Adam Liptak and Peter Baker of the NYT provide a pretty precise summary of today's arguements here. But here's how the tweets unfurled during oral argument and immediately afterwards.
From @reuters - U.S. SUPREME COURT CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES SAY TROUBLED BY OBAMA REFUSAL TO DEFEND MARRIAGE LAW (Dan Levine)
GINSBURG: When a marriage isn’t recognized by the federal government, “What kind of marriage is this?” http://bloom.bg/14nSfaJ (Scott Bixby)
Reporters/pundits digesting the info as argument finishes at 12:18 pm or so and tweets began to fly....
C.J. ROBERTS: Politicians are "falling all over themselves" to endorse same sex marriage so gays and lesbians have to be "politically powerful" (Adam Serwer)
Con Justices contemptuous of Obama decision not to defend DOMA but still enforce law. Kennedy said "it gives you intellectual whiplash" (Adam Serwer)
Again: no way to tell, but court might kick DOMA on standing bc of Obama reversal on law's constitutionality. (Adam Serwer)
Today's arguments suggest federal Defense of Marriage Act in jeopardy. Five justices imply law is unconstitutional. (Jan Crawford)
But issue of jurisdiction in DOMA -- and whether Court can decide case -- is a serious one. Several justices expressed reservations. (Jan Crawford)
KENNEDY: the key swing vote, on federalism: "Question is whether the federal govt under our fed scheme has authority to regulate marriage?" (Jan Crawford)
While Court indicates DOMA unconstitutional, justices suggest different rationales--equal protection (liberals) and federalism (Kennedy). (Jan Crawford)
Paul Clement ran like he was dodging the cops from nearly all the usual conservative arguments against marriage equality. (Adam Serwer)
Clement argued DOMA was necessary for "uniformity" for fed govt. No procreation stuff, nothing about marriage equality being bad for kids. (Adam Serwer)
SOTOMAYOR also asks about federalism: "What gives fed govt right to be concerned at all abt what definition of marriage is?" (Jan Crawford)
KAGAN, deeply skeptical, quotes '96 House report on DOMA, says it raises "red flag" Congress was "affected by "dislike, fear, animus." (Jan Crawford)
Roberts seemed deeply offended at the idea that Congress barred fed recognition of same sex marriages because they don't like gay people (Adam Serwer)
Predicting court outcomes from Oral Argument is always risky, but it does look pretty bad for DOMA, a noxious law http://americablog.com/2013/03/doma-supreme-court-gay-marriage.html (Glenn Greenwald)
Argument suggests Court will invalidate DOMA, but entirely possible a majority won't agree on legal rationale. (Jan Crawford)
Greenhouse is the former New York Times Supreme Court reporter. Her coverage was so influential that Court watchers used to refer to "the Greenhouse effect". She has won a Pulitzer prize for her reporting on the Court.
Unlawful Entries is a political analysis blog launched in February 2013 by Anna O. Law, Associate Professor of political science at CUNY Brooklyn College. As an expert on immigration and constitutional law I will be commenting on the current round of comprehensive immigration reform, as well as analyzing other topics related to constitutional law and placing all these developments in historical and political context. Thanks for dropping by!