Supreme Court Returns Today With Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action, Voting Rights in View

(Image Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court is poised to take the bench today and begin the second half of a term laced with hot button issues such as affirmative action, gay marriage, voting rights and government secrecy.
The justices will hear two potentially blockbuster cases in March concerning gay marriage. One of the cases – Hollingsworth v. Perry – addresses whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The other – Windsor v. United States – deals with the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
In both cases, the court will hear arguments on potential procedural obstacles that could stop it from getting to the core constitutional questions.
The court will also hear a case challenging a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the law says that certain states with a history of voter discrimination must clear any changes to their election laws with federal officials in Washington. Lawyers for Shelby County, Ala., are challenging the constitutionality of Section 5. The case, called Shelby County v. Holder, will be argued Feb. 27.
The day before, the court will hear arguments in Maryland v. King, a case about whether Maryland officials can collect DNA from someone who has been arrested but not convicted of a crime.
The justices are already working behind the scenes writing and reviewing draft opinions for cases they heard this fall.
Fisher v. University of Texas is a case that could further limit the use of race-conscious admissions policies at public universities. The case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who sued the University in 2008, claiming she had been denied admission based on her race. Justice Elena Kagan is recused from this case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.
They are also considering a case closely watched by human rights groups and big business that addresses whether corporations can be held liable for alleged violations of international law under a federal law called the Alien Tort Statute. At oral arguments, a skeptical Justice Samuel Alito questioned why the case was in the U.S. courts in the first place.
“Why does this case belong in the courts of the United States when it has nothing to do with the United States other than the fact that a subsidiary of the defendant has a big operation here?”
Several human rights groups want to challenge the constitutionality of a 2008 federal statute that expanded the authority of federal officials to conduct secret electronic surveillance of foreign citizens who are in other countries. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/supreme-court-hear-electronic-surveillance-case/story?id=17564982, as well as a case that considers whether the sniff of a police dog on the front porch of a person’s home constitutes a search and requires a warrant.
Off the bench, all eyes will be on Chief Justice John Roberts when he administers the oath of office to President Obama. The Presidential Inaugural Committee announced last week that the president will be officially sworn in Jan. 20, which falls on a Sunday, and then again on Monday, Jan. 21, for a ceremonial swearing in.
Roberts slightly flubbed the oath in 2009 and had to re-administer it at the White House.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor will swear in Vice President Biden. She becomes the first Hispanic to administer an inaugural oath. In a statement, the vice president said that “one of the greatest pleasures of my career” was to be involved in Sotomayor’s selection to the court.
“From the first time I met her, I was impressed by Justice Sotomayor’s commitment to justice and opportunity for all Americans, and she continues to exemplify those values today,” he said.
In the coming weeks, Sotomayor will also launch a book tour for her memoir, “My Beloved World.” The Associated Press, which received an early copy, reported in December that the justice discusses her lifelong battle with diabetes, her upbringing in the South Bronx, as well as a defense of affirmative action.

Email
Sen. Chuck Hagel's Defense Nomination Draws Criticism
Congress Makes President Obama's Reelection Official 
Gay Marriage? – No such thing.
The best thing the supreme court could do for the GiBLeT community would be to recognize Garriage.
Posted by: Noz | January 7, 2013, 8:13 am 8:13 am
And there they are again– the Obama voter protesting once again with their union paid pre printed signs!! TOO FUNNY–is anyone still naive enough to believe these people are not being paid???
Posted by: WERALLSLAVES300 | January 7, 2013, 9:30 am 9:30 am
God to SC: On this marriage thing, I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy beat you to it.
Posted by: mangum | January 7, 2013, 9:58 am 9:58 am
The signs should read:
Uno de los muchos
Posted by: LEFTISRIGHT | January 7, 2013, 10:49 am 10:49 am
And there they are again– the Obama voter protesting once again with their union paid pre printed signs!! TOO FUNNY–is anyone still naive enough to believe these people are not being paid???
POSTED BY: WERALLSLAVES300
________________
The scary part is the protesters you’re talking about are not the ONLY ones who are “paid off” under the Obama administration. Just as Senators and Congressmen were paid off to pass Obamacare I also think members of the Supreme Court such as Roberts were also paid off to rule Obama’s way.
Posted by: spike | January 7, 2013, 11:05 am 11:05 am
It is naive to think those protestors for equality in marriage are being paid, when they or someone they love may be gay, or they simply think marriage is a civil right.
