Author: Andrew Sullivan

Damon Root sharpens the pro-birthright case:

Those immigrants aren’t coming here to have babies and they aren’t coming here to abuse social services. As Riley told Reason.tv, immigrants “use welfare at lower rates than natives. I should also add that if your concern is that some immigrants are receiving more in public benefits than they pay in taxes, you should keep in mind that so do 67 percent of Americans.” According to the Pew Hispanic Research Center, based on its study of the 2004 Census, the labor force participation rate for illegal immigrant males (ages 18 to 64) was 92 percent, compared to a rate of just 83 percent for native-born males.

So not only does the Republican push to abolish birthright citizenship require disfiguring the 14th Amendment, one of the party’s greatest political achievements, it isn’t likely to have any discernible impact on the number of illegal immigrants entering the country, since the majority of them are here seeking jobs—something they will continue to do as long as there are employers willing to pay. That’s how supply and demand works.

In case you missed it from last night:

Canada:

[T]he change in [California] law would be devastating to the Canadian economy, halting the flow of billions of dollars from the US into Canada and eventually forcing hundreds of thousands into unemployment. Over the past 20 years, Canada has developed a substantial and highly profitable marijuana industry that is almost completely dependent on the US market. Between 60 and 90% of the marijuana produced domestically is exported to the US via cross-border smuggling operations.

Scott Morgan adds:

This is the first thing that ought to come to mind when we hear opponents of marijuana legalization claiming that it won't help our economy. We've been sending $15 billion a year to Canada, you morons. Forget taxes, let's talk about gross revenue.

A reader writes:

Here are the key passages from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Slip Opinion p 108-9

"The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719- 720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978). "

Id p 116 "Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977) … As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review."

Strict scrutiny is the highest, and rational basis the lowest level of appellate review. As any 2nd year law student can tell you, the standard of review almost always dictates the outcome in constitutional questions. Rational basis review means that the strong odds are that the proponents of a restriction win, strict scrutiny means that long odds are they lose.

And yet, Judge Walker is saying that the evidence at trial didn't even pass rational basis review. To overturn this opinion, the court would essentially have to craft a new standard of review, lower even than rational basis, for laws impacting only gay people's civil rights: separate and explicitly unequal. Or they can always punt.

This seems to me the news in Judge Walker's decision to extend a stay on his ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples until August 18. I'm not a legal expert but this is from the NCLR's release:

Even though Judge Walker did not immediately let same-sex couples in California marry, the ruling provides important insight into the merits of the issues that the Ninth Circuit will consider on appeal. For example, in his ruling today, Judge Walker casts serious doubt on whether the proponents of Prop 8 even have "standing" to pursue an appeal because they do not speak for the state of California, and the official representatives of the state agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Standing refers to whether a particular person has a legal right to bring an appeal. In his ruling today, Judge Walker said: “As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal. In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

But the governor and attorney general favor marriage equality. So it will be up to Anthony Kennedy, if the appeal court denies standing to the Prop 8 proponents. But maybe not. A reader notes:

Appellate courts generally try to resolve cases on the narrowest grounds possible.  Since the question of whether the intervenors have standing to pursue the appeal is a procedural/jurisdictional issue, and not the merits of the case, an appellate court should look to that question first to see if the case can be resolved without addressing the merits.  If the court decides that the intervenors don't have standing to appeal, the court could resolve the case in favor of the plaintiffs without granting much room for the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse it. 

Fascinating.

Ezra illustrates the new findings of a congressional panel:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year — and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a [nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation] analysis released Wednesday.

The latest absurdity from the drug war.

The woman spared from stoning for adultery in Iran now shows up on television confessing to complicity in her husband's death:

Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani's lawyer told the Guardian on Thursday that his client, a 43-year-old mother of two, was forced to give the interview, which was recorded in Tabriz prison where she has been held for the past four years. "She was severely beaten up and tortured until she accepted to appear in front of camera. … The lawyer said he feared the Iranian authorities would act quickly to carry out the death sentence, which was reportedly commuted to hanging after an international outcry against her sentence last month.

Maybe Dick Cheney can explain to the Iranian opposition that repeatedly beating up a prisoner does not equate to torture, and her confession is perfectly reliable as evidence.