SCOTUS Remarks

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, the Court has not done that.


JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, could you explain that a little bit to me, just because I did not pick this up in your briefs. What harm you see happening and when and how and — what —what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and effect work?


JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: We let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years from 1898 to 1954.


MR. COOPER: Once again, I — I would reiterate that we don’t believe that’s the correct legal question before the Court, and that the correct question is whether or not redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage as a -­

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then are — are you conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? So you’re conceding that.

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, no. I’m not


JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that’s the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the Government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?


JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Assumes the lack of competency of the Government, **which I don’t**, but what other types of cases…


JUSTICE GINSBURG:  The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law, rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure because, if it’s successful, they — nobody will pay the penalty, and there will be no revenue to raise.


BONUS: Okay question of the day? When did Justice Scalia BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The ‘Supremes’ were on point today…