March 2012

  • March 20, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Leslie Griffin, Larry & Joanne Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics at the University of Houston Law Center


    Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Catholic Church condemned the separation of church and state and taught that only Catholics had the right to public worship and religious liberty. In a series of nuanced essays written from 1940-1965, the New York Jesuit Catholic priest John Courtney Murray developed a historical argument that the prohibition on separation was not a timeless, universal norm, but was best understood as a response to the anticlerical liberalism of modern Europe. Hence, Murray concluded, American Catholics could favor the separation of church and state even though Rome (mistakenly) opposed it. Senator John F. Kennedy consulted Murray as he prepared his famous 1960 campaign address to Houston Baptist ministers pledging his commitment to the separation of church and state. The speech set the stage for Kennedy’s election as the first Catholic president of the United States.

    The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church approved the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), at the last session of the Council in December 1965. DH changed prior Catholic teaching by affirming that religious liberty is the right of every human person, not a right of Catholics only. Murray was the lead drafter of the declaration.

    Murray told reporter Robert Blair Kaiser in 1965 that the “resolution of the religious liberty issue had ‘transferential implications’ for those trying to work out the birth control question.” The “birth control question” asked if the church should revise its prohibition on artificial contraception. After extensive debate and reports from a papal commission, the church did not do so. Pope Paul VI instead reaffirmed the immorality of contraception in his 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV).

    HV is the intellectual source of the Catholic Church’s current battle with the Obama administration over the provision of contraceptive insurance to its Catholic and non-Catholic employees. The church teaches that contraception is morally wrong as a matter of natural law for all men and women, Catholic and non-Catholic, married and non-married, without regard to whether they choose to believe or accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    No one doubts that the bishops are sincere in their commitment to the anti-contraception moral principle. They are mistaken, however, to believe that the religious freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution entitles them to enforce their moral beliefs on others through force of law. Murray and Kennedy had a better sense of what the Constitution protects.

  • March 19, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    If the Supreme Court’s conservative wing finds a way to ignore precedent and sticks together to strike the integral provision of the Obama administration’s landmark health care reform law, it will egregiously misread the Constitution, write Akhil Amar and Todd Brewster for Constitution Daily.

    The two provide reasons why striking the law's minimum coverage provision would represent such a flawed interpretation of the Constitution, which have been reiterated on this blog numerous times. And Amar has authored other articles and spoken often of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and how its minimum coverage provision is constitutional. As noted by ACSblog last week, the majority of experts on the health care law believe the Supreme Court’s right-wing will not carry the day, and the law will be upheld.

    Amar and Brewster tackle two of the main arguments against the law’s minimum coverage provision, which staring in 2014 requires Americans who can afford to do so to purchase health care coverage or pay a penalty when filing their income tax returns. As Amar and Brewster note the opponents of the Affordable Care Act have attempted to make the argument that Congress with its passage of the law has taken major swipe at liberty – that is by allegedly forcing people into the health care insurance market.

    But Amar and Brewster, in accessible form, explain why the liberty argument fails – mainly because the Constitution provides Congress the powers to tax and spend, and regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court, moreover, has since the late 1930s, interpreted those powers to be broad ones.

  • March 19, 2012

    by Nicole Flatow

    The Senate’s deal last week to confirm 14 judicial nominees over the next several months ensures that at least some long-pending nominees will finally get a vote. But even if all of these individuals are confirmed (which they likely will be), this would represent “just a fraction of the needed judges,” write three House members in an op-ed in Politico.

    Translation: the vacancy crisis on the federal courts persists. And among the overlooked consequences of the persistently high vacancy rate is that it harms our economy.

    “Simply put, they [vacancies] are bad for business,” write Reps. Charles Gonzalez, Emanuel Cleaver II and Judy Chu, the chairs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. “While litigants’ cases remain pending, they must put their lives — and their business plans — on hold. This uncertainty prevents business owners from making the needed investments to create jobs.”

    The Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen elaborates:

  • March 16, 2012

    by Nicole Flatow

    The U.S. Supreme Court today said today it will not allow live, televised coverage of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

    The court will, however, post audio and transcripts on each of the three days of arguments, within two hours after the day's arguments are complete, The Associated Press reports. Typically, the Supreme Court posts audio files on Fridays.

    The announcement is likely to heighten the “mad dash” to get one of a few coveted spots inside the courtroom.

    "It's like the most important ticket of the decade," Ezekiel Emanuel, a former white house advisor, told The Wall Street Journal

  • March 16, 2012
    Following Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) bold move to file cloture petitions on 17 judicial nominees at once, Senate leaders reached a deal late Wednesday to hold votes on 14 over the next few months. Under the deal, the Senate will hold votes on 12 federal district court judges and two circuit court judges between now and May 7, with votes on a few nominees held each week.
     
    The deal leaves out eight other nominees who are ready for an immediate Senate vote, and does not consider those additional nominees who will reach the Senate floor over the next two months. “The deal Senator Reid reached today with the Republicans who were obstructing any and all action is certainly a step in the right direction,” said American Constitution Society President Caroline Fredrickson. “Of course, the persistently high rate of vacancies on our courts continues – and with one in 10 seats still empty, litigants whose safety, security and livelihoods are on the line will continue to wait years for a resolution in court.”
     
    As part of the deal, the Senate on Thursday confirmed two nominees: Gina Groh to the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia by a vote of 95-2, and Michael Fitzgerald to the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California by a vote of 91-6. ThinkProgress reports that Fitzgerald will be “only the fourth openly gay lifetime tenured federal judge in American history.”