Kendall Coffey discusses how religious freedom is the next legal clash in this
video.
Here is the full transcript:
Obama: “America
is a place where you can write your own destiny. We are a people who believe
that every single child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There’s so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to
every American—but today we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we made our
union a little more perfect.”
Malzberg:
Alright, a matter of opinion folks, and that’s what we got from the Supreme
Court of course, a matter of 9 opinions, 5–4, in favor of gay marriage
nationwide. Kendall Coffey, partner at Coffey Burlington LLC, former U.S.
Attorney joins us. Kendall, welcome. Let’s start with today’s ruling and boy,
the dissenting opinions, each one very strong and emotional, as was Kennedy’s
ruling as well.
Coffey: Yeah, I
mean, really eloquent expressions. At least you know that the 9 folks working
up at [unintelligible] are just brilliant minds who are very convincing and
eloquent in the way they write. It was a 5–4 opinion, I don’t think it was a
surprise, Steve. I think most folks saw it coming out this way indeed. I think
a lot suspected that Justice Kennedy, who has a past in this area, would be the
author of the opinion.
Again, you look at the dissents from Chief Justice Roberts
and his dissent was really talking about not whether it’s bad or it’s good, but
really who makes the decision? And his emphasis was that a lot of states
through their own democratic processes are validating same sex marriage—but in
a democratic republic, should that decision rest with the people acting through
their elected representatives or, and I’m quoting him, “with five lawyers, who
happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes?” Needless
to say, Justice Kennedy’s opinion was also brilliantly reading.
If I could just highlight just one issue Steve (Malzberg: Yeah, please!) that kind of
intrigued me and hasn’t got a lot of attention and that’s this: because I think
most expected that it would come down the way it did and extend a
constitutional right to same sex marriage, but what about those whose religious
beliefs are such that as private actors they do not want to participate in, for
example, a same sex marriage? That’s come up a lot, and you and I have talked
about that a lot. I thought there was something interesting in Justice
Kennedy’s opinion that may have referred to that where he describes that the
first amendment provides protection of religious organizations and people so
that they have proper protection in terms of adhering to their principles. So,
I think his opinion obviously is very strong and in support of same sex
marriage, I thought he was signaling that there may be some interest to looking
into what are the religious protections extended to those as private
individuals who disagree.
Malzberg: Well, yes.
And if this case were to come up to this court, I wonder if Kennedy is a swing
vote, maybe he would be swing and they’d be protected. Justice Alito said that
“does this mean that people are going to have to, if they have strongly held
beliefs, are they going to have to whisper them in private or are they going to
be accused of bigotry whether it’s at the workplace, place of employment,
school, or in the community?” and that is a very frightening thing. And you and
I also I think talked about that in the oral arguments, Alito asked the
question, I’m paraphrasing, to the supporter of gay marriage attorney, what if
we rule your way will the tax-exempt status of churches who preach that a
marriage is between a man and a woman be jeopardized? And the attorney gave his
opinion and said well, that could come down the road (Coffey: Yeah) so that is something we have to watch for.
Coffey: Yeah,
that may be the next big issue. You and I have also talked about on this show
how under some state laws, they have fined or they have punished people who,
for example, did not want to participate in a gay marriage as photographers or
florists or things like that based on what were apparently sincerely held
religious principles and I thought that Kennedy’s opinion signaled that that
may have, when that decision comes up as it likely will, that may have an
outcome that respects religious freedoms.
Malzberg: Yeah,
that’s very interesting—very great catch there. Kendall, always great to talk
to you, sir, thank you very much.
Coffey: Have a
great weekend and a great week. The best of Fridays. Thank you.
Malzberg: Kendall
Coffey ladies and gentleman.
This is not the normal situation of a Roe v. Wade where you have a
healthy vibrant person who is in full possession of their power and
chooses to invoke a decision of their constitutional right to privacy.
This is someone who is no longer capable of making any decision at all.
So in that situation, do you override the laws of Texas, which says
that if there is an ability to keep an unborn fetus alive to maturity
then that is what the law requires? It’s very different than some the
cases we’ve been talking about.
On July 13th, 2013, Blagojevich filed an appeal
with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The appeal
cites a judicial predisposition and jury bias. Blagojevich will have to
convince the court that his convictions were unfitting and that the trial could
have had a different outcome.
Kendall
Coffey has written about the use of social media in his book, Spinning the Law. He calls internet interactions and
misinformation “e-contamination” and can often make for sticky legal
situations. Everything from juror
information spilling to online bullying has created a gray area for
courts. Sometimes online interference
causes a case to be lost, but it is still far from definitive.
