Saratoga Highlights 2014 (Top Ten: #'s 6 - 10, & a Human!)

In the last 2 posts we looked at Highlight #'s:
1, V.E. Day, winning the Travers
2, Itsmyluckyday, winning the Woodward
3, Moreno, winning the Whitney
4, Wise Dan, winning the Bernard Baruch
5, Palace, winning the Forego

On to #'s 6 to 10--and that Human.

Highlight # 6
The Big Beast, winning the King's Bishop

Yes, very big, and his previous win at Saratoga a month earlier was beastly. So trainer Tony Dutrow decided to promote his 3 year old potential star from that 6 furlong allowance race to this Grade 1 at an eighth of a mile longer. He did not disappoint.
(click any photo to enlarge)

The Beast Gaining
Adam Coglianese

The Beast's Neck
at the Finish

Lauren King c/o AC

Kept relaxed behind front running Fast Anna and Wildcat Red, the Big Beast got his cue from Javiar Castellano into the stretch. By the final pole, it was clear that The Big Beast had the momentum. At the finish, he had pulled a lengthening neck ahead, leaving all the others behind, including odds-favorite Coup de Grace and Noble Moon.


Highlight # 7

Wicked Strong, winning the Jim Dandy

Wicked Strong
Chased by Tonalist

Bob Mayberger

Six weeks earlier, he finished 4th in the mile and a half Belmont Stakes. Now, at Saratoga, in the Jim Dandy at 3 furlongs shorter, Wicked Strong faced Belmont winner Tonalist once again, as well as Commanding Curve (2nd in the Derby), Kid Cruz (1st in the Dwyer), and several other talented 3 year olds.

Wicked Strong
Pulling Away

Adam Coglianese

Unlike in the Belmont where he paced several lengths behind, this time Wicked Strong was kept close to the front runner by rider Rajiv Maragh. Equipped with blinkers for the first time, he took the lead from Legend at the turn and headed home. Tonalist, moving into 2nd, gave chase. But the Jimmy Jerkens trainee never gave way and was a powerful 2 and 1/2 lengths ahead at the wire.

Highlight # 8

Stopchargingmaria, winning the Alabama

Stopchargingmaria
Being Chased

Chelsea Durand c/o AC

She was 2nd best as a 2 year old the year before at Saratoga in the Grade 1 Spinaway. But she began the 2014 meet with a 5 length romp in the Coaching Club Oaks. She returned 4 weeks later for the Spa's premier race for 3 year old fillies run at a long 1 and 1/4 miles.

Stopchargingmaria
1st at the Finish

Lauren King c/o AC

Off as the even-odds favorite, the Todd Pletcher trained Stopchargingmaria was kept close to pacesetting Size by rider Johnny V. By the stretch she had taken the lead and the front runner was moving backward. But several others were giving chase, including a steadily closing Joint Return, followed by Miss Besilu and Fortune Pearl. At the finish line, she had held on by half a length, and Owner Mike Repole was back in the winner's circle with his wife Maria for who the filly was named.



Highlight # 9

Close Hatches, winning the Personal Ensign

Close Hatches
Wiring the Field

Adam Coglianese

It was a field full of winners. Stakes winners: Antipathy (Shuvee), Majestic River (Molly Pitcher), Fiftyshadesofhay (Ruffian), Belle Gallantey (Delaware Handicap), Princess of Sylmar (Kentucky Oaks, Alabama, etc.)--and Close Hatches. Let's just say the 4 year old filly was on her way to 4 in a row, including 3 Grade 1's.

Close Hatches
Finishing the Romp

Lauren King c/o AC

Despite the talented challengers, the fact is that none of them could challenge her at all on this day. Out in front at the start of the 1 and 1/8 mile Grade 1 for 3 and up fillies and mares, the Bill Mott trained Wonder Woman under Jockey Joel Rosario just destroyed the rest of them in a performance to behold. She stayed in front through the distance, and reached the finish line 5 lengths before anyone else.


