window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_10881717": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10881717",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10881717",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10881713,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-400x267.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 267
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-960x640.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 640
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-e1456764289258.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-1180x787.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 787
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/GettyImages-511409692-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1456764198,
"modified": 1456764283,
"caption": "Clarence Thomas, associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, at funeral for colleague Antonin Scalia in February 2016.",
"description": null,
"title": "Clarence Thomas",
"credit": "Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10867222": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10867222",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10867222",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10867031,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-400x278.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 278
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-960x668.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 668
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1335
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-1440x1001.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1001
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-800x556.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 556
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-1920x1335.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1335
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-1180x820.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 820
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-768x534.jpg",
"width": 768,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 534
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/02/KamalaHarris-1-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1455671647,
"modified": 1455671678,
"caption": "California Attorney General Kamala Harris.",
"description": "California Attorney General Kamala Harris.",
"title": "KamalaHarris",
"credit": "Justin Sullivan/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_92735": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_92735",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92735",
"found": true
},
"parent": 92727,
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-e1412611481354.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"height": 987
}
},
"publishDate": 1364431584,
"modified": 1466708831,
"caption": "The Supreme Court of the United States. ",
"description": "The Supreme Court of the United States. ",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"credit": "Paul J. Richards/AFP-Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10787027": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10787027",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10787027",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10787026,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-400x225.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 225
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-960x540.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 540
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c.jpg",
"width": 2748,
"height": 1545
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-1440x810.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 810
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 450
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-1920x1079.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1079
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-1180x663.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 663
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/ap_748787470938_wide-24fff1123cf61d2b7cf02ef80d4d30bacfd7e96c-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1449594413,
"modified": 1449594413,
"caption": null,
"description": "Two Texas voters are challenging the 2010 Texas reapportionment as unconstitutional. They say the correct constitutional metric should be eligible voters, not total population.",
"title": "Two Texas voters are challenging the 2010 Texas reapportionment as unconstitutional. They say the correct constitutional metric should be eligible voters, not total population.",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10785640": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10785640",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10785640",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10785638,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-400x161.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 161
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-960x385.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 385
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.jpg",
"width": 1600,
"height": 642
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-1440x578.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 578
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-800x321.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 321
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-1180x473.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 473
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/12/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1449507106,
"modified": 1549496193,
"caption": "An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a weapon that has been used in several mass shootings in the United States.",
"description": null,
"title": "AR-15 Assault Rifle",
"credit": "Chris Browning/\u003ca href=\"https://gunnewsdaily.com/\">gunnewsdaily.com\u003c/a>",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10583065": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10583065",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10583065",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10582946,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-400x232.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 232
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-960x557.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 557
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543.jpg",
"width": 1843,
"height": 1070
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-1440x836.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 836
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-800x464.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 464
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-1180x685.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 685
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-e1435689022543-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435688977,
"modified": 1435700128,
"caption": "The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on Oct. 8, 2010. at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.",
"description": null,
"title": "The Justices of the US Supreme Court sit",
"credit": "Tim Sloan/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10582895": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10582895",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10582895",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10582894,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-400x260.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 260
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-960x623.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 623
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-e1435680413121.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1246
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-1440x934.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 934
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-800x519.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 519
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-1180x766.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 766
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-477576052-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435680393,
"modified": 1435680456,
"caption": "The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.",
"description": null,
"title": "US-SUPREME COURT",
"credit": "JIm Watson/AFP-Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10581740": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10581740",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10581740",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10581630,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-400x204.png",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 204
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-960x489.png",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 489
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM.png",
"width": 1560,
"height": 794
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-1440x733.png",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 733
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-96x96.png",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-800x407.png",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 407
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-64x64.png",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-32x32.png",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-280x150.png",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-1180x601.png",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 601
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-75x75.png",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-29-at-9.22.14-AM-128x128.png",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/png",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435594967,
"modified": 1435595052,
"caption": "Congressional district lines in Southern California, lines that will remain in place until the 2022 elections.",
"description": null,
"title": "Screen Shot 2015-06-29 at 9.22.14 AM",
"credit": "Citizens Redistricting Commission",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10578795": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10578795",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10578795",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10578704,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-1038x576.jpeg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-400x267.jpeg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 267
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-960x640.jpeg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 640
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-672x372.jpeg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew.jpeg",
"width": 3000,
"height": 2001
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-1440x960.jpeg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 960
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-96x96.jpeg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-800x534.jpeg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 534
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-64x64.jpeg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-32x32.jpeg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-280x150.jpeg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-1180x787.jpeg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 787
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-75x75.jpeg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/scalianew-128x128.jpeg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435367496,
"modified": 1435368244,
"caption": "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia takes part in an interview with Chris Wallace in 2012.",
"description": null,
"title": "Chris Wallace Interviews U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia On \"FOX News Sunday\"",
"credit": "Paul Morigi/Getty Images and Adam Grossberg/KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10578529": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10578529",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10578529",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10578528,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-400x267.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 267
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-960x640.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 640
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953.jpg",
"width": 3000,
"height": 2000
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-1440x960.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 960
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-1180x787.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 787
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-89013953-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435354189,
"modified": 1435361671,
"caption": "Human rights activist Cleve Jones speaks during the Broadway cast of \"Hair\" Be-In news conference to promote marriage equality on July 13, 2009, in Los Angeles. ",
"description": "Human rights activist Cleve Jones speaks during the Broadway cast of \"Hair\" Be-In news conference to promote marriage equality on July 13, 2009, in Los Angeles. ",
"title": "The Broadway Cast Of \"Hair\" Holds A \"Be-In\" Press Conference",
"credit": "Kristian Dowling/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10504762": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10504762",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10504762",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10504761,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-400x225.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 225
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-960x540.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 540
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-e1430239854585.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-1440x810.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 810
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 450
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-1180x664.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 664
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/471131930_wide-b3a2016501b6aa6d19e47af32b350c27367ea71e-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1430171150,
"modified": 1435357029,
"caption": "Protesters hold a pro-gay rights flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2015.",
"description": "Protesters hold a pro-gay rights flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2015.",
"title": "Supreme Court/Same-Sex Marriage",
"credit": "Paul J. Richards/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10578186": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10578186",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10578186",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10575868,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-400x265.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 265
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-960x637.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 637
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320.jpg",
"width": 3000,
"height": 1990
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-1440x955.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 955
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-800x531.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 531
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-1180x783.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 783
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/GettyImages-478626320-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435336020,
"modified": 1658342508,
"caption": "Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice after the US Supreme Court hands down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015, outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. The high court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states.",
"description": "Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice after the U.S Supreme Court hands down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage June 26, 2015 outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. The high court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states.",
"title": "Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Gay Marriage",
"credit": "Alex Wong/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice after the U.S Supreme Court hands down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage June 26, 2015 outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. The high court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"byline_news_10787026": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_10787026",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_10787026",
"name": "Nina Totenberg",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_10785638": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_10785638",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_10785638",
"name": "\u003cstrong>Mark Sherman\u003cbr />Associated Press\u003c/strong>",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_10582894": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_10582894",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_10582894",
"name": "\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/SamHananelAP\" target=\"_blank\">Sam Hananel\u003c/a>\u003cbr />Associated Press\u003c/strong>",
"isLoading": false
},
"lisapickoffwhite-2": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "199",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "199",
"found": true
},
"name": "Lisa Pickoff-White",
"firstName": "Lisa",
"lastName": "Pickoff-White",
"slug": "lisapickoffwhite-2",
"email": "lpickoffwhite@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Data Journalist, Senior Producer",
"bio": "Lisa Pickoff-White is KQED's data reporter. Lisa specializes in simplifying complex topics and bringing them to life through compelling visuals, including photography and data visualizations. She previously has worked at the Center for Investigative Reporting and other national outlets. Her work has been honored with awards from the Online News Association, Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists and SXSW Interactive. \u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "pickoffwhite",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": []
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Lisa Pickoff-White | KQED",
"description": "Data Journalist, Senior Producer",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lisapickoffwhite-2"
},
"danbrekke": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "222",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "222",
"found": true
},
"name": "Dan Brekke",
"firstName": "Dan",
"lastName": "Brekke",
"slug": "danbrekke",
"email": "dbrekke@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news",
"science"
],
"title": "KQED Editor and Reporter",
"bio": "Dan Brekke is a reporter and editor for KQED News, responsible for coverage of topics ranging from California water issues to the Bay Area's transportation challenges. In a newsroom career that began in Chicago in 1972, Dan has worked for \u003cem>The San Francisco Examiner,\u003c/em> Wired and TechTV and has been published in The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, Business 2.0, Salon and elsewhere.\r\n\r\nSince joining KQED in 2007, Dan has reported, edited and produced both radio and online features and breaking news pieces. He has shared as both editor and reporter in four Society of Professional Journalists Norcal Excellence in Journalism awards and one Edward R. Murrow regional award. He was chosen for a spring 2017 residency at the Mesa Refuge to advance his research on California salmon.\r\n\r\nEmail Dan at: \u003ca href=\"mailto:dbrekke@kqed.org\">dbrekke@kqed.org\u003c/a>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Twitter:\u003c/strong> \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/danbrekke\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">twitter.com/danbrekke\u003c/a>\r\n\u003cstrong>Facebook:\u003c/strong> \u003ca href=\"https://www.facebook.com/danbrekke\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">www.facebook.com/danbrekke\u003c/a>\r\n\u003cstrong>LinkedIn:\u003c/strong> \u003ca href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/in/danbrekke\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">www.linkedin.com/in/danbrekke\u003c/a>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8126230345efca3f7aa89b1a402be45?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twitter": "danbrekke",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": "https://www.instagram.com/dan.brekke/",
"linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/danbrekke/",
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator",
"create_posts"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Dan Brekke | KQED",
"description": "KQED Editor and Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8126230345efca3f7aa89b1a402be45?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8126230345efca3f7aa89b1a402be45?s=600&d=mm&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/danbrekke"
},
"gmarzorati": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "227",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "227",
"found": true
},
"name": "Guy Marzorati",
"firstName": "Guy",
"lastName": "Marzorati",
"slug": "gmarzorati",
"email": "gmarzorati@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Correspondent",
"bio": "Guy Marzorati is a correspondent on KQED's California Politics and Government Desk, based in San Jose. A graduate of Santa Clara University, Guy joined KQED in 2013. He reports on state and local politics and produces KQED's digital voter guide.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e7038b8dbfd55b104369b76b1cd0b9de?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "guymarzorati",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "elections",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Guy Marzorati | KQED",
"description": "Correspondent",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e7038b8dbfd55b104369b76b1cd0b9de?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e7038b8dbfd55b104369b76b1cd0b9de?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/gmarzorati"
},
"jmyers": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "232",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "232",
"found": true
},
"name": "John Myers",
"firstName": "John",
"lastName": "Myers",
"slug": "jmyers",
"email": "jmyers@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": "John Myers is Senior Editor of KQED's new California Politics and Government Desk. A veteran of almost two decades of political coverage, he was KQED's longest serving statehouse bureau chief and recently was political editor for Sacramento's ABC affiliate, News10 (KXTV). John was moderator of the only 2014 gubernatorial debate, and was named by \u003cem>The Washington Post\u003c/em> to two \"Best Of\" lists: the 2015 list of top state politics reporters and 2014's list of America's most influential statehouse reporters.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c0ac98482caf0b8229a792662b38722a?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "johnmyers",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "John Myers | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c0ac98482caf0b8229a792662b38722a?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c0ac98482caf0b8229a792662b38722a?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jmyers"
},
"tarasiler": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "257",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "257",
"found": true
},
"name": "Tara Siler",
"firstName": "Tara",
"lastName": "Siler",
"slug": "tarasiler",
"email": "tsiler@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Tara reports and anchors for KQED news. She covers a range of issues from community-police relations to local politics. Tara started out in community radio in the Bay Area, where she was raised. She eventually moved to Washington DC where she covered Congress for eight years for Pacifica and Monitor Radio. Her stories have also been heard on NPR's All Things Considered, Morning Edition and The World.\r\n\r\nTara lives with her husband in Oakland-- where they raised their two sons. She enjoys spending time with her family, gardening and hiking in the Oakland hills... and keeping up with the news.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/99802f9746fb80b65fd8ec6c57954450?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor",
