Look at these people destroying the sanctity of Rush Limbaugh’s marriages!

Photos by Mark Wilson/Win McNamee/Getty Images News/Getty Images and via @KellyO

What does the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 decision mean?
Same-sex marriage is legal again in California! Yay, beach weddings!
BUT it’s only legal because the Supreme Court decided that Proposition 8 supporters didn’t have the right to sue after California struck down the law. SCOTUS declined to rule on whether or not these people are d-bags.
It was a 5-4 decision that fell along lines legal scholars might describe as “?!” Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan were in the majority. Kennedy,Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor gave the minority opinion. Yes, this lineup is as uncomfortable for them as it is for you.
Same-sex marriage isn’t going to become automatically legal outside California, despite this and the earlier DOMA ruling—but California’s same-sex couples can marry, and couples in other states where same-sex marriage is legal will have new federal protections. Who’s psyched for tax time next year?
San Francisco’s colorful Pride Parade is about to get a lot more boring. Soon it’ll just be a bunch of married couples arguing over whose turn it is to take out the trash when they get home.
As before, if you are straight and married, nobody is going to destroy your marriage, unless your spouse has an affair. Even then, maybe you could try counseling.
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images News/Getty Images

What does the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 decision mean?

  • Same-sex marriage is legal again in California! Yay, beach weddings!
  • BUT it’s only legal because the Supreme Court decided that Proposition 8 supporters didn’t have the right to sue after California struck down the law. SCOTUS declined to rule on whether or not these people are d-bags.
  • It was a 5-4 decision that fell along lines legal scholars might describe as “?!” Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan were in the majority. Kennedy,Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor gave the minority opinion. Yes, this lineup is as uncomfortable for them as it is for you.
  • Same-sex marriage isn’t going to become automatically legal outside California, despite this and the earlier DOMA ruling—but California’s same-sex couples can marry, and couples in other states where same-sex marriage is legal will have new federal protections. Who’s psyched for tax time next year?
  • San Francisco’s colorful Pride Parade is about to get a lot more boring. Soon it’ll just be a bunch of married couples arguing over whose turn it is to take out the trash when they get home.
  • As before, if you are straight and married, nobody is going to destroy your marriage, unless your spouse has an affair. Even then, maybe you could try counseling.

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images News/Getty Images

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by it’s marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

- Justice Anthony Kennedy, declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Anthony Kennedy, shorter: That Defense of Marriage thing? Didn’t defend any marriages.

In the case of Media Interns v. Supreme Court’s Procedures for Releasing Decisions, we are all winners.

Photos by Win McNamee/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Big news for fans of racial discrimination in voting procedure!
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states — ahem, looking at you Mississippi — to seek “preclearance” from the Department of Justice before making any changes to its voting rules.
So does this mean preclearance is unconstitutional?
Actually, no! Justice Robert, who wrote the majority opinion, declared that the preclearance procedure is cool, but the formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that determines which states and counties have to be precleared is unconstitutional.
Roberts wrote that Section 4 “patrols certain parts of the country based on now eradicated practices.”
Sounds like they’re saying the South is post-racially awesome now.
Pretty much!
So if only the formula is unconstitutional, but the rest of the VRA is okay, can Congress “fix” Section 4?
They technically can…but, are you new here? That’s not happening.
So…only Paula Deen gets to vote now, huh?
No, but the DOJ is going to have a lot less power to deal with localities that impose new vote ID rules and other requirements that have a disproportionate impact on minority voters.
Were there any awesome dissents?
Justice Ginsburg had some grievances to air. She said, “Throwing out preclearance,” just because there is less voting discrimination today than in 1965, “is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” Burn.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Big news for fans of racial discrimination in voting procedure!

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states — ahem, looking at you Mississippi — to seek “preclearance” from the Department of Justice before making any changes to its voting rules.

So does this mean preclearance is unconstitutional?

Actually, no! Justice Robert, who wrote the majority opinion, declared that the preclearance procedure is cool, but the formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that determines which states and counties have to be precleared is unconstitutional.

Roberts wrote that Section 4 “patrols certain parts of the country based on now eradicated practices.”

Sounds like they’re saying the South is post-racially awesome now.

Pretty much!

So if only the formula is unconstitutional, but the rest of the VRA is okay, can Congress “fix” Section 4?

They technically can…but, are you new here? That’s not happening.

So…only Paula Deen gets to vote now, huh?

No, but the DOJ is going to have a lot less power to deal with localities that impose new vote ID rules and other requirements that have a disproportionate impact on minority voters.

Were there any awesome dissents?

Justice Ginsburg had some grievances to air. She said, “Throwing out preclearance,” just because there is less voting discrimination today than in 1965, “is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” Burn.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on marriage equality (not today, though!), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) endures his toughest photo shoot yet.
“Now show me some passion. Okay, can you look more uncomfortable? How about a grimace? PERFECT.”
Photo via @WhipHoyer

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on marriage equality (not today, though!), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) endures his toughest photo shoot yet.

“Now show me some passion. Okay, can you look more uncomfortable? How about a grimace? PERFECT.”

Photo via @WhipHoyer

Same sex marriage is very new… newer than cell phones or the internet.

-Justice Samuel Alito

Yeah, remember when same sex marriage first came out and it was bulky and really slow?

Meet Packy, the little health care law that could.
It’s another Indecision storybook, right this way.

Meet Packy, the little health care law that could.

It’s another Indecision storybook, right this way.

Helpful advice for the Supreme Court justices as they consider the health care reform case.