Highlight # 10
Condo Commando, winning the Spinaway

Condo Commando
Loving the Splash

Chelsea Durand c/o AC

The Rudy Rodriguez trained filly won her 1st race--a 5 and 1/2 furlong sprint for 2 year olds a month earlier at Saratoga--by 12 lengths! Now, in the 2nd race of her career, the Grade 1 for juvenile fillies over 7/8ths of a mile, she made it look even easier.

A 'Splash-tastic'
13 Length Win!

Adam Coglianese

After a rough start out of the gate, jockey Joe Bravo took Condo Commando to the lead and well...For most of the 1 minute and 24 seconds and change, she put on a veritable solo performance. The talented Angela Renee, By the Moon, Darling Sky, and others, simply tried to finish in the same zip code.

As Tom Durkin roared in his very last call of his career at Saratoga, "Splash-tastic!"


Highlight Un-Numerable

Tom Durkin's
Last Day

Adam Coglianese

Tom Durkin, Winning at Saratoga for 25 Years

As legendary as Saratoga Race Course itself.

Tom Durkin, NYRA announcer since 1990, retired from the booth on August 31 last year, ending his storied career with another storied call in the Spinaway Stakes. (See above.)

'Fan-tastic'
Tom Durkin

Adam Coglianese

If the winner of that race was "splash-tastic," then Durkin has been "Fan-tastic" for all his fans who have loved his being so "Call-tastic" for so brilliantly calling some 80,000+ races over the years.

Yes, race fans--and the millions more not-so-fans who nevertheless tuned in to the classic races each year--will sorely miss that "mellifluous baritone voice and his vivid imagination" (as the New York Times' Joe Drape put it). But for those of us who visit Saratoga during the coming meet (and for some of us that's almost daily), there will be The Tom Durkin Replay Center at the race course where some of Durkin's classic calls can be heard while watching videos of the races.

Retired,
Relaxed

Bob Mayberger

Tom Durkin
The Voice

Bob Mayberger

It has really been a treat--no, a feast!--to listen to Tom Durkin all these years. Even if I had heard The Voice just once, calling Rachel Alexandra's victory in the 2009 Woodward, that would have been enough for a lifetime.

Wishing you all the best of the best Mr. Durkin--which is exactly what you gave us.

So that's Saratoga Highlights 2014.

Ready for the meet? Opening Day tomorrow, Friday July 24.

Hoped this helped get you psyched for a great 40 days worth of the best.

Thanks again to Bob Mayberger and Adam Coglianese (as well as Lauren King and Chelsea Durand) for all those great photos they provided.

Saratoga Highlights 2014 (Top Ten: #'s 2 - 5)

In the last post we looked at Highlight #1, V.E. Day, winning the Travers.
Let move on.

Highlight # 2
Itsmyluckyday, winning the Woodward

The Woodward, year after year one of America's premiere races--and my favorite--for 3 year olds and up, has a storied history. Some of the greatest races won by some of the greatest champions. Havre de Grace and Rachel Alexandra and Curlin and Lawyer Ron. And before them, there was Ghostzapper, Mineshaft, Lemon Drop Kid, Cigar, and Holy Bull among others.(See e.g., previous posts on the Woodward in 2011, in 2012, and in 2013.)

Last year's Woodward was a rematch between 4 year olds Moreno and Itsmyluckyday. Moreno had scored a few weeks earlier in the Whitney (see Highlight #3 below), but this time Itsmyluckyday was triumphant after a gruelling stretch run.

(click to enlarge any photo)

Itsmyluckyday(center) pressing Moreno

Bob Mayberger

Under rider Paco Lopez, Itsmyluckyday pressed Moreno throughout the race, and was tailed himself variously by Long River, Romanish, and Prayer for Relief. Then, just when it seemed the front runner might pull away, Itsmyluckyday came from 4 lengths behind, drew even, and ultimately won the duel by half a length.