"edit_others_posts"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Tara Siler | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/99802f9746fb80b65fd8ec6c57954450?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/99802f9746fb80b65fd8ec6c57954450?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/tarasiler"
},
"bwillon": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3207",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3207",
"found": true
},
"name": "Beth Willon",
"firstName": "Beth",
"lastName": "Willon",
"slug": "bwillon",
"email": "bwillon@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Beth Willon is a former senior reporter for KQED's Silicon Valley News Desk in San Jose. (@KQEDNews )\r\n\r\n@BethWillon",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3533b741c785d6a97e8b283e7f65606d?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Beth Willon | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3533b741c785d6a97e8b283e7f65606d?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3533b741c785d6a97e8b283e7f65606d?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/bwillon"
},
"mlagos": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3239",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3239",
"found": true
},
"name": "Marisa Lagos",
"firstName": "Marisa",
"lastName": "Lagos",
"slug": "mlagos",
"email": "mlagos@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Marisa Lagos is a correspondent for KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-hosts the award-winning show and podcast, Political Breakdown. At KQED, Lagos also conducts reporting, analysis and investigations into state, local and national politics for radio, TV, online and onstage. In 2022, she and co-host, Scott Shafer, moderated the only gubernatorial debate in California. In 2020, the \u003ci>Washington Post\u003c/i> named her one of the top political journalists in California; she was nominated for a Peabody and won several other awards for her work investigating the 2017 California wildfires. She has worked at the \u003ci>San Francisco Chronicle\u003c/i>, \u003ci>San Francisco Examiner\u003c/i> and \u003ci>Los Angeles Times\u003c/i>. A UC Santa Barbara graduate, she lives in San Francisco with her two sons and husband.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "@mlagos",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Marisa Lagos | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mlagos"
},
"lindseyhoshaw": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "5432",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "5432",
"found": true
},
"name": "Lindsey Hoshaw",
"firstName": "Lindsey",
"lastName": "Hoshaw",
"slug": "lindseyhoshaw",
"email": "lhoshaw@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Lindsey Hoshaw is a former interactive producer for KQED Science. Before joining KQED, Lindsey was a science correspondent for The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Forbes and Scientific American. On Twitter @lindseyhoshaw",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/274b07694c998eaa8f26cfabaa941186?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twitter": "lindseyhoshaw",
"facebook": "lindsey.hoshaw.9",
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "bayareabites",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"edit_theme_options",
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"edit_post_subscriptions",
"edit_usergroups",
"unfiltered_html",
"unfiltered_upload",
"leadcoordinator",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": []
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Lindsey Hoshaw | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/274b07694c998eaa8f26cfabaa941186?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/274b07694c998eaa8f26cfabaa941186?s=600&d=mm&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lindseyhoshaw"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_u-s-supreme-court": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"score": 10.400899
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1183,
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 14
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=u-s-supreme-court",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 14
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_10881713": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10881713",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10881713",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1456764502000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1456764502,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Clarence Thomas Speaks During High Court Argument for 1st Time in Decade",
"title": "Clarence Thomas Speaks During High Court Argument for 1st Time in Decade",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Updated, 3:25 p.m.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last Monday marked the 10th anniversary of the last time Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question -- or spoke at all -- during oral arguments before the high tribunal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So mark Leap Day 2016 on your SCOTUS history calendar. On Monday, during arguments in \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/voisine-v-united-states/\" target=\"_blank\">Voisine v. United States\u003c/a> -- \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/argument-preview-another-arcane-case-in-which-justice-scalia-will-be-missed/\" target=\"_blank\">concerning a federal law\u003c/a> that bars those convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms -- Thomas had something to say.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No, strike that. He had a lot to say. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ilana Eisenstein, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, was finishing her argument and said, \"If there are no further questions. ...\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Ms. Eisenstein, one question,\" Thomas said. He then zeroed in on the government's position that those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence should be prohibited from possessing guns. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Can you give me -- this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Eisenstein could not cite such an example, and Thomas was off and running, questioning the notion that a misdemeanor offense could lead to the lifetime loss of a right guaranteed in the Constitution. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He spoke 11 times in all, raising his utterances per year average from zero to 1 -- this being the 11th session of the Supreme Court since he last spoke during arguments. (The full transcript of the Voisine arguments is \u003ca href=\"#scotusvoisine\">embedded below\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's more on the context of Monday's session from Sam Hananel of The Associated Press. \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Until [Thomas spoke], it had been business as usual for the first 50 minutes of the hourlong session in Voisine v. United States. The court was considering the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>None of the other justices visibly reacted to Thomas' remarks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Eisenstein noted that violating other laws can, in some cases, limit a person's free-speech rights under the First Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"OK,\" Thomas said. \"So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It was a topic no other justice had asked about. And his comments came after several of the other justices seemed to favor the government's position that the law applies whether the abuse is intentional or reckless.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thomas last asked a question in court on Feb. 22, 2006, and his unusual silence over the years has become a curiosity. Every other justice regularly poses questions from the bench.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thomas has come under criticism for his silence from some who say he is neglecting his duties as a justice. He has said he relies on the written briefs in a case and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Thomas who now heads a conservative advocacy group, said the justice had kept his silence \"because he felt that oral arguments have become less civil and respectful of the attorneys and their arguments over the past two decades, often becoming little more than rhetorical jousting among the justices.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Like Scalia, Thomas has long championed Second Amendment gun rights. In December, he and Scalia objected when the high court refused to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban that was upheld by lower courts. Thomas said the justices should not stand by while lower courts relegate \"the Second Amendment to a second-class right.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"scotusvoisine\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/301287340/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_2336\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10881713 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10881713",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/02/29/clarence-thomas-speaks-during-high-court-argument-for-1st-time-in-decade/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 579,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 23
},
"modified": 1456812918,
"excerpt": "Associate justice asked questions during session focused on federal law that bars those convicted of domestic violence from owning firearms. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Associate justice asked questions during session focused on federal law that bars those convicted of domestic violence from owning firearms. ",
"title": "Clarence Thomas Speaks During High Court Argument for 1st Time in Decade | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Clarence Thomas Speaks During High Court Argument for 1st Time in Decade",
"datePublished": "2016-02-29T08:48:22-08:00",
"dateModified": "2016-02-29T22:15:18-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "clarence-thomas-speaks-during-high-court-argument-for-1st-time-in-decade",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/10881713/clarence-thomas-speaks-during-high-court-argument-for-1st-time-in-decade",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Updated, 3:25 p.m.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last Monday marked the 10th anniversary of the last time Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question -- or spoke at all -- during oral arguments before the high tribunal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So mark Leap Day 2016 on your SCOTUS history calendar. On Monday, during arguments in \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/voisine-v-united-states/\" target=\"_blank\">Voisine v. United States\u003c/a> -- \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/argument-preview-another-arcane-case-in-which-justice-scalia-will-be-missed/\" target=\"_blank\">concerning a federal law\u003c/a> that bars those convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms -- Thomas had something to say.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No, strike that. He had a lot to say. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ilana Eisenstein, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, was finishing her argument and said, \"If there are no further questions. ...\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Ms. Eisenstein, one question,\" Thomas said. He then zeroed in on the government's position that those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence should be prohibited from possessing guns. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Can you give me -- this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Eisenstein could not cite such an example, and Thomas was off and running, questioning the notion that a misdemeanor offense could lead to the lifetime loss of a right guaranteed in the Constitution. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He spoke 11 times in all, raising his utterances per year average from zero to 1 -- this being the 11th session of the Supreme Court since he last spoke during arguments. (The full transcript of the Voisine arguments is \u003ca href=\"#scotusvoisine\">embedded below\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's more on the context of Monday's session from Sam Hananel of The Associated Press. \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Until [Thomas spoke], it had been business as usual for the first 50 minutes of the hourlong session in Voisine v. United States. The court was considering the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>None of the other justices visibly reacted to Thomas' remarks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Eisenstein noted that violating other laws can, in some cases, limit a person's free-speech rights under the First Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"OK,\" Thomas said. \"So can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It was a topic no other justice had asked about. And his comments came after several of the other justices seemed to favor the government's position that the law applies whether the abuse is intentional or reckless.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thomas last asked a question in court on Feb. 22, 2006, and his unusual silence over the years has become a curiosity. Every other justice regularly poses questions from the bench.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thomas has come under criticism for his silence from some who say he is neglecting his duties as a justice. He has said he relies on the written briefs in a case and doesn't need to ask questions of the lawyers appearing in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Thomas who now heads a conservative advocacy group, said the justice had kept his silence \"because he felt that oral arguments have become less civil and respectful of the attorneys and their arguments over the past two decades, often becoming little more than rhetorical jousting among the justices.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Like Scalia, Thomas has long championed Second Amendment gun rights. In December, he and Scalia objected when the high court refused to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban that was upheld by lower courts. Thomas said the justices should not stand by while lower courts relegate \"the Second Amendment to a second-class right.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"scotusvoisine\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/301287340/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_2336\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10881713/clarence-thomas-speaks-during-high-court-argument-for-1st-time-in-decade",
"authors": [
"222"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10881717",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_10867031": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10867031",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10867031",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1455672558000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "kamala-harris-not-interested-in-a-u-s-supreme-court-nomination",
"title": "Kamala Harris Not Interested in a U.S. Supreme Court Nomination",
"publishDate": 1455672558,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Kamala Harris Not Interested in a U.S. Supreme Court Nomination | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 72,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>California Attorney General Kamala Harris today threw cold water on speculation that she may be on President Obama’s short list for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Harris said — point-blank — she wants to run only for the U.S. Senate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During a campaign stop at SEIU Local 521 headquarters in San Jose Tuesday morning, Harris stressed she had no interest in being nominated by President Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court after the sudden and unexpected \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0\">death of Justice Antonin Scalia\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I’m not putting my name in for consideration, I do not wish to be considered, I’m running for United States Senate,” said Harris.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This past weekend, Harris’ name started circulating at warp speed after former Obama \u003ca href=\"http://www.7x7.com/culture/kamala-harris-tops-several-lists-potential-supreme-court-nominees\">White House adviser David Axelrod mentioned\u003c/a> her on a news show discussing Scalia’s potential replacement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I’m extremely humbled, extremely humbled, and it’s obviously a significant compliment that anyone should think that I be considered,” said Harris, surrounded by a gaggle of news reporters after her meet-and-greet session at the labor headquarters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[contextly_sidebar id=”Y3EbkQfIw04uSDzfjzdYT2nBnQgGb07H”]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris said she would like to see someone who has had practical life experience nominated to fill the Scalia vacancy, but would not name anyone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Maybe I’m biased but I’d like to see someone who has actually seen the impact of the court and the rulings of the court,” Harris said. “Someone who is not just thinking of it theoretically, but is about understanding how these laws and rulings affect real people.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris — an early and loyal Obama supporter — said it was outrageous for Senate Republican leaders to say they will block any nomination by the president before he leaves office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This president is going to be in office through January of next year. We as Americans deserve to have a full, fully staffed United States Supreme Court,” said Harris. “A day that justice is denied is a very long day, and we should not deny justice to people who have issues before the United States Supreme Court.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>With Scalia’s seat empty, some of the most contentious cases may now be deadlocked with a 4-4 split. That includes a case pitting the \u003ca href=\"http://edsource.org/2016/scalias-death-likely-to-alter-outcome-in-friedrichs-lawsuit/94818\">California Teachers Association against teachers \u003c/a>claiming mandatory union payments violate their constitutional right to free speech.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case was argued before the Supreme Court in early January. In the case of a tie vote at the U.S. Supreme Court, the lower court ruling would stand. In that case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of the union.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Harris threw cold water on speculation that she may be on President Obama's short list of nominees.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721150610,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 14,
"wordCount": 471
},
"headData": {
"title": "Kamala Harris Not Interested in a U.S. Supreme Court Nomination | KQED",
"description": "Harris threw cold water on speculation that she may be on President Obama's short list of nominees.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Kamala Harris Not Interested in a U.S. Supreme Court Nomination",
"datePublished": "2016-02-16T17:29:18-08:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T10:23:30-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"path": "/news/10867031/kamala-harris-not-interested-in-a-u-s-supreme-court-nomination",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>California Attorney General Kamala Harris today threw cold water on speculation that she may be on President Obama’s short list for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Harris said — point-blank — she wants to run only for the U.S. Senate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During a campaign stop at SEIU Local 521 headquarters in San Jose Tuesday morning, Harris stressed she had no interest in being nominated by President Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court after the sudden and unexpected \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0\">death of Justice Antonin Scalia\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I’m not putting my name in for consideration, I do not wish to be considered, I’m running for United States Senate,” said Harris.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This past weekend, Harris’ name started circulating at warp speed after former Obama \u003ca href=\"http://www.7x7.com/culture/kamala-harris-tops-several-lists-potential-supreme-court-nominees\">White House adviser David Axelrod mentioned\u003c/a> her on a news show discussing Scalia’s potential replacement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I’m extremely humbled, extremely humbled, and it’s obviously a significant compliment that anyone should think that I be considered,” said Harris, surrounded by a gaggle of news reporters after her meet-and-greet session at the labor headquarters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris said she would like to see someone who has had practical life experience nominated to fill the Scalia vacancy, but would not name anyone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Maybe I’m biased but I’d like to see someone who has actually seen the impact of the court and the rulings of the court,” Harris said. “Someone who is not just thinking of it theoretically, but is about understanding how these laws and rulings affect real people.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harris — an early and loyal Obama supporter — said it was outrageous for Senate Republican leaders to say they will block any nomination by the president before he leaves office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This president is going to be in office through January of next year. We as Americans deserve to have a full, fully staffed United States Supreme Court,” said Harris. “A day that justice is denied is a very long day, and we should not deny justice to people who have issues before the United States Supreme Court.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>With Scalia’s seat empty, some of the most contentious cases may now be deadlocked with a 4-4 split. That includes a case pitting the \u003ca href=\"http://edsource.org/2016/scalias-death-likely-to-alter-outcome-in-friedrichs-lawsuit/94818\">California Teachers Association against teachers \u003c/a>claiming mandatory union payments violate their constitutional right to free speech.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case was argued before the Supreme Court in early January. In the case of a tie vote at the U.S. Supreme Court, the lower court ruling would stand. In that case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of the union.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10867031/kamala-harris-not-interested-in-a-u-s-supreme-court-nomination",
"authors": [
"3207"
],
"programs": [
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_61",
"news_1737",
"news_17286",
"news_19379",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10867222",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10805423": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10805423",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10805423",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1452279305000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1452279305,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "California Teacher's Supreme Court Case Challenges Union Power",
