As readers of this blog know, the courts first declared a right to refuse unwanted life-sustaining treatment in the 1976 Quinlan case.
In Alaska in 1998, voters adopted a similar amendment by a similarly overwhelming margin months after a lower court declared a right to same-sex marriage.
The Constitution declares a right to bail, yet Manning who is not a risk of flight is denied bail.
The issue arose again in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and this time the Supreme Court adopted the ACLUs position, and formally declared a right to privacy.
Snowden, the Venezuelan declared, "has a right to protection because the United States in its actions is persecuting him.... Why are they persecuting him?
If the justices are certain to declare a constitutional right to marriage equality, one mystery is why they also agreed to hear arguments on a second question: whether states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
It also provides Olson and Boies with another legitimate shot at getting the Supreme Court to declare a federal right to same-sex marriage once the case reaches it, possibly as early as its 2014-15 term.
EVERYONE seems to think the Supreme Court will declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage this June.
Many people, myself included, would love to see Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the presumptive swing vote on the court, declare a constitutional right to marriage equality in language as majestic and authoritative as in his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the remaining sodomy laws in America.
Note that this observation is something well short of a prediction that the Supreme Court will declare a constitutional right to marriage equality during its current term.
"Will they declare there's a right to life of the fetus?" Priscilla Smith, who argued the 2007 abortion case, wondered.
