But many of you are cynical about politics. You see the system as inherently corrupt. You doubt real progress is possible.

“What chance do we have against the Koch brothers and the other billionaires?” you’ve asked me. “How can we fight against Monsanto, Boeing, JP Morgan, and Bank of America? They buy elections. They run America.”

Let me remind you: Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You have no chance if you assume you have no chance.

“But it was different when you graduated,” you say. “The sixties were a time of social progress.”

You don’t know your history.

When I graduated in 1968, the Vietnam War was raging. Over half a million American troops were already there. I didn’t know if I’d be drafted.  A member of my class who spoke at commencement said he was heading to Canada and urged us to join him.

Two months before, Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. America’s cities were burning. Bobby Kennedy had just been gunned down.

Continue Reading...

The justices, in a unanimous vote Monday, rejected the farmer's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide.

Justice Elena Kagan says a farmer who buys patented seeds must have the patent holder's permission. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.

The case had been closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies. But Kagan said the court's holding only "addresses the situation before us."

Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought the expensive, patented seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

The Supreme Court grapples Monday with the question of whether human genes can be patented. Its ultimate answer could reshape U.S. medical research, the fight against diseases like breast and ovarian cancer and the multi-billion dollar medical and biotechnology business.

"The intellectual framework that comes out of the decision could have a significant impact on other patents - for antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, stem cells and diagnostics on infectious microbes that are found in nature," Robert Cook-Deegan, director for genome ethics, law & policy at Duke University, said in a statement.

"This could affect agricultural biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, green-tech, the use of organisms to produce alternative fuels and other applications," he said.

The nine justices' decision will also have a profound effect on American business, with billions of dollars of investment and years of research on the line. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years.

Continue Reading...

This is the first in a long list of media-training guidelines drafted for sociologist Mark Regnerus in preparation for last year’s release of his findings of the infamous “New Family Structures Study,” a flawed, politically motivated study that suggests that children of gay parents experience more unfavorable outcomes compared to children of heterosexual, married parents.

The guidelines instructed the University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor to focus on the science of his study and to emphasize his apolitical views. Regnerus echoed many of these talking points when his study was first released, taking pains to maintain a neutral front on the gay-marriage debate. He stated in his papers and in interviews that the study was not about gay marriage or even about gay parenting. Regnerus continues to try to appear neutral on these issues in media interviews, recently telling The New York Times’ Bill Keller that, concerning gay marriage, his study “paints the reality of people’s lives as fairly complicated.”

Continue Reading...

In a particularly memorable scene from Tina Fey’s now bygone NBC odyssey, "30 Rock," Liz Lemon dons a Princess Leia costume in an attempt to evade jury duty. “I don’t really think it’s fair for me to be on a jury, because I’m a hologram,” she calmly informs the jury clerk, who fails to dismiss her.  The length that Fey goes to to avoid jury duty is the natural conclusion to the average American’s aversion to serving and observing the courts system. The average citizen doesn’t relish the thought of spending time in a courthouse, and generally won’t, unless forced to do so by the state.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Before pointing out that "we let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years from 1898 to 1954," she asked: “If the issue is letting the states experiment (with same-sex marriage bans) and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” The question embodied much of the sentiment of other justices, leading the New York Times to summarize the hearing with the headline: "Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case."

Three theories are at work in this line of reasoning: 1) The judiciary has an obligation to make sure its rulings reflect public opinion, 2) judges should always avoid rulings that conflict with public opinion, and 3) the Supreme Court should not immediately strike down laws violating the Constitution's equal protection precepts because state fights over those statutes allegedly help the public reach consensus on those underlying issues.

Continue Reading...

It was a duh moment, but a necessary one. Yes, DOMA's about discrimination. That disapproval of gay people, not tradition or government uniformity, is at the root of the act is blatantly obvious both to anyone who observed it at the time and to everyone who has changed their Facebook profile photo this week. But it needed to be set out on a national stage, a few feet away from rainbow-festooned children asking what the big deal was. This week, both sides put forward their best cases and it quickly became clear the opposition to equality is based not on law or reason, but bigotry.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

A section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act says marriage may only be a relationship between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law, regardless of state laws that allow same-sex marriage.

