As you have probably heard by now (or seen everyone’s red-and-equal-sign Facebook profile photo), same-sex marriage came to the Supreme Court last week. The Nine heard from supporters and opposers on the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8 – two cases that could have tidal-wave shifts on the state of these laws across the country. Although cable news provided their fair share of coverage on the issue, we felt that the serious constitutional implications of the issue did not get their time of day.
We [the National Section Editors, John Surico and Jeremy Unger] spoke with NYU politics professor and law school affiliate Christine Harrington – for politics majors, you know her as the professor that teaches “Civil Liberties,” “Law and Society” and a few other constitutional seminars. Also, she predicted the outcome of the Obamacare case… so here’s our conversation with her about the legal battle for same-sex marriage in America.
Today, the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of California’s infamous Proposition 8, which declares that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” If the Court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, gay marriage could become recognized nationally. However, if Justices rule otherwise, the choice to legalize gay marriage would be left to each state to decide individually.
This past March, we wrote a post entitled “
When it comes to choosing its docket, the Supreme Court is worse with peer pressure than a freshman trying a cigarette for the first time. In 2010, the Citizens United ruling was prefaced with hundreds of amicus curiae briefs, which are basically special interest groups telling the justices why they have to rule on the matter. In 2011, the healthcare reform lawsuit featured a conglomerate of nearly thirty states screaming at the top of their legal lungs for an unconstitutional ruling. And in both situations, the Supreme Court caved and heard ‘em out.
Amidst efforts by state governments to 
Any sane political junkie knows to keep his or her distance from the Supreme Court’s rulings. The Nine are the masters of sending the ultimate mixed signal, constantly throwing us off with their decisions – in this way, like a girl who puts a smiley after every text message. One day, they’ll be legalizing corporate electioneering (a la Citizens United), and the next day (or year), making sure everyone has the right to an effective lawyer in a plea bargain (a la 
