Enough with the conspiracy theories about Justice Scalia’s death

I read this earlier today:

"As a former homicide commander, I am stunned that no autopsy was ordered for Justice Scalia," William O. Ritchie wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday, according to reports. After seeking to cast doubt on the conclusion of the deputy U.S. marshals who responded to a call from the ranch, he added, "My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas."

My gut tells me there is some fishing for attention going on in the head of the former D.C. police officer who said that.

Why?

Let’s consider this:

1. Why?
2. Why??
3. Why???

Was it a Liberal conspiracy to get President Obama one more lasting decision about the future of United States legal policy?

Was it a “Conservative” conspiracy to give Congressional Republicans and presidential candidates something “meaningful” to “stand up” to Obama about?

Was it Ancient Aliens?

There was no autopsy, they say! There was a pillow above his head, they say! The President was told long before anyone else, they say (as if the President doesn’t get most of the news before everyone else…)!

Conspiracy theorists demand: “What is your proof Scalia wasn’t murdered?”

These stupid theories remind me of one of the frequent arguments levied against atheists: “What is your proof that there is no god??”

Who proved god exists in the first place?

Pillows

Many articles note the ranch owner who found Scalia said there was a pillow above his head, and many conspiracy theorists point to this as suspicious. I sleep with a pillow over my head every night, and another one underneath it, using the two to drown out the sounds of an increasingly conspiratorial world so I can maintain my slumber all night long.

No conspiracy. Just a light sleeper.

Politics aside

I disagreed with much of Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court jurisprudence but his presence on the Court was invaluable to the development of United States law and the debates from which it springs.

He articulated his positions in such a way that I (almost always) respected them, even when I found it hard to believe someone so intelligent was seriously asserting them. He was rarely conclusory, giving reasons for his views, and whether you agreed with those reasons or not, that’s more than most politicians (and lawyers) usually do.

His death is a loss, but there are few more certain paths to some sort of immortality than thirty years on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Photo: Then-nominee Antonin Scalia, right, with President Ronald Reagan in 1986, via Wikipedia

Retiring founder wants $1M for his SCOTUS audio archive

Oyez is a robust archive of audio recordings and other information spanning much of the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. Its founder Chicago-Kent College of Law Professor Jerry Goldman is looking for a buyer as he nears retirement. Jess Bravin reports at the Wall Street Journal:

The sticking point, however, isn’t the annual budget; Harvard Law School, for one, has offered to pick up the operating cost. But Mr. Goldman also wants to be paid for the sweat he’s put into his baby–or at least the intellectual property it represents—something he estimates is worth well over $1 million.

Here comes an entitled opinion right here: A decision to somehow “close down” Oyez if no one is willing to put up six or seven figures for it would be morally bankrupt and stain Professor Goldman’s otherwise admirable legacy.

“A slower-track school where they do well”

I’m just going to leave this Justice Scalia quote right here:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African­ Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less­-advanced school, a slower-­track school where they do well.

Further reading:

• The Supreme Court might destroy affirmative action because this white woman’s grades weren’t good enough - Slate
• A Colorblind Constitution: What Abigail Fisher’s Affirmative Action Case Is Really About - ProPublica
• Fisher v. University of Texas - Wikipedia
• SCOTUSBlog case file on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Philly diner’s SCOTUS-inspired brunch menu following same-sex marriage ruling

Oh Philadelphia, how I miss you sometimes. Danya Henninger writes at Billy Penn:

Over the weekend, Sam’s Morning Glory Diner ran a pair of specials that sold out faster than any dish in the South Philly restaurant’s 17-year history. It wasn’t the ingredients that made them a hit — although they were reportedly delicious — it was their titles, which referenced the Supreme Court’s historic June 26 ruling that the right to same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

I’m not going to tell you here, so go read Henninger’s article. The menu items are, appropriately, glorious. And the best part? The owner of the Morning Glory, who approved the names before they went on the menu, is a lawyer.

This week I devote the entire newsletter to the Supreme Court decision declaring bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. I try to provide a variety of viewpoints despite the fact that I agree with the general assertion that the Constitution does not permit bans on the marriage of two consenting unrelated adults.

I also thought it prudent to include in this week’s introduction my own in-depth legal analysis of the ruling, which I have worked on for years in anticipation of today’s decision and present now in its voluminous and intellectually unassailable entirety:

Huzzah!

Now, on with the links.

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling: The Highlights

Here are highlights from Friday's 5-4 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country.

This is for the folks who don’t relish the idea of sitting down with a 100-page Supreme Court opinion and a third cup of coffee for lunch.

Religious Groups Vow to Fight Gay Marriage Despite Supreme Court

Religious and conservative leaders opposed to same-sex marriage say their fight over the issue won't end with Friday's Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized the practice nationwide.

My grandmother taught me that when I don’t have anything nice to say, I shouldn’t say anything at all.

So [ THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ].

Transcript: Obama's remarks on Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage

This decision will end the patchwork system we currently have. It will end the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples face from not knowing whether they're marriage, legitimate in the eyes of one state, will remain if they decide to move or even visit another.

I always thought that very uncertainty was far worse than moral opposition to same-sex marriage. Moral opposition can be understood in terms of how someone was raised, how passively or actively they embrace confirmation bias or (more common than the other two among politicians, I suspect) the need to appeal to a particular constituency.

But the uncertainty of interstate differences in marriage law has a profound practical (and detrimental) effect on myriad decisions same-sex couples have to make all the time about issues like travel, employment and estate planning.

John Roberts's full-throated gay marriage dissent: Constitution 'had nothing to do with it'

"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."

Chief Justice Roberts' dissent suggests that he may have considered things differently if he were in a legislator’s shoes but thinks it inappropriate for the Court to decide the issue. That’s a distinction worth thinking about, too. It is possible to morally support a right to same-sex marriage but also take the position that the Supreme Court is not the appropriate venue for governmental affirmation of that right.

PDF: OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

Here’s the entire opinion in PDF form, for the folks who do relish the idea of sitting down with a 100-page Supreme Court opinion and a third cup of coffee for lunch.

Image via Human Rights Campaign

“Super-cuts” from same-sex marriage arguments

SCOTUSBlog contributor Tejinder Singh posted 36 minutes of audio highlights from yesterday’s oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges. The case is one of several on the Court’s docket this term focused on two specific constitutional questions:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

I’ve embedded the super-cut below but if you’re really interested in getting a first-hand sense of how the Justices feel you can find audio of the full oral argument (more than two hours, split into two files) at Oyez. I’ll have more to say about the arguments after I’ve had the chance to listen to them in their entirety.

[embed]sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten…[/embed]

Public domain photograph of the Roberts Court via Wikipedia

Gay marriage begins in Alabama

SCOTUS Servo tracks and announces changes to Supreme Court opinions

Baton Rouge sheriff trying to enforce unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws

Abortion’s inevitable return to the Supreme Court