We begin today's roundup with
The Washington Post's
Eugene Robinson who highlights how the GOP is out of step with the numbers on marriage equality:
No one can be certain which way the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage, but the direction of history’s arrow is plain for all to see — except, apparently, the Republican candidates for president.
[...] There has been no rending of the fabric of society. There has been no deleterious impact on “traditional” marriage. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 61 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage — meaning no one can claim the nation is somehow unprepared to see two men or two women walking down the aisle.
For much of the country, gay marriage is becoming old news. But you would never know that from listening to the GOP presidential hopefuls, who play rhetorical Twister whenever the issue is raised.
The
editorial board at The Washington Post adds:
THE SUPREME Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a case widely expected to decide a great civil rights issue of this century: what the Constitution demands on same-sex marriage. The justices took an incrementalist approach the last time they considered a same-sex marriage case, ruling in favor of equal treatment for gay men and lesbians but stopping short of striking down state-level bans on same-sex marriage across the country. The court is now being asked to finish the job, ruling that such marriage restrictions are fundamentally at odds with the Constitution’s guarantees.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Joseph Landau at The New York Times looks at the possibility of Chief Justice Roberts ruling in favor of marriage equality:
Putting aside previous cases and previous votes, there are a number of institutional reasons Chief Justice Roberts might, and should, cast a vote for the freedom to marry.
First, a Supreme Court ruling authorizing the states to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples would lead to enormous confusion. The court’s decision not to take appeals of earlier cases, or put other appeals of lower court decisions on hold, has induced many couples to marry. Surely, same-sex couples who married when marriage was legal under prior court rulings would remain so. But if the plaintiffs do not prevail, all of the states that recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry in light of lower federal court rulings could revert to their earlier state of affairs.
(A ruling against the plaintiffs would leave untouched the rights of same-sex couples to marry in the states that have affirmed the right through legislation, ballot initiative or state constitutional rulings.)
The consequences of such a ruling would be dramatic — and quite unsettling.
Meanwhile,
Noah Feldman at
Bloomberg takes a look back at Justice Kennedy's opinions and argues that he'll rule in favor of marriage equality:
In advance of that almost inevitable sentiment, let me reassure you -- or if you have the opposite view, let me deliver the bad news: Kennedy is going to write an opinion holding that what he calls the right to equal dignity requires states to allow marriages between two people of the same sex.
How do I know this? Because the decision will be the culmination of almost 20 years of preparation by Kennedy. He’s been developing gay rights in a series of decisions, each one a landmark in its own way. He can't turn back now, because he's already built the scaffolding.
If Kennedy’s long-term project isn't enough to convince you, consider this: Kennedy has at this point much to gain by creating the marriage right, and almost nothing to lose.
On the topic of the Baltimore response to Freddie Gray's death,
The Baltimore Sun urges calm:
Looting convenience stores, smashing police car windows and throwing rocks at officers accomplishes nothing but to confirm the ugly stereotypes that underlie the very injustices the demonstrators are trying to protest. [...] Some suggest that Baltimore has reached a tipping point in its reaction to Freddie Gray's death. Perhaps it has, but we need to remember that tipping over into chaos and violence is not inevitable. Whoever caused the destruction, whether they were out of towners or natives, we must remember that there are many more of us who are praying for justice through peace.
Dana Milbank takes on the topic of billionaires financing entire campaigns:
The outright acquisition of the primary process by the wealthy is the latest instance of the 1 percent taking over the American political system – although in this case it’s more likely the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent. As the Center for Responsive Politics notes, the top 1 percent of donors to super PACS (about 100 people and their spouses) contributed 67 percent of super-PAC funds in 2012.
Fred Wertheimer, a campaign-finance reformer who runs the group Democracy 21, predicts that, for the first time, spending by super PACs will exceed spending by candidates and parties combined in the 2016 presidential campaign, which is expected to cost some $5 billion. [...] Thanks to the Roberts court, the sacred concept of one man, one vote has been replaced by a new reality: one billionaire, one ballot.
On the topic of infrastructure spending,
Jay Bookman goes through the numbers:
In 1993, a motorist who drove 10,000 miles paid roughly $90 a year to build and maintain the nation’s transportation infrastructure. In 2015, a motorist who drives 10,000 miles a year would pay barely half that amount when adjusted for inflation. And if you travel outside this country to other industrialized countries, you begin to appreciate just how worn-out, inefficient and outdated our transportation infrastructure has become as a result.