18

Sandra Day O'Connor - Wikipedia

18 Jan 2017 21:24 | Author: silvergoose864 | Category: Data analysis phd thesis

GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

Ginsburg said she had waited to take such a stance on the death penalty because past justices, "took themselves out of the running," when the did so, leaving, "no room for them to be persuasive with the other justices." She reiterated many of the key points from the dissent, saying, "I think that [Breyer] pointed to evidence that has grown in quantity and in quality. He started out by pointing out that there were a hundred people who had been totally exonerated of the capital crime with which they were charged. so one thing is the mistakes that are possible in this system. The other is the quality of representation. Another is. yes there was racial disparity but even more geographical disparity. Most states in the union where the death penalty is theoretically on the books don’t have executions."

Comments
  1. author
    User1488402264 18 Jan 2017 07:55

    The following is an informal collection of statements by present or former Supreme Court Justices on the death penalty taken from interviews or essays, rather than from Court opinions. 

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

    Scroll Down For Comments

    No matter how they slice it with legal sleeze, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy—in making same-sex marriage a constitutional right—have created a new law out of thin air.

    F or many conservatives, including myself, the decision to vote for Trump was not an easy one. But after a long, nightmarish primary, the calculation came down to a simple binary choice: vote for Trump to stop Hillary and save the courts or vote for Hillary (or a third-party candidate or write-in) and watch the erosion of our courts continue.

    In a matter of hours, conservatives went from fretting over whether Senate Republicans should have relented and confirmed Judge Merrick Garland to dusting off Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

    For the many Americans who expected to see the last glass ceiling shattered last month, it’s been a painful few weeks of soul-searching and self-doubt. Many women who planned to bring their daughters to the inauguration must now patiently explain to them that a man who called women pigs and dogs and worse is their president, that this is not their time. Dismissals of race and gender equality as “identity politics” mean we have to apologize for even asking for a seat at the table. It will be a long four years.

    This has been one of the most difficult times I can recall for women in public office. It is shattering to contemplate starting again to relitigate fights over our bodies, access to contraception, equal pay, respect in the workplace, the right to love and marry the partner of our choosing, and the right to be unafraid of sexual violence and casual threats. We have a long climb ahead. We also have the accumulated lives and wisdom of four extraordinary women who did this climb before us and who will do it with us again.

  2. author
    bluekoala985 18 Jan 2017 05:38

    The following is an informal collection of statements by present or former Supreme Court Justices on the death penalty taken from interviews or essays, rather than from Court opinions. 

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

    Scroll Down For Comments

    No matter how they slice it with legal sleeze, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy—in making same-sex marriage a constitutional right—have created a new law out of thin air.

  3. author
    purplepeacock597 18 Jan 2017 02:29

    The following is an informal collection of statements by present or former Supreme Court Justices on the death penalty taken from interviews or essays, rather than from Court opinions. 

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

    Scroll Down For Comments

    No matter how they slice it with legal sleeze, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy—in making same-sex marriage a constitutional right—have created a new law out of thin air.

    F or many conservatives, including myself, the decision to vote for Trump was not an easy one. But after a long, nightmarish primary, the calculation came down to a simple binary choice: vote for Trump to stop Hillary and save the courts or vote for Hillary (or a third-party candidate or write-in) and watch the erosion of our courts continue.

    In a matter of hours, conservatives went from fretting over whether Senate Republicans should have relented and confirmed Judge Merrick Garland to dusting off Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

  4. author
    User1488604788 18 Jan 2017 09:08

    Новости для специалистов в области металлообработки, метрологии, изготовления инструмента и автоматизации производства. Здесь можно загрузить последние новости о продукции Renishaw, описание конкретных примеров применения, статьи технического содержания и новости о компании в целом.

    Larrytop (гость) : Авторитетное сообщение , заманчиво.


    -----
    купить бытовую технику оптом | http://konfiskat-optom.com/ Читать страницу »   Комментировать »

    Original post by Ertos:
    Сейчас люди покупают ,много разных курсов - лохотронов за 500 ,1000 ,а то и больше рублей, и без конца повторяют свои ошибки. А когда слышать про сетевой бизнес ,начинают кричать что это пирамида.Но ведь здесь реально можно заработать если быть чуть ,чуть активнее и еще начальная сумма вложения мизерная http://bogatei.mlmone.click/ Flag Reason (Spam):
    Spam, post hidden.

