Thursday, April 28, 2011

Moot Court Finals Roundup

Good luck to my friends participating in the final round of the University of Chicago's moot court competition. The three judge panel is comprised of Judges William Fletcher (9th Circuit), Diane Sykes (7th Circuit), and Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit). At a lunch talk featuring the three, the host started by introducing the panelists: "To my far right -- physically at least -- Judge William Fletcher."

* * *

Group pushing a resolution honoring the King James Bible also thinks Obama may be the anti-Christ. As The Agitator puts it: "This one may be more difficult to disprove."

Releasing the birth certificate doesn't satisfy the "where's the birth certificate?" crowd. Huge surprise.

Jonathan Freeman remarks on his experience "role-playing" as a Palestinian negotiator (the Israelis were represented by persons affiliated with pro-Palestinian perspectives).

Wisconsin Republicans may finally just repass the anti-union bill, which is tied up in court challenges due to them missing some procedural hurdles as they tried to ram in through minus Democratic presence. This would end the legal problems, but it would return the bill to the news -- hardly what the six Republicans facing recall want at the moment, I imagine.

TNC -- who doesn't make the charge lightly -- declares the wild anti-Obama conspiracy theories, from birtherism to ridiculous aspersions on his academic record, as racism of the bone. Incidentally, I think it was Matt Yglesias on Twitter who observed that, if Obama was an "affirmative action" admittee to Harvard Law, that's arguably the single best case study for the validity of the program, seeing as he graduated magna cum laude, was President of the Law Review, and, oh yeah, became President.

Right-wing Israeli organization honors a Rabbi who urged Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs (the award was presented by Daniel Hershkowitz, a minister in the current Israeli government representing one of Bibi's furthest-right coalition partners).

I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum's accusation that Planned Parenthood practices eugenics is going to be revealed as one of those "not intended to be factual statements" (where, as in Kyl's similar gaffe, "not intended" means "absolutely intended").

Is there anything distinguishing this bill from that overturned in Romer v. Evans?


PG said...

As I said to Chris Geidner on Twitter, the quotes from Republicans in the Nashville article sound like they've been coached on Romer. "It's not about gays AT ALL, it's about good business!" The explicit expression of animus toward LGBT folks in the referendum at issue in Romer -- imcluding the fact that it barred only ordinances protecting the minority groups from discrimination, not ordinances that would protect the straight majority -- could distinguish Romer from this new bill.

Nick said...

Belated response to your last point about the TN law:

Yes there is something that distinguishes it from Romer. See Equality Foundation v Cincinnati, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997), cert denied, 119 S.Ct. 365 (1998). Although the Stevens dissent does leave some room for interpretation on that point.

PG said...

The rationales by which the 6th Cir. distinguished Romer don't seem to fit so well for the TN law because they are characteristics it shares with Colorado's Amendment 2. Inter alia: it is statewide; it would remove protections previously granted at the municipal level; it would bar complaints even about governmental discrimination.