Media, pop culture, news, trends, photos, rants + things we like.
Subscribe to Newsweek on the web.
To recap: the Court struck down sections of the law requiring states that have a history of discrimination to get federal approval to change their election laws— the law’s effect on voter participation can be seen in the chart below, taken from the opinion.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia kinda went off the cuff at an event and made it clear where he stands on the death penalty, abortion, and “homosexual sodomy,” which he clearly thinks should be illegal.
We asked a handful of legal experts to review and annotate yesterday’s SCOTUS health-care opinion because, honestly, thing is confuuuuuuu-sing! Check it out and get learn’d. Super cool.
Yesterday’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act was a “supreme win for women,” as our story by Jessica Arons, the director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, helpfully explains.
Pretty wild, right? There’s more.
[Edit: If you’re reading this out of the dashboard, it looks weird. Sorry!]
Our reporter Aram Rostam was inside the Supreme Court when it made its historic ruling this morning. The scene:
Inside the Supreme Court building, it was all business. This is an efficient operation with its own police force, café and gift shop. About 160 lucky Americans, many of whom had waited outside all night to hear the historic ruling on health care reform, were finally allowed in and were now standing in single file in a corridor. They’d been issued orange admission cards stamped with their place in line.
The first on line was Carol Anderson, a blonde woman who says she works as a researcher for a living and believed the law “will force Catholics to go against their conscience.” She had tucked her admissions card, stamped with the number 1, into a framed picture of Mother Mary. She said she got to courthouse at 12:30 PM yesterday: “Some kind reporter from CBS lent me his folding chair. When you hit fifty and you don’t get sleep, it affects you more then when you are twenty.”
Behind her, with admissions card number two, stood Laura Brennaman, a registered nurse who had flown in from Ft. Myers, Florida, an ardent supporter of the bill. Though Brennaman and Anderson hold opposing views on the Affordable Care Act, they barely discussed it for the 20 hours they sat next to each other. Brennaman says she’d waited in relative comfort. “I brought a little camping folding chair,” she said. “It reclines. I probably slept a total of an hour last night. But I can sleep on the plane back. And I brought some trail mix and some tuna fish in a can. I’m good.”
Behind Brennaman was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-IA). The Republican firebrand, who had fought so hard against the law when it passed, was leaning against the wall near a portrait of Justice Edward T. Sanford. Brennaman said she noticed that members of Bachmann’s staff had taken two-hour shifts holding the Congresswoman’s place over night. “They were lovely,” added Brennan. “They all made it quite clear that they volunteered and they were happy to do it for her.” Bachmann’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Your tumblr is hiding just behind the cameras. Ask us a question! We’ll give you a shout-out on air.
The first preview from our Interview Issue: Sandra Day O’Connor Interviews John Paul Stevens.
O’Connor: It appears our nation has become increasingly polarized. Has the role of the court changed along with that polarization?
Stevens: I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the court to continue to do the best that it can with the difficult issues that come before it … There is a lot of polarization out there, and one of the reasons for it is all the gerrymandering that is permitted now, that I used to write against … I was on the losing side many, many times.