  5. author
    User1489003159 18 Jan 2017 03:44

    The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Once appointed, Justices effectively have life tenure, serving "during good Behaviour,"[1] which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.[2] The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but has original jurisdiction in a small number of cases.[3] History Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States The history of the Supreme Court is frequently described in terms of the Chief Justices who have presided over it. Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige. That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law. The Marshall Court ended the practice of each judge issuing his opinion seriatim, a remnant of British tradition, and instead one majority opinion of the Court was issued. The Marshall Court also saw Congress impeach a sitting Justice, Samuel Chase, who was acquitted. This impeachment was one piece of the power struggle between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists after the election of 1800 and the subsequent change in power. The failure to remove Chase is thought to signal the recognition by Congress of judicial independence. The Taney Court (1836–1864) made a number of important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects. However, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the case which may have helped precipitate the Civil War. In the years following the Civil War, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States). Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital), and the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Incorporation doctrine. During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation and radically changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate the New Deal (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn), giving an expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government. The Warren Court (1953–1969) made a number of alternately celebrated and controversial rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a renaissance in substantive due process. It held that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education); the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut); public schools cannot have official prayer (Engel v. Vitale), or mandatory Bible readings (Abington School District v. Schempp); many guarantees of the Bill of Rights apply to the states (e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona); an equal protection clause is not contained in the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe); and that the Constitution grants the right of retaining a court appointed attorney for those too indigent to pay for one (Gideon v. Wainwright). The Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was a constitutional right (Roe v. Wade), reached controversial rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and held that the implementation of the death penalty in many states was unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia), but that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[4] The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) will primarily be remembered for its revival of the concept of federalism, which included restrictions on Congressional power under both the C

  6. author
    ticklishostrich391 18 Jan 2017 02:19

    The following is an informal collection of statements by present or former Supreme Court Justices on the death penalty taken from interviews or essays, rather than from Court opinions. 

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

    Scroll Down For Comments

    No matter how they slice it with legal sleeze, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy—in making same-sex marriage a constitutional right—have created a new law out of thin air.

    F or many conservatives, including myself, the decision to vote for Trump was not an easy one. But after a long, nightmarish primary, the calculation came down to a simple binary choice: vote for Trump to stop Hillary and save the courts or vote for Hillary (or a third-party candidate or write-in) and watch the erosion of our courts continue.

    In a matter of hours, conservatives went from fretting over whether Senate Republicans should have relented and confirmed Judge Merrick Garland to dusting off Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

    For the many Americans who expected to see the last glass ceiling shattered last month, it’s been a painful few weeks of soul-searching and self-doubt. Many women who planned to bring their daughters to the inauguration must now patiently explain to them that a man who called women pigs and dogs and worse is their president, that this is not their time. Dismissals of race and gender equality as “identity politics” mean we have to apologize for even asking for a seat at the table. It will be a long four years.

    This has been one of the most difficult times I can recall for women in public office. It is shattering to contemplate starting again to relitigate fights over our bodies, access to contraception, equal pay, respect in the workplace, the right to love and marry the partner of our choosing, and the right to be unafraid of sexual violence and casual threats. We have a long climb ahead. We also have the accumulated lives and wisdom of four extraordinary women who did this climb before us and who will do it with us again.

    Sandra Day O''Connor (born March 26, 1930) is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States , serving from her appointment in 1981 by Ronald Reagan until her retirement in 2006. She was the first woman to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. [2]

    Prior to O''Connor''s tenure on the Court, she was an elected official and judge in Arizona serving as the first female Majority Leader of a state senate as the Republican leader in the Arizona Senate. [3] On July 1, 2005, she announced her intention to retire effective upon the confirmation of a successor. [4] Samuel Alito was nominated to take her seat in October 2005, and joined the Court on January 31, 2006.

    Updated : Circuit Judge Richard Posner says he’s writing a new book called Strengths and Weaknesses of the Legal System , and one of the weaknesses is the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Posner, a judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, criticized the high court at a recent bookstore appearance for a new Posner biography written by William Domnarski, Above the Law reports. Here is what Posner said:

  7. author
    blackladybug100 18 Jan 2017 03:16

    Order essay here supreme court cases essay about myself

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Ginsburg said she had waited to take such a stance on the death penalty because past justices, "took themselves out of the running," when the did so, leaving, "no room for them to be persuasive with the other justices." She reiterated many of the key points from the dissent, saying, "I think that [Breyer] pointed to evidence that has grown in quantity and in quality. He started out by pointing out that there were a hundred people who had been totally exonerated of the capital crime with which they were charged. so one thing is the mistakes that are possible in this system. The other is the quality of representation. Another is. yes there was racial disparity but even more geographical disparity. Most states in the union where the death penalty is theoretically on the books don’t have executions."

  8. author
    yellowleopard741 18 Jan 2017 05:26

    The supreme court is an appellate court. Meaning that it only takes appeals. However, in a limited class of cases, the Court has original jurisdiction to consider the facts and the law of a case without it having first been passed on by a lower court. Sorry I couldn t tell you more but you should have studied.

