Our beloved Notorious RGB (also known to most of society as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), stopped by the 92nd Y in New York last weekend to chat with former President of the Supreme Court of Israel Dorit Beinisch and NPR’s Nina Totenberg. She shared that she owns several Notorious RBG t-shirts and that she’s very much looking forward to the opera that’s in the works for next summer about her friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia. She also took the opportunity to drop some world-class RBG wisdom. She says there won’t be enough women on the Supreme Court until there are nine (preach), and drops what I think be the motto of every lawmaker out there:
“The great thing about our Constitution is, like our society, it can evolve.”
Seemingly out of nowhere, a important victory for marriage equality arrived today as the Supreme Court rejected bids from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin to ban gay marriage, refusing to address cases in which their federal appeals courts decided that the Constitution affords same-sex couples the same marriage rights as straight couples. Basically, those five states took the issue of gay marriage tot he highest court in the land, after their own lower courts ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court was all “NOPE SORRY, NOT LISTENING.” While offering no explanation, this decision makes gay marriage effectively legal in 30 out of 50 states. It also, of course, allows SCOTUS to maintain that the issue of gay marriage is a states rights issue, and while I would seriously prefer they just stand up and make gay marriage as legal as straight marriage, across the board, I suppose when all they’ll allow is baby steps towards progress, baby steps is what we’ll have to take. [Think Progress]
It’s three months away, but it’s groundbreaking and past due: This December, the Supreme Court will rule on whether online threats are protected by the First Amendment based on whether they qualify as a threat by the intent of the person making it, or by the way a “reasonable person” would interpret the threat.
The latter is the way threats have been defined by the law, historically, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that, in the case of Elonis v. United States, a threat is constituted by the intent of the person making the statement. Anthony Elonis of Pennsylvania has served 36 of 44 months of sentenced jail time for making threats on Facebook about his ex-wife after she left him with their children. Keep reading »