Appeals court judges seem sharply divided over Virginia ban on same-sex marriage

RICHMOND — A panel of judges sharply disagreed Tuesday over whether Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution, trading pointed questions at an emotional appeals court hearing that previewed the legal issues likely to eventually land at the Supreme Court.

At the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, two judges with distinctly different views dominated the questioning over whether marriage is a fundamental right, protected by the Constitution that must be offered regardless of sexual orientation.

The three-judge panel was reviewing a February decision by a Norfolk federal district judge that Virginia’s ban — which also bars recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, along with any legal arrangements that resemble marriage, such as civil unions — violates guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Five lawyers took turns on the podium, but the focus was on the veteran judicial panel. The opposing viewpoints of two of the jurists suggested that the third, independent-minded Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd, might hold the deciding vote.

A former Democratic state legislator from South Carolina, Floyd has shown a bipartisan appeal. He was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush and elevated to the 4th Circuit by President Obama. He is said to be a friend of both Democratic Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.) and the state’s Republican senior senator, Lindsey O. Graham.

As a district judge, Floyd was perhaps best known for ruling that Bush did not have the power to detain a U.S. citizen, José Padilla, as an “enemy combatant.” The 4th Circuit later overturned the decision, but Padilla was charged in a civilian court and convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

However the panel rules — a decision could come before the end of the summer — the judges acknowledged that the work they and other appeals court judges around the country are doing is probably just teeing up the issue for the Supreme Court.

READ MORE HERE

Father Given Three Consecutive Life Sentences For Trafficking Drugs To Save Son

April Anderson and Cole Jackson's father was arrested almost 20 years ago for the intent to distribute half a pound of methamphetamine. The judge sentenced him to three consecutive life sentences, which his family told HuffPost Live's Ricky Camilleriis a yet another example of overreaching drug sentences better suited for more serious criminals.

When Cole was young, he was diagnosed with Wizkott-Aldrich syndrome, a rare immune-deficiency disease that sent his medical bills through the roof. After being told that he needed a life-saving bone marrow transplant, a $250,000 procedure, the family held numerous benefits and eventually raised $50,000, which the American Cancer Society matched. With no insurance (the family's provider dropped them after they found out Cole was sick) and minimal income, Cole's father, Dicky Joe Jackson, a truck driver, agreed to start transporting meth.

Dicky's mission to use money made through the drug trade to support his family led Salon to label him "the real Walter White."

“I was desperate,” Jackson told Salon. “I had to get the money. Before I had kids, I’d never known there was a love like that. Once you have kids the whole game changes. There ain’t nothing you wouldn’t do for them especially if they’re sick."

His daughter April told HuffPost Live that she imagines her father was motivated by the responsibility of having to save his son.

"That’s when Dad started doing the only thing he knew to do in order to try to raise the money because the doctors had told my parents that Cole was going to die, that he wouldn’t live to see the age of five," April said. "So I think he kind of felt backed into a corner.”

READ MORE HERE

China denies church demolition is persecution of Christians

CNN) -- A massive church was razed to the ground this week in Wenzhou, a coastal Chinese city nicknamed the "Jerusalem of the East" for its large Christian population.

Local officials responsible for the demolition say the church was an illegal structure that was four times the permitted structure size. But Christian groups are concerned that the demolition signals an official campaign against religious organizations.

The Sanjiang Church took 12 years and 30 million yuan ($4.7 million) to build, reports Chinese media. Its soaring spires were a symbol of worship in a city that is fifteen percent Christian.

The church's demolition on Monday was preceded by a month-long standoff between supporters of the church and local authorities, with supporters occupying the church to protest its destruction.

The church was originally a government-approved project under the official "Three-Self Patriotic Movement," a state-sanctioned Protestant church. Last September it was lauded by the local government as a model engineering project.

But the official rhetoric has since changed entirely.

Jin Leibo, a spokesperson from the propaganda department of Yongjia County, where Sanjiang Church was located, told CNN that the church was destroyed as it was "illegal."

"The building area should be within 1,881 square meters, but they built 7,928 square meters illegally," Jin said. The church was asked to "self-rectify" by April 22, but workers only managed to tear down 500 square meters by deadline, according to officials.

