Streams

Today's Supreme Court Opinions: Gene Patenting

Monday, June 17, 2013

The Supreme Court building. (Getty)

The Supreme Court did not issue opinions today on the major cases involving affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and voting rights -- those decisions will likely come next week. But they did rule on a key voter registration law in Arizona. Noah Feldman, Harvard law professor, Bloomberg View columnist and author of Cool War: The Future of Global Competition discusses the case, and last week's gene patent opinion and offers analysis of today's rulings.

Get Up To Speed on the Key Decisions: Our SCOTUS Reading List

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [6]

On the issue of "same-sex marriage", I wonder whether the Court considered the following (and if they did, to what extent):

As long as the right of "marriage" would in any way be tied to the rights of adoption, foster parenthood and/or surrogate parenthood, then there are a number of sensitive issues and questions concerning which a frank, open, serious, uncensored discussion and consideration is not only entirely /germane/ but absolutely /imperative/. Perhaps chief among these is the question of connections and ties between homosexuality, pedophilia/hebephilia/ephebophilia and child/adolescent sexual abuse and exploitation, and the "LGBT" "child-love" [sic]-- esp. "Man-Boy Love [sic]"--movements.

While the prevailing politically- and socially- correct orthodoxy vehemently denies (with doctrinaire self-assuredness and usually more than a hint of self-righteousness and condescension) any such connections and ties, considerable evidence for them exists and is amply documented.

(**If anyone disputes this assertion or its relevance to the issue at hand, let them present evidence for their case. Likewise, anyone wishing to defend the views and quotes presented should articulate a substantive argument. Removing posts such as this-- that by any remotely objective interpretation fall well within the stated rules and guidelines-- SAYS FAR MORE ABOUT THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH BLATANT, clearly ideologically and/or emotionally-driven CENSORSHIP than it does about any of the authors or views being presented in question.**)

A fair amount of such evidence is presented in an article by Brian Clowes entitled, 'Homosexuality and the Church Crisis':
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_09homosexuality.html

(Whether or not one accepts the author's positions and claims regarding the Roman Catholic Church.)

(cont'd)

Jun. 18 2013 01:51 AM
BC from los angeles, ca

What kind of "clouds" are those in the sky over the Supreme Court building?

Jun. 17 2013 10:02 PM

Did the Court consider any of this evidence?

Was this concern presented to them by anyone?

Jun. 17 2013 12:58 PM
Amy from Manhattan

Thanks for the explanation, Brett. It still doesn't sound like requiring proof to me. If someone does lie, how would s/he be found out?

Jun. 17 2013 12:23 PM

Amy. The voter registration form includes an affidavit of eligibility including citizenship which the prospective voter signs & acknowledges criminal liability of fines & prison time for lying. The wording makes it a self-sworn affidavit, thus no Notary Public needed.

Jun. 17 2013 12:12 PM
Amy from Manhattan

I'm pro-voting rights & anti-vote-suppression, but I don't understand why citizenship is required to vote but proof of citizenship isn't required to register to vote. Is it still required at a different stage of the process?

Jun. 17 2013 11:57 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.