Itsmyluckyday by Half a Length at the Line

Adam Coglianese

It was a huge victory for trainer Eddie Plesa, Jr. who had not won at Saratoga in eight years, and for his prize colt who had just recently returned after a year out with a pelvic fracture.

Highlight # 3
Moreno, winning the Whitney

As a 3 year old, he led the field in the 2013 Travers until he was nipped at the finish by a hard charging (and eventual 3 Year Old Champ) Will Take Charge. (See Will Take Charge, Winning the Travers.) But he returned to the Spa in 2014 to defeat all comers in the even richer Whitney Stakes. (Last year, the purse for the Whitney was a million and a half.; the Travers was a million in 2013.)

Moreno Running His Race Up Front

Adam Coglianese

With Junior Alvarado aboard, Moreno proved to be the best of a talent packed field that again included Will Take Charge, as well as Palace Malice, Prayer for Relief, Last Gunfighter, Romansh, Departing and Golden Ticket.

Moreno Fends off Itsmyluckyday

Bob Mayberger

In accord with trainer Eric Guillot's plans, Moreno was allowed to run his race--up front and fast--and this time, at a furlong shorter than the Travers, he was able to fend off a different hard charging challenger, Itsmyluckyday, by more than a length. (As we discussed above in Highlight #2, the Moreno-Itsmyluckyday rivalry continued in the Woodward.)

Highlight # 4

Wise Dan, winning the Bernard Baruch

On the last weekend of the meet, the 7 year old Champ, two time Horse of the Year Wise Dan, returned to Saratoga again triumphant. In his previous visits, he won the Fourstardave in 2 consecutive years. But this time, it was just a few short months since undergoing colic surgery.

Wise Dan Takes the Lead

Bob Mayberger

Trainer Charlie LoPresti, owner Morton Fink, and rider Johnny Velazquez were all understandably emotional at the extraordinary courage and resiliency of their noble athlete. The fans were too.

Wise Dan Challenged by Optimizer

Bob Mayberger

Apprehension filled the crowd when Wise Dan reared in the gate and nearly unseated Johnny V. But they roared with delight when the champ took the lead from Five Iron and Sayaad in the stretch. And the decibels rose even higher when Optimizer put their favorite to the test.

The Champ Would Not Be Denied

Adam Coglianese

Wise Dan  would just not give. He held on to win by a nose. And he did so in just a few short seconds shy of the turf course record for the mile and 1/16 set in 1991.

Highlight # 5
Palace, winning the Forego

On that same amazing Woodward Day of Labor Day weekend, fans were treated to another triumphant return, This time it was New York bred 5 year old Palace, who had won the Vanderbilt a month earlier in the meet. This $20,000 claim by trainer Linda Rice has turned out to be one of the most brilliant adoptions in recent horseracing history. With the Forego, Palace had earned over a million and a quarter since he was claimed.

Palace

Takes the Lead

Bob Mayberger

Though he had already proven he was a top quality sprinter in the Grade 1 Vanderbilt, there was some doubt how he would handle the extra 1/8 of a mile in the 7 furlong Forego. At the top of the stretch, he passed Weekend Hideaway and Zee Bros for the lead. But Big Business, Vijack, and Capo Bastone were making their move from the rear.

 Palace by 3 and 1/2

at the Finish

Adam Coglianese

Palace apparently didn't mind the extra distance one bit. The closers couldn't catch him. Not even close. With Cornelio Velasquez at the reigns, he extended his half length lead at the top of the stretch to 3 and 1/2 at the finish line.

In the next post, Highlights 6 - 10, and a human!

Saratoga Highlights 2014 (Top Ten: #1)

The summer wind
came blowin' in
from across the sea

--Sinatra (Johnny Mercer, Henry Mayer, Hans Bradtke), SUMMER WIND

(link: Summer Wind)

Yes, the summer wind has finally arrived. Warm with the chance of pop up thunderstorms. And Saratoga's 40 days starts this week.
To get mentally, emotionally, and psychologically ready for the best races, horses, jockeys, fans.... (you know the rest), here's New York Court Watcher's annual look at highlights from the year before.