"title": "California Teacher's Supreme Court Case Challenges Union Power",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court takes up a case Monday that could significantly change the landscape of political power in California and beyond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2015_2016_briefs/14-915.html\" target=\"_blank\">Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association\u003c/a> centers on the question of whether union dues are inherently political -- and if they are, as the plaintiffs argue, whether represented employees who are not union members can be compelled to pay them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[soundcloud url=\"https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/240822633\" params=\"color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" iframe=\"true\" /]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case could have far-reaching political implications because the CTA and other public sector unions are significant political players in Democratic politics in both California and nationally -- and losing the case could hollow out their membership and financial standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Orange County Teacher Behind Case\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The conservative/libertarian Center for Individual Rights is representing Rebecca Friedrichs, the Orange County teacher who sued. The group's president, Terry Pell, said Friedrichs, a 25-year classroom veteran, had a good relationship with the union -- including a stint as a union representative --until the economic crash in 2008.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The school district was laying off newer teachers who were quite good at what they did,\" he said. \"Rebecca went around to the other teachers and said, 'If we all took a 2 percent pay cut, we could save their jobs,' and the other teachers agreed. She took it to the union and one official after another said absolutely not.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pell said those conversations led Friedrichs to believe that the union has different priorities than she does, and \"she shouldn't have to fund an organization she fundamentally disagrees with.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Plaintiffs Claim Fees Violate First Amendment Rights\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the 1977 decision in \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/431/209\" target=\"_blank\">Abood v. Detroit Board of Education\u003c/a>, the court upheld arrangements that require service fees or dues from employees who choose not to be part of a union. The rationale for that decision rested in large part on the benefit employees get from unions' role in negotiating contracts and representing workers with grievances. And while unions engage in political activity, the court said, that doesn't interfere with the First Amendment rights of individual workers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Pell argues everything a public employee union does -- even collective bargaining -- is inherently political and therefore people like Friedrichs should be able to opt out. He argues that because any raise in teacher salary is funded by tax dollars, forcing teachers to fund negotiations is compelling them to identify with a public policy cause, a violation of their First Amendment rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"That’s an example of something the union negotiated for -- higher salaries -- that’s actually quite political,\" Pell said. \"Reasonable people can disagree whether higher salaries are actually a good thing, especially when the economy is falling apart.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friedrichs and her fellow plaintiffs want the court to overrule the Abood decision and strike down laws requiring even nonunion employees to pay fees in the 25 states that have such statutes on the books.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If we win, then they will have the chance to say no with their feet and their checkbook -- they won't have to pay dues,\" Pell said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Unions, State Say Case Threatens Union Structure\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the state of California, the CTA and allies argue that a ruling in favor of Friedrichs could undermine the entire system of public employee collective bargaining here and nationwide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We don't have a system where the union only has an obligation to represent its own members,\" says William Gould, professor emeritus at Stanford Law School. \"The minority who don't want the union still have the right to benefit from anything the union does through collective bargaining.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gould joined an \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LABOR-LAW-FRIEDRICHS-AMICUS-BRIEF-FINAL-VERSION4.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">amicus brief\u003c/a> on behalf of the CTA. The union argues that if nonmembers can be represented by the union without paying any fee, there would be a strong incentive to become a \"free rider\" and not join the union. Fewer paying members could lead to a weakened force at the negotiation table.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, Gould urges teachers like Friedrichs to voice their displeasure with union decisions by electing new leaders.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I may object to President Bush pursuing the Iraq War, but I can’t determine for myself that my taxes used for those purposes should be withheld,\" he said. \"Similarly, the dissident employees may not like the unions’ pursuit of grievances of safety or wages in the collective bargaining process. The answer in both situations is to get different political leadership.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Decision Could Shift Power at the Ballot Box\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court will also consider a second question, one that has direct implications for the political weight of public sector unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Currently, teachers in California have the ability to opt out of funding the union's political activities. If they decide that they don't want to give the union money to support candidates, ballot measures and legislative lobbying, they will receive a refund for that portion of their dues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friedrichs wants the court to change that and make opting \u003cem>in\u003c/em> the default option under the law. Such a system would require union members to fill out a form and agree to pay dues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Any lapse in dues directed toward political purposes would have an adverse effect on the state's Democratic Party. The CTA has consistently given far more to Democrats than Republicans in statewide and legislative races, and the union's support for Democratic causes extends to \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/News-Room/Press-Releases/2015/10/20151025.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">initiatives\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Legislation/Capitol-News/Bills-Awaiting-Governors-Approval.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">legislative lobbying\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Will Case Split Conservatives on the Court?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The door to the eventual Friedrichs challenge was opened in the 2012 case \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Knox v. SEIU\u003c/a>, when conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his decision that the union model requiring nonmembers to contribute was an \"anomaly\" not seen in other associations of doctors, professors or even neighbors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now that the challenge has made it to the Supreme Court, the unlikely union ally may be another conservative, Antonin Scalia. In a 1991 case weighing union contributions and First Amendment rights, \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/507/case.html#550\" target=\"_blank\">Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association\u003c/a>, Scalia expressed support for the fee model that the CTA and other public sector unions have in place for nonmembers:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them; or, looked at from the other end, where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Whether Scalia's view on the issue has changed 25 years later is a question that Democrats around the state will be nervously watching.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10805423 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10805423",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/01/08/california-teachers-supreme-court-case-challenges-union-power/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1122,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1452293201,
"excerpt": "Southern California educator challenges system that allows public sector unions to require fees or dues from workers. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Southern California educator challenges system that allows public sector unions to require fees or dues from workers. ",
"title": "California Teacher's Supreme Court Case Challenges Union Power | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Teacher's Supreme Court Case Challenges Union Power",
"datePublished": "2016-01-08T10:55:05-08:00",
"dateModified": "2016-01-08T14:46:41-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-teachers-supreme-court-case-challenges-union-power",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/10805423/california-teachers-supreme-court-case-challenges-union-power",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court takes up a case Monday that could significantly change the landscape of political power in California and beyond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/2015_2016_briefs/14-915.html\" target=\"_blank\">Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association\u003c/a> centers on the question of whether union dues are inherently political -- and if they are, as the plaintiffs argue, whether represented employees who are not union members can be compelled to pay them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cdiv class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__shortcodes__shortcodeWrapper'>\n \u003ciframe width='100%' height='166'\n scrolling='no' frameborder='no'\n src='https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/240822633&visual=true&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false'\n title='https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/240822633'>\n \u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/div>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case could have far-reaching political implications because the CTA and other public sector unions are significant political players in Democratic politics in both California and nationally -- and losing the case could hollow out their membership and financial standing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Orange County Teacher Behind Case\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The conservative/libertarian Center for Individual Rights is representing Rebecca Friedrichs, the Orange County teacher who sued. The group's president, Terry Pell, said Friedrichs, a 25-year classroom veteran, had a good relationship with the union -- including a stint as a union representative --until the economic crash in 2008.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The school district was laying off newer teachers who were quite good at what they did,\" he said. \"Rebecca went around to the other teachers and said, 'If we all took a 2 percent pay cut, we could save their jobs,' and the other teachers agreed. She took it to the union and one official after another said absolutely not.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pell said those conversations led Friedrichs to believe that the union has different priorities than she does, and \"she shouldn't have to fund an organization she fundamentally disagrees with.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Plaintiffs Claim Fees Violate First Amendment Rights\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the 1977 decision in \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/431/209\" target=\"_blank\">Abood v. Detroit Board of Education\u003c/a>, the court upheld arrangements that require service fees or dues from employees who choose not to be part of a union. The rationale for that decision rested in large part on the benefit employees get from unions' role in negotiating contracts and representing workers with grievances. And while unions engage in political activity, the court said, that doesn't interfere with the First Amendment rights of individual workers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Pell argues everything a public employee union does -- even collective bargaining -- is inherently political and therefore people like Friedrichs should be able to opt out. He argues that because any raise in teacher salary is funded by tax dollars, forcing teachers to fund negotiations is compelling them to identify with a public policy cause, a violation of their First Amendment rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"That’s an example of something the union negotiated for -- higher salaries -- that’s actually quite political,\" Pell said. \"Reasonable people can disagree whether higher salaries are actually a good thing, especially when the economy is falling apart.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friedrichs and her fellow plaintiffs want the court to overrule the Abood decision and strike down laws requiring even nonunion employees to pay fees in the 25 states that have such statutes on the books.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If we win, then they will have the chance to say no with their feet and their checkbook -- they won't have to pay dues,\" Pell said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Unions, State Say Case Threatens Union Structure\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the state of California, the CTA and allies argue that a ruling in favor of Friedrichs could undermine the entire system of public employee collective bargaining here and nationwide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We don't have a system where the union only has an obligation to represent its own members,\" says William Gould, professor emeritus at Stanford Law School. \"The minority who don't want the union still have the right to benefit from anything the union does through collective bargaining.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gould joined an \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LABOR-LAW-FRIEDRICHS-AMICUS-BRIEF-FINAL-VERSION4.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">amicus brief\u003c/a> on behalf of the CTA. The union argues that if nonmembers can be represented by the union without paying any fee, there would be a strong incentive to become a \"free rider\" and not join the union. Fewer paying members could lead to a weakened force at the negotiation table.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, Gould urges teachers like Friedrichs to voice their displeasure with union decisions by electing new leaders.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I may object to President Bush pursuing the Iraq War, but I can’t determine for myself that my taxes used for those purposes should be withheld,\" he said. \"Similarly, the dissident employees may not like the unions’ pursuit of grievances of safety or wages in the collective bargaining process. The answer in both situations is to get different political leadership.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Decision Could Shift Power at the Ballot Box\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court will also consider a second question, one that has direct implications for the political weight of public sector unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Currently, teachers in California have the ability to opt out of funding the union's political activities. If they decide that they don't want to give the union money to support candidates, ballot measures and legislative lobbying, they will receive a refund for that portion of their dues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friedrichs wants the court to change that and make opting \u003cem>in\u003c/em> the default option under the law. Such a system would require union members to fill out a form and agree to pay dues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Any lapse in dues directed toward political purposes would have an adverse effect on the state's Democratic Party. The CTA has consistently given far more to Democrats than Republicans in statewide and legislative races, and the union's support for Democratic causes extends to \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/News-Room/Press-Releases/2015/10/20151025.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">initiatives\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Legislation/Capitol-News/Bills-Awaiting-Governors-Approval.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">legislative lobbying\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Will Case Split Conservatives on the Court?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The door to the eventual Friedrichs challenge was opened in the 2012 case \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Knox v. SEIU\u003c/a>, when conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his decision that the union model requiring nonmembers to contribute was an \"anomaly\" not seen in other associations of doctors, professors or even neighbors.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now that the challenge has made it to the Supreme Court, the unlikely union ally may be another conservative, Antonin Scalia. In a 1991 case weighing union contributions and First Amendment rights, \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/507/case.html#550\" target=\"_blank\">Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association\u003c/a>, Scalia expressed support for the fee model that the CTA and other public sector unions have in place for nonmembers:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them; or, looked at from the other end, where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Whether Scalia's view on the issue has changed 25 years later is a question that Democrats around the state will be nervously watching.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10805423/california-teachers-supreme-court-case-challenges-union-power",
"authors": [
"227",
"3239"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944",
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_18540",
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_18286",
"news_17286",
"news_17041",
"news_1172",
"news_794"
],
"featImg": "news_92735",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10787026": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10787026",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10787026",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1449595500000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1449595500,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "When Drawing Legislative Maps, Should States Count People -- or Only Voters?",
"title": "When Drawing Legislative Maps, Should States Count People -- or Only Voters?",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard an elections case that could dramatically change the way state legislative districts are drawn and could tilt some states in a decidedly more Republican direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The federal Constitution is clear. The House of Representatives is to be apportioned based on the total population in each congressional district, and the census is to count each person, whether eligible to vote or not, so that all are represented. The status of state legislative districts, however, is less clear.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Until 1964, state legislative districts often varied wildly in population. In Alabama, for instance, the population variances between two state Senate districts was 41-1. In a landmark 1964 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Alabama redistricting and ruled by an 8-1 vote that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection mandates the principle of \"one person, one vote.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"alignright\">\n\u003ch3>Outcome could impact political clout of Latinos in California\u003c/h3>\n\u003cp>[soundcloud url=\"https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/236666632\" params=\"color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" iframe=\"true\" /]\u003c/p>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>But what does that mean? Does it mean that the total population of state legislative districts should be equal, or does it mean the number of eligible voters in the districts should be equal, or the number of registered voters?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has never specifically answered that question, but virtually all the states now draw lines for their legislative districts based on equality of total population, not eligible or registered voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Should that change, it would mean that children, and immigrants, both legal and illegal, and other groups would be excluded from the population count when state legislative districts are drawn.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit before the Supreme Court seeks to do just that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two Texas voters are challenging the 2010 Texas reapportionment as unconstitutional because it created 31 state Senate districts to be as equal as possible in total population. The challengers claim that the correct constitutional metric should be eligible voters, not total population. Using that standard, they say that the Texas Senate map gives them roughly 50 percent less voting power.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.npr.org/player/embed/458795687/458887885\" width=\"100%\" height=\"290\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"NPR embedded audio player\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sue Evenwel, a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee, is the lead plaintiff. She notes, for instance, that her mainly rural district has 584,000 citizens eligible to vote, while a neighboring rural district, equal in total population, has only 372,000 eligible voters. Evenwel argues that the Texas districting scheme violates the \"one person, one vote\" principle because her vote has less weight relative to a person in a neighboring district with fewer eligible voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Republican-dominated Texas government nonetheless defends total population as the best and most reliable means of ensuring equality in representation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The federal census data right now doesn't ask for citizenship,\" notes Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller. \"So, we are using the best data set available.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[contextly_sidebar id=\"hiQSuIsKsIscvRrFQ3SdJKMOL4fgardW\"]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keller maintains that under previous Supreme Court rulings, the state can choose which population it is seeking to equalize, as long as it is not targeting one group for discrimination. \"Texas, like every other state, has used total population for decades,\" he observes, adding that \"there has been no claim that there's been unfair representation or our system of democracy has been undermined.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The challenge to the Texas redistricting has been coordinated by conservative activist Edward Blum. Some have called him the \"mastermind\" behind a series of cases that have successfully challenged long-established civil rights principles. Two years ago, Blum and a small cadre of lawyers succeeded in gutting a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This week he has two more cases before the high court: the legislative districting case and another case he spearheaded, also from Texas, challenging affirmative action programs in state college admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Blum used to be quite open about his work, but he is no longer talking to broadcasters, he says, because he isn't good at it. The lawyers arguing the cases are not talking either. So we turned to Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If you have a situation where one person's vote is effectively worth half of what another person's vote is in the neighboring district, that, I think, is a problem,\" Shapiro says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Shapiro points to Utah, a state with a high birthrate, as an example of a state that has greater representation for rural districts with lots of children, than for the urban and \"more hipster\" district that includes the city of Salt Lake. But ultimately, he tracks the disparities between total population and eligible voters to the immigrant population.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the last half century, he says, total population has generally tracked eligible voting population. The late 1960s and early 1970s represented the \"lowest foreign-born population in this country that we've had in at least the last hundred years or so,\" Shapiro adds. \"And now, we're approaching the highest again, so that's why you have this disparity.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Shapiro, who wrote a brief siding with the challengers in this case, contends that the Constitution is based on voter equality and not population equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But David Gans, of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center, co-authored a contrary brief, noting that when Congress debated and passed the 14th Amendment following the Civil War, the fight was over who should be covered by the equal protection guarantee.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On one side were those making the same argument that the challengers are in this case, he says, namely that \"representation should be based on number of voters.\" Had that view prevailed, he notes, it \"would have excluded women; it would have excluded aliens; it would have excluded children.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But, he continues, that view did not prevail; it was repeatedly voted down by the House and Senate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The theory that the framers of the 14th Amendment adopted was to include everyone in the population so as to ensure \"that everyone's voices are accounted for in representation,\" he says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is one other aspect of this case: the pragmatic difficulty of creating districts of equal numbers of voters when those numbers are not compiled anywhere, when voting rolls are notoriously inaccurate, fluctuating and unpurged, and when people age into the voting population every day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A brief filed by five demographers contends that it could be done, using a tried-and-true Census Bureau sampling technique instead of actual enumeration. But a brief filed by former Census Bureau chiefs from both Republican and Democratic administrations says that adequate data for a citizen-only, eligible-voter population count simply does not exist now, nor is it likely that sufficiently precise and reliable data of that kind could be obtained.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"fullattribution\">Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.\u003cimg src=\"http://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=When+Drawing+Districts%2C+Should+States+Count+Each+Person+Or+Each+Voter%3F&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004)\" alt=\"\">\u003c/div>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10787026 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10787026",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/08/when-drawing-legislative-maps-should-states-count-people-or-only-voters/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1141,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 29
