Supreme Court Bingo: How Rulings Might Play Out

[politicallefty]

As a liberal, I'm not terribly concerned here. It's seemed clear from the start that the Court's conservatives will effectively wipe out race-based affirmative action (which is one issue where I lean towards the right). If I had to guess, Roberts takes that decision for himself. I also don't think the Court will go as far as to actually strike down Section 5 of the VRA in its entirety. A more limited ruling going after the coverage formula (i.e. Section 4) seems more likely, which kicks the ball over to Congress. Any of the conservative Justices could conceivably write that opinion. However, if Roberts somehow doesn't take the affirmative action case, he'll definitely at least take the VRA case.

As for the gay marriage cases, I think Kennedy will take at least one of those for himself. If he's willing to go for the equal protection argument (i.e. a 50-state ruling establishing a right to gay marriage), I think he takes that for himself to write. Otherwise, he'll probably write the decision striking down DOMA with no majority reasoning. I really cannot see the Court upholding Prop 8. It probably goes down in some manner, whether it be standing or on the merits, but Kennedy or any of the liberals could easily write that decision.

[politicallefty]

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

I agree. I don't think this Congress would update Section 4 so as to have an enforceable Section 5. However, that sort of calculus is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to the decision processes of the Supreme Court. As I mentioned before, the obsolescence of Section 4 is essentially the undoing of the VRA. I can see the constitutional arguments with it. I don't think Section 5 itself raises any constitutional issues. If Congress were to extend Section 5 to the entire country, I think it would perfectly consistent with the Constitution. The real issue seems to be the coverage formula, which I think the Court will strike down.