(click any photo to enlarge)

They're off in the 2014 Travers

Adam Coglianese

So with the help of some spectacular photography care of Bob Mayberger and Adam Coglianese--veritable feasts for the heart and soul--here are my humble selections for last year's Top Ten. (#1 was hinted above.)

Highlight # 1
V.E. Day, winning the Travers

It was a full field of highly talented 3 year olds: Bayern (1st in the Haskell), Commanding Curve (2nd in the Kentucky Derby), Kid Cruz (1st in the Dwyer), Mr. Speaker (1st in the Belmont Derby), Tonalist (1st in the Belmont Stakes), Wicked Strong (1st in the Jim Dandy), and a few other previous winners--including V.E. Day, who had won his third in a row 4 weeks earlier at Saratoga in a come from behind stretch run in the Curlin Stakes.

V.E. Day made it 4 in a row with the Travers.

(click to enlarge any photo)

Another Stretch Run for V.E. Day

Bob Mayberger

early on, it was Bayern in front with Tonalist and Wicked Strong in tow. V.E. Day was near the back of the pack in 6th or 7th. At the turn, Bayern fizzled out, Wicked Strong moved into first with Tonalist on his tail.

But just as it looked like Jim Dandy winner Wicked Strong was going to take it, Javier Castellano pulled V.E. Day to the outside and he picked up momentum. By the final pole, V.E. Day had passed Tonalist, he was still gaining, and everyone knew it would be close.

V.E. Day Surging

Adam Coglianese

Then, right at the finish line, V.E. Day got his nose in front of Wicked Strong for a thrilling end to the Midsummer's Derby.

Trainer Jimmy Jerkens might have felt a bit bad for his stand out Wicked Strong. But not too bad since V.E. Day, the 19-1 longshot winner, was also part of his barn. 

19-1 V.E. Day Noses Out

Stablemate Wicked Strong

Bob Mayberger

In the next post, we'll move on to the next several highlights.

Saratoga Highlights, the 2014 Meet

Saratoga Highlights--Summer 2014 

Now in Preparation!!!
[actually, Top Ten #1 now posted!]

A Few Days Away From This Year's Meet.

A perfect time to look back at the best of last year to help get psyched--yes I know, we're already psyched!

SARATOGA HIGHLIGHTS

2014 MEET

And Bob Mayberger and Adam Coglianese have already provided their magnificent photos!!!

In the meantime, it's always a good time to review years past. So...


Click here to review the 2013 Highlights

Click here to review the 2012 Highlights

Supremely Liberal? (Part 2--A Year for Democrats)

We already saw that this was a good year at the Court for liberals. (See Part 1.) On issues with clear liberal versus conservative divides--e.g., law & order versus rights of the accused, worker rights versus business, social change versus traditional values, etc.--the Court sided with the ideologically liberal position most of the time. Indeed, in those cases where such issues divided the Justices themselves, the liberal side won 77% of the time, or more than three times as frequently as did the conservative side.

But what if we sharpen the focus to those cases that presented the deepest partisan divides between Republicans and Democrats? Cases involving such highly partisan-charged issues as immigration, the death penalty, gay rights, racial disparities, voting rights, social welfare programs, etc.? Those cases involving issues where politicians of the 2 major parties--as well as the party faithful--disagree most fervently?

Let's look at the Court's record this past year in terms of those issues. Yes, the Court's record on ideologically-charged cases was markedly liberal. But what was it on just those cases involving the especially partisan-charged issues?

