#LoveWins, #Pride Toons

More on Sunday.

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