},
"modified": 1449613116,
"excerpt": "A case before the Supreme Court could dramatically change the way legislative districts are drawn, and could tilt some states in a decidedly more Republican direction.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "A case before the Supreme Court could dramatically change the way legislative districts are drawn, and could tilt some states in a decidedly more Republican direction.",
"title": "When Drawing Legislative Maps, Should States Count People -- or Only Voters? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "When Drawing Legislative Maps, Should States Count People -- or Only Voters?",
"datePublished": "2015-12-08T09:25:00-08:00",
"dateModified": "2015-12-08T14:18:36-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "when-drawing-legislative-maps-should-states-count-people-or-only-voters",
"status": "publish",
"nprApiLink": "http://api.npr.org/query?id=458795687&apiKey=MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004",
"nprByline": "Nina Totenberg",
"nprStoryDate": "Tue, 08 Dec 2015 05:03:00 -0500",
"nprLastModifiedDate": "Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:40:37 -0500",
"nprHtmlLink": "http://www.npr.org/2015/12/08/458795687/when-drawing-districts-should-states-count-each-person-or-each-voter?ft=nprml&f=458795687",
"nprAudio": "http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2015/12/20151208_me_when_drawing_districts_should_states_count_each_person_or_each_voter.mp3?orgId=1&topicId=1014&d=408&p=3&story=458795687&t=progseg&e=458885964&seg=16&ft=nprml&f=458795687",
"nprImageAgency": "AP",
"nprImageCredit": "Eric Gay",
"nprAudioM3u": "http://api.npr.org/m3u/1458887885-02522a.m3u?orgId=1&topicId=1014&d=408&p=3&story=458795687&t=progseg&e=458885964&seg=16&ft=nprml&f=458795687",
"nprStoryId": "458795687",
"nprRetrievedStory": "1",
"nprPubDate": "Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:40:00 -0500",
"path": "/news/10787026/when-drawing-legislative-maps-should-states-count-people-or-only-voters",
"audioUrl": "http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2015/12/20151208_me_when_drawing_districts_should_states_count_each_person_or_each_voter.mp3?orgId=1&topicId=1014&d=408&p=3&story=458795687&t=progseg&e=458885964&seg=16&ft=nprml&f=458795687",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard an elections case that could dramatically change the way state legislative districts are drawn and could tilt some states in a decidedly more Republican direction.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The federal Constitution is clear. The House of Representatives is to be apportioned based on the total population in each congressional district, and the census is to count each person, whether eligible to vote or not, so that all are represented. The status of state legislative districts, however, is less clear.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Until 1964, state legislative districts often varied wildly in population. In Alabama, for instance, the population variances between two state Senate districts was 41-1. In a landmark 1964 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Alabama redistricting and ruled by an 8-1 vote that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection mandates the principle of \"one person, one vote.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"alignright\">\n\u003ch3>Outcome could impact political clout of Latinos in California\u003c/h3>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cdiv class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__shortcodes__shortcodeWrapper'>\n \u003ciframe width='100%' height='166'\n scrolling='no' frameborder='no'\n src='https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/236666632&visual=true&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false'\n title='https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/236666632'>\n \u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/div>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>But what does that mean? Does it mean that the total population of state legislative districts should be equal, or does it mean the number of eligible voters in the districts should be equal, or the number of registered voters?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has never specifically answered that question, but virtually all the states now draw lines for their legislative districts based on equality of total population, not eligible or registered voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Should that change, it would mean that children, and immigrants, both legal and illegal, and other groups would be excluded from the population count when state legislative districts are drawn.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lawsuit before the Supreme Court seeks to do just that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two Texas voters are challenging the 2010 Texas reapportionment as unconstitutional because it created 31 state Senate districts to be as equal as possible in total population. The challengers claim that the correct constitutional metric should be eligible voters, not total population. Using that standard, they say that the Texas Senate map gives them roughly 50 percent less voting power.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.npr.org/player/embed/458795687/458887885\" width=\"100%\" height=\"290\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"NPR embedded audio player\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sue Evenwel, a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee, is the lead plaintiff. She notes, for instance, that her mainly rural district has 584,000 citizens eligible to vote, while a neighboring rural district, equal in total population, has only 372,000 eligible voters. Evenwel argues that the Texas districting scheme violates the \"one person, one vote\" principle because her vote has less weight relative to a person in a neighboring district with fewer eligible voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Republican-dominated Texas government nonetheless defends total population as the best and most reliable means of ensuring equality in representation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The federal census data right now doesn't ask for citizenship,\" notes Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller. \"So, we are using the best data set available.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keller maintains that under previous Supreme Court rulings, the state can choose which population it is seeking to equalize, as long as it is not targeting one group for discrimination. \"Texas, like every other state, has used total population for decades,\" he observes, adding that \"there has been no claim that there's been unfair representation or our system of democracy has been undermined.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The challenge to the Texas redistricting has been coordinated by conservative activist Edward Blum. Some have called him the \"mastermind\" behind a series of cases that have successfully challenged long-established civil rights principles. Two years ago, Blum and a small cadre of lawyers succeeded in gutting a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This week he has two more cases before the high court: the legislative districting case and another case he spearheaded, also from Texas, challenging affirmative action programs in state college admissions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Blum used to be quite open about his work, but he is no longer talking to broadcasters, he says, because he isn't good at it. The lawyers arguing the cases are not talking either. So we turned to Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"If you have a situation where one person's vote is effectively worth half of what another person's vote is in the neighboring district, that, I think, is a problem,\" Shapiro says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Shapiro points to Utah, a state with a high birthrate, as an example of a state that has greater representation for rural districts with lots of children, than for the urban and \"more hipster\" district that includes the city of Salt Lake. But ultimately, he tracks the disparities between total population and eligible voters to the immigrant population.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the last half century, he says, total population has generally tracked eligible voting population. The late 1960s and early 1970s represented the \"lowest foreign-born population in this country that we've had in at least the last hundred years or so,\" Shapiro adds. \"And now, we're approaching the highest again, so that's why you have this disparity.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Shapiro, who wrote a brief siding with the challengers in this case, contends that the Constitution is based on voter equality and not population equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But David Gans, of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center, co-authored a contrary brief, noting that when Congress debated and passed the 14th Amendment following the Civil War, the fight was over who should be covered by the equal protection guarantee.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On one side were those making the same argument that the challengers are in this case, he says, namely that \"representation should be based on number of voters.\" Had that view prevailed, he notes, it \"would have excluded women; it would have excluded aliens; it would have excluded children.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But, he continues, that view did not prevail; it was repeatedly voted down by the House and Senate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The theory that the framers of the 14th Amendment adopted was to include everyone in the population so as to ensure \"that everyone's voices are accounted for in representation,\" he says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is one other aspect of this case: the pragmatic difficulty of creating districts of equal numbers of voters when those numbers are not compiled anywhere, when voting rolls are notoriously inaccurate, fluctuating and unpurged, and when people age into the voting population every day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A brief filed by five demographers contends that it could be done, using a tried-and-true Census Bureau sampling technique instead of actual enumeration. But a brief filed by former Census Bureau chiefs from both Republican and Democratic administrations says that adequate data for a citizen-only, eligible-voter population count simply does not exist now, nor is it likely that sufficiently precise and reliable data of that kind could be obtained.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"fullattribution\">Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.\u003cimg src=\"http://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=When+Drawing+Districts%2C+Should+States+Count+Each+Person+Or+Each+Voter%3F&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAxOTAwOTE4MDEyMTkxMDAzNjczZDljZA004)\" alt=\"\">\u003c/div>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10787026/when-drawing-legislative-maps-should-states-count-people-or-only-voters",
"authors": [
"byline_news_10787026"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944",
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_1169",
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_282",
"news_17286",
"news_17041",
"news_1172",
"news_2027"
],
"affiliates": [
"news_253"
],
"featImg": "news_10787027",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10785638": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10785638",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10785638",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1449507580000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1449507580,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Town's Ban on Assault Rifles",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Town's Ban on Assault Rifles",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>WASHINGTON — Amid a national debate over the ready availability of military-style firearms, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from gun owners who challenged a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two conservative justices said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court, though, left in place a lower court ruling that found that local governments have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld a 2013 law passed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois, that bans semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In October, the federal appeals court in New York largely upheld similar laws in Connecticut and New York, among a handful of states that ban semi-automatic weapons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one's own home.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[contextly_sidebar id=\"DTuVRtAt3A5TaT8s57dO8cNWFICyhRaV\"]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Chicago appeals court ruling \"flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Without mentioning the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/san-bernardino\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">mass shootings in San Bernardino\u003c/a> and elsewhere that involved semi-automatic guns, Thomas said the weapons ban \"is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes\" by roughly 5 million Americans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,\" Thomas wrote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case had been under consideration at the high court for two months, but the delay in dealing with it now appears mainly due to waiting for Thomas to finish his opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The appeal filed by Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association argues that Highland Park has violated their constitutional rights by banning some of the most popular semi-automatic guns in the United States, as well as ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though lower courts have mainly upheld gun restrictions, the Highland Park case arises out of a decision by the federal appeals court in Chicago that struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2013, when state lawmakers reacted to the court ruling by making it legal to carry a gun, they gave cities around the state 10 days to come up with local restrictions on assault weapons, or forfeit their right to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Highland Park was one of fewer than 20 municipalities, all in the Chicago area, to enact regulations or bans, according to the rifle association.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city's assault weapons ban was upheld by the appeals court in a 2-1 decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the court that there is a \"substantial benefit\" to the Highland Park ordinance if it makes the public feel less at risk from a mass shooting. Variations of the Bushmaster AR-15, one of the guns specifically banned by Highland Park, were used in the Newtown, Connecticut, school massacre and the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The gun control laws that the appeals court in New York upheld in October were passed after the 2012 massacre in Newtown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case is Friedman v. Highland, 15-133.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10785638 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10785638",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-to-overturn-towns-assault-rifle-ban/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 580,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 21
},
"modified": 1549496196,
"excerpt": "In Illinois case, court majority lets stand a lower court ruling that gives local governments leeway in regulating firearms. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In Illinois case, court majority lets stand a lower court ruling that gives local governments leeway in regulating firearms. ",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Town's Ban on Assault Rifles | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Town's Ban on Assault Rifles",
"datePublished": "2015-12-07T08:59:40-08:00",
"dateModified": "2019-02-06T15:36:36-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-to-overturn-towns-assault-rifle-ban",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "\u003cstrong>Mark Sherman\u003cbr />Associated Press\u003c/strong>",
"path": "/news/10785638/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-to-overturn-towns-assault-rifle-ban",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>WASHINGTON — Amid a national debate over the ready availability of military-style firearms, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from gun owners who challenged a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two conservative justices said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court, though, left in place a lower court ruling that found that local governments have leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld a 2013 law passed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois, that bans semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In October, the federal appeals court in New York largely upheld similar laws in Connecticut and New York, among a handful of states that ban semi-automatic weapons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions since two landmark decisions that spelled out the right to a handgun to defend one's own home.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Chicago appeals court ruling \"flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Without mentioning the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/san-bernardino\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">mass shootings in San Bernardino\u003c/a> and elsewhere that involved semi-automatic guns, Thomas said the weapons ban \"is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes\" by roughly 5 million Americans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,\" Thomas wrote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case had been under consideration at the high court for two months, but the delay in dealing with it now appears mainly due to waiting for Thomas to finish his opinion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The appeal filed by Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association argues that Highland Park has violated their constitutional rights by banning some of the most popular semi-automatic guns in the United States, as well as ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even though lower courts have mainly upheld gun restrictions, the Highland Park case arises out of a decision by the federal appeals court in Chicago that struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2013, when state lawmakers reacted to the court ruling by making it legal to carry a gun, they gave cities around the state 10 days to come up with local restrictions on assault weapons, or forfeit their right to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Highland Park was one of fewer than 20 municipalities, all in the Chicago area, to enact regulations or bans, according to the rifle association.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The city's assault weapons ban was upheld by the appeals court in a 2-1 decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote for the court that there is a \"substantial benefit\" to the Highland Park ordinance if it makes the public feel less at risk from a mass shooting. Variations of the Bushmaster AR-15, one of the guns specifically banned by Highland Park, were used in the Newtown, Connecticut, school massacre and the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The gun control laws that the appeals court in New York upheld in October were passed after the 2012 massacre in Newtown.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case is Friedman v. Highland, 15-133.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10785638/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-to-overturn-towns-assault-rifle-ban",
"authors": [
"byline_news_10785638"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944",
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_3606",
"news_2795",
"news_3058",
"news_17286",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10785640",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10582946": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10582946",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10582946",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435690585000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "political-fate-of-california-teachers-association-now-rests-with-high-court",
"title": "Political Fate of California Teachers Association Now Rests With High Court",