Take a look:

(click to enlarge)

Note that the Court not only sided with the "Democratic" positions most of the time, but did so 67% of the time, or in more than twice as many cases as it didn't. Note also that the Court's 4 liberals (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) voted in support of the Democratic position in every case. Stated otherwise, none of the 4 ever voted on the "Republican" side of a partisan-charged issue.

As for the Court's more conservative members, Justice Alito never voted on the Democratic side of an issue in these cases, and Justices Scalia and Thomas virtually never did. Chief Justice Roberts did so 20% of the time, or in one fifth of the partisan-charged cases. Perhaps most notably, swing-vote Justice Kennedy supported the Democratic position more than half of the time (53%) this past term.

Consequently, with the 4 liberals voting on the Democratic side of the issue in every partisan-charged case, only one more vote was needed to make a "Democratic" majority, With Kennedy voting on that side more than half the time, and Roberts doing so in 20% of the cases, it's evident how the Democratic side had the Court's majority as frequently as it did.

To underscore just how significant the Court's record on these partisan-charged cases was this past year, let's look at a comparison with the year before. And let's focus on the major shifts:

(click to enlarge)

67% versus 40%!  Quite a contrast. A shift from the previous term in which less than half the decisions (40%) favored the Democratic position, to this term in which two thirds (67%) of them did.

Consider also the shift in Justice Kennedy's voting in these partisan-charged cases: from less than a third Democratic (30%) to more than a half (53%). And Chief Justice Roberts' voting: from 10 to 20%.

Yes, in cases this past term raising issues involving racially disparate redistricting, racially disparate housing policy, imprisonment of an immigrant, deportation of an immigrant, the rights of a death penalty defendant, displaying the Confederate flag, Obamacare subsidies, and same-sex marriage--in all of these and more, the Supreme Court (i.e., a majority of the Justices) supported the position favored strongly by Democratic politicians and voters.

Of course, that also means that the Court (i.e., again, the majority) in these cases rejected the position strongly favored by Republicans. Let's simply invert the graphs above to display the pro-Republican numbers. Take a look at the "Republican" decisional record of the Court and the Justices' corresponding voting for this past year:

(click to enlarge)

Again, the 4 liberal Justices never voted for the "Republican" position in these highly partisan-charged cases. On the other hand, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito either always did or virtually.so. Chief Justice Roberts wasn't nearly as one-sided as any of the aforementioned 7 Justices were. And Justice Kennedy, although he is a Republican, supported that side of the issue less than half the time. The result: the Court decided "Republican" in only one third of the cases.

Now, contrasting with the previous year:

(click to enlarge)

Justice Kennedy's voting for the Republican position in these partisan-charged cases dropped substantially, from more than two thirds the previous year (70%) to less than half this past term (47%). Chief Justice Roberts' support for those same positions dropped somewhat, from 90 to 80%. In large measure because of the change in Kennedy's record, and to a lesser extent that of Roberts, the Court's overall support for the Republican side of the issues this year (33%) was about half of what it was the year before (60%). 

Soooo, a liberal shift in the Court's ideological record? Unquestionably, and significantly. Indeed, even on the most highly partisan-charged issues, the Court's record shifted in support of the "Democratic" positions. And this, even though a majority of the Justices are registered Republicans appointed by Republican Presidents.

Is this shift permanent? At least an omen of a directional change? Just a fleeting phenomenon? An aberration? Maybe just the result of the particular collection of cases the Court decided this year?

Well, the answers can't be found in just one year's worth of decisions and votes. But what can be said is this. Whatever the particular variety of cases might have been this past year, the voting records of 7 of the Justices remained basically unchanged. The 4 liberals virtually always voted one way in the ideologically-charged and partisan charged cases, and 3 of the conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) virtually always voted the other way.

Additionally, Justice Kennedy remained the swing vote. But this year he swung liberal and "Democratic" significantly more than in past years. And Chief Justice Roberts, both in his votes and his tone, has evinced a softer conservative leaning than that of the Court's 3 most conservative members.

