ex pluribus unum - A Good Day for Equality

Putting aside legitimate concerns on how exactly it came about, 5/17/04 is a wonderful day in Massachusetts in that same sex couples will be able to be married. The day is a quite fitting one as a promotion of the principle of equality because fifty years ago the Supreme Court struck down segregation in public schools. To cite a worthwhile volume, What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said (edited by Jack Balkin), and/or how it should have been carried out is a matter of much debate. The value of a judicial decision of this sort is a matter of legitimate debate. The fact it was a decision of great importance is (or should be) a subject of much less debate. [more]

The symbolism in the fact that same sex marriages are now officially legal in Massachusetts fifty years after the ruling of Brown v. Bd. Of Education was handed down is not just being used by me. All the same, along with an great book I just read (a down to earth and often amusing autobiographical account by an in many ways typical mid-century Midwestern housewife), inspired me to view things in global terms. Thus, public education, equality as a whole, and other issues are discussed in my essay excerpted above. The problem with such a technique is that replies might focus on minor points, which was the case, but perhaps such "thread hijacking" served a useful purpose. A more cynical view of the decision is found here, one overly critical imho, as my comment argued.

---

Tennessee v. Lane was handed down today. The case involved suits against states to protect the rights of equal court access for the disabled as authorized by federal law. Creative constitutional interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment led this to be considered controversial and such suits by the disabled in general was struck down as unconstitutional a few years ago. The right to court access, a due process right more specific and deemed more fundamental than general equality for the disabled, saved the day ... barely.

The ruling was 5-4 with the dissents concerned there was not enough evidence of violations to justify such legislation. Justice Scalia (solo dissent) has a point that the vague rules used in this sort of litigation is dubious, but clearly Justice Stevens' (no fan of said precedent) was restrained by the need to get Justice O'Connor's vote. The Fourteenth Amendment arguably can be read to restrain congressional power in the way promoted by the dissents, but it's a dubious exercise -- words like "due process," "enforce," and "equality" aren't so clearly restrained. The courts are busy enough -- second guessing of legislative power of this sort is an ill advised method of expanding their caseload.

---

Also: The congressman convicted of manslaughter was just let out of prison, after an hundred day sentence. Not a bad deal for killing someone, no? After an error, a blown call, and a hit by Roger Clemens (sic) led to a potentially fatal extra run scored, the Mets had a lovely win in the 13th yesterday. The ultimate winning run (one strike away from losing, Piazza hit a game tying two run homer in the ninth) came from Jason Phillips, apparently nicknamed by some as "JP." Fine initials, Jason!