing to do with this matter.  Garcia simply isn't my kind of Democrat, and I think there are more qualified individuals to lead the city.

In the long run, this affair won't damage him much at all.  Unless it gets worse, naturally.

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies in 6-3 vote

Somebody predicted that.

The Supreme Court spared a key part of President Barack Obama’s signature law in a 6-3 decision Thursday, ruling that the federal government may continue to subsidize health insurance in the dozens of states that did not set up their own exchanges. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who expressed deep reservations when the case was argued about whether striking down the subsidies would coerce states into establishing their own exchanges, joined the court’s four liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the subsidies. Roberts, who was the object of immense conservative blowback after he joined the court’s liberals three years ago to uphold the law’s individual mandate, again wrote the majority opinion in support of the Obama administration position.

The law’s challengers argued that four words in the statute — “established by the state” — meant that only people who bought insurance from exchanges in the handful of states that set up their own marketplaces would be eligible for tax credits and other government assistance. The government countered that the clear intent of the law was to provide the subsidies for all lower-income Americans who sought coverage. 

More than 6 million people would have lost those subsidies if the court had ruled against the government, which experts said would lead to skyrocketing premiums and even a potential “death spiral” that could have dealt a mortal blow to Obamacare. The White House insisted in the days leading up to the decision that Obama felt he had nothing to fear because the government’s case was strong. But they are no doubt breathing a sigh of relief. 

Around 17 million people have gained coverage from the law, according to a Rand Corp. study, and a recent poll shows that for the first time since it passed, more Americans approve of the law than disapprove.

The case had put Republicans in an awkward spot. Publicly, over the last few weeks, Republican lawmakers expressed their hope in news conferences and speeches that the Supreme Court would rule against the government. But privately, aides conceded that the politics of victory would be more complicated than defeat. 

The Republican-led Congress would have been under pressure to come up with at least a temporary fix for the more than 6 million people who would most likely lose their insurance, contorting itself into the odd position of extending subsidies while still opposing the law. (At least one Senate Republican wrote a bill that would temporarily extend the subsidies while phasing out the individual mandate, which would eventually kill the law.) If the Republican majority had just let the subsidies lapse, they’d be faced with angry constituents who just lost coverage and a Democratic PR assault highlighting the most heart-wrenching cases of people who lost their insurance. 

Now, things will most likely return to the status quo — in which Republicans threaten to dismantle the president’s signature legislative achievement but do not actually take concrete steps to take health care coverage away from people. 

I think it's time for congress to bring another #RepealObamacare bill to the floor for a vote.

— Speaker Cruz (@HavanaTed) June 25, 2015

The chief justice is definitely getting a Republican primary challenge now.

Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

When Scalia calls an assertion by the majority "pure applesauce",it's because you can't say "bullshit" in Supreme Ct. opinions--yet.

— Jeff Greenfield (@greenfield64) June 25, 2015

Pride celebrations, SCOTUS marriage equality judgment on collision course

-- Tomorrow (perhaps).

Houston Pride Week culminates with the Houston LGBT Pride Celebration featuring a day-long festival and a nighttime parade [...] With the Supreme Court expecting to rule on legality of same sex marriages any day now, could there be extra reason to celebrate this weekend? If so, expect this event to be one of the biggest in Houston's history.

Could be a deliriously happy time this Saturday, or it could be a party tinged with remorseful resolve.  I'm betting on the former.

-- While I'm prognosticating on Supreme Court rulings, I also have growing confidence that the justices are not going to strike down Obamacare subsidies.  This is one reason why.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision any day now in a case that could severely damage healthcare reform in America, in a challenge that famously focuses on four words in the law.

During oral arguments in March, Justice Elena Kagan asked a clever question, which drew laughter, in an apparent attempt to explain why four words in one section of the law shouldn't be read literally.

The case will determine whether the US can keep subsidizing health insurance for people in the roughly three dozen states where insurance exchanges are run by the federal government.

One part of the law specifically says the federal government can establish insurance exchanges on behalf of the state, but another section says people buying insurance through exchanges "established by the state" get subsidies. The law's opponents contend this means that those buying insurance through exchanges set up by the federal government don't get subsidies.

Since Kagan's question goes a little deeper into the weeds than this good explainer of where we find ourselves today, I'll let you click over and read it.  Here's the even better reason why I think O-Care remains standing.

Kagan was not the only justice who had tough questions for the lawyer opposing Obamacare. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote on the court, said during oral arguments he saw a "serious Constitutional" issue with the position taken by the latest opponents of the ACA.