By Monday evening the church had been flattened by bulldozers.

Five local government officials are currently under investigation in relation to the illegal construction of the church, according to Jin. One official was arrested, and another is in custody.

Representatives of the church could not be reached for comment by CNN.

U.S.-based Christian rights group China Aid says the faithful are worried that the church demolition could be a sign that the government is tightening its grip over the spread of Christianity in China.

The organization claims that churches in different parts of Wenzhou and Hangzhou are currently "facing persecution" as a result of a provincial campaign against religious structures that was set into motion after Zhejiang Party Secretary Xia Baolong visited churches across the province and deemed them "too conspicuous."

Under Communist Party rule since 1949, China is officially an atheist country, but Christianity is growing. According to the Pew Research Center, China's Christian population had reached 67 million by 2010, the second largest in Asia.

Nigerians demand government do more to bring home kidnapped girls

Lagos, Nigeria (CNN) -- Nigerians took to the streets Thursday to demand the government do more to rescue scores of girls abducted by militants more than two weeks ago.

Militants seized about 230 girls in the dead of the night at a high school in the nation's far northeast, a hotbed for Islamist group Boko Haram.

Armed men herded the girls out of bed and forced them into trucks on April 16 in the town of Chibok. The convoy of trucks then disappeared into the dense forest bordering Cameroon.

Roughly 200 girls are still missing, although the authorities and parents differ on the number.

Nigerians have rallied for days to criticize the government's handling of the rescue efforts. Hundreds wept and chanted "bring back our girls" during protests in the capital of Abuja on Wednesday. A day later, protesters gathered in Lagos.

Shortly after the abductions last month, frustrated Chibok residents went into the forest in motorbikes to search for the girls.

During their nine-hour trek, they never saw a single soldier in the forest where authorities believe the militants took the girls, said Enoch Mark, whose daughter and two nieces were among the kidnapped.

READ MORE HERE

Sonia Sotomayor gets it right in Michigan affirmative action dissent

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the high court’s 6-2 decision Tuesday to uphold Michigan’s voter-approved ban on affirmative action for public universities has been variously described as “blistering," “scathing,” and "outraged."

It is passionate, for sure, but it is actually logical and scholarly, and well worth curling up with.

She laments that the court’s role as a bulwark against suppression of the minority has crumbled, and that her colleagues have allowed Michigan voters “to do what our Constitution forbids.”

(Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in his majority opinion, noted that race considerations in college admissions are permissible. He wrote that the case was not about how the debate over racial preferences should be resolved, but rather who may resolve it – in this case, the voters. This seems disingenuous; since when are voters the final word when it comes to protecting the interest of the minority, in this case, a racial minority?)

The power of Sotomayor's dissent comes from her deft and persuasive distillation of what she calls the country’s “long and lamentable” history of racial discrimination.

If you think that these efforts have ended with the election of a black president, you haven’t been keeping up with the news. In many places -- Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio to name three -- outright racism has been replaced with more subtle kinds of discrimination. The Michigan law, as Sotomayor writes, is part of an effort to “make it more difficult for the minority, and the minority alone, to obtain policies designed to foster racial integration.”

READ MORE HERE

High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions.

The justices said in a 6-2 ruling that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. The justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said voters chose to eliminate racial preferences because they deemed them unwise.

Kennedy said nothing in the Constitution or the court’s prior cases gives judges the authority to undermine the election results.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically. “But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

READ MORE HERE

Obama: LBJ's Civil Rights Legacy Reflects 'What The Hell The Presidency Is For'

President Barack Obama honored the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act Thursday, praising former President Lyndon B. Johnson's work to fulfill the promise of American equality.

Speaking at a ceremony in Austin, Texas, Obama said he has "lived out the promise of LBJ's efforts" by serving as the country's first black president.

Obama added that even with the power of the presidency, Johnson's civil rights work showed he never forgot growing up in the face of poverty and racial hatred.

"He believed that their plight was his plight too, that his freedom ultimately was wrapped up in theirs, and that making their lives better was what the hell the presidency was for," Obama said.

Obama also commended Johnson for his ability to push through legislation in Congress, even in the face of opposition from within the Democratic party.

"The story of America is a story of progress, however slow, however incomplete," Obama said.