Appeals Court Rules Most Trump Tariffs Are Illegal

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. D.C. has ruled that most Trump tariffs are illegal. Economist Paul Krugman explains: 

An appeals court, backing up the Court of International Trade, has just ruled the majority of Trump’s tariffs illegal. We kind of knew this was coming, but the reality still comes as a shock.

It’s important to be clear what just happened. The court didn’t say that tariffs per se are illegal. It said that the procedure Trump used to impose tariffs — declaring an economic emergency, then setting tariff rates without so much as consulting Congress, let alone passing legislation — is illegal. If Trump wants to pass a tariff bill, the same way he passed his One Big Beautiful Bill, OK. (I mean, terrible policy, but legal.)

But just saying “I am the Tariff Man, and here are my tariffs” isn’t OK.

True, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act gives the president substantial room to set tariffs during an, um, economic emergency. But Trump himself keeps saying that the economy is in wonderful shape, booming without inflation, and any claims to the contrary are fake news. So how can things both be terrific and an emergency calling for drastic action?

I have no idea what happens next. The Supreme Court is utterly craven, and may well rule that Trump gets to do whatever he wants. But maybe even they will balk.

One crucial thing to understand is that Trump is facing a completely self-inflicted disaster here. He probably could have gotten Republicans in Congress to vote for insane trade policy. But he was impatient, and wanted to start ruling as a dictator right away.

I see that Scott Bessent is saying that ruling that Trump’s illegal tariffs are, in fact, illegal will embarrass the United States. I’m not a lawyer, but last I heard you weren’t allowed to act illegally if obeying the law would be embarrassing. Anyway, let’s be clear: It won’t embarrass America. It will embarrass Trump and Bessent. If anything, it might reassure the rest of the world that some vestige of rule of law yet remains in this nation.

Appeals Court Slaps Down Trump's Denial Of Due Process

 

The District Court was clear. The Supreme Court was clear. And now the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is clear. The Trump administration cannot deny the right of due process in deportations. Everyone in the borders of the United States has due process rights!

NY Appeals Court Gives Trump A Break He Doesn't Deserve

Donald Trump was supposed to put up a bond before appealing the nearly half a billion dollars judgement today. He had been convicted of fraud. But on the last day, a New York Appeals Court stepped in and lowered the bond to $175 million, and then gave him another 10 days to post it.

Frankly, I'm baffled as to why the appeals court lowered the bond to less than half of the judgement. The trial judge issued a detailed and well thought out decision on why he had set the original verdict amount. Is the appeals court thinking of lowering the judgement amount - without even hearing the case?

This smells of favoritism - that we have a two-tiered justice system - one for the rich and famous (or infamous) and another for the rest of us. Do you think a normal person would have received this kind of break from the appeals court (even if they could not afford to post a bond)? Of course not!

Trump is still claiming that no one was hurt by his criminal activity. That is not true. By inflating his property values, he received a much lower interest rate on loans - cheating the banks out of millions of dollars. And by deflating those same property values when paying taxes, he cheated the state of New York (and its citizens) out of many millions of dollars.

Trump was found to have engaged in fraud - and that fraud garnered him hundreds of million dollars in ill-gotten gains. He should be forced to pay the entire amount. Anything less is not justice! 

Appeals Court Rules Trump Did NOT Have Absolute Immunity

Donald Trump tried to put himself above the law. He wanted the courts to rule that, as president, he was immune to the charges filed against him -- charges that he could not be tried for trying to subvert the 2020 election by illegally overturning the results, and also that he could not be charged for stealing documents (some of them secret).

The appeals court found his claims to be ridiculous. They ruled unanimously that he did not have immunity. Just like any other citizen, he is responsible for illegal behavior. Being president does not put him (or anyone else) above the law.

The appeals court gave Trump two weeks to appeal their decision to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court justices are smart, they will refuse to accept the case. The Constitution does not guarantee any president the right to break the law with impunity.

Trump had claimed that a president could not act without immunity -- that the other party would charge a president for actions they didn't like while he was president. That's a silly argument. All the presidents preceding Trump had not problem acting while obeying the law, and there is no reason to think that won't remain true in the future.

The United States has presidents -- not dictators. And this ruling insures that will remain true.
 