  9. author
    brownrabbit240 18 Jan 2017 00:09

    The following is an informal collection of statements by present or former Supreme Court Justices on the death penalty taken from interviews or essays, rather than from Court opinions. 

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

    Scroll Down For Comments

    No matter how they slice it with legal sleeze, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy—in making same-sex marriage a constitutional right—have created a new law out of thin air.

    F or many conservatives, including myself, the decision to vote for Trump was not an easy one. But after a long, nightmarish primary, the calculation came down to a simple binary choice: vote for Trump to stop Hillary and save the courts or vote for Hillary (or a third-party candidate or write-in) and watch the erosion of our courts continue.

    In a matter of hours, conservatives went from fretting over whether Senate Republicans should have relented and confirmed Judge Merrick Garland to dusting off Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

    For the many Americans who expected to see the last glass ceiling shattered last month, it’s been a painful few weeks of soul-searching and self-doubt. Many women who planned to bring their daughters to the inauguration must now patiently explain to them that a man who called women pigs and dogs and worse is their president, that this is not their time. Dismissals of race and gender equality as “identity politics” mean we have to apologize for even asking for a seat at the table. It will be a long four years.

    This has been one of the most difficult times I can recall for women in public office. It is shattering to contemplate starting again to relitigate fights over our bodies, access to contraception, equal pay, respect in the workplace, the right to love and marry the partner of our choosing, and the right to be unafraid of sexual violence and casual threats. We have a long climb ahead. We also have the accumulated lives and wisdom of four extraordinary women who did this climb before us and who will do it with us again.

    Sandra Day O'Connor (born March 26, 1930) is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States , serving from her appointment in 1981 by Ronald Reagan until her retirement in 2006. She was the first woman to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. [2]

    Prior to O'Connor's tenure on the Court, she was an elected official and judge in Arizona serving as the first female Majority Leader of a state senate as the Republican leader in the Arizona Senate. [3] On July 1, 2005, she announced her intention to retire effective upon the confirmation of a successor. [4] Samuel Alito was nominated to take her seat in October 2005, and joined the Court on January 31, 2006.

  10. author
    beautifulfish202 18 Jan 2017 06:05

    Новости для специалистов в области металлообработки, метрологии, изготовления инструмента и автоматизации производства. Здесь можно загрузить последние новости о продукции Renishaw, описание конкретных примеров применения, статьи технического содержания и новости о компании в целом.

    Larrytop (гость) : Авторитетное сообщение , заманчиво.


    -----
    купить бытовую технику оптом | http://konfiskat-optom.com/ Читать страницу »   Комментировать »

    Original post by Ertos:
    Сейчас люди покупают ,много разных курсов - лохотронов за 500 ,1000 ,а то и больше рублей, и без конца повторяют свои ошибки. А когда слышать про сетевой бизнес ,начинают кричать что это пирамида.Но ведь здесь реально можно заработать если быть чуть ,чуть активнее и еще начальная сумма вложения мизерная http://bogatei.mlmone.click/ Flag Reason (Spam):
    Spam, post hidden.

  11. author
    whitegorilla228 18 Jan 2017 04:09

    Новости для специалистов в области металлообработки, метрологии, изготовления инструмента и автоматизации производства. Здесь можно загрузить последние новости о продукции Renishaw, описание конкретных примеров применения, статьи технического содержания и новости о компании в целом.

    Larrytop (гость) : Авторитетное сообщение , заманчиво.


    -----
    купить бытовую технику оптом | http://konfiskat-optom.com/ Читать страницу »   Комментировать »

  12. author
    heavytiger862 17 Jan 2017 23:17

    Новости для специалистов в области металлообработки, метрологии, изготовления инструмента и автоматизации производства. Здесь можно загрузить последние новости о продукции Renishaw, описание конкретных примеров применения, статьи технического содержания и новости о компании в целом.

    Larrytop (гость) : Авторитетное сообщение , заманчиво.


    -----
    купить бытовую технику оптом | http://konfiskat-optom.com/ Читать страницу »   Комментировать »

  13. author
    blackgorilla657 17 Jan 2017 22:32

    Donald Trump should appoint Diane Sykes to the Supreme Court as his first pick, and here's why.

  14. author
    User1488546181 18 Jan 2017 08:54

    Новости для специалистов в области металлообработки, метрологии, изготовления инструмента и автоматизации производства. Здесь можно загрузить последние новости о продукции Renishaw, описание конкретных примеров применения, статьи технического содержания и новости о компании в целом.

    Larrytop (гость) : Авторитетное сообщение , заманчиво.


