Two decisions

So far today, the Supreme Court has handed down two decisions:

1. By a 5-4 decision, it struck down a Chicago law that banned hand guns within its jurisdiction. What this means is that the court has decided that it is a violation of the 2nd amandment rights to keep and bear arms for a local government to have stricter gun control laws, based on local crime statistics -- although its opinion (written by Justice Alito) left some room for there to be some limits in other cases.

2. By a 5-4 decision, it upheld a lower court decision that allowed a university to deny funds and official recognition to a local campus Christian group that requires members to sigh a statement of faith that effectively bars gay and lesbian students from being members. The ruling does not "kick the organization off campus," as some would have it. The group can exist and meet; it simply says the school doesn't have to support such a group that discriminates against some students.

In both cases, the usual conservative and liberal justices lined up accordingly with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote, joining the conservatives on #1 and the liberals on #2.

Of course, Elena Kagan is unlikely to change this balance, since she will replace John Paul Stevens. Only if Obama has the chance to replace one of the conservative members (which seems unlikely, barring unforeseen health problems), will the balance shift.

The only hope for her making things better is that she might help persuade Kennedy to join the liberals in a few more cases than otherwise. Kennedy will be a crucial vote when the case to overturn California's Prop8 makes it to the Court. From his very favorable majority opinions for the Court's striking down Colorado's Amendment 2 and the Texas sodomy law, there's a good chance he would side with the liberals on a gay rights issue.

Still -- "gay marriage" brings out different issues for some people. But the case made by the team of Olsen and Buis in the hearings in California this spring is compelling, and the defense was a complete dud. Their argument for the Prop8 ban was essentially "because it's always been that way" and "it's better for children to have a mother and a father."

If conservatives vote according to a reading of the law, as the they claim they do, then there seems little room to stand on to deny equal protection to gays. But then, we know, they don't always do what they say they do. The "originalists" will likely say that the Constitution says nothing about gay marriage and ignore the contradictions all those times they themselves "invent" what's the Constitution says.

Ralph