Appeals Court - Assault Weapon Ban Is Constitutional

On Tuesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck a blow to protect Americans. In a majority decision, they ruled that the ban of military-style assault weapons (and large capacity magazines) did NOT violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Maryland passed the law banning those weapons in 2013, and it was upheld by a U.S. District judge. Gun advocates appealed that decision, and it was overturned by a small panel of the 4th Circuit Court. Maryland appealed to the entire 4th Circuit Court, and they issued their decision supporting Maryland's right to pass the law.

The court ruled that Maryland's law was in line with the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision -- which said that a complete ban on handguns was unconstitutional. Gun advocates hailed that decision, but ignored another part of the decision, which said that it did not extend to all types of weapons (like military-style weapons).

This decision is good news, and hopefully it will encourage other states to follow suit.

There was a concurring opinion written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (a Reagan appointee) that I found very interesting. While voting with the majority to uphold the Maryland law, the judge wrote his own opinion, saying in part:

As Heller recognized, there is a balance to be struck here. While courts exist to protect individual rights, we are not the instruments of anyone’s political agenda, we are not empowered to court mass consequences we cannot predict, and we are not impaneled to add indefinitely to the growing list of subjects on which the states of our Union and the citizens of our country no longer have any meaningful say. . . .

Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. It is their community, not ours. It is their safety, not ours. It is their lives, not ours. To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny—this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation.

In urging us to strike this legislation, appellants would impair the ability of government to act prophylactically. More and more under appellants’ view, preventive statutory action is to be judicially forbidden and we must bide our time until another tragedy is inflicted or irretrievable human damage has once more been done. Leaving the question of assault weapons bans to legislative competence preserves the latitude that representative governments enjoy in responding to changes in facts on the ground. Constitutionalizing this critical issue will place it in a freeze frame which only the Supreme Court itself could alter. The choice is ultimately one of flexibility versus rigidity, and beyond that, of whether conduct that has visited such communal bereavement across America will be left to the communal processes of democracy for resolution.

He is absolutely right. While the Constitution does guarantee the right to own a firearm, that right is not an absolute one. It should be the decision of the people (through their elected officials) as to what kinds of weapons can be bought or owned, and who can legally buy or own them. The citizens of each state and the nation must have the right to make the decisions that affect their own safety.

Still No Appeal To Decision To Void Texas' Voter ID Law

A few weeks ago, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the odious Texas Voter ID law -- saying it discriminated against minorities. They sent the case back to the U.S. District Court in San Antonio so a decision could be reached on how to implement their decision.

At that time, plaintiffs and the state of Texas came to an agreement. That agreement stated that anyone who was on the voter registration rolls could vote -- as long as they showed a voter registration card, or some other kind of ID to show they were the person on the voter rolls (and that ID could be something as innocuous as a gas or electric bill in their name -- and no photo was required on the ID used). They also agreed that no voter could be challenged unless there was proof that they were not the person listed on the voter rolls.

I had thought the matter was finally over, but last week Attorney General Paxton made a big deal out of announcing that the Circuit Court's decision would be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Oddly enough though, no appeal has been filed (even though it is only about 10-11 weeks until the election is held). This is very unusual for Paxton, as the Lone Star Project tells us:

In the past Paxton has announced new lawsuits or appeals AFTER they’ve already been filed.  For example, when he announced a challenge to the federal government directive regarding school bathrooms—he issued a press release the day he filed the lawsuit.  The same was true in a petition filed against the EPA in June—Paxton issued a statement the day after the petition was filed in federal court.

It seems to me that Paxton has no intention of appealing. The man is stupid, but not so stupid as to think that appeal could succeed in the current divided Supreme Court. It is doubtful the appeal would even be heard by the court, and if it was, it would end in a 4 to 4 tie (which would uphold the Fifth Circuit Court's decision). It is also extremely unlikely any appeal could be heard and determined before the election. In short, an appeal would be a waste of time and money.

So what is Paxton doing? He's trying to keep the GOP's teabagger base happy in the short time until the election. The Republicans will probably win Texas, but it's closer than in the past -- and they can't win if a lot of angry teabaggers stay at home instead of voting. This appeal is just a political ploy.

NOTE -- The photo above of Attorney General Paxton is the mug shot at the Collin County Jail when he was arrested a little over a year ago and charged with three felonies (which are still pending).

Paxton is charged with two first-degree felonies related to accusations that he failed to disclose he was being paid by a McKinney technology firm when he encouraged investors to buy into the company. He is also charged with a third-degree felony for failing to register as a broker when he connected clients to a friend’s investment firm, which he admitted to publicly. 