To those who see a conspiracy there, are you aware that very rich people spent $40 million in the last 2 years lobbying to protect their tax breaks and loopholes?
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 7, 2013, 11:34 am 11:34 am
How can anyone argue that affirmative action isn’t needed? Women and minorities are intellectually inferior and don’t have the wherewithal to compete with white, Anglo-saxon, heterosexual males directly. They never have and never will be able to do so. Dividing the pop. up by race and gender creates harmony.
Posted by: hankrearden82 | January 7, 2013, 11:59 am 11:59 am
The good news is President Obama is very likely to chose the next Supreme Court judge, perhaps two. No need to put up with any more regressive, anal retentive types.
Posted by: Lightseed | January 7, 2013, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
How can anyone argue that affirmative action isn’t needed? Women and minorities are intellectually inferior and don’t have the wherewithal to compete with white, Anglo-saxon, heterosexual males directly.
Posted by: hankrearden82 | January 7, 2013, 11:59 am 11:59 am
Yes, and thank God bigotry, racism and systemic bias have been eliminated due to the greatness of the anglo-saxon heterosexual male.
Posted by: charger | January 7, 2013, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
Hopefully something as obvious as the need to declare the voting rights act of 1965 null and void will occur. It was regionally biased to begin with and the absurdity of claiming that southern states still discriminate in voting laws in the 21st Century is so out of date as to be biased on its own face.
Posted by: Perplexed | January 7, 2013, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Hopefully the court will decide that ALL Americans are equal. Not just the christian bigots.
Posted by: godsatheist | January 7, 2013, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
It is naive to think those protestors for equality in marriage are being paid, when they or someone they love may be gay, or they simply think marriage is a civil right.
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 7, 2013, 11:34 am 11:34 am
“Marriage is not a civil right.” – Barack Obama, Constitutional Scholar, 2004
Posted by: Reality Check | January 7, 2013, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
NOZ: “Gay Marriage? – No such thing.” – - – Of course there is – if the government decides to allow gays to participate in the civil/social contract it refers to as marriage. Now, if some religious people and some religions choose to say that gays cannot participate in the religious sacrament they also refer to as marriage then they are perfectly free to do so.
Posted by: B-K KnightRider | January 7, 2013, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
Hopefully the court will decide that ALL Americans are equal. Not just the christian bigots.
Posted by: godsatheist | January 7, 2013, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
Equality is a myth. How can a person be equal under the law if they are not equal with their fellow citizens? For example, if O.J. Simpson was a kid from Potrero Hill who didn’t become a celebrity, would he be as equal under the law as the celebrity football star? In America’s fantasy irrational belief system, the answer would be yes. In the rational, real world, Simpson would be doing twenty to life for murdering his ex-wife if he never took up football.
Posted by: Jack | January 7, 2013, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
POSTED BY: LIGHTSEED | JANUARY 7, 2013, 12:05 PM 12:05 PM there goes the Constitution, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, I don’t care about the Constitution.
Posted by: Lizzie | January 7, 2013, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
Hopefully the court will decide that ALL Americans are equal. Not just the christian bigots.
Posted by: godsatheist | January 7, 2013, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
Indeed.
Posted by: Steve | January 7, 2013, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, I don’t care about the Constitution.
Posted by: Lizzie | January 7, 2013, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
That was Bill O’Reilly who said that.
Posted by: Jada | January 7, 2013, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
REALITY CHECK: ““Marriage is not a civil right.” – Barack Obama, Constitutional Scholar, 2004″ – - – Wow, the dishonesty of some conservatives is astounding. Once again a conservatives demonstrates blatant dishonesty and a stunning lack of understanding for the importance of CONTEXT. Once again a conservative dishonestly cherry picks a few words out of CONTEXT to distort Obama’s meaning. The FULL QUOTE of that sentence is, “My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right.” Clearly Obama was stating that his “religious faith dictates” that gay marriage is not a civil right. And considering how the first state, Massachuesetts, did not grant gay marriage until 2007 his statement was also an accurate statement of fact in 2004 – gay mariage was not a civil right in 2004. He did not say it cannot be a civl right. He did not say it should not be a civil right. He did not it is not a civil right in the sense that that is an objective truth. He was only saying his religion dictates that it is not a civil right. Fortunately, independent rational thought is able to dicern that some religious dictates are wrong.
Posted by: B-K KnightRider | January 7, 2013, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm