Why are CNN’s ratings so awful?
Watch the coverage tonight of the 1rst Circuit’s decision in the same sex marriage case, and you will see why. CNN is hard-left on all the social issues and on most economic and foreign affairs issues, and with the exceptions of a few stand-outs like Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley and John King, center-right viewers just don’t trust the network for news. It remains the “most busted name in news.” MSNBC at least has the virtue of owning its bias.
As for the decision in the court case, it is unsurprising and headed to the Supremes, where a five-four split will decide one way or the other whether federalism endures or is overthrown by declaration of the Court.
The result in the Minnesota Marriage Initiative voting thus becomes even more important in the fall voting, and if you care about influencing the SCOTUS, then help the people defending traditional marriage in Minnesota via the Minnesota for Marriage button on my ActRight list. The justices will be influenced primarily by the Constitution’s structure and their own precedents, but the unbroken string of electoral victories on behalf of traditional marriage reinforces the arguments of the advocates who believe that DOMA is constitutional because it protects federalism from being overthrown by a handful of states.
Defenders of traditional marriage should note one key concession by the First Circuit. This is in fact the issue on which the Supreme Court’s review will turn. Of course DOMA survives rational basis scrutiny –it is rational for legislatures to prefer traditional marriage over any evolution of that institution. Once that is admitted, only judicial activism –replacing the Framers’ vision with that of recently appointed federal judges, can overthrow the federal statute. Though the 1rst Circuit goes on the invent a new standard of review, here is the court’s admission that, under existing law, DOMA is constitutional:
Under such a rational basis standard, the Gill plaintiffs cannot prevail. Consider only one of the several justifications for DOMA offered by Congress itself, namely, that broadening the definition of marriage will reduce tax revenues and increase social security payments. This is the converse of the very advantages that the Gill plaintiffs are seeking, and Congress could rationally have believed that DOMA would reduce costs, even if newer studies of the actual economic effects of DOMA suggest that it may in fact raise costs for the federal government.