"publishDate": 1435690585,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Political Fate of California Teachers Association Now Rests With High Court | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 7051,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>For a union that has defeated almost every challenger on the playing field of state politics for more than two decades, the California Teachers Association’s most powerful opponent may turn out to be what Justice Antonin Scalia recently described as “a committee of nine unelected lawyers.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Tuesday, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063015zr_pnk0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">U.S. Supreme Court agreed\u003c/a> to decide whether the state’s most powerful employee union has the right to require teachers to pay dues that fund the CTA’s influence at both the bargaining table and the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The state cannot compel people to pay for speech with which they fundamentally disagree,” said Terry Pell, president of the \u003ca href=\"https://www.cir-usa.org/mission/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Center for Individual Rights\u003c/a>, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit group that filed the case on behalf of 10 California teachers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case has been making its way through the federal court process for the past two years en route to a ruling from the nine justices, a slow process that’s made it a bit of a sleeper in the world of news but nonetheless a fight that goes to the heart of the CTA’s power: The membership dues paid by more than 300,000 educators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Like other unions, the CTA allows teachers to \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/about-cta/voluntary-contribution\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">opt out\u003c/a> of being full-fledged members who help fund its political campaigns. But it still requires what’s called an “agency fee,” dues that are supposed to cover only the \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/Leadership/Treasurers-Corner/Treasurers-Budget/Program-Expenditure-2013-2014.aspx\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">costs of general services like collective bargaining\u003c/a>. That system, itself a product of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, dates back to a \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1977 case involving public school teachers in Detroit\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This case, \u003cem>\u003ca href=\"https://www.cir-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/friedrichs_v_cta_complaint.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association\u003c/a>\u003c/em>, asks a pretty straightforward question: Is the agency fee unconstitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs argue that the union’s bargaining efforts are also inherently political, that there’s no way to filter one activity from the other. Thus, they believe teachers with a different viewpoint from the CTA’s are being illegally burdened. “In 25 states, there are laws on the books that require public employees to pay dues to their union as a condition of employment,” said Pell of the plaintiffs’ group. “We think a majority of the court believes the time has come to put an end to this.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other side is not just the teachers union, but also Attorney General Kamala Harris. In \u003ca href=\"http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/14-915BriefInOppositionOkToPrint.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a filing with the Supreme Court last month\u003c/a>, Harris took issue with the fact that politics is inextricably linked with the union’s day-to-day work.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Negotiations addressing routine employment matters — procedures for taking leave, for example, or the condition of faculty lounges, or the method for processing employee grievances — are not ‘political’ in that sense,” wrote Harris.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Critics of the system think they have a shot with the generally conservative majority of the high court, after \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-preview-is-abood-in-trouble/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a 2014 case\u003c/a> involving union expenses in which Justice Samuel Alito suggested the overarching system in place since 1977 may be untenable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/News-Room/Press-Releases/2015/06/20150630.aspx\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a brief joint statement on Tuesday\u003c/a>, leaders of the CTA and other labor unions accused the Supreme Court of “reviewing decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the real stakes in this court fight are over the money that fuels the broad influence of the CTA, an influence that’s felt in campaigns, lobbying and local contract negotiations. One former leader of the California Legislature went so far as to \u003ca href=\"http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/18/local/la-me-cta-20120819\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">characterize the CTA’s self-image as the “co-equal fourth branch of government” in a 2012 newspaper story\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A \u003ca href=\"http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report31110.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2010 analysis by the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency\u003c/a> put the teachers union tops in political spending over the previous decade, and CTA spending has totaled tens of millions of dollars more since that report.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A ruling is expected by the summer of 2016, thus ensuring \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/29/california-congressional-maps/get-legal-protection-via-arizona/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a second straight year\u003c/a> where the nine justices weigh in on a case with profound implications for California’s political landscape.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The case has been slowly making its way through the federal court process for the past two years.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721108254,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 16,
"wordCount": 704
},
"headData": {
"title": "Political Fate of California Teachers Association Now Rests With High Court | KQED",
"description": "The case has been slowly making its way through the federal court process for the past two years.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Political Fate of California Teachers Association Now Rests With High Court",
"datePublished": "2015-06-30T11:56:25-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-15T22:37:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"path": "/news/10582946/political-fate-of-california-teachers-association-now-rests-with-high-court",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>For a union that has defeated almost every challenger on the playing field of state politics for more than two decades, the California Teachers Association’s most powerful opponent may turn out to be what Justice Antonin Scalia recently described as “a committee of nine unelected lawyers.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Tuesday, the \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063015zr_pnk0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">U.S. Supreme Court agreed\u003c/a> to decide whether the state’s most powerful employee union has the right to require teachers to pay dues that fund the CTA’s influence at both the bargaining table and the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The state cannot compel people to pay for speech with which they fundamentally disagree,” said Terry Pell, president of the \u003ca href=\"https://www.cir-usa.org/mission/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Center for Individual Rights\u003c/a>, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit group that filed the case on behalf of 10 California teachers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case has been making its way through the federal court process for the past two years en route to a ruling from the nine justices, a slow process that’s made it a bit of a sleeper in the world of news but nonetheless a fight that goes to the heart of the CTA’s power: The membership dues paid by more than 300,000 educators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Like other unions, the CTA allows teachers to \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/about-cta/voluntary-contribution\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">opt out\u003c/a> of being full-fledged members who help fund its political campaigns. But it still requires what’s called an “agency fee,” dues that are supposed to cover only the \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/Leadership/Treasurers-Corner/Treasurers-Budget/Program-Expenditure-2013-2014.aspx\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">costs of general services like collective bargaining\u003c/a>. That system, itself a product of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, dates back to a \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1977 case involving public school teachers in Detroit\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This case, \u003cem>\u003ca href=\"https://www.cir-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/friedrichs_v_cta_complaint.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association\u003c/a>\u003c/em>, asks a pretty straightforward question: Is the agency fee unconstitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The plaintiffs argue that the union’s bargaining efforts are also inherently political, that there’s no way to filter one activity from the other. Thus, they believe teachers with a different viewpoint from the CTA’s are being illegally burdened. “In 25 states, there are laws on the books that require public employees to pay dues to their union as a condition of employment,” said Pell of the plaintiffs’ group. “We think a majority of the court believes the time has come to put an end to this.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other side is not just the teachers union, but also Attorney General Kamala Harris. In \u003ca href=\"http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/14-915BriefInOppositionOkToPrint.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a filing with the Supreme Court last month\u003c/a>, Harris took issue with the fact that politics is inextricably linked with the union’s day-to-day work.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Negotiations addressing routine employment matters — procedures for taking leave, for example, or the condition of faculty lounges, or the method for processing employee grievances — are not ‘political’ in that sense,” wrote Harris.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Critics of the system think they have a shot with the generally conservative majority of the high court, after \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-preview-is-abood-in-trouble/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a 2014 case\u003c/a> involving union expenses in which Justice Samuel Alito suggested the overarching system in place since 1977 may be untenable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In \u003ca href=\"http://www.cta.org/About-CTA/News-Room/Press-Releases/2015/06/20150630.aspx\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a brief joint statement on Tuesday\u003c/a>, leaders of the CTA and other labor unions accused the Supreme Court of “reviewing decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the real stakes in this court fight are over the money that fuels the broad influence of the CTA, an influence that’s felt in campaigns, lobbying and local contract negotiations. One former leader of the California Legislature went so far as to \u003ca href=\"http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/18/local/la-me-cta-20120819\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">characterize the CTA’s self-image as the “co-equal fourth branch of government” in a 2012 newspaper story\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A \u003ca href=\"http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report31110.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2010 analysis by the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency\u003c/a> put the teachers union tops in political spending over the previous decade, and CTA spending has totaled tens of millions of dollars more since that report.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A ruling is expected by the summer of 2016, thus ensuring \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/29/california-congressional-maps/get-legal-protection-via-arizona/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">a second straight year\u003c/a> where the nine justices weigh in on a case with profound implications for California’s political landscape.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10582946/political-fate-of-california-teachers-association-now-rests-with-high-court",
"authors": [
"232"
],
"programs": [
"news_7051"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_18286",
"news_20013",
"news_17599",
"news_17286",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10583065",
"label": "news_7051"
},
"news_10582894": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10582894",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10582894",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435680515000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1435680515,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "High Court to Hear California Teachers' Challenge to Union Dues",
"title": "High Court to Hear California Teachers' Challenge to Union Dues",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will consider limiting the power of government employee unions to collect fees from non-members in a case that labor officials say could threaten membership and further weaken union clout.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court announced Tuesday that justices will hear \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/\" target=\"_blank\">Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association\u003c/a>, an appeal from a group of California teachers who say the fee requirement violates their First Amendment rights to have to pay any fees if they disagree with a union's positions and don't want to join it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The teachers want the court to overturn a 38-year-old legal precedent that said unions can require non-members to pay for bargaining costs as long as the fees don't go toward political purposes. Public workers in half the states currently are required to pay \"fair share\" fees if they are represented by a union, even if they are not members.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[soundcloud url=\"https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212728499\" params=\"color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" iframe=\"true\" /]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the high court has raised doubts about the viability of that regime in two cases over the past four years. The court has stopped short of overturning the 1977 case, \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html\" target=\"_blank\">Abood v. Detroit Board of Education\u003c/a> case, but in a 5-4 opinion last year, Justice Samuel Alito called Abood \"questionable on several grounds.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alito said a \"bedrock principle\" of the First Amendment is that \"no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lead plaintiff in the case is Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher in Orange County, who says she resigned from the California Teachers Association because it takes positions that \"are not in the best interests of me or my community.\" She says she is still required to pay the union about $650 a year to cover bargaining costs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The union says the fees are necessary because it has a legal duty to represent all teachers at the bargaining table, even those who are not part of the union.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A federal district court ruled against her and the other challengers, saying the outcome was clear under Abood. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leaders of some of the nation's largest public sector unions issued a joint statement calling the lawsuit an effort to weaken labor rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The Supreme Court is revisiting decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities — decisions that have stood for more than 35 years,\" said the statement from the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and Service Employees International Union.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Center for Individual Rights, a conservative group working with the plaintiffs, argues that even basic union goals such as negotiating pay raises and boosting school budgets can clash with the political and educational beliefs of many teachers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation on the basis of the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,\" said Terry Pell, the group's president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court's rationale in 1977 for allowing the fees was to help promote labor peace and prevent non-members from \"free riding,\" since the union has a legal duty to represent all workers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A ruling in favor of the teachers challenging the fees could sap finances at all unions representing teachers, firefighters and other government workers, say labor leaders and other experts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"When unions are required to provide representation, if people don't have to pay for that, a lot of them are going to opt for that free option and that's going to cause enormous problems for the viability of unions,\" said Benjamin Sachs, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in labor law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As private sector union membership has steadily declined over the past four decades, unions representing government workers have emerged as a powerful force in organized labor. But they have come under increasing attack as officials in Wisconsin and other states blame them for generous pension and benefit packages that cash-strapped governments no longer can afford.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Public sector workers have a union membership rate of 35.7 percent, more than five times higher than that of private sector workers at 6.6 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will be argued when the Supreme Court begins its new term this fall.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10582894 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10582894",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/30/high-court-to-hear-california-teachers-challenge-to-union-dues/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 782,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 21
},
"modified": 1435712417,
"excerpt": "Case could determine whether public employee unions can continue to collect fees from non-members. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Case could determine whether public employee unions can continue to collect fees from non-members. ",
"title": "High Court to Hear California Teachers' Challenge to Union Dues | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "High Court to Hear California Teachers' Challenge to Union Dues",
"datePublished": "2015-06-30T09:08:35-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-06-30T18:00:17-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "high-court-to-hear-california-teachers-challenge-to-union-dues",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/SamHananelAP\" target=\"_blank\">Sam Hananel\u003c/a>\u003cbr />Associated Press\u003c/strong>",
"path": "/news/10582894/high-court-to-hear-california-teachers-challenge-to-union-dues",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will consider limiting the power of government employee unions to collect fees from non-members in a case that labor officials say could threaten membership and further weaken union clout.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court announced Tuesday that justices will hear \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/\" target=\"_blank\">Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association\u003c/a>, an appeal from a group of California teachers who say the fee requirement violates their First Amendment rights to have to pay any fees if they disagree with a union's positions and don't want to join it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The teachers want the court to overturn a 38-year-old legal precedent that said unions can require non-members to pay for bargaining costs as long as the fees don't go toward political purposes. Public workers in half the states currently are required to pay \"fair share\" fees if they are represented by a union, even if they are not members.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cdiv class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__shortcodes__shortcodeWrapper'>\n \u003ciframe width='100%' height='166'\n scrolling='no' frameborder='no'\n src='https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212728499&visual=true&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false'\n title='https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212728499'>\n \u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/div>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the high court has raised doubts about the viability of that regime in two cases over the past four years. The court has stopped short of overturning the 1977 case, \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/case.html\" target=\"_blank\">Abood v. Detroit Board of Education\u003c/a> case, but in a 5-4 opinion last year, Justice Samuel Alito called Abood \"questionable on several grounds.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Alito said a \"bedrock principle\" of the First Amendment is that \"no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The lead plaintiff in the case is Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher in Orange County, who says she resigned from the California Teachers Association because it takes positions that \"are not in the best interests of me or my community.\" She says she is still required to pay the union about $650 a year to cover bargaining costs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The union says the fees are necessary because it has a legal duty to represent all teachers at the bargaining table, even those who are not part of the union.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A federal district court ruled against her and the other challengers, saying the outcome was clear under Abood. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Leaders of some of the nation's largest public sector unions issued a joint statement calling the lawsuit an effort to weaken labor rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The Supreme Court is revisiting decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities — decisions that have stood for more than 35 years,\" said the statement from the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and Service Employees International Union.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Center for Individual Rights, a conservative group working with the plaintiffs, argues that even basic union goals such as negotiating pay raises and boosting school budgets can clash with the political and educational beliefs of many teachers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation on the basis of the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,\" said Terry Pell, the group's president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court's rationale in 1977 for allowing the fees was to help promote labor peace and prevent non-members from \"free riding,\" since the union has a legal duty to represent all workers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A ruling in favor of the teachers challenging the fees could sap finances at all unions representing teachers, firefighters and other government workers, say labor leaders and other experts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"When unions are required to provide representation, if people don't have to pay for that, a lot of them are going to opt for that free option and that's going to cause enormous problems for the viability of unions,\" said Benjamin Sachs, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in labor law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As private sector union membership has steadily declined over the past four decades, unions representing government workers have emerged as a powerful force in organized labor. But they have come under increasing attack as officials in Wisconsin and other states blame them for generous pension and benefit packages that cash-strapped governments no longer can afford.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Public sector workers have a union membership rate of 35.7 percent, more than five times higher than that of private sector workers at 6.6 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will be argued when the Supreme Court begins its new term this fall.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10582894/high-court-to-hear-california-teachers-challenge-to-union-dues",
"authors": [
"byline_news_10582894"
],
"programs": [
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_17041",
"news_1172",
"news_794"
],
"featImg": "news_10582895",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10581630": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10581630",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10581630",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435596026000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 7051
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1435596026,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "California's Congressional Maps Get Legal Protection Via Arizona",
"title": "California's Congressional Maps Get Legal Protection Via Arizona",
