on Dec 13, 2012 at 10:45 am
Last week’s cert. grants in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, continue to draw coverage. After his recent visit to Princeton, which Conor covered in yesterday’s round-up, Justice Scalia has been the focus of much of the recent coverage of the same-sex marriage cases. Anna Mazarakis of The Daily Princetonian profiles Duncan Hosie, the Princeton freshman who questioned Justice Scalia about his opinions in other gay rights cases; other coverage comes from David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times and Amy Davidson of The New Yorker, while Cara Maresca of MSNBC reports on that channel’s interview with Hosie and law professor Jonathan Turley. In The Washington Post, Dana Milbank describes the cert. grants as a “chance for [the Court] to overrule the medieval views of Antonin Scalia,” while Alison Frankel of Reuters discusses whether the Justice should recuse himself from the same-sex marriage cases.
Other coverage focuses on the Court’s options in deciding the same-sex marriage cases. Writing in The New Republic, Jonathan Rauch argues that, rather than recognize a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the Court should “make history, and advance the cause of gay equality, in a different way: by butting out,” while Damon W. Root of Reason discusses whether, “[i]f a justice of the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution protects gay marriage, he or she [should] vote otherwise for political purposes?” The editorial board of The Washington Post argues that whether the Court rules on the jurisdictional issues or on the merits, it should avoid the “historic mistake” of upholding either DOMA or Proposition 8. In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse suggests that the Court’s order directing the parties in Windsor to brief an additional question regarding the Court’s authority to decide the case, rather than providing “a way out in the event that it got into too much of a wrangle on the merits,” might instead reflect a decision by the Court to resolve “a profound battle over the meaning of Article III jurisdiction.”
Other coverage focuses on a motion filed with the Court on Wednesday by opponents of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, seeking to overturn the Second Circuit’s stay on a Southern District of New York injunction against the operation of the law. Lyle has coverage for this blog, while Matt Sledge also covers the motion for The Huffington Post.