Conservative Court Overturns Texas Voter ID Law

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative appeals courts in the United States (where 10 justices were appointed by a Republican), has overturned the odious Texas Voter ID law. They ruled that the law violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against Blacks and Hispanics.

The case has been in the courts for several years now. In 2014, a San Antonio district judge ruled the law invalid. The state of Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a three judge panel of that court upheld the district judge's ruling. Texas then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling. Instead, they sent the case back to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision by that full court. The full 5th Circuit court issued their ruling yesterday. But they did not say what should be done since the law was found to be discriminatory. They sent the case back to the district judge in San Antonio to formulate a remedy before the November election.It is not known what that remedy will be. It could be anything from tossing out the requirement for a picture ID to allowing a voter without ID to sign an affidavit and vote.

Texas could once again appeal to the Supreme Court, but they are not likely to get what they want from the eight-member court. The most likely result would be a 4 to 4 tie, which would just uphold the 5th Circuit court's decision.

It's been a long fight, but it looks like the Republican effort to suppress voting in Texas has finally been defeated.

Appeals Court Says No "Right" To Concealed Carry

(Photo above is from wrdw.com.)

Thursday was a bad day for the NRA. The NRA wants the Second Amendment to be an absolute right -- meaning any person has the right to buy a gun and carry that gun anywhere they want. But the courts once again ruled that is just not true. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that states have the right to limit who can carry a concealed weapon. Here's how the Huffington Post describes the new court ruling:

Firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public if they face no specific danger, a divided federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday, in a victory for gun control advocates.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sets a legal precedent in western states, was seen as unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.

The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found San Diego and Yolo counties in California did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants a concealed firearm license. 

“We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion.

The two California counties had limited their permits to applicants showing “good cause” to be armed, such as documented threats or working in a wide range of risky occupations.

The ruling places the 9th Circuit Court in line with other U.S. appellate courts that have upheld the right of officials in the states of New York, Maryland and New Jersey to deny concealed carry applications in certain cases.

Under California’s concealed carry law, more than 70,000 residents or less than 1 percent of the state’s population had active permits last year, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, in the middle of a raging national debate on guns, declined to weigh in on whether firearm owners have a constitutional right to carry their weapons in concealment outside the home.

Texas Voter ID Law Is Overturned By 5th Court Of Appeals

When Texas Republicans passed the onerous Voter ID law a few years ago, they said their purpose was to stop "voter fraud". We knew that wasn't true. Voter fraud is extremely rare, and in fact, they have been unable to uncover any instances of it that could have been prevented by their Voter ID law.

The truth is that they see the changes that are coming to the state of Texas. In just a very few more years, Whites will be a minority in Texas (and already are a minority in the states school system). Faced with this coming demographic change to the Texas population, the Republicans had a choice. They could either change their policies that discriminated against minorities (and the poor), or they could pass a law to keep as many of them as possible from voting. They chose to keep those people from voting.

The silly law had already been declared discriminatory and overturned by a lower court, but the GOP got a stay of that ruling -- forcing voters to provide ID to vote in the 2014 election. Now a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has agreed with that lower court. They have decided that the Voter ID law in Texas does discriminate against minorities, and they overturned it.

Unless a stay is issued (by the full 5th Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court), Texans will once again be able to vote without presenting anything other than a voter registration card -- and that would apply to both the party primaries and the general election in 2016.

I hope no stay is issued. Voting is one of our most important rights, and no party should be able to prevent any American citizens from exercising that right. This decision will undoubtably be appealed by the state Republican-dominated government. We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that the full 5th Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the right of all citizens to vote.

Bigot Justice Has Created A Marriage Mess In Alabama

A few days ago, U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade issued a ruling that declared Alabama's ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The state of Alabama asked Judge Granade, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the decision -- and was turned down by all three. This means same-sex marriages should be legal now in Alabama.

But then Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (a religious bigot who has already been removed from office once for defying federal courts) entered the fray. He declared that "god's law" was more important than the Constitution, and ordered all probate judges (who must sign marriage licenses in the state) to refuse to sign those licenses for same sex couples.

This created a real mess in Alabama -- with 23 counties issuing same-sex marriage licenses, 18 states still issuing licenses only to opposite-sex couples, and 26 counties not issuing marriage licenses to anyone.