Keep a close eye on Kennedy and Roberts--and, of course, on any possible retirements and replacements. There's always lots to follow with the Court. And we shall see.

Supremely Liberal? [Graphs will tell.] (Part 1)

Did the Supreme Court shift to the left this past term? Especially in the aftermath of decisions that saved Obamacare subsidies and protected same-sex marriage, there has been some commentary--and a general sense--that the Court has done just that.

So did the Court actually lean more politically liberal in its rulings this year?

In short, yes. As in, you bet! The change from the recent past was considerable.

An examination of the Court's entire decisional output and the Justices' voting over the course of the October 2014 term (i.e., the first Monday in October 2014 to the end of June 2015) reveals that the ideologically liberal side of the issues did quite well overall--and emphatically so. Not only did the Court adopt the liberal position more frequently than it has in past years, but it actually adopted the liberal position this term more frequently than the conservative one. Much more frequently!

Before we look at the numbers and the graphs, let's be clear what we're talking about when we say ideologically "liberal" and "conservative." We use those terms here in the sense they are customarily used in political discussion and judicial studies. So liberal versus conservative would, for example, refer to crime control (pro-prosecution) versus rights of the accused (pro-defendant), labor/workers rights versus business, business regulation versus deregulation, personal injury plaintiffs versus professional malpractice defendants, social change versus traditional values, secularism versus religion, and the like. (And as is customary in judicial studies, we restrict ourselves to divided decisions--i.e., where both the liberal and conservative positions were strong enough to secure the support of one or more Justices and, thus, split the Court.)

So, just how well did the liberal side of the issues fare this past term at the Supreme Court? And how did the Justices vote on those issues? Take a look:

(click to enlarge)

77%!
Yes, in 77% of the cases in which there was a strong enough liberal versus conservative issue that the Justices were divided, a majority of the Justices--i.e., the Court--adopted the liberal position.

Note that the liberal Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) each voted for the ideologically liberal position in virtually every case. The "swing vote," Kennedy, supported that position more than half the time. And even the much more conservative Chief Justice Roberts voted for the liberal position in more than 1/3 of the cases.

How does that compare to the previous year?

Well let's see. The following graph juxtaposes the Court's decisional record for this term and last year's--i.e., the October 2013 term (2013-14). The graph also includes both years' voting records of Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. Their records changed the most dramatically and made the most difference between the two years. Take a look:

(click to enlarge)

As the graph shows, the Court more than doubled the frequency with which it adopted the liberal position in a case. 77% this year versus 33% the year before.

Coincidentally--actually, not a coincidence, but likely a significantly contributing cause for the change in the Court's record--Justice "swing vote" Kennedy's record this year was also more than twice as liberal as it was the year before.

Chief Justice Roberts' record was also considerably more liberal this year. He rarely voted on the liberal side last year. But by sharp contrast this year, as previously mentioned, he supported the liberal position more than a third of the time.

So... no doubt about it. The Court took a liberal turn in its decisions this year.

But what about the really controversial hot-button cases? How did the Court do in cases that presented the most highly partisan-charged issues? Issues like Obamacare and same-sex marriage, of course. But also like the death penalty, immigration, claims of racial discrimination, gun rights, campaign spending, environmental regulations on business, etc. Those issues that not only have a liberal versus conservative component, but where Democrats and Republicans are most deeply divided.

In the next post we'll restrict ourselves to cases with those kinds of issues. We'll see how deep this year's liberal shift was.

Marriage Decision: Recap

Disclosure: No surprise to readers of New York Court Watcher or anyone who knows me, I am extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized the equal right of same-sex couples to marry. My personal opinion aside, here's an unadorned outline of the Court's decision and the dissenting opinions.

As readers of this....No, as readers and listeners of the news around the world now know, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the same right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. The Justices released their decision near the end of the term, along with several other blockbusters. (See e.g., posts on Wrap Ups, Supremely Polarized, Obamacare Subsidies, Confederate Flag, Lethal Injection.)