"headTitle": "FaultLines | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The notion that California's 53 congressional districts could be redrawn before the 2016 elections and that legislators would wield the pencils yielded tons of buzz among politicos these past few months. One problem: The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Monday, a majority of the high court's justices ruled in favor of Arizona's voter-approved system of having the lines drawn by an independent commission -- a case that had profound implications for a similar commission in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bottom line: The status quo remains.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Our precedent teaches that redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking,\" \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 5-4 ruling\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case seemed to hinge on the meaning of the word \"legislature\" in Article I, Section IV of the Constitution:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cem>\"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.\"\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Attorneys for the Arizona Legislature, which was stripped of its redistricting power by the state's \u003ca href=\"http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Creation_of_a_Redistricting_Commission,_Proposition_106_(2000)\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 106 in 2000\u003c/a>, argued that verbiage makes clear that only a state's legislative body has power over the elements that dictate that state's congressional elections. That includes, they told the justices this past March, the drawing of congressional districts once a decade.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_10581687\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 800px\">\u003cimg class=\"wp-image-10581687 size-medium\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/VotingBooths1-800x450.jpg\" alt=\"Voting booths at Hermosa Beach City Hall during California primary\" width=\"800\" height=\"450\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Voting booths at Hermosa Beach City Hall during California primary \u003ccite>(Daniel Sofer/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But Arizona's redistricting commission argued that the state’s initiative process vests legislative powers in voters as well as lawmakers. California’s redistricting commission, as well as three former governors, filed their amicus briefs backing up that assertion. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/01/26/might-gerrymandering-return-to-california-via-arizona-lawsuit/\" target=\"_blank\">California's system was, in some ways, modeled after the one in Arizona\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Any invalidation of the Grand Canyon State's system was widely believed to spell doom for the congressional maps drawn here in 2011. Those maps were the product of \u003ca href=\"http://voiceofoc.org/2011/07/tears-over-race-punctuate-weekend-meeting-of-redistricting-panel/\" target=\"_blank\">intense and emotional debate by the state's new citizens commission that summer\u003c/a>, especially in the trade-offs at hand for Latino and African-American communities in and around Los Angeles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Had the commission's power to draw those maps been outlawed by a ruling against the Arizona panel, the California Legislature would have been thrust into a job it hasn't done since 2001 -- a process that was so roundly criticized as blatant political gerrymandering that it led to ballot initiatives in \u003ca href=\"http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_11,_Creation_of_the_California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission_(2008)\" target=\"_blank\">2008\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Congressional_Redistricting_(2010)\" target=\"_blank\">2010\u003c/a> to permanently give the job to a commission of California citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California legislators would have had to navigate both legal and political hurdles, using outdated census data to draw congressional maps in a matter of weeks for the 2016 election cycle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ginsburg's ruling in the case made clear that the court's majority believes Arizona's legislators were misreading the constitutional intent of describing a state's role in overseeing the election of its members of Congress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"We hold that the Elections Clause permits the people of Arizona to provide for redistricting by independent commission. To restate the key question in this case, the issue centrally debated by the parties: Absent congressional authorization, does the Elections Clause preclude the people of Arizona from creating a commission operating independently of the state legislature to establish congressional districts? The history and purpose of the Clause weigh heavily against such preclusion, as does the animating principle of our Constitution that the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Ginsburg was joined in affirming the power of voters to change the rules of redistricting by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(Kennedy was, as in so many cases, the most interesting of the jurists to watch; \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/03/03/does-independent-redistricting-fate-lie-in-the-hands-of-anthony-kennedy/\" target=\"_blank\">as a young attorney in his native Sacramento, he helped draft a tax-cutting initiative championed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1972\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority seemed particularly troubled by the notion that Arizona's legislators wanted to single out congressional elections as unique; as in California, the state's redistricting commission also draws political boundaries for its legislative races. Those powers were not at issue, because they don't involve federal elections. \"The [Constitution's Elections] Clause surely was not adopted to diminish a state’s authority to determine its own lawmaking processes,\" wrote Ginsburg.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the dissent, mocked the idea that the constitutional language regarding congressional elections could be interpreted widely enough to allow voters to play the role of a legislative power:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"The Court's position has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court. The Constitution contains seventeen provisions referring to the \"Legislature\" of a State, many of which cannot possibly be read to mean 'the people'... Nowhere does the majority explain how a constitutional provision that vests redistricting authority in 'the Legislature' permits a State to wholly exclude 'the Legislature' from redistricting.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Roberts was joined in his dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. He wrote that Arizonans who were concerned about an unfair process of drawing congressional maps could have, and perhaps should have, petitioned Congress for help -- and that Congress has power under the U.S. Constitution to intervene. Or, he wrote, citizens could work to amend the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And Roberts concluded his dissent with a sharp jab at his fellow justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Unfortunately,\" he wrote, \"today’s decision will only discourage this democratic method of change. Why go through the hassle of writing a new provision into the Constitution when it is so much\u003cbr>\neasier to write an old one out?\"\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10581630 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10581630",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/29/californias-congressional-maps-get-legal-protection-via-arizona/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 939,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 23
},
"modified": 1435614038,
"excerpt": "The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of voters to strip legislatures of their redistricting power.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of voters to strip legislatures of their redistricting power.",
"title": "California's Congressional Maps Get Legal Protection Via Arizona | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California's Congressional Maps Get Legal Protection Via Arizona",
"datePublished": "2015-06-29T09:40:26-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-06-29T14:40:38-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "californias-congressional-maps-get-legal-protection-via-arizona",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2015/06/29/california-congressional-maps/get-legal-protection-via-arizona/",
"path": "/news/10581630/californias-congressional-maps-get-legal-protection-via-arizona",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The notion that California's 53 congressional districts could be redrawn before the 2016 elections and that legislators would wield the pencils yielded tons of buzz among politicos these past few months. One problem: The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Monday, a majority of the high court's justices ruled in favor of Arizona's voter-approved system of having the lines drawn by an independent commission -- a case that had profound implications for a similar commission in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bottom line: The status quo remains.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Our precedent teaches that redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking,\" \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 5-4 ruling\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case seemed to hinge on the meaning of the word \"legislature\" in Article I, Section IV of the Constitution:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cem>\"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.\"\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Attorneys for the Arizona Legislature, which was stripped of its redistricting power by the state's \u003ca href=\"http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Creation_of_a_Redistricting_Commission,_Proposition_106_(2000)\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 106 in 2000\u003c/a>, argued that verbiage makes clear that only a state's legislative body has power over the elements that dictate that state's congressional elections. That includes, they told the justices this past March, the drawing of congressional districts once a decade.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_10581687\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 800px\">\u003cimg class=\"wp-image-10581687 size-medium\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/VotingBooths1-800x450.jpg\" alt=\"Voting booths at Hermosa Beach City Hall during California primary\" width=\"800\" height=\"450\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Voting booths at Hermosa Beach City Hall during California primary \u003ccite>(Daniel Sofer/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But Arizona's redistricting commission argued that the state’s initiative process vests legislative powers in voters as well as lawmakers. California’s redistricting commission, as well as three former governors, filed their amicus briefs backing up that assertion. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/01/26/might-gerrymandering-return-to-california-via-arizona-lawsuit/\" target=\"_blank\">California's system was, in some ways, modeled after the one in Arizona\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Any invalidation of the Grand Canyon State's system was widely believed to spell doom for the congressional maps drawn here in 2011. Those maps were the product of \u003ca href=\"http://voiceofoc.org/2011/07/tears-over-race-punctuate-weekend-meeting-of-redistricting-panel/\" target=\"_blank\">intense and emotional debate by the state's new citizens commission that summer\u003c/a>, especially in the trade-offs at hand for Latino and African-American communities in and around Los Angeles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Had the commission's power to draw those maps been outlawed by a ruling against the Arizona panel, the California Legislature would have been thrust into a job it hasn't done since 2001 -- a process that was so roundly criticized as blatant political gerrymandering that it led to ballot initiatives in \u003ca href=\"http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_11,_Creation_of_the_California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission_(2008)\" target=\"_blank\">2008\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Congressional_Redistricting_(2010)\" target=\"_blank\">2010\u003c/a> to permanently give the job to a commission of California citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California legislators would have had to navigate both legal and political hurdles, using outdated census data to draw congressional maps in a matter of weeks for the 2016 election cycle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Ginsburg's ruling in the case made clear that the court's majority believes Arizona's legislators were misreading the constitutional intent of describing a state's role in overseeing the election of its members of Congress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"We hold that the Elections Clause permits the people of Arizona to provide for redistricting by independent commission. To restate the key question in this case, the issue centrally debated by the parties: Absent congressional authorization, does the Elections Clause preclude the people of Arizona from creating a commission operating independently of the state legislature to establish congressional districts? The history and purpose of the Clause weigh heavily against such preclusion, as does the animating principle of our Constitution that the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Ginsburg was joined in affirming the power of voters to change the rules of redistricting by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(Kennedy was, as in so many cases, the most interesting of the jurists to watch; \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/03/03/does-independent-redistricting-fate-lie-in-the-hands-of-anthony-kennedy/\" target=\"_blank\">as a young attorney in his native Sacramento, he helped draft a tax-cutting initiative championed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1972\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority seemed particularly troubled by the notion that Arizona's legislators wanted to single out congressional elections as unique; as in California, the state's redistricting commission also draws political boundaries for its legislative races. Those powers were not at issue, because they don't involve federal elections. \"The [Constitution's Elections] Clause surely was not adopted to diminish a state’s authority to determine its own lawmaking processes,\" wrote Ginsburg.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the dissent, mocked the idea that the constitutional language regarding congressional elections could be interpreted widely enough to allow voters to play the role of a legislative power:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"The Court's position has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court. The Constitution contains seventeen provisions referring to the \"Legislature\" of a State, many of which cannot possibly be read to mean 'the people'... Nowhere does the majority explain how a constitutional provision that vests redistricting authority in 'the Legislature' permits a State to wholly exclude 'the Legislature' from redistricting.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Roberts was joined in his dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. He wrote that Arizonans who were concerned about an unfair process of drawing congressional maps could have, and perhaps should have, petitioned Congress for help -- and that Congress has power under the U.S. Constitution to intervene. Or, he wrote, citizens could work to amend the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And Roberts concluded his dissent with a sharp jab at his fellow justices.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Unfortunately,\" he wrote, \"today’s decision will only discourage this democratic method of change. Why go through the hassle of writing a new provision into the Constitution when it is so much\u003cbr>\neasier to write an old one out?\"\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10581630/californias-congressional-maps-get-legal-protection-via-arizona",
"authors": [
"232"
],
"programs": [
"news_7051"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_332",
"news_17599",
"news_282",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10581740",
"label": "news_7051"
},
"news_10578704": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10578704",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10578704",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435368285000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "madscalia-a-chance-to-express-your-inner-judicial-diva",
"title": "MadScalia: A Chance to Express Your Inner Judicial Diva",
"publishDate": 1435368285,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "MadScalia: A Chance to Express Your Inner Judicial Diva | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 6944,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>The Supreme Court of the United States has been home to some great prose stylists.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it’s safe to say the great tribunal has not seen, or heard, anyone quite like Antonin Scalia, who has served on the court since 1986. Especially when writing in dissent, Scalia has built a reputation for opinions that combine scorn, outrage, mockery and arcane vocabulary. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thursday, dissenting from the six-justice majority’s decision upholding a key provision of the federal Affordable Care Act, \u003ca href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-scalia-obamacare-roberts/\">Scalia burst out\u003c/a> with “SCOTUS-care,” “jiggery-pokery,” “pure applesauce’ and “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Friday he was at it again, writing from the short side of the court’s \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5-4 decision\u003c/a> striking down bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. In a footnote to his dissent, he bashed the prose in the majority opinion:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Well, you can say this for Scalia: He can be awfully fun to read. And we imagine that he has a lot of fun writing this stuff — which will be preserved forever as part of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. And we figure everyone deserves a chance to channel Scalia for a few minutes, to luxuriate in being the nation’s supreme judicial diva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s our Antonin Scalia madlib — or MadScalia, if you like. Enjoy. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://projects1.kqed.org/madscalia/index.html\" width=\"100%\" height=\"900\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"yes\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "An opportunity to dissent just like the Supreme Court's most feared and cranky prose stylist.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1721150614,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": true,
"iframeSrcs": [
"http://projects1.kqed.org/madscalia/index.html"
],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 10,
"wordCount": 321
},
"headData": {
"title": "MadScalia: A Chance to Express Your Inner Judicial Diva | KQED",
"description": "An opportunity to dissent just like the Supreme Court's most feared and cranky prose stylist.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "MadScalia: A Chance to Express Your Inner Judicial Diva",
"datePublished": "2015-06-26T18:24:45-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-07-16T10:23:34-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"path": "/news/10578704/madscalia-a-chance-to-express-your-inner-judicial-diva",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The Supreme Court of the United States has been home to some great prose stylists.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But it’s safe to say the great tribunal has not seen, or heard, anyone quite like Antonin Scalia, who has served on the court since 1986. Especially when writing in dissent, Scalia has built a reputation for opinions that combine scorn, outrage, mockery and arcane vocabulary. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thursday, dissenting from the six-justice majority’s decision upholding a key provision of the federal Affordable Care Act, \u003ca href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-scalia-obamacare-roberts/\">Scalia burst out\u003c/a> with “SCOTUS-care,” “jiggery-pokery,” “pure applesauce’ and “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Friday he was at it again, writing from the short side of the court’s \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">5-4 decision\u003c/a> striking down bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. In a footnote to his dissent, he bashed the prose in the majority opinion:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Well, you can say this for Scalia: He can be awfully fun to read. And we imagine that he has a lot of fun writing this stuff — which will be preserved forever as part of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. And we figure everyone deserves a chance to channel Scalia for a few minutes, to luxuriate in being the nation’s supreme judicial diva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s our Antonin Scalia madlib — or MadScalia, if you like. Enjoy. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http://projects1.kqed.org/madscalia/index.html\" width=\"100%\" height=\"900\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"yes\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10578704/madscalia-a-chance-to-express-your-inner-judicial-diva",
"authors": [
"222",
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10578795",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_10578528": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10578528",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10578528",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435362658000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1435362658,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Cleve Jones: Marriage Equality Is An Extraordinary Victory for Everybody",