Here's Kennedy's problem: Under the interpretation put forth by the law's opponents, states will effectively be coerced into setting up their own exchanges if they want their citizens to have insurance.

"If that's Kennedy's view of the case, there's almost no chance that the challengers can win," UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider.

I'll say 6-3 in both case decisions, because I think that the Chief Justice does not want to be on the wrong side of history -- that is to say, with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito -- on either one.

As I did earlier in the week, I'll be watching the SCOTUSblog and the Twitter feed for the instant developments Thursday morning, posting here and Tweeting along with everybody else as the verdicts roll out.  Here is some detail about the seven cases remaining to be decided.  Beyond that, there's also this, breaking late this afternoon...

Justice Antonin Scalia, setting the stage for prompt Supreme Court action on the enforcement of a Texas abortion law, on Wednesday told Texas to reply by 4 p.m. Friday on whether that law should be put on hold temporarily.  Abortion clinics and doctors in the state have asked the Court, through Scalia, to delay the law’s effect until the Justices act on an appeal they will file later.

Scalia acted a day after the postponement was sought, with the clinics and doctors noting that swift action was necessary because the two key provisions of the state law are due to go into effect next Wednesday.  Scalia has the authority to act on his own, but he probably will share the issue with his colleagues, as he did in October when the Court dealt with the Texas case at a preliminary stage.

So we should know more about the fate of Texas women's health clinics, also shortly.

The Supreme Court is likely to finish its current term early next week. Although it is likely to take some action on the delay request by then, it will not act on the coming appeal until next fall, because of its summer recess.

First Houston mayoral poll shows Turner, Garcia tied at lead

Some other surprises here as well.

Sylvester Turner and Adrian Garcia have emerged as the clear front-runners in the first independent poll before the election that will determine Houston's next mayor.

The KHOU – Houston Public Media Poll indicates a clear divide between two tiers of candidates, with Turner and Garcia well ahead of all other contenders to take charge at Houston City Hall after the term-limited Mayor Annise Parker leaves office at the end of this year.

Turner, the longtime state representative making his third run for mayor, leads the pack with 16 percent of surveyed likely voters. Garcia, the former Harris County sheriff, comes in second at 12 percent.

The rest of the candidates in the poll drop into single digits. Chris Bell, the former congressman making his second run for mayor, won the support of 8 percent of surveyed voters.  Both Ben Hall, the former city attorney making his second mayoral run, and former Kemah mayor Bill King, stand at 3 percent. City Councilman Stephen Costello stands at 2 percent.

"There's two tiers of candidates," said Bob Stein, the KHOU political analyst and Rice University political scientist who designed the poll. "If you had to pick a runoff match-up, it would have to be Turner and Garcia. And I don't think that comes as any surprise."

Turner, Garcia and Bell share a distinct advantage over the other candidates because their names have repeatedly appeared on Houston ballots for more than a decade.

Stein's a bit more officious even than his usual in terms of confidence in polling that reveals 50% of likely voters are undecided.  In the breakdown -- compared with my sense of the race -- Garcia's support is much stronger than I would have guessed in a sample of 47% Democrats... and 51% of those Caucasian.  (Click on the tabs to see these figures).  And his strength isn't due to an oversampling of Latinos; the poll breaks over half white, 27% black, and 8% Latino among likely voters, which historically is probably an accurate reflection of the electorate in real life.  (Hopefully Charles will provide some context in the next day or two regarding this.  Update: And he does.)  What I draw from those numbers, at the very least, is that Garcia's got a lot more Caucasian backers than I thought.

And while the reason that the Republican candidates are polling so low does have to do with name recognition, it's also because there are just 19% of likely voters identifying as GOP in this survey.  That's way, way off.  Stein's demographics have 26% of likely voters calling themselves independent.  Even if some of those are just embarrassed Republicans, there's still something wrong here with the nearly invisible support for King, Costello, and Hall.  Their combined total among likelies is just 8%.

I don't think so.  Put those two results together and you have to conclude that a bunch of white Republicans in this survey are favoring Sylvester Turner or Adrian Garcia for mayor.  Do you really think that's the case?

What may come as a surprise in this poll is the number of voters who've already chosen their candidate.

A little more than four months before Election Day, half of all likely voters told pollsters they had already made up their minds.

"The people who stay and vote tend to be disproportionately older, Anglo, Democratic, educated homeowners," Stein said. "These are experienced people who are doing just what they've done before: Voting for Adrian Garcia and Sylvester Turner."

This fairly absolute certainty among those polled might be the biggest surprise.

"It's worth noting that among voters who told us who they were supporting -- had picked a candidate -- over half told us they could not vote for any other candidate," Stein said.