A same-sex couple in Mobile county (one of the counties refusing to issue any licenses at all) tried to get a marriage license last week and were denied. They took the matter back to the court of Judge Granade, and on Thursday Judge Granade issued an injunction against the probate court in Mobile county, saying:

“Probate Judge Don Davis is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to plaintiffs due to the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. This injunction binds Judge Don Davis and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage.”

The judge's order should apply to all probate judges in all Alabama counties, but some are still holding out -- and following Roy Moore's illegal order to defy the federal court. Here are how the Alabama counties break down as of the writing of this post:

ISSUING LICENSES TO SAME-SEX COUPLES

Autauga, Bullock, Butler, Calhoun, Chilton, Coffee, Conecuh, Crenshaw, Dallas, Elmore, Etowah, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Limestone, Lowndes, Madison, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Perry, Wilcox and Winston.

ISSUING LICENSES ONLY TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES

Baldwin, Chambers, Clay, Cleburne. Covington, Dekalb, Escambia, Greene, Lee, Macon, Marengo, Pickens, Shelby, Sumter, St. Clair, Talladega, Tuscaloosa, Washington.

NOT ISSUING LICENSES TO ANYONE

Barbour, Bibb, Blount, Cherokee, Choctaw, Clarke, Colbert, Coosa, Cullman, Dale, Fayette, Franklin, Geneva, Hale, Henry, Houston, Lamar, Lauderdale, Marion, Marshall, Pike, Randolph, Russell, Tallapoosa, Walker.

This is ridiculous. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to issue a stay of Judge Granade's ruling -- and that means same-sex marriages are now legal in Alabama. Refusing to issue those licenses is currently a violation of United States constitutional law. Justice Roy Moore should once again be removed from his office for ordering the violation of the Constitution -- and if possible, kept off the bench for good.

The Supreme Court of the United States will hopefully decide this matter for good next summer -- but that is no excuse for the current illegal actions of Justice Moore (or those who follow his lead).

Supreme Court Says It Will Decide Same-Sex Marriage Issue

The movement for marriage equality has made a lot of progress in the last few years. Currently 36 states (with 70% of the nation's population) allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Fourteen other states (with 30% of the population) still enforce a ban on same-sex marriages.

This is a question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution applies to all citizens, or excludes the LGBT community. Because marriage is a right in all 50 states -- but it is a right that is still denied to same-sex couples in some states. The Supreme Court has been dodging this issue for years now. I think they were hoping the issue would be settled in the appeals courts, so they wouldn't have to make a decision.

But it hasn't worked out that way. The 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal hold that the state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) disagreed -- ruling that the state bans were constitutional. Cases are still pending in other courts (like the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals).

This creates an untenable situation. A situation where the same right is constitutional in some states and unconstitutional in many others. And it makes a joke of the Constitution, which guarantees equal rights under the law to all citizens.

Some religious fundamentalists claim the right to marry is one that should be left up to the individual states. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has already shot down that idea. In the past, some states prohibited interracial marriage, while other states permitted it (setting up this same kind of constitutional/unconstitutional predicament). The matter was settled in 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled that race-based marriage restrictions were unconstitutional in all states (Loving vs. Virginia).

Thanks to the differing opinions rendered in the appeals court (6th vs. 4th, 7th, 9th, & 10th), it now falls to the United States Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans -- and on Friday they announced they will do that in this term. They have accepted four cases (from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, & Tennessee -- all in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals area of jurisdiction) -- and will probably hear arguments on those cases in April, and render a decision in June.

It looks like this long march for equal rights will finally come to an end. Most observers expect the Court to decide in a 5 to 4 decision that the bans are unconstitutional. Personally, I am hoping for a 6to3, or even a 7 to 2, split on the decision (Scalia and Thomas are hopeless right-wingers who don't accept the idea of equality). But I will happily accept any split that ensures equality for the LGBT community.

All that's left now is to cross our fingers and wait until summer. The map below shows the current division (with the white areas still enforcing bans). Hopefully, there will be no white states after this summer.

Marriage Equality Nears Its Endgame In The U.S.

(The map above is from the website Freedom To Marry.)

After many years of no progress at all, it is remarkable how quickly progress is being made on marriage equality now. Just eleven years ago, there was not a single state that allowed same-sex couples to legally marry and get all the rights and privileges of marriage that opposite-sex couples get. But it seems that after the first state fell, a floodgate was opened.

That first state was Massachusetts, which became the first state to give same-sex couples full marriage rights on May 17, 2014. Now, slightly over ten years later, there are 35 states (those in red on the map above) where same-sex marriage is legal. And 64% of the U.S. population lives in those states -- meaning both a majority of states and a majority of the U.S. population now enjoy marriage equality.

