Chief Justice John Roberts Has Personal Connection to Prop. 8 Case
Roberts' cousin is a lesbian who wishes to wed her partner. She currently can't, however, because of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that bars same-sex couples from marrying in the state. The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 this week.
A member of Chief Justice John Roberts’ family has a personal stake in one of the highly anticipated gay marriage cases the Supreme Court will hear this week.
Jean Podrasky, Roberts’ cousin, is a lesbian who wishes to wed her partner. She currently can’t, however, because of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that bars same-sex couples from marrying in the state. But if the high court upholds a lower court decision’s to strike down the state’s ban on gay marriage, she would be allowed to do so.
Podrasky will be among those in attendance when the justices hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case Tuesday.
“He is a smart man,” Podrasky, who will sit in an area reserved for family and special guests of the chief justice, said of Roberts. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”
Los Angeles Times:
Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores. She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday.
…Podrasky obtained the highly coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, Peggy Roberts, and then going through his secretary. Roberts knows she is attending, she said. She, her partner, her sister and her niece will attend Tuesday’s arguments on Proposition 8. On Wednesday, her father will take her niece’s place for the hearing on the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.
Although Podrasky has no personal knowledge of her cousin’s views on same-sex marriage, she expects the court will overturn the 2008 ballot initiative, leaving her free to marry Fasano.
— Posted by Tracy Bloom.
WAIT, BEFORE YOU GO…If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
The move gives no indication as to what the Supreme Court ultimately will do in the high-stakes tussle over the president's tax returns.
Whatever the explanation for the Supreme Court’s direction, it’s bad news for the little guy.
We may not get a Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases that challenge the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate until the end of June, but it’s probably not too early to project the biggest winners in the cases: brothers Charles and David Koch.It’s probably not too early to project the biggest winners in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases: brothers Charles and David Koch.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court launched a three-day deliberation session on the timely (well, for Campaign 2012, anyway) and controversial topic of the health care overhaul that President Obama oversaw and signed into law in 2010.
In a rare show of unity within our nation's top judicial body, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the American government should steer clear of interfering in the employment practices and policies of religious organizations.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.