The Atlantic this month has an articel about "the secret GOP plan to overturn Obamacare."  The article sez it was all about Romney winning and now the plans are over.

1.  That's what passes for a secret?

2.  Over?  Did you say "OVER?"  NOTHING is over until WE decide it is.  Was it over when the Nazi's bombed Pearl Harbor?

Seriously though ... let's take a quick walk through the 2014 Senate.  Donks have 21 saeats up for grabs.  Elphs have 14.  All 14 Elph seats are in "safe" states Romney won.  Romey also won 7 of the 21 seats the Donks will be defending.  A net gain of six swings the Senate.

Predictions:  WV and SD go Elph.  Rockefeller and Johnson are retiring and Mittens had double digit wins there.  Two down, four to go.  First - term Sens. Begich (AK) and Hagen (NC), along with Sens. Pryor (AR), Landrieu (LA) and Baucus (MT) are up for reelection. They last won elections in the Obama wave year, 2008. Mitt Romney won each of these states in 2012. With the exception of Landrieu, each of these Senators voted against the Senate budget plan that raised taxes and increased the national debt. They will likely all vote against gun control legislation next month. The GOP hasn't settled on candidates in these states, but each of these Senators is highly vulnerable.  And two more to watch:

The retirements of Sens. Tom Harkin (IA) and Carl Levin (MI) dealt a serious blow to Senate Democrats. Both would have been the prohibitive favorites to win reelection next year. Their retirement, however, puts the two seats in play. Obama won both states handily in 2012, but each state votes differently in off-year elections. In 2010, Republicans swept offices in Michigan and Iowa. The same could happen in 2014, when the electorate is more conservative and Republican than Presidential years.

Feel better?

How much protection is equal?  Not really the right question, although a much easier one.  And irrelevant.  Fourteenth Amenment, section 1, final clause "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (bold mine - cf First Amendment "the freedom of speech")

The Supreme Court chimed in as follows on January 14, 1867 (a year and a half before the 14th Amendment was adopted): "The theory upon which our political institutions rest is, that all men have certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that, in the pursuit of happiness, all avocations, all honors, all positions are alike open to everyone, and that in the protection of these rights all are equal before the law" (emphasis added). The Equal Protection Clause expanded who was covered by the equal protection that already existed, inviting many more people into that pre-existing community of equals.

And how about same sex marriage?  Needless to say, there was no same sex marriage in the 1860s, even among white males, who were widely viewed as being equally protected by the law.  This does not mean that same sex marriage is now unconstitutional, of course.  It merely means that the American people are free to decide the issue without being bound by anything said or done in the 1860s, and are free to balance the equality principles of the Declaration of Independence together with the best interests of society, without being ordered how to do so by judges.

Lots of scholarship out there.   Professor Calabresi says that the Clause only applies to the administration of the law, instead of banning the making or formation of discriminatory laws.  Professor Harrison says that the Clause does apply to the making of some discriminatory laws, but only ones that involve direct protection from violence.  Professor Green says that the Clause requires not just equal protection, but “full” protection.  Professor Saunders says that the Clause was directed against special laws as opposed to general laws.  Professor Ramsey says that the understanding of the facts surrounding sexual orientation have changed since 1868, and so the application of the Clause to those facts may have changed too.

The word “protection” was likely used in the Clause because the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was all about “protect[ing]” people (see the official title of that Act).  Moreover, as one congressman put it in 1871, “unexecuted laws are no protection,” so merely requiring equal laws would not have been effective. 

Been hearing alot of comments prefaced "I follow the Supreme Court closely and ..."

I always try to have the name of the most recent decision in mind so I can ask "What did you think of the Kirtsaeng case?" Deflates those balloons quickly.

Due to my current situation and twisted proclivities, I recently opted to allow myself to be the "SCOTUS" expert for a very specific web community interested in the Hollingsworth and Windsor cases.  My objective was to address the legal issues which might be confusing to a layman, and to try to cut through the godawful coverage in the MSM.

In my initial post I advised that this was NOT to be a political discussion and that it was to be limited to the cases at bar.  Within six posts the namecalling had begun.  From the leftists.  The righties were asking questions based on the actual transcripts from the oral arguements, providing statutory citations to support why they thought thus and such might be the case, and thanking me for providing a "trusted informative source. "  When the leftists resorted to namecalling and wandered far afield I politely asked for supporting information from the case to back up their allegations.  For example, one beclowned observer said the SCOTUS should just declare "gay marriage" legal.  I of course asked from where that authority might arise and where in the pleadings and amici this legal question was presented to them.  "THEY JUST SHOULD, @$$HOLE" was the well reasoned response.

That's what passes for open minded these days on the left.  I occupy no position of authority with this particular web presance.  I cannt ban any user.  I cannot delete any posts.  I've been polite and 'soft spoken" throughout these exchanges (and if you come here often y'all know that ain't easy) ... but I will carry on, attempting to bring enlightenment to the masses.  

The more I read the issue the more I think the GSM activists are going to lose - but not on the merits; rather, on the procedural issues.  And in late June when the decisions are rendered they won't understand why because the MSM hasn't informed or educated.   And their ignorant anger will be aweful to behold.  Like the school bully on the playground.

What if those who oppose SGM for ANY reason were offered the followig option:  we won't declare a right to GSM BUT we'll also take away ALL of the "benefits" married people currently get from the Feds - would you still oppose it?

My guess is they would.

Not sure what that means.  Evolving.

If the SCOTUS could (and they CAN'T) grant that SGM was now te law of the land BUT SGM's would not be able to get any benefits from the Federal Gov't or from any state chose to withhold them, would pro-SGM advocates accept it?  I doubt it.  CJ Roberts' question regarding definitions may be a toughie.  

It may appear that this isn't about "marriage" but about "getting stuff from the gubmint".  I really HATE to think that, but that seems to be one of the undertones from the two days of oral arguement.

I'm actually losing sleep over this issue.  I need to get a cohesive set of positions and I don't think I've found them yet.

how about a flashback ... 2009 ... Elana Kagan is nominated for the position of US Solicitor General ...

As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

I'm wrestling with the DOMA/Prop 8 issues, trying to formulate goold, well founded responses to the questions I get.  As the SCOTUS lurches toward assailing the 14th Amendment issues the "the equal protection clause" (duplication intentional) is getting more attention.

My arguement has been that all people ARE treted equal by DOMA.  We can all marry the non-related, of age  person of the opposite gender that we want. 

When the law's against you, argue the facts.

When the facts are against you, argue the law.

and when they're both against you - attack the Chief Justice

Interesting study here identifyinf free and "not free" states.  Little surprise that red states are free while blue states aren't.  Here's my trenchant observation: ain't it amazing the leftists wanna live in less free states, but ONLY a less free state that THEY control?  A less free red state would be viewed as anathema by them, but a free state is a free state regardless of color.