There are six other states where bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned by a federal judge, but where appeals are pending to those decisions. Those states are Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. In five other states (Georgia, Alabama, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota) the bans are still in effect, but are being challenged in a federal district court.

Four states have had a Circuit Court of Appeals uphold their bans on same-sex marriage (Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan). That was the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court's decision was in opposition to four other Circuit Courts of Appeals (4th, 7th, 9th, 10th).

Now it looks like the Supreme Court will be forced to take up the issue, and finally decide whether same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples, or whether they can be treated as second-class citizens. And there is now some fresh evidence that a majority of that court will rule for equal rights. A federal judge's stay on his decision to allow same-sex marriages in Florida will run out on January 5th. Florida asked the appeals court to keep that stay in effect past that date (until the appeals court can make a decision on Florida's appeal), but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to do that.

The Florida Attorney General then asked the United States Supreme Court for a stay. The Supreme Court turned them down. Only right-wing justices Thomas and Scalia wanted to issue the stay, while the other seven justices denied the stay. That means there is a very good chance that in the next year to year and a half, same-sex marriage could be legal in all 50 states -- as there could be five to seven court votes for marriage equality. And that's a very good thing -- because if equality can be denied to any group, then it can be denied to every group.

A Couple More Small Steps Toward Equality In The U.S.

Two more states have joined the ranks of those where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry. The first was South Carolina, where a federal judge ruled on November 12th the state's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. That decision was stayed until November 20th to give the state time to ask for a stay from higher courts. The state went to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (but they had already ruled that state bans were unconstitutional) and refused to issue a stay.

South Carolina then asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay. But this week the state got news that the Supreme Court had denied their application for a stay (just as they did last week for Kansas).

The second state was Montana. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled Montana's ban on same-sex marriage (a part of their state constitution) violated the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. And this judge refused to issue a stay of his decision, quoting the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled those bans were unconstitutional.

The Attorney General of Montana (a Republican) has said he will appeal the decision, but with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals already having ruled on the issue, his only hope is with the U.S. Supreme Court. And that hope seems to be growing dimmer each day, considering the refusal to stay the decisions in Kansas and South Carolina. These refusals tend to show the Supreme Court is tending to favor the marriage rights of same-sex couples.

What all this means is that same-sex marriage is now legal in Montana and South Carolina -- and is likely to stay that way. And within the next year, it could be legal in all 50 states.

More Victories For Equal Marriage Rights

Another small victory for equal rights was accomplished on Wednesday as a federal judge in Charleston (South Carolina) ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriages violated the United States Constitution, and infringed on the rights of same-sex couples. The judge stayed his own ruling for eight days, presumably to give the state time to appeal and ask for a stay, so same-sex couples won't be able to marry in South Carolina until November 20th.

The chance that the judge's stay might be extended dwindled though, as a new U.S. Supreme Court action became public. A few days ago, Justice Sotomayor issued a stay in the decision by a Kansas judge that same-sex marriage should be allowed in that state (probably because she wanted to get the full court to act). And on Wednesday, the full court did act -- overturning the action by Sotomayor and lifting the stay for Kansas (although Justices Scalia and Thomas indicated they would have left the stay in place). Same-sex couples in Kansas can now marry.

The Supreme Court will probably have to finally rule on whether same-sex marriage bans violate the Constitution or not -- since the decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that states can legally discriminate is in opposition to ruling from the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals that states cannot discriminate by banning same-sex marriages.

This new action by the court in lifting the stay in Kansas gives us an idea of how the court may be leaning -- especially when coupled with the court's refusal to accept appeals of the decisions by the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals. It's looking more and more like the Supreme Court is poised to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, and rule that state bans on same-sex marriage do violate the Constitution.

Supreme Court Must Decide The Same-Sex Marriage Issue

(The image above is from ConnectAmarillo.com.)

The Supreme Court has been avoiding making a decision on equal marriage rights for years now -- and some recent Appeals Court decisions had me thinking the Supreme Court might be able to avoid it forever. Four different Circuit Courts of Appeals (the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th) found that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees equal rights under the law to all Americans. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of those decisions.

Many of us thought the matter was effectively settled, and that the other Circuit Courts of Appeals would take this refusal by the Supreme Court as a guide on how to decide their own pending cases -- but that was not to be. It turns out that there are still some bigoted judges sitting on federal benches, and they are not ready to give in on this issue.