The dust is now settling--at least the bare fact of the decision is sinking in to both ecstatic supporters and enraged opponents. There's been an awful lot of commentary. Emphasis on awful. But some that is thoughtful and even wise.

There will be no attempt here at being thoughtful or wise--or awful. Just some straightforward distillation of the actual constitutional arguments made by the majority, and those offered in the several dissenting opinions.
[We will examine some of the awful commentary and analysis in a later post.]

Here's the recap of Obergefell v. Hodges:

Decision

• Same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to the same right to marry as are opposite sex couples.
• The vote was 5 to 4.
• Majority: Justice Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan [I.e., Kennedy + the 4 liberals]
• Dissent: separate opinions by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito [I.e., by each of the Court's 4 more conservative Justices--1) Roberts's opinion was joined by Scalia and Thomas; 2) Scalia's opinion was joined by Thomas; 3) Thomas's opinion was joined by Scalia; 4) Alito's opinion was joined by Scalia and Thomas]
• [Procedurally, the decision reversed the decision of a federal appeals court (the 6th Circuit) that sustained "one man-one woman" laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The other federal appeals courts around the country to address the issue had all held such laws to be unconstitutional.]

Justice Kennedy's Opinion for the Court/Majority

• Marriage is an institution of transcendent importance, and the right to marry has long been constitutionally protected by the Court.
• The legal status of gays and lesbians, previously viewed as immoral and ill, has shifted greatly since the late 20th century.
• This Court has previously invalidated laws that discriminated against gays and lesbians--e.g., laws that denied them the right to claim discrimination, that made same-sex intimacy a crime, and that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
• The "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment [The provision in the Constitution that guarantees protection against infringement by state governments.] has been interpreted by this Court to include most of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, as well as other fundamental liberties of "individual dignity and autonomy," such as the rights to privacy, to childrearing, to procreation, and to marry.
• The issue in this case is not whether there is a right to same-sex marriage, but whether there is "sufficient justification for excluding" same-sex couples from the fundamental right to marry.
• The exclusion demeans and stigmatizes same-sex couples.
• It does this even though there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples when it comes to the fundamental right to marry and to the many government rights, benefits, and responsibilities tied to a valid marriage.
• Laws against same-sex marriage not only violate the fundamental right to marry, but also the equal protection of the laws.
• As with the laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage, which this Court held to be unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unjustified, unsupportable, and incompatible with the requirements of equality.
• Individuals denied fundamental rights need not wait for legislative action to be protected.

Chief Justice Roberts' Dissenting Opinion

• There are strong arguments in social policy and fairness for allowing same-sex couples to marry.
• While the policy arguments may be compelling, the legal arguments are not.
• A state's choice to retain the meaning of marriage that has persisted throughout history and across cultures cannot be called irrational.
• The right to marry does not include the right to change that meaning.
• The Court ought not to impose its will upon the states and shortchange the democratic process.
• A more modest and restrained view of this Court's role would be more skeptical of its moral insights and more sensitive to its unelected status.
• If you favor expanding same-sex marriage, "by all means celebrate today's decision...Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner."
• "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it"

Justice Scalia's Dissenting Opinion

• I don't have strong personal feelings about the substance of today's "decree" or what the law says about marriage.
• But I do care about "who it is that rules me."
• Today's decision is the furthest extension of the Court's "naked judicial claim" to create "liberties."
• That claim is fundamentally contrary to our system of democracy in which the People, the States are free to adopt laws, even if they offend the "reasoned judgment" of the Justices.
• The opinion--"judicial Putsch"--of the majority reflects "hubris," and is "pretentious," "egotistic," and "profoundly incoherent."

Justice Thomas's Dissenting Opinion

• The majority recognizes a "liberty" in the Constitution that the Framers would not recognize.
• The decision is detrimental to the liberty that the Framers did seek to protect.
• The decision distorts the text of the Constitution and inverts the constitutional relationship between individual and government.
• In light of history, the term "liberty" in the Constitution refers to "the power of loco-motion...without imprisonment or restraint"--to nothing "broader than freedom from physical restraint."

