On Thursday, the Committee for Justice filed a Supreme Court amicus curiae brief in the gay marriage cases that the Court will hear April 28. CFJ's brief asks the Court not to invalidate the defendant States' traditional definition of marriage, but the brief takes no position on whether that is the correct definition.
CFJ president Curt Levey's proposal in a March 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Republicans "vow not to confirm the president’s appeals-court nominees until he rescinds his immigration fiats" drew positive reactions. Here are some examples:
In an op-ed in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal, CFJ president Curt Levey writes that Republicans should not confirm President Obama’s appeals-court nominees until he rescinds his unilateral immigration orders.
Today marks the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision striking down a federal ban on independent expenditures – campaign ads and the like – by corporations and labor unions. Because the myths about Citizens United remain just as prevalent five years later, they are worth addressing again.
The Supreme Court's decision today to take up the issue of a constitutional right to gay marriage is both good and bad news for those who believe that the Constitution ought to mean what it says. It is good news because the current state of affairs, where the right exists in some circuits and not others, pleases neither side and appears unsustainable. But it's also bad news because the Courts' decision this June will probably invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which would make it arguably the worst instance of judicial activism by the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade.