Tushnet and Eskridge on Same-Sex Marriage Cases

July 19, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

On the most recent episode of Lawyer2Lawyer,

hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams will talk with Constitutional Law Professors Mark Tushnet and William Eskridge about what the history of both the gay rights and the civil rights movements have to say for the future of gay rights in America.

• Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet specializes in constitutional law and theory, with a focus in examining the practice of judicial review in the U.S. and worldwide. He has served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. Currently, his focus is in constitutional history and the development of civil liberties. He is known for his critical and controversial analysis of Supreme Court rulings, including Brown v. The Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

• William Eskridge, Yale Law Professor, focuses in statutory interpretation. He represented a same-sex-married couple from 1990-1995 who sued for recognition of their marriage and has published many books covering the political framework of gay rights. The historical component of his book GayLaw was the basis of an amicus brief he drafted for the Cato Institute and for much of the Court’s (and dissenting opinion’s) analysis in Lawrence vs. Texas, the decision which made same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state.

Andrew Sullivan on Gay Marriage and SCOTUS Cases

July 5, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Andrew Sullivan on Gay Marriage and SCOTUS Cases

Last Sunday, Fareed Zarakia interviewed Anderew Sullivan about the conservative case for gay marriage and the recent same-sex marriage Supreme Court cases.

Here is a description of the interview:

Sullivan: We’re part of families. Gay people don’t – they’re not born under a gooseberry bush in San Francisco and then just unleashed on the country to improve your dinner party conversations and interior design. You know, that’s not what happens. They’re born and bred in Texas, in Oklahoma, in Alabama. And they’re in the military and they’re part of this country’s entire diversity. And they want to be a part of their own families. And they’re more traditional than you realize.

So then began the battle you’re still battling, which is with conservatives.

Sullivan: I think the great disappointment, the great disappointment is that this was a really, in some ways, a conservative argument. This was a minority group seeking responsibility, commitment, pooling resources. If you’re a couple and something happens to one of you, you have someone else to take care of you, not the government. There’s a really powerful conservative case for this. And so many of the Republican Party just never grappled with it until it was too late.

But in Kennedy, you know, Anthony Kennedy, Reagan appointee, I think you see the last strains of that moderate conservatism, which is, we do have this new emergent population. How do we integrate them? How do we make them part? I don’t want us to have a separate but equal institution in civil unions. And that was the big threat. And then Bush, when he actually endorsed a federal marriage amendment, suddenly the entire gay establishment were like, oh, we’re with you.

John Roberts Conservative Long Game?

July 4, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

John Roberts Conservative Long Game?

Recently, Terry Gross interviewed The New York Times‘ Supreme Court Correspondant, Adam Liptak, on NPR’s Fresh Air. Liptak and Gross discuss the High Court’s recent term, specifically the gay marriage cases and Liptak’s new e-book about gay rights. Liptak also argues that Chief Justice John Roberts is playing a conservative long game, allowing liberal short term victories in order to ensure eventual conservative goals.

Here is a description of the interview:

Last week, the Supreme Court wrapped up its eighth term under Chief Justice John Roberts, in which it handed down historic opinions on gay marriage, the Voting Rights Act and genetic patenting. Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The New York Times, says that in the years Roberts has led the court, the chief justice’s patient and methodical approach has allowed him to establish a robustly conservative record.

“I see him planting seeds in cases where he may get a large majority, including the court’s liberal wing, to sign on to short-term victories today that could result [in] long-term losses for the left tomorrow,” Liptak tells Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross.

The most notable example of this happened just last week, Liptak says. Drawing on language all eight justices had agreed to in a Voting Rights Act case four years ago, Roberts led the court in gutting a key section of the 1965 law, which addressed voting discrimination. The decision struck down a formula that was used to determine which jurisdictions needed federal approval before changing their voting rules. That freed nine states, mostly in the South, from federal oversight and ostensibly returned the issue to Congress.

On July 9, The New York Times and Byliner will publish an e-book by Liptak calledTo Have and Uphold: The Supreme Court and the Battle for Same-Sex Marriage.