Justice Alito's Dissenting Opinion

• The American people have been engaged in a debate about same-sex marriage.
• The federal courts have now put an end to that.
• "The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage."
• Some states worry that abandoning the traditional understanding of marriage will lead to marriage's further decay.
• It is beyond this Court's authority to say that a state may not adhere to that view.

Well there it is.

To be sure, I've had to restrain myself from commenting while outlining the various opinions.

But I have tried to present a fair representation of the majority's and various dissenters' arguments.

And I have tried to do so without including or excluding too much or too little, hoping to capture the essentials.

Anyone interested in reading the entire decision, here is the link to Obergefell v. Hodges on the Supreme Court's website.

In the next New York Court Watcher post on the Supreme Court, I'll address some of the awful commentary I alluded to above. There may well be legitimate arguments, both pro and con, about the legal issue of same-sex marriage--and about the role of the Supreme Court. But much of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be spouted is nonsense. We'll examine some of those arguments.

Additionally, we'll return our attention to the New York Court of Appeals--some important decisional and personnel developments.

AND, it's 2 1/2 weeks till the Saratoga meet opens. For psychological and emotional preparation, we need to recall some of last year's highlights. (If you can't wait for a Saratoga fix, here's a link to a previous year's highlights.)

Supreme Court Wrap Ups (On Air Commentary)

The last several days have been a whirlwind of on air interviews about the Supreme Court's end-of-term decisions: Obamacare subsidies, same-sex marriage, lethal injection, etc.
Plus, at the state level, New York Court of Appeals Judge Susan Read announced her early retirement for the state's high court.

For anyone interested, here are links to a few of the interviews:

Fred Dicker: Live from the State Capitol! (6/30/15)
New York State STOPS...to hear Fred Dicker!
TUESDAY: ALBANY LAW SCHOOL PROF. VIN BONVENTRE: MY TAKE ON THE IMPORTANT ROUND OF NEW U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Link: www.talk1300.com/CMT/podcast/LiveFromtheStateCapitolJune302015.mp3 (@ 29:00 -49:00 mins) 

Fred Dicker: Live from the State Capitol! (7/31/15)
New York State STOPS...to hear Fred Dicker!
WEDNESDAY: ALBANY LAW SCHOOL PROF. VIN BONVENTRE PART II: A CONTINUING DISCUSSION ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S FINAL DECISIONS, PLUS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COA'S ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSAN READ'S DECISION TO RETIRE.
Link: www.talk1300.com/CMT/podcast/LiveFromtheStateCapitolJuly12015.mp3 
(@ 29:30 - 49 mins) 

The John Gomez Show, LI News Radio (6/29/15)Gomez with Professor BonventreLink: https://soundcloud.com/jvcbroadcasting/gomez-with-professor-bonventre?in=jvcbroadcasting/sets/the-john-gomez-show-on-li-news

Capital Tonight (6/29/15)

Monday was the last day of the Supreme Court's term for this year, and while their two blockbuster decisions came last week the judges did weigh in on some big issues, including the death penalty and redistricting. Albany Law professer and New York Court Watcher blogger Vin Bonventre joined us to talk more about these issues.
Link: http://www.twcnews.com/nys/capital-region/capital-tonight-interviews/2015/06/29/vin-bonventre-062915.html#

Capital Tonight (6/29/15)

The US Supreme Court delivered a huge victory to President Obama today, upholding a key part of the Affordable Care Act.  That decision means millions of Americans across the country who enrolled through state health exchanges will not lose their insurance. Vin Bonventre from Albany Law School joined us to discuss.
Link: http://www.twcnews.com/nys/capital-region/capital-tonight-interviews/2015/06/25/vin-bonventre.html