Last Thursday,a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the bans on same-sex marriage in four states (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) did not violate the Constitution. They ruled that the state bans did not pose "a substantial federal question". That's an amazingly erroneous decision in my opinion. The question is whether a state can deny rights to one group that it extends to other groups (in this case the right to marry). It's a question of discrimination, and discrimination has long been held to be a "substantial federal question".

This means the U.S. Supreme Court will now be forced to hear a same-sex marriage case, and finally decide once and for all whether those bans violate the Constitution. They will have to decide the matter, because the Constitution cannot be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the country. The state bans on same-sex marriage either violate the Constitution in all states (which I think is the case) or it is permissible for all states to discriminate against same-sex couples -- it must be one way or the other for all states.

Abbott Is Not The Brightest Bulb On The Tree

(This image of Greg Abbott with infamous racist, xenophobe, and ephebophile, Ted Nugent, is from the Burnt Orange Report.)

Those who have kept up with Texas politics will know that Attorney General Greg Abbott has been particularly ineffective in that office. Instead of using his office for the benefit of the citizens of Texas, he has filed suit after suit against the federal government -- not because the federal government was violating the law or the Constitution, but because he wanted to pander to the teabaggers in his own party to further his own political career. And he has lost almost every one of those cases (wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money).

And he seems to have learned nothing from that string of court losses. In spite of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to overturn (or even hear) appeals court decisions that states were violating the Constitution by banning same-sex marriages, Abbott has chosen to continue trying to defend the Texas ban on same-sex marriages. Last Friday he filed a new brief with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and in that brief he claimed:

“The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage. It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.”

That is a ridiculous statement on its face. A federal judge has found the Texas ban violates the U.S. Constitution. Of course the state ill be required to show justification for its ban, and that justification must be a lot stronger than just speculation. What he is claiming, in effect, is that the bigoted desires of Texas politicians somehow trump the U.S. Constitution. Then he compounds this stupidity in the brief by saying:

“First, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race. Second, Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texas’s marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.”

Claiming the Texas ban is to prevent out-of-wedlock children simply makes no sense. There is no way that either preventing or allowing same-sex marriages will affect the number of out-of-wedlock children born in the state. And if those marriages are banned because they can't produce children, then the state must also ban the marriages of opposite-sex couples who either can't, or don't want to have children. If the state doesn't ban those opposite-sex marriages (and it doesn't), then banning marriage for same-sex couples for that reason just discriminates against homosexuals (by imposing a restriction on them that does not apply to heterosexuals who don't want children).

Abbotts official position is both illogical and unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all U.S. citizens will be treated equally under the law. Abbott's position counters that by claiming homosexuals are a special class that can be discriminated against.

Now Abbott is trying to become the next governor of Texas. Do we really want a man who is this stupid (and a terrible lawyer to boot) to be our next governor?

9th Circuit Tosses Marriage Bans And Cruz Panders To Right By Promising Amendment To Guarantee Inequality

(The photo at left was found of the Facebook page of the inimitable Juanita Jean -- owner of the world's most dangerous beauty salon.)

A couple of days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear 5 cases appealed from three Circuit Courts of Appeal -- letting stand the rulings from those courts that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. After seeing that, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saw no reason for more delay or discussion, and yesterday they issued a ruling that the state bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional. The court said:

“We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we adopted in SmithKline.” 

In addition to Nevada and Idaho, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also covers Alaska, Arizona, Montana, California, Oregon, and Washington. Alaska, Arizona, and Montana still have same-sex marriage bans -- but I expect they will soon be declared unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge now that the appeals court and the Supreme Court have made their positions clear.

There are still cases pending in some other Circuit Courts of Appeal, but I expect they will now be disposed on pretty soon. It looks like we may be finally nearing the end of the arguments over this equal rights issue.

---------------------------------------------------------

 Meanwhile, the Senate embarrassment from Texas, Ted Cruz, saw a political opportunity in the Supreme Court's refusal to hear those cases (and uphold the marriage bans). He promised to introduce a constitutional amendment in Congress that would guarantee the LGBT community could continue to be treated unequally in the United States. He said:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible...When Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”

Of course, Cruz's silly amendment has absolutely no chance of actually becoming a part of our Constitution. It would have to get a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House, and then be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states -- and it has less chance of clearing any of those hurdles than a snowball does of surviving in the Mojave Desert at the height of Summer.