    -----
    купить бытовую технику оптом | http://konfiskat-optom.com/ Читать страницу »   Комментировать »

    Original post by Ertos:
    Сейчас люди покупают ,много разных курсов - лохотронов за 500 ,1000 ,а то и больше рублей, и без конца повторяют свои ошибки. А когда слышать про сетевой бизнес ,начинают кричать что это пирамида.Но ведь здесь реально можно заработать если быть чуть ,чуть активнее и еще начальная сумма вложения мизерная http://bogatei.mlmone.click/ Flag Reason (Spam):
    Spam, post hidden.

  15. author
    User1488961988 18 Jan 2017 07:13

    I ve never heard of that before, but I know a bit about writing school papers. However, you can start by writing something with an example below about.star wars I guess. "You may not believe this or not, but Darth Vader is really Anakin Skywalker and this is why." Although, nothing as cheesy as that. That was the only example I could think of at the moment.

  16. author
    crazylion242 17 Jan 2017 22:41

    Новости для специалистов в области металлообработки, метрологии, изготовления инструмента и автоматизации производства. Здесь можно загрузить последние новости о продукции Renishaw, описание конкретных примеров применения, статьи технического содержания и новости о компании в целом.

    Larrytop (гость) : Авторитетное сообщение , заманчиво.


    -----
    купить бытовую технику оптом | http://konfiskat-optom.com/ Читать страницу »   Комментировать »

    Original post by Ertos:
    Сейчас люди покупают ,много разных курсов - лохотронов за 500 ,1000 ,а то и больше рублей, и без конца повторяют свои ошибки. А когда слышать про сетевой бизнес ,начинают кричать что это пирамида.Но ведь здесь реально можно заработать если быть чуть ,чуть активнее и еще начальная сумма вложения мизерная http://bogatei.mlmone.click/ Flag Reason (Spam):
    Spam, post hidden.

  17. author
    lazyrabbit765 18 Jan 2017 07:23

    The following is an informal collection of statements by present or former Supreme Court Justices on the death penalty taken from interviews or essays, rather than from Court opinions. 

    GINSBURG:  Death penalty. For one thing, our jurisprudence is dense and then we have these contributions from Congress like AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act]. Because we had no death penalty in the District of Columbia, my first year here, I asked my clerks to write a memo so I could become familiar with where the court was on the death penalty. It was dense then and it has gotten only worse.

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 547, Priest River ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com

    Scroll Down For Comments

    No matter how they slice it with legal sleeze, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy—in making same-sex marriage a constitutional right—have created a new law out of thin air.

    F or many conservatives, including myself, the decision to vote for Trump was not an easy one. But after a long, nightmarish primary, the calculation came down to a simple binary choice: vote for Trump to stop Hillary and save the courts or vote for Hillary (or a third-party candidate or write-in) and watch the erosion of our courts continue.

    In a matter of hours, conservatives went from fretting over whether Senate Republicans should have relented and confirmed Judge Merrick Garland to dusting off Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

    For the many Americans who expected to see the last glass ceiling shattered last month, it’s been a painful few weeks of soul-searching and self-doubt. Many women who planned to bring their daughters to the inauguration must now patiently explain to them that a man who called women pigs and dogs and worse is their president, that this is not their time. Dismissals of race and gender equality as “identity politics” mean we have to apologize for even asking for a seat at the table. It will be a long four years.

    This has been one of the most difficult times I can recall for women in public office. It is shattering to contemplate starting again to relitigate fights over our bodies, access to contraception, equal pay, respect in the workplace, the right to love and marry the partner of our choosing, and the right to be unafraid of sexual violence and casual threats. We have a long climb ahead. We also have the accumulated lives and wisdom of four extraordinary women who did this climb before us and who will do it with us again.

    Sandra Day O''''Connor (born March 26, 1930) is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States , serving from her appointment in 1981 by Ronald Reagan until her retirement in 2006. She was the first woman to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. [2]

    Prior to O''''Connor''''s tenure on the Court, she was an elected official and judge in Arizona serving as the first female Majority Leader of a state senate as the Republican leader in the Arizona Senate. [3] On July 1, 2005, she announced her intention to retire effective upon the confirmation of a successor. [4] Samuel Alito was nominated to take her seat in October 2005, and joined the Court on January 31, 2006.

    Updated : Circuit Judge Richard Posner says he’s writing a new book called Strengths and Weaknesses of the Legal System , and one of the weaknesses is the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Posner, a judge on the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, criticized the high court at a recent bookstore appearance for a new Posner biography written by William Domnarski, Above the Law reports. Here is what Posner said:

    Even before the Supreme Court’s decision granting same-sex couples a constitutional right to wed, legal scholars and others have been trying to determine how such a ruling might affect religious institutions. It has been a question on the minds of the justices, too.

    Indeed, during the April 28 oral arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges , most of the justices asked about or commented on this issue. Justice Samuel Alito drew a possible parallel with Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian institution that lost its nonprofit, tax-exempt status in 1983 as a result of its policy banning interracial marriage and dating.