There are those moments in life when you hear of a law passed or an executive order issued that makes you think "that will never stand up in court". One hopes that the judges in court understand that these laws and orders are sometimes written by those with a poor understanding of law. They are often laws that curtail rights.

One recent edict that seems ripe for overturning (if it actually goes into effect) is NY's Mayor Bloomberg declaration that soda sizes larger than 16 oz will be banned. If ever there was a case to make about a "nanny state", this is it. Odd that it comes from a Republican, but both liberals and conservatives are united in knowing that this is overreach. It's one thing to advocate for healthier eating like Michelle Obama does, or even push for healthier food in schools, but to outright ban a drink size in the public sector? It's absurd, and one can fully expect that McDonalds et al will be taking the city of NY to court should this go into effect.

On the other end of the court process was the news that a federal appeals court has ruled that parts of DOMA are unconstitutional. This always seemed like a no-brainer to me - the federal government provides certain privileges to hetero married couples, but not to gay married couples. That is a direct violation of the equal protection clause. One other aspect of gay marriage not covered by the lawsuit is that all states recognize each other's hetero marriages, but some don't recognize other states gay marriages. That seems like a direct violation of the equal protection clause as well. It was explained to me last night by Official Blog Lawyer Shane-O that the reason DOMA wasn't unconstitutional when it was written was because there were no states at the time that had legalized gay marriage. It wasn't until a state made it legal that those marriages were not being granted equal protection. This case should make it to the SCOTUS, possibly by fall.

There are times when it seems that they go too far with their judgements (when Republicans disagree with them, they call them "activist judges". Liberals just call it a "bad decision"). The Citizens United ruling was one such case, where they took a narrow argument, and expanded it beyond the parameters of the case. That has resulted in the massive influx of money into campaigns via surrogates (Super PACs). Former SCOTUS justice John Paul Stevens railed against the ruling at a recent awards ceremony, saying that the court will HAVE to fix their own ruling:

It may have been the reality of the political finance world in which we live that gave some jurors pause in the John Edwards trial. He was acquitted on one charge, and a mistrial declared on the others. When you have billionaires propping up Republican presidential candidates, it seems almost quaint that someone passed some cash under the table to take care of a mistress. That isn't meant to get Edwards off the hook morally (and he knows it), but from a legal standpoint, the case was on shakey ground to begin with. For all the railing that Republicans do against "Chicago-style politics", they don't seem to have any problem trying to buy elections. It's this new reality that likely "bought" Edwards his freedom.

It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court does like it did in Citizens United and expand the scope of their ruling about equal protection to include the inter-state marriage recognition problem along with the federal recognition problem. Perhaps at some point in the future, we'll see gay marriage legal and election funding tightened up. We might even be able to enjoy a 20 oz soft drink while doing so.