Lower federal courts have struck down the measure, and now the justices, in nearly two hours of scheduled argument Wednesday, will consider whether to follow suit.

The DOMA argument follows Tuesday's case over California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case in which the justices indicated they might avoid a major national ruling on whether America's gays and lesbians have a right to marry. Even without a significant ruling, the court appeared headed for a resolution that would mean the resumption of gay and lesbian weddings in California.

Continue Reading...

Minutes after Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed three anti-abortion measures — one banning them as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — unsolicited donations began pouring into the state's lone abortion clinic to help opponents prove the new laws are unconstitutional.

"Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade," Dalrymple said in a statement, referring to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion up to until a fetus is considered viable — usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

Dalrymple seemed determined to open a legal debate on the legislation, acknowledging "the constitutionality of this measure is an open question." He asked the Legislature to set aside money for a "litigation fund" that would allow the state's attorney general to defend the measure against lawsuits.

Continue Reading...

The decision upheld a 2011 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court suppressing evidence uncovered at Joelis Jardines' home with the help of Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever with a strong record of sniffing out drug stashes. The Economist explained the justices' reasoning, the decision and its relevance to privacy laws more broadly:

Continue Reading...

The justices voted 5-4 that the plaintiffs, including journalist Chris Hedges and Amnesty International, lacked standing in the case -- arguing, essentially, that concerns about a legal framework that might allow for future surveillance were insufficient evidence of harm caused by the law. “They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harms," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority decision.

The plaintiffs had sought a First Amendment challenge against the FISA Amendments Act --  a law that retroactively legalized the government's warrantless wiretapping program, which had "begun in secret and without congressional authorization under the Bush administration," as HuffPo's Matt Sledge noted.  The law permitted the National Security Agency and other agencies to read emails and listen in to calls without a warrant when they are targeting foreign nationals.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Proposition 8 is California's ban on gay marriage, which a lower court ruled is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The Court said it would rule on whether the 14th Amendment bars the state from defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The justices will also decide whether supporters of Prop 8 have standing in this case; if not, the Court would lack jurisdiction to decide it.

The Court said it would also take up one of several DOMA cases, this one brought by Edith Windsor, challenging section 3 of the law, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for the purpose of receiving federal benefits. The Supreme Court will decide whether or not to uphold the Second Circuit's ruling that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection guarantee of the 5th Amendment.

Continue Reading...

The court has been considering whether to hear one of several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as whether or not to hear an appeal of a lower court' s decision that Proposition 8, California's law banning same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional.

The justices initially met to discuss the cases last Friday, but did not release any orders then or Monday morning. Both cases have been added to the official list of cases for consideration for this Friday's closed-door conference.

Continue Reading...

The justices on Friday decided they would hear an appeal from medical professionals who want to stop Myriad Genetics Inc. from patenting genetic mutations that are linked to increased risk of breast cancer. The company's BRACAnalysis test looks for those mutations.

Doctors want to use genetic testing to look at these genes to discover whether patients have increased risks of diseases like breast or ovarian cancer, but they say letting businesses patent them would get in their way. Companies say without being able to patent and profit from their work, they would not be able to fund the type of medical breakthroughs doctors depend on.

Continue Reading...

The court is reviewing eight petitions related to the Defense of Marriage Act, which  federal appeals courts in New York and Massachusetts struck down this year, as well as a challenge to the decision that found Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, unconstitutional. The justices are in a private meeting today to decide whether to hear the cases or uphold lower court decisions.

Reuters reports that the court could decide which cases to take up as early as this afternoon or Monday morning, and that the "The Supreme Court is expected to take at least one of the challenges, as the court typically reviews lower-court decisions that invalidate a federal law."

The Wall Street Journal speculates that there are three possible courses for the justices: To decline to hear any of the cases, to hear a DOMA case but take no action on Proposition 8 (which would mean gay marriage would be legal in California), or to take up both DOMA and Prop 8.

Continue Reading...

The court ordered the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to reevaluate the case on the merits, after it had initially rejected Liberty's lawsuit on technical grounds.

From the Washington Post:

Continue Reading...