bostonreview:
JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?
TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.
Not sure where Boston Review got its transcript, but the official SCOTUS transcript has this slightly different. Here it is, in full (it begins on page 38):
JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when - when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?
Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?
MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.
JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true.
But don’t give me a question to my question
(Laughter.)
(via mohandasgandhi)
"We have found that our friend, the Republican nominee, our California friend, has been playing on the outskirts with our enemies and our friends both, he has been doing it through rather subterranean sources. [Nixon campaign adviser Anna] Chennault is warning the South Vietnamese not to get pulled into this Johnson move."
—
Recently released tape recordings reveal that the 1968 Nixon campaign convinced South Vietnam to pull out peace talks ahead the election, promising them a better peace deal with a Nixon Administration.
The Johnson Administration, though frustrated by this, decided not to make it publicly known as it would also reveal that the government was tapping the South Vietnam ambassador’s phone.
The tapes also reveal that Johnson was considering reentering the 1968 election in the midst of the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
"We decided to give Republicans exactly what they wanted – an opportunity to reject federal funds. Of course, once we did, the place fell into anarchy."
—
Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (who is also the chairman of the Utah Democratic Party) after three Democratic members of the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee voted Wednesday in favor of a Republican-backed bill to reject $71 million in federal funds. The committee is made up of both senators and representatives.
“What does that mean?” Representative Roger Barrus (R) asked, after the bill passed.
Senator Kevin Van Tassell (R) said:
“We just shut down DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), we have probably shut down most of our conservation programs, most of our firefighters. I guess if that is what we want to do, as long as we know that is what we are doing.”
Two Republicans, Representative Mike McKell and Senator Ralph Okerlund, and Democratic Representative Susan Duckworth eventually changed their votes, resulting in the bill’s rejection and the acceptance of federal funds.
"Marco Rubio’s GOP response will be remembered for his awkward lunge for the water bottle. That’s a shame, because the speech itself was remarkable. Not in a good way.
At a moment when the Republican Party needs rebranding, Rubio offered nothing new. The thrust of his speech was “government bad, capitalism good.” Yet he recounted how beneficial government assistance has been to his own success. I expected him to resolve the contradiction, but he didn’t even try."
— Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson reacts to Sen. Rubio’s response to last night’s State of the Union.