The poll conducted between May 20 and June 21 surveyed 500 voters who had cast ballots in at least two of the last three Houston city elections. The margin of error is 4.5-percent. "These are voters who clearly have picked their candidates," Stein said. "And there's a high probability that well over half of them aren't moving. And they're not moving even in the runoff election."

I'm having a little trouble with that premise as well: half of the likely electorate (that has made a choice at all, mind you) has one guy in mind, and their mind isn't going to change?  Especially this far away from Election Day?  Dubious.

Questions about the polling data and/or methodology aside, my main takeaway is that Adrian Garcia may not need 'historic turnout' from his community after all.

The poll also contains some bad news for Astrodome supporters; 61% don't want any taxpayer money involved in whatever may come of its repurposing.  And 50% still say that transportation matters -- a combination of congestion, bad roads, and public transit -- are the city's greatest challenges, far ahead of crime (10%), flooding (8%), and a mish-mash of 17 other concerns totaling 32%, or an average of about 2% each.

So our first data point for November's election provides us with some great  kaffe-klatching, maybe some revealing developments, but a few cautions.   Who's next and when?

Trouble in Texas Tea Party Paradise

The squalling babies didn't get everything they wanted.

Texas can sometimes feel like tea party heaven — the land of Ted Cruz, where the Legislature is packed with hard-right devotees and the governor himself heeds fringe fears about possible federal plots to seize the state.

But with so much power comes pressure, and the Texas Legislature's tea party leaders are struggling to deliver on their most conservative promises. After the legislative session that ended this month, movement activists were openly unhappy with the results and have targeted a few onetime favorite lawmakers for possible retribution.

"It's a truth in advertising issue," said JoAnn Fleming, a state tea party leader who heads Grassroots America — We the People. "There are some that will likely pay a political price for caving on what they said they would do."

Lege retirements offer plenty of opportunities for the freaks to move ahead.

The Texas tea party network is the nation's strongest, with four dozen major conservative groups representing thousands of active members. Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature and the state Senate is run by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a former, often fire-breathing conservative talk radio host. About a third of the 31 senators are strong tea party voices, while nearly 25 of the Texas House's 150 members are conservative grass-roots favorites.

But except for limiting government and slashing state spending, the groups often don't agree on much. And their agendas sometimes compete with each other.

While some tea party leaders focus on strengthening Texas' ban on gay marriage, tightening immigration policies or fending off the potential imposition of Sharia law, others see a greater threat in mandatory vaccines, red light cameras or smart electrical meters. Still others place a high priority on gun and private property rights.

And some of them think the US Army is going to take over Texas and round them up and put them in underground tunnels under abandoned Walmarts.  This is what happens when you continually cut public education; you get Idiocracy.

Rep. Dan Flynn's bill exempting Texas from daylight saving time was sidelined amid concerns that refusing to roll back the clocks could leave Texans choosing between church and watching Dallas Cowboys games on fall Sundays. Also dropped was Sen. Donna Campbell's proposal banning the Alamo from falling under the control of the United Nations.

The backlash was greatest over lawmakers' failure to repeal Texas' 2001 law offering in-state tuition to some college students in the country illegally, to pass school vouchers or block an expansion of pre-kindergarten programs.

These effing morons vote.  In large numbers.

Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, a longtime tea party organizer in suburban Dallas, voted to re-elect as House Speaker Straus, a San Antonio Republican whom conservative activists consider too moderate.

"He slapped us in the face," said Julie McCarty, president of the NE Tarrant Tea Party, which is recruiting a primary challenger to run against Capriglione.

Then there's Rep. David Simpson, owner of an East Texas timber company and religious publishing house, who became a tea party hero in 2011 for his attempts to criminalize "excessive touching" during airport security pat-downs. He's now running for state Senate but acknowledges he risked a challenge by arguing for legalizing marijuana, saying it's God's creation.

"I think there's some who will never vote for me again," Simpson said.

Keep in mind that Simpson does not appear on either the 'Best' or 'Worst' list of Texas legislators this session just past, and that his carrying the "treat it like tomatoes" weed bill was hailed by liberals and conservatives alike.  Just not certain conservatives.

We're through the looking glass here in Texas, folks, and only increasing the vote against these lunatics is going to save the Republic.

Update: If you need some additional verification of how far off the rails we've gone, check Michael Quinn Sullivan's Empower Texans ratings, in which he scores gay marriage goofball Cecil Bell at just a 74, Debbie Riddle a 65, and the highest-rated Democrat, Tracy King, at 48... four points below Sarah Davis at 52.  You have to laugh to keep from crying.