"title": "Cleve Jones: Marriage Equality Is An Extraordinary Victory for Everybody",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Cleve Jones was on 18th Street in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood when he heard the news.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For the AIDS activist and co-founder of the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfaf.org/?referrer=https://www.google.com/\">San Francisco AIDS Foundation\u003c/a>, the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage\">U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage\u003c/a> brought him to tears.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I began the day by weeping,\" said Jones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The former adviser to \u003ca href=\"http://milkfoundation.org/about/harvey-milk-biography/\">Harvey Milk\u003c/a>, the pioneering San Francisco supervisor killed in 1978, is known for creating the enormous \u003ca href=\"http://www.aidsquilt.org/\">NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt\u003c/a>, which celebrated those who died of AIDS or AIDS-related causes. At 54 tons, it's the largest piece of community folk art in the world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/\">KQED\u003c/a> News reporter Tara Siler asked Jones about the significance of today:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[soundcloud url=\"https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212155511\" params=\"color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" iframe=\"true\" /]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Cleve Jones: \u003c/strong>I got up at 7:02 a.m. and turned on the computer and totally lost it. I'm 60 years old and I did not think I would live to see this day. I'm so very grateful to be alive, but I also remember all of my wonderful friends and comrades who didn't live long enough to see this day. So they're very much with me and my thoughts, and they'll be with us tonight as we party and dance on Castro Street.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tara Siler:\u003c/strong> Well, I thought of that. You conceived the AIDS quilt back in 1985 to commemorate the lives of those who died of AIDS … and there's a lot of people represented on that quilt who did not live to see today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jones:\u003c/strong> Yes, we lost close to 25,000 gay men in this city alone, and most of them lived here in my neighborhood, so it's a poignant day. But it is nonetheless an extraordinary victory not only for gay people but for everybody who cares about our democracy, who cares about human rights and fundamental justice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Siler:\u003c/strong> You know, Cleve, you were fighting for gay rights back in the 1970s. Are there key moments you could point to from that time that you think helped set the stage for this moment today?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">'I'm 60 years old and I did not think I would live to see this day.'\u003ccite>Cleve Jones, AIDS activist\u003c/cite>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, of course, I can't help but think about Harvey Milk. And the fight against the Briggs Initiative and Proposition 6, back in 1978, was the first time we really had to mobilize our grass-roots troops. And it was a victory, a statewide victory that would not be repeated for 34 years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So what I'm really reflecting on is the reality that, those times when we have jumped forward have come when people took risks, took bold action. And I'm thinking in particular of 2004 when then-Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Attorney Dennis Herrera began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco City Hall, and they were condemned vociferously by all of the national gay and lesbian organizations, by the Democratic Party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But that set the stage for Prop. 8. And when Prop. 8 passed, that unleashed a new explosion of grass-roots energy that propelled us to this point. But even then, as late as the spring and summer of 2009, all of the national gay organizations and our Democratic Party allies were saying, \"Don't go to federal court, it's too risky.\" Fortunately, they were ignored and today we are celebrating the results of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Siler:\u003c/strong> Well, are you surprised that this issue -- marriage equality -- took hold and moved public opinion, frankly, and the Supreme Court?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, certainly back in the '70s, I would have thought that marriage equality would have come after we achieved protection against discrimination in employment and housing and public accommodation. So I was startled by the speed with which the \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" policy was overturned and gay people were welcomed into the armed forces, that came much more quickly than I expected it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But this focus on marriage equality, many young people think that this focus on marriage equality was imposed on the community by the big national groups in an effort to raise money and make this more respectable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But in reality, they all opposed it. And the push for this, I believe, is rooted in our experience with the AIDS pandemic. After what we went through -- the losses we endured -- and all of the loving couples then who cared for partners as they died, sometimes for many years, and the millions of dollars we had to raise to care for our brothers and sisters, all of that, I think, left us with this feeling of: \"How dare you say this isn't a marriage? How dare you say this isn't a family? This is what a marriage looks like, this is what families are.\"\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10578528 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10578528",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/cleve-jones-marriage-equality-is-an-extraordinary-victory-for-everybody/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 841,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 19
},
"modified": 1435362864,
"excerpt": "Gay rights activist says bonds formed during AIDS epidemic helped reshape meaning of marriage and family.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Gay rights activist says bonds formed during AIDS epidemic helped reshape meaning of marriage and family.",
"title": "Cleve Jones: Marriage Equality Is An Extraordinary Victory for Everybody | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Cleve Jones: Marriage Equality Is An Extraordinary Victory for Everybody",
"datePublished": "2015-06-26T16:50:58-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-06-26T16:54:24-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "cleve-jones-marriage-equality-is-an-extraordinary-victory-for-everybody",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/10578528/cleve-jones-marriage-equality-is-an-extraordinary-victory-for-everybody",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Cleve Jones was on 18th Street in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood when he heard the news.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For the AIDS activist and co-founder of the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfaf.org/?referrer=https://www.google.com/\">San Francisco AIDS Foundation\u003c/a>, the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage\">U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage\u003c/a> brought him to tears.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I began the day by weeping,\" said Jones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The former adviser to \u003ca href=\"http://milkfoundation.org/about/harvey-milk-biography/\">Harvey Milk\u003c/a>, the pioneering San Francisco supervisor killed in 1978, is known for creating the enormous \u003ca href=\"http://www.aidsquilt.org/\">NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt\u003c/a>, which celebrated those who died of AIDS or AIDS-related causes. At 54 tons, it's the largest piece of community folk art in the world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/\">KQED\u003c/a> News reporter Tara Siler asked Jones about the significance of today:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cdiv class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__shortcodes__shortcodeWrapper'>\n \u003ciframe width='100%' height='166'\n scrolling='no' frameborder='no'\n src='https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212155511&visual=true&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false'\n title='https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212155511'>\n \u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/div>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Cleve Jones: \u003c/strong>I got up at 7:02 a.m. and turned on the computer and totally lost it. I'm 60 years old and I did not think I would live to see this day. I'm so very grateful to be alive, but I also remember all of my wonderful friends and comrades who didn't live long enough to see this day. So they're very much with me and my thoughts, and they'll be with us tonight as we party and dance on Castro Street.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Tara Siler:\u003c/strong> Well, I thought of that. You conceived the AIDS quilt back in 1985 to commemorate the lives of those who died of AIDS … and there's a lot of people represented on that quilt who did not live to see today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jones:\u003c/strong> Yes, we lost close to 25,000 gay men in this city alone, and most of them lived here in my neighborhood, so it's a poignant day. But it is nonetheless an extraordinary victory not only for gay people but for everybody who cares about our democracy, who cares about human rights and fundamental justice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Siler:\u003c/strong> You know, Cleve, you were fighting for gay rights back in the 1970s. Are there key moments you could point to from that time that you think helped set the stage for this moment today?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">'I'm 60 years old and I did not think I would live to see this day.'\u003ccite>Cleve Jones, AIDS activist\u003c/cite>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, of course, I can't help but think about Harvey Milk. And the fight against the Briggs Initiative and Proposition 6, back in 1978, was the first time we really had to mobilize our grass-roots troops. And it was a victory, a statewide victory that would not be repeated for 34 years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So what I'm really reflecting on is the reality that, those times when we have jumped forward have come when people took risks, took bold action. And I'm thinking in particular of 2004 when then-Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Attorney Dennis Herrera began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco City Hall, and they were condemned vociferously by all of the national gay and lesbian organizations, by the Democratic Party.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But that set the stage for Prop. 8. And when Prop. 8 passed, that unleashed a new explosion of grass-roots energy that propelled us to this point. But even then, as late as the spring and summer of 2009, all of the national gay organizations and our Democratic Party allies were saying, \"Don't go to federal court, it's too risky.\" Fortunately, they were ignored and today we are celebrating the results of that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Siler:\u003c/strong> Well, are you surprised that this issue -- marriage equality -- took hold and moved public opinion, frankly, and the Supreme Court?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jones:\u003c/strong> Well, certainly back in the '70s, I would have thought that marriage equality would have come after we achieved protection against discrimination in employment and housing and public accommodation. So I was startled by the speed with which the \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" policy was overturned and gay people were welcomed into the armed forces, that came much more quickly than I expected it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But this focus on marriage equality, many young people think that this focus on marriage equality was imposed on the community by the big national groups in an effort to raise money and make this more respectable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But in reality, they all opposed it. And the push for this, I believe, is rooted in our experience with the AIDS pandemic. After what we went through -- the losses we endured -- and all of the loving couples then who cared for partners as they died, sometimes for many years, and the millions of dollars we had to raise to care for our brothers and sisters, all of that, I think, left us with this feeling of: \"How dare you say this isn't a marriage? How dare you say this isn't a family? This is what a marriage looks like, this is what families are.\"\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10578528/cleve-jones-marriage-equality-is-an-extraordinary-victory-for-everybody",
"authors": [
"257",
"5432"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944",
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_5438",
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10578529",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10578084": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10578084",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10578084",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435334081000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1435334081,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Decision and Dissent: The U.S. Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "Decision and Dissent: The U.S. Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that same-sex couples everywhere in the United States are entitled to the right to marry. Below are excerpts from:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>The five-justice \u003ca href=\"#kennedy\">majority opinion\u003c/a> by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The \u003ca href=\"#roberts\">dissenting opinion\u003c/a> of Chief Justice John Roberts.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The \u003ca href=\"#scalia\">dissenting opinion\u003c/a> of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The full opinion and dissenting opinions (including those of Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) are \u003ca href=\"#obergefell\">embedded below\u003c/a>).\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"kennedy\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003cstrong>The opinion of the court: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>... The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution — even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time. ... Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignright\">'As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.'\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. ... For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>his analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. ... A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. ... A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. ... Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">S\u003c/span>tates have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. ... It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same- sex couples to marry. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>here may be an initial inclination in these cases to proceed with caution—to await further legislation, litigation, and debate. The respondents warn there has been insufficient democratic discourse before deciding an issue so basic as the definition of marriage. In its ruling on the cases now before this Court, the majority opinion for the [6th Circuit] Court of Appeals made a cogent argument that it would be appropriate for the respondents’ States to await further public discussion and political measures before licensing same-sex marriages. ... The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">N\u003c/span>o union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. \u003cem>It is so ordered.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>From the dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">P\u003c/span>etitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” ...\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise 'neither force nor will but merely judgment.'\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens -- through the democratic process -- to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">B\u003c/span>y deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator [ed. note: Ruth Bader Ginsburg] observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” .... Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">I\u003c/span>f you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I respectfully dissent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"scalia\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003cstrong>From the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">I\u003c/span> join the chief justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences -- and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences -- can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">W\u003c/span>hen the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws” — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt what- ever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">I\u003c/span>f, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">H\u003c/span>ubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"obergefell\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/269769826/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_69264\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10578084 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10578084",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/the-u-s-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage-highlights-of-opinion/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 3439,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 36
},
"modified": 1435362837,
"excerpt": "Excerpts of decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy and dissents by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Excerpts of decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy and dissents by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.",
"title": "Decision and Dissent: The U.S. Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Decision and Dissent: The U.S. Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2015-06-26T08:54:41-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-06-26T16:53:57-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-u-s-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage-highlights-of-opinion",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/10578084/the-u-s-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage-highlights-of-opinion",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that same-sex couples everywhere in the United States are entitled to the right to marry. Below are excerpts from:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>The five-justice \u003ca href=\"#kennedy\">majority opinion\u003c/a> by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The \u003ca href=\"#roberts\">dissenting opinion\u003c/a> of Chief Justice John Roberts.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The \u003ca href=\"#scalia\">dissenting opinion\u003c/a> of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>The full opinion and dissenting opinions (including those of Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) are \u003ca href=\"#obergefell\">embedded below\u003c/a>).\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"kennedy\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003cstrong>The opinion of the court: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>... The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution — even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time. ... Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignright\">'As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.'\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. ... For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>his analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. ... A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. ... A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. ... Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">S\u003c/span>tates have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. ... It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same- sex couples to marry. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>here may be an initial inclination in these cases to proceed with caution—to await further legislation, litigation, and debate. The respondents warn there has been insufficient democratic discourse before deciding an issue so basic as the definition of marriage. In its ruling on the cases now before this Court, the majority opinion for the [6th Circuit] Court of Appeals made a cogent argument that it would be appropriate for the respondents’ States to await further public discussion and political measures before licensing same-sex marriages. ... The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">N\u003c/span>o union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. \u003cem>It is so ordered.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>From the dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">P\u003c/span>etitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” ...\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise 'neither force nor will but merely judgment.'\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens -- through the democratic process -- to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">B\u003c/span>y deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator [ed. note: Ruth Bader Ginsburg] observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” .... Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">I\u003c/span>f you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I respectfully dissent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"scalia\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003cstrong>From the dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">I\u003c/span> join the chief justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences -- and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences -- can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">W\u003c/span>hen the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws” — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt what- ever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government....\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">T\u003c/span>he opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">I\u003c/span>f, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 4.6875em;float: left;line-height: 0.733em;padding: 0.05em 0.1em 0 0;font-family: times, serif, georgia\">H\u003c/span>ubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"obergefell\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/269769826/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_69264\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10578084/the-u-s-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage-highlights-of-opinion",
"authors": [
"222"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944",
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_322",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10504762",
"label": "news_72"
},
"news_10575868": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10575868",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10575868",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1435327726000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 72