But Cruz knows that. He is just playing politics. He wants to run for president in 2016, so he is pandering to the teabagger/evangelicals in his party -- because he knows they will have the biggest say in who the Republicans nominate in 2016. There is no depth to which Cruz will not stoop to feather his own political nest.

(The caricature of Ted Cruz above is by DonkeyHotey.)

A Third Appeals Court Upholds Equal Marriage Rights

There had already been two appeals courts to uphold a district judge's decision that banning marriages of same-sex couples was unconstitutional -- the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (on cases from Utah and Oklahoma), and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (on a case from Virginia). Now a third appeals court has done the same.

Cases from Indiana and Wisconsin had been appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court has now ruled that banning same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution. The court stayed its decision to give those states time to appeal to the Supreme Court -- but unless some other appeals court decides differently, the Supreme Court might just decide to let the appeals court decisions to stand (and dodge the heat that would come with deciding the matter).

There was a federal judge in Louisiana that broke a string of 20 federal judge decisions on marriage equal rights by ruling the state of Louisiana had the right to ban same-sex marriages -- but that decision is rather moot. There is already a case on the matter pending before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (a case from Texas), and if that appeals court rules same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, then that would apply to Louisiana also -- and if they decide the other way, it would just insure the Supreme Court will have to make the final decision.

I expect the Supreme Court will wait for a few more appeals courts to make their decision, before deciding whether they should take up the matter themselves. It would really be kind of pointless to take a case before knowing if all the appeals courts agree, or if one or more disagrees with the decisions already made.

This issue is finally coming to a head, and should be decided within the next two years -- either by all appeals courts agreeing, or by the Supreme Court finally making a decision.

A Second Appeals Court Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Numerous states have had their bans on same-sex marriages overturned by federal judges in the last few months. Those decisions were appealed to various Circuit Courts of Appeal, and we have been waiting for those appeals court decisions. A few days ago, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the Utah decision -- and they upheld the lower court decision, declaring the state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional (violating the Fourteenth Amendment), and the state had not shown a compelling reason to ban those marriages.

Now a second appeals court has ruled on this matter. A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the lower court decision that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Appeals court Judge Henry F. Floyd wrote:

“Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support and security.” 

“The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the 14th Amendment cannot countenance.”

The decision was stayed for 21 days to give the state time to appeal -- either to the full court, or the U.S. Supreme Court (more likely). Now the Supreme Court is looking at decisions from both the 10th and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeal, both of which they are likely to be asked to consider.

I expect the Supreme Court to wait for a while before deciding whether to accept any of these cases or not, to see what happens in some of the other Circuit Courts of Appeal. If the other appeals courts decide the same way (that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional), they could just let those decisions stand and become law. But if even one appeals court decides to uphold the bans, then the Supreme Court will have to accept at least one case and finally make a decision on this matter.

I am hopeful, considering the court's decision about DOMA and Prop 8, that at least five votes can be attained to support equal rights and toss out all state bans on same-sex marriage. And by this time next year, that could be a reality.

Judge Tosses Colorado's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Another state ban on same-sex marriages has been tossed out by a federal judge. This time it's in Colorado. It marks the 16th time a federal judge has declared a state's ban to be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On Wednesday, District Judge C. Scott Crabtree declared Colorado's ban unconstitutional. The judge stayed his ruling to give the state time to appeal, but that appeal would probably have to be at the United States Supreme Court. That's because Colorado is under the same appeals court as Utah (the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals), and that court recently upheld a ruling that Utah's ban was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. There is no legitimate reason why that court wouldn't decide the same for Colorado. Judge Crabtree said the marriage ban:

". . .bears no rational relationship to any conceivable government interest."

He went on to say:

"The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." 

"The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans."

"If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them."

Utah has announced that it will appeal the appeals court decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Utah Attorney General's office released a statement saying:

"To obtain clarity and resolution from the highest court, the Utah Attorney General’s Office will not seek en banc review of the Kitchen v. Herbert Tenth Circuit decision, but will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United State Supreme Court in the coming weeks. Attorney General Sean Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of our state. Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise."

The United States Supreme Court has been dodging this issue for years now, but it looks like it is going to finally be forced to make a decision -- probably in the next term of the court. That means we could only be about a year away from a Supreme Court decision -- and considering their decision striking down DOMA as violating the Constitutions, I don't see how they could determine state bans are constitutional.