On The Gist, Manisha Sinha joins us to discuss the long roots of the abolitionist movement in American history.
She’s the author of The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition. For the Spiel, there’s no backsies or whoopsies for presidents. Today’s sponsor:Betterment, the largest automated investing service—managing billions of dollars for people just like you. Get up to six months of investing free when you go to Betterment.com/gist. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at slate.com/gistplus.
On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court decided V.L. v. E.L., a case involving an interstate dispute over custody of a child raised by a same-sex couple. A Georgia court entered a final judgment of adoption making petitioner V. L. a legal parent of the children that she and respondent E. L., her same-sex partner, had raised together from birth. V. L. and E. L. later separated while living in Alabama. V. L. asked the Alabama courts to enforce the Georgia judgment and grant her custody or visitation rights. The Alabama Supreme Court refused, holding that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution did not require the Alabama courts to respect the Georgia judgment. -- By a vote of 8-0 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court and remanded the case, holding in a per curiam opinion that the Alabama Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant the Georgia adoption judgment full faith and credit. -- To discuss the case, we have Robin Fretwell Wilson, who is the Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Family Law and Policy at University of Illinois College of Law.
On February 22, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kingdomware Technologies v. United States. Kingdomware Technologies is a certified, service-disabled veteran owned small business, or SDVOSB--a special type of veteran-owned small business, or VOSB. In 2012, Kingdomware filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) when the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded a contract to a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractor who was not a VOSB. Kingdomware argued that the award violated 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d)’s “Rule of Two.” That provision directs that VA contracting officers, except under certain circumstances, “shall award contracts on the basis of competition restricted to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price that offers best value to the United States.” -- Although the GAO agreed with Kingdomware and recommended a re-bid, the VA declined to follow the GAO recommendation and Kingdomware sued the VA in the Court of Federal Claims. That Court ruled in favor of the VA and Kingdomware appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Claims, concluding that Kingdomware’s interpretation of “shall award” failed to account for qualifying provisions elsewhere in the statute. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Circuit erred by adopting a construction of § 8127(d)'s mandatory set-aside for VOSBs that arguably rendered the “Rule of Two” discretionary at the option of the VA. -- To discuss the case, we have Michael Toth, who is a lawyer in Washington, D.C.
On The Gist, Mike asks Maria Konnikova of the New Yorker to explain the link between seasonal affective disorder and winter blues. Is it a real condition, or an overly convenient acronym? For the Spiel, why arguing about
instant replays is a beloved American pastime.Today’s sponsors:Monster. Find employees who work as hard as you at Monster.com/hiring. Monster. Find Better. Betterment, the largest automated investing service—managing billions of dollars for people just like you. Get up to six months of investing free when you go to Betterment.com/gist. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up
On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wittman v. Personhuballah. In 2012, the Virginia State Legislature adopted a redistricting plan that altered the composition of the Third Congressional District by increasing the percentage of African-American voters in the district. In 2013, plaintiffs, who reside in the Third District, sued state election officials, arguing that the District was racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed and held the districting plan to be unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its intervening decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. On remand, the district court held that the redistricting plan failed strict scrutiny and ordered the Virginia General Assembly to devise a remedial plan. When the Assembly did not do so the court devised its own remedial plan and ordered election officials to implement it. -- On further appeal, there are four questions now before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether the court below erred in failing to make the required finding that race rather than politics predominated in District 3, where there is no dispute that politics explains the Enacted Plan; (2) whether the court below erred in relieving plaintiffs of their burden to show an alternative plan that achieves the General Assembly's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional districting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the Enacted Plan; (3) whether, regardless of any other error, the finding of a Shaw violation by the court below was based on clearly erroneous fact-finding; (4) whether the majority erred in holding that the Enacted Plan fails strict scrutiny because it increased District 3's black voting-age population percentage above the benchmark percentage, when the undisputed evidence establishes that the increase better complies with neutral principles than would reducing the percentage and no racial bloc voting analysis would support a reduction capable of realistically securing Section 5 preclearance. -- To discuss the case, we have Derek Muller, who is Associate Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law.
On The Gist, we ask Los Angeles Timesreporter Joel Rubin what the San Bernardino investigators are hoping to learn from the decrypted iPhone. For the Spiel, hijacker hijinks!Today’s sponsors:Slack. Slack brings all of your communication at work into one place. Create a new team right now at Slack.com/gist and you’ll get 100 dollars in credit for when you decide to upgrade to a paid plan. Texture, the mobile app that lets you tap directly into the world’s most popular magazines using
your phone or tablet. Dive deeper into Vogue, People, Esquire, Time—with interactive content for a richer reading experience. Try Texture for free at Texture.com/gist.Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a
Follow this step-by-step blueprint so you know exactly how to prioritize your personal finances. Use these 5 financial priorities to help set goals, leverage your resources, and build wealth as quickly as possible. Read the full transcript here: http://bit.ly/1KF3Ib1