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1435327726,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans on Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans on Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "The California Report | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>As a throng cheered outside, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples across the United States are entitled to the right to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 5-4 decision struck down same-sex marriage bans imposed by Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The court found that those laws violate the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law for all persons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 28-page majority opinion -- \u003ca href=\"#obergefell\">embedded below\u003c/a> -- by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy says:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The five-justice majority consisted of Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts led the dissenters, including Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. All four of the justices in the minority wrote dissenting opinions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Roberts read his dissent from the bench. He argued that the democratic process should have been allowed to play out by allowing states to decide the question on their own. He says:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The decision takes effect immediately.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a.png\">\u003cimg class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-10578398\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a.png\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage decision map.\" width=\"742\" height=\"557\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a.png 742w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a-400x300.png 400w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 742px) 100vw, 742px\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court faced \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/14-00556qp.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">two main questions\u003c/a> in Obergefell v. Hodges:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry?\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>If states can ban same-sex marriages, can states not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where it is legal?\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The decision is the culmination of a decades-long struggle in the courts, statehouses and at the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Just \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">two years ago\u003c/a>, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court's ruling on Proposition 8 was much more narrow, applying only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UCLA's Williams Institute estimates that there are 390,000 married same-sex couples. The Supreme Court's landmark decision today could mean that another 70,000 couples living in the 13 states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the Williams Institute estimates. There are roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, who live together in the United States, the institute says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Stories of Love, Life Before the High Court\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many of the 19 men and women involved in Obergefell v. Hodges call themselves \"accidental activists\" because they filed lawsuits not to legalize same-sex marriage nationally, but because of how the bans impacted their lives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two of the plaintiffs in Friday's case married in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Matthew Mansell married his husband, John, in San Francisco in 2008, before voters passed Prop. 8. In 2012, they moved to Tennessee with their two children for work. Mansell says they quickly found that their marriage wasn't recognized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We were always concerned about whether we would have issues with doctors or with any government agencies with regard to our children or even with regard to services for my husband or for myself,\" Mansell said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They joined a lawsuit against Tennessee, arguing the state should recognize their marriage. They initially won, but a federal appeals court ruled against them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mansell and his family now live in Orange County. He says a victory at the highest court in the nation would teach their kids to stand up for what you believe in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[soundcloud url=\"https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212162805\" params=\"color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" iframe=\"true\" /]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were not planning to challenge Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage when they went to court to win the right to jointly adopt each other's children. A federal judge transformed their case into one about the right to marry, and the nurses have become celebrities in their Detroit suburb of Hazel Park.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We've been stopped multiple times at our local shopping center with people just telling their story. These are people's lives that we've changed,\" DeBoer said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They live with their four adopted children, ages 2 to 6, and a foster child. Each woman has adopted two kids, but Michigan ties joint adoption to marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We decided that not doing anything would do more harm to our children than standing up and saying we're going to fight,\" DeBoer said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A middle-of-the night trip to the emergency room, with her 9-month-old son coughing and laboring to breathe, gave Pam Yorksmith her latest reminder of why she took up the fight for same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Before baby Orion could be treated for croup, the hospital had to call his birth mother — Yorksmith's wife, Nicole — \"to get permission to treat my child,\" Yorksmith said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Although the Yorksmiths started their family together through artificial insemination, hospital records and Orion's birth certificate don't list Pam Yorksmith as a parent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The Next Battles\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Efforts to carve out religious exemptions for people and institutions that object to same-sex marriage are also under attack. It is clear that churches do not have to marry same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious tenets, but what about county clerks? Can photographers\u003cbr>\nrefuse to shoot same-sex weddings? Can bakers decline to bake a cake for two men?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Civil rights groups say they will continue pressing for other protections from discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing, among other areas. Even if same-sex couples win the right to marry everywhere, people still can be fired because of their sexual orientation in more than half the states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This post includes reporting by Scott Shafer of KQED News and Mark Sherman of the Associated Press.\u003c/em>\u003cbr>\n\u003ca id=\"obergefell\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/269769826/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_69264\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10575868 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10575868",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/06/26/supreme-court-all-states-must-license-same-sex-marriages/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1120,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 37
},
"modified": 1435366570,
"excerpt": "Divided court declares that bans on gay marriage violate Constitution's due process guarantee. ",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Divided court declares that bans on gay marriage violate Constitution's due process guarantee. ",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans on Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans on Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2015-06-26T07:08:46-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-06-26T17:56:10-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-all-states-must-license-same-sex-marriages",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage/",
"path": "/news/10575868/supreme-court-all-states-must-license-same-sex-marriages",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>As a throng cheered outside, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples across the United States are entitled to the right to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 5-4 decision struck down same-sex marriage bans imposed by Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The court found that those laws violate the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law for all persons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 28-page majority opinion -- \u003ca href=\"#obergefell\">embedded below\u003c/a> -- by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy says:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The five-justice majority consisted of Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts led the dissenters, including Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. All four of the justices in the minority wrote dissenting opinions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Roberts read his dissent from the bench. He argued that the democratic process should have been allowed to play out by allowing states to decide the question on their own. He says:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\"If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.\"\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The decision takes effect immediately.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a.png\">\u003cimg class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-10578398\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a.png\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage decision map.\" width=\"742\" height=\"557\" srcset=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a.png 742w, https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/06/preview-decision-cf5ce5d67ecd3fa84f6b38883d4e0e39c1d2578a-400x300.png 400w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 742px) 100vw, 742px\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court faced \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/14-00556qp.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">two main questions\u003c/a> in Obergefell v. Hodges:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry?\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>If states can ban same-sex marriages, can states not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where it is legal?\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The decision is the culmination of a decades-long struggle in the courts, statehouses and at the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Just \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/proposition-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">two years ago\u003c/a>, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court's ruling on Proposition 8 was much more narrow, applying only to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UCLA's Williams Institute estimates that there are 390,000 married same-sex couples. The Supreme Court's landmark decision today could mean that another 70,000 couples living in the 13 states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the Williams Institute estimates. There are roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, who live together in the United States, the institute says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Stories of Love, Life Before the High Court\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Many of the 19 men and women involved in Obergefell v. Hodges call themselves \"accidental activists\" because they filed lawsuits not to legalize same-sex marriage nationally, but because of how the bans impacted their lives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two of the plaintiffs in Friday's case married in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Matthew Mansell married his husband, John, in San Francisco in 2008, before voters passed Prop. 8. In 2012, they moved to Tennessee with their two children for work. Mansell says they quickly found that their marriage wasn't recognized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We were always concerned about whether we would have issues with doctors or with any government agencies with regard to our children or even with regard to services for my husband or for myself,\" Mansell said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They joined a lawsuit against Tennessee, arguing the state should recognize their marriage. They initially won, but a federal appeals court ruled against them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Mansell and his family now live in Orange County. He says a victory at the highest court in the nation would teach their kids to stand up for what you believe in.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cdiv class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__shortcodes__shortcodeWrapper'>\n \u003ciframe width='100%' height='166'\n scrolling='no' frameborder='no'\n src='https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212162805&visual=true&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false'\n title='https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/212162805'>\n \u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/div>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were not planning to challenge Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage when they went to court to win the right to jointly adopt each other's children. A federal judge transformed their case into one about the right to marry, and the nurses have become celebrities in their Detroit suburb of Hazel Park.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We've been stopped multiple times at our local shopping center with people just telling their story. These are people's lives that we've changed,\" DeBoer said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They live with their four adopted children, ages 2 to 6, and a foster child. Each woman has adopted two kids, but Michigan ties joint adoption to marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We decided that not doing anything would do more harm to our children than standing up and saying we're going to fight,\" DeBoer said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A middle-of-the night trip to the emergency room, with her 9-month-old son coughing and laboring to breathe, gave Pam Yorksmith her latest reminder of why she took up the fight for same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Before baby Orion could be treated for croup, the hospital had to call his birth mother — Yorksmith's wife, Nicole — \"to get permission to treat my child,\" Yorksmith said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Although the Yorksmiths started their family together through artificial insemination, hospital records and Orion's birth certificate don't list Pam Yorksmith as a parent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The Next Battles\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Efforts to carve out religious exemptions for people and institutions that object to same-sex marriage are also under attack. It is clear that churches do not have to marry same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious tenets, but what about county clerks? Can photographers\u003cbr>\nrefuse to shoot same-sex weddings? Can bakers decline to bake a cake for two men?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Civil rights groups say they will continue pressing for other protections from discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing, among other areas. Even if same-sex couples win the right to marry everywhere, people still can be fired because of their sexual orientation in more than half the states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This post includes reporting by Scott Shafer of KQED News and Mark Sherman of the Associated Press.\u003c/em>\u003cbr>\n\u003ca id=\"obergefell\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/269769826/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_69264\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10575868/supreme-court-all-states-must-license-same-sex-marriages",
"authors": [
"199",
"222"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944",
"news_72"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_5438",
"news_322",
"news_17286",
"news_17041",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_10578186",
"label": "news_72"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=u-s-supreme-court": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 156,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 197,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_10881713",
"news_10867031",
"news_10805423",
"news_10787026",
"news_10785638",
"news_10582946",
"news_10582894",
"news_10581630",
"news_10578704",
"news_10578528",
"news_10578084",
"news_10575868"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_tag_u-s-supreme-court": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_1172": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1183,
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-supreme-court"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_72": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_72",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "72",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/TCR-2-Logo-Web-Banners-03.png",
"name": "The California Report",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "The California Report Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6969,
"slug": "the-california-report",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/the-california-report"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_61": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_61",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "61",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Kamala Harris",
"slug": "kamala-harris",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": "Browse all our stories on Vice President Kamala Harris, including archive coverage of her accomplishments — and controversies — during her time in Bay Area and California politics before 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Oakland-born, Berkeley-raised Harris was San Francisco district attorney from 2004–10, California attorney general from 2011–17 and United States senator for California from 2017–21. In 2020, she became the first woman, the first Black woman and the first South Asian woman to be elected to vice president.",
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Kamala Harris Archives | KQED News",
"description": "Browse all our stories on Vice President Kamala Harris, including archive coverage of her accomplishments — and controversies — during her time in Bay Area and California politics before 2020. The Oakland-born, Berkeley-raised Harris was San Francisco district attorney from 2004–10, California attorney general from 2011–17 and United States senator for California from 2017–21. In 2020, she became the first woman, the first Black woman and the first South Asian woman to be elected to vice president.",
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 62,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/kamala-harris"
},
"news_1737": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1737",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1737",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "President Obama",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "President Obama Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1749,
"slug": "president-obama",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/president-obama"
},
"news_17286": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17286",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17286",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "tcr",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "tcr Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17318,
"slug": "tcr",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/tcr"
},
"news_19379": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_19379",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "19379",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Senate race",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Senate race Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 19396,
"slug": "u-s-senate-race",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-senate-race"
},
"news_18540": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18540",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18540",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2595,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/education"
},
"news_18286": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18286",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18286",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Teachers Association",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Teachers Association Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18320,
"slug": "california-teachers-association",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-teachers-association"
},
"news_17041": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17041",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17041",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "the-california-report-featured",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "the-california-report-featured Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17067,
"slug": "the-california-report-featured",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/the-california-report-featured"
},
"news_794": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_794",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "794",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Unions",
"slug": "unions",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Unions | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 804,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/unions"
},
"news_1169": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1169",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1169",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Immigration",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Immigration Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1180,
"slug": "immigration",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/immigration"
},
"news_282": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_282",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "282",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "redistricting",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "redistricting Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 290,
"slug": "redistricting",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/redistricting"
},
"news_2027": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2027",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2027",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "voting",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "voting Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2042,
"slug": "voting",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/voting"
},
"news_253": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_253",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "253",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "NPR",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "affiliate",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "KQED is the NPR station for the Bay Area, providing award-winning news, programming, and community engagement.",
"title": "NPR Archives - Get the Latest News and Reports from California | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 7083,
"slug": "npr",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/affiliate/npr"
},
"news_3606": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3606",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3606",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "assault weapons",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "assault weapons Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3624,
"slug": "assault-weapons",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/assault-weapons"
},
"news_2795": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2795",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2795",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "gun control",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "gun control Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2813,
"slug": "gun-control",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gun-control"
},
"news_3058": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3058",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3058",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "second amendment",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "second amendment Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3076,
"slug": "second-amendment",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/second-amendment"
},
"news_7051": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_7051",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "7051",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/Faultlines-2.png",
"name": "FaultLines",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "FaultLines Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 7077,
"slug": "faultlines",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/faultlines"
},
"news_20013": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20013",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20013",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20030,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/education"
},
"news_17599": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17599",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17599",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "faultlines-featured",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "faultlines-featured Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17633,
"slug": "faultlines-featured",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/faultlines-featured"
},
"news_332": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_332",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "332",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Citizens Redistricting Commission",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Citizens Redistricting Commission Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 340,
"slug": "citizens-redistricting-commission",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/citizens-redistricting-commission"
},
"news_5438": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_5438",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "5438",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "gay rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "gay rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 5461,
"slug": "gay-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gay-rights"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
