Supreme Court Gets Two Right, One Wrong

Sun rising over the Supreme Court

Great news!

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. DOMA denied federal benefits to same sex married couples. The high court established that this law "singles out a class of persons deemed by a state entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

Simple enough. The Justice Department had already stopped upholding this anti-gay, discriminatory law and now it's been struck down.

You cannot give benefits and rights to one group of married people in this country while denying the same benefits and rights to another group of married, tax-paying Americans.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that the federal law, passed by Congress in 1996, violates the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

This does not mean that all 50 states must now enact marriage equality laws. But it does ensure that same sex couples who are legally married in any US state must receive equal treatment under federal law, including over 1,000 benefits that other married couples receive, with tax benefits and Social Security benefits among the two biggest.

So, for example, a same sex couple who is legally married in, say, Massachusetts, does not necessarily have to be recognized in a far rightwing, backward, yahoo state like Texas, Oklahoma or Mississippi. But it does have to recognized and granted all rights by the federal government.

Children of same sex married couples will now know that their families are as valid as any other.

Right now, about a third of all US states recognize same sex marriage. Before long, that will be the case in all 50 states. They're falling like dominoes.

The second ruling the Supreme Court got right dealt with California's Proposition 8, which prohibited same sex marriage in California, and was already struck down by a federal district court. The Supreme Court decided proponents "did not have standing" to put it back into effect.

Simply put, the Supreme Court said the anti-gay bigots could not show that a married lesbian couple down the street could possibly harm their own marriage in any way. Thus they had no "standing" to put the discriminatory law back into effect.

So two big decisions for equality and liberty came today -- the day after a horrendously bad decision was made by this same court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's the part that determines which states must get federal permission before changing their voting laws. It applies to the states that have a long, ugly history of discriminating against minorities, making it difficult if not impossible for them to exercise their right to vote.

LBJ signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act requires 9 states with a rich history of discrimination, mostly in the South, to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws. Ironically, the law was renewed several times, including in 2006, when it passed the US Senate 98-0!

It was used to block over 1,000 changes to voting laws from 1982 to 2006.  Last year, it was invoked to stop an unnecessary voter identification law in Texas as well as a Florida law that would have eliminated early voting days in minority areas.

Last year's antics, including so many voter suppression laws put into effect, so many early voting days cut, and so many hours cut, clearly show that the law is still needed.

Rightwingers are thrilled that the Voting Rights Act has had an integral part struck down. But eliminating it may work against them. Remember, in 2012, all the attempts to stifle voter participation from non-white Americans resulted in a backlash, and record-breaking numbers of black voters stood in line for as many hours as it took to take advantage of their right to vote.

I hope states that believe they have a green light to institute more voter suppression laws suffer the same consequence.

Republican Jackasses of the Week

Every Regressive republican in the US Senate who voted against the gun control compromise measure to expand background checks -- and four Jackass Democrats who voted with them.

This proposed law would simply have required background checks at gun shows as well as for guns sold online. You still would have been able to sell a gun to anybody on the street with no paperwork whatsoever. This was very basic, common sense gun legislation that 92% of the American people wanted.

This law would have required background checks, to make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. This includes convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, and people with a severe mental illness. Apparently these Regressives believe felons, the mentally ill, and the violent deserve to go out and buy guns, no questions asked.

There was nothing controversial about this bill. It had nothing to do with limiting gigantic clips that mass murderers choose to take on their rampages. It had nothing to do with banning military style assault weapons that should be used in war zones, but not on city streets.

There is not one police department in America that I'm aware of that is in favor of gigantic clips and high powered, rapid fire weapons of war being in the hands of the public. No cop wants to be outgunned by a criminal or a rampaging murderer on the street. But this bill was not even about that. It had nothing to do with clips or assault weapons.  It would simply have required background checks at gun shows and online gun sellers. 

But no. The cowardly senators, who are completely owned by the NRA and the gun manufacturers they represent, refused to pass a simple law that 92% of Americans have been demanding. They stood with gun manufacturers instead of the people who elected them and pay their salaries.

The vote on the amendment was 54 to 46 against. Sounds like it should have passed, right? No. These days, thanks to the Regressives and their constant filibuster threats, 60 votes were needed for the amendment to be adopted. 

Every Regressive republican senator voted against this bill, except for John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. 

And four spineless, cowardly Democrats joined the rest of the Regressives in voting against the bill: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor slammed the four defectors.  "Today, the Senate voted against the 92% of Americans who support background checks to stop gun violence," she said. "We'll be holding accountable Democrats who voted against their constituents by running ads in their states, featuring some of the 23,000 gun owners who have joined our campaign for common sense gun reform."

Of course, the blowhards from the NRA continued repeating their well-established lie that this amendment would have "infringed on the Second Amendment, and on the rights of gun owners."

That's a blatant lie and every one of them knows it.  The Supreme Court has stated many times over the years that Congress can indeed regulate which guns can and cannot be owned by individuals. Already you cannot own a machine gun, a rocket launcher, a cannon, etc.

Even the farthest rightwing nutjob on the Supreme Court, Fat Tony, back in July 2012, stated that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. “So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. 


And if you read the Second Amendment, it starts out with these words: "A well-regulated militia..." See? The word REGULATION is right there in the Second Amendment. 

President Obama said this was a shameful day for Washington. In this clip he explains very clearly what was in the law. And I have yet to hear a single rational reason to have voted against it.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy