The famously taciturn Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black member of the court, said he is not surprised there's a black president. But he knew that it would be one "approved by the elites, the media."

"I guess I thought there would be black coaches, black heads of universities, maybe again, as I said, I'm naïve. But the thing I always knew it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites, the media, because anybody they didn't agree with they would take apart," Thomas said during an hour-long forum at Duquesne University's law school in response to a moderator's question of whether he was surprised that the was a black president. 

"And that will happen with virtually-- you pick your person. Any black person, who says something that is not a prescribed things that they expect from a black person, it will be picked apart. You can pick anybody. Don't pick me. Pick anyone who has decided not to go along with it. There's a price to pay. So I always assumed it would be somebody the media had to agree with."

(The forum, held last month, April 9th, at Duquesne and aired on C-SPAN, is only now getting attention, as it was picked up Friday by liberal outlet Mother Jones and Thursday by conservative outlet Fox Nation.)

Thomas was asked about his relationship with President Barack Obama, the first black president, but Thomas said there wasn't much more to it than having met him and shook hands -- he said he had been "very polite." The reason for the lack of a relationship, he said, is obvious -- Thomas just doesn't like politics.

Thomas famously landed in political controversy more than 20 years ago during his confirmation hearings when Congress heard allegations of sexual harassment leveled by Anita Hill, a law professor who had previously worked for Thomas.

Asked if he had any "common ground" with the left-of-center president, the conservative jurist, said, "You know that's hard to say. It's like, what common ground did I have with President Bush? 43? You know, I'm not into politics. I don't like politics. And I try not to--, I do my job. I have common ground with some of the appointees, say with Justice Ginsburg or with Justice Kagan, because we're doing the same thing, but as politics, I just don't do politics. I don't like politics."

Pressed by moderator Thomas M. Hardiman, a justice on the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, on whether he, like other judges, doesn't follow the news as closely as he perhaps did when he was an attorney, Thomas again reiterated the he just doesn't like politics and invoked something else for comparison that he's not fond of -- scuba diving.

"I just don't like politics," he said to laughter from the audience. "I mean, it is--, I'm just done. I don't like politics. I like history. I like things of substance. I don't understand politics. I don't understand scuba diving, you know? When I think of scuba diving, I think of drowning. So I'm not against it, it's just not--, I'm not going under water."

Below is a transcript of the section relating to President Obama and politics (scroll to 41:56 of the video).

KEN GORMLEY, Duquesne Law School Dean: Did you ever think you would see an African American president in your lifetime?

THOMAS: Oh yeah, I'm, I guess I thought there would be black coaches, black heads of universities, maybe again, as I said, I'm naïve. But the thing I always knew it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites, the media, because anybody they didn't agree with they would take apart. 

And that will happen with virtually- you pick your person. Any black person, who says something that is not a prescribed things that they expect from a black person, it will be picked apart. You can pick anybody. Don't pick me. Pick anyone who has decided not to go along with it. There's a price to pay. So I always assumed it would be somebody the media had to agree with.

HARDIMAN: Have you met President Obama, have you had a chance to speak with him?
THOMAS: Well in passing more. I mean, he visited the court. It's not like--, I don't do a lot of Washington--, I'm not a politician, I'm not into politics. So there's not that many occasions. I shook hands with him at the inauguration. He was very polite. But no, I've had no in-depth conversations with him.

HARDIMAN: Was that a courtesy visit he was paying to all the justices--?  

THOMAS: Yes

HARDIMAN: --or you in particular

THOMAS: All the members of the court.

HARDIMAN: Is that typical of U.S. presidents to do that?

THOMAS: President Clinton did it. He's as personable a person--, you know, we were at Yale together, so I kind of knew him a little bit better, but it is, yes, in recent years, it is. They stop by-the president-elect and shake hands with members of the court and meet us as a group.

HARDIMAN: You and President Obama have a lot of different opinions on things. Do you have any common ground on things with him that you could share with us? 

THOMAS: [Long pause, laughter in the crowd.] You know, I have-

HARDIMAN: You want to take the 5th? That's ok? [crowd laughs]

THOMAS: We're in a different--, you know that's hard to say, it's like what common ground did I have with President Bush? 43? You know, I'm not into politics. I don't like politics. And I try not to--, I do my job. I have common ground with some of the appointees, say with Justice Ginsburg or with Justice Kagan, because we're doing the same thing, but as politics, I just don't do politics. I don't like politics, so the uh-

HARDIMAN: Do you eschew it intentionally in terms of media and things like that because that's one thing I've found is that a lot of judges just don't keep up with the news the way they did when they were practicing law. 

THOMAS: I just don't like politics. [laughter]. I mean, it is, I'm just done. I don't like politics. I like history. I like things of substance. I don't understand politics. I don't understand scuba diving, you know? When I think of scuba diving, I think of drowning. So I'm not against it, it's just not--, I'm not going under water. 

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed doubts that the nation's highest court should have ruled on the controversial Bush v. Gore case that decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board on Friday. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

The Tribune has more from O'Connor:

The case, she said, "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."

"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," she said. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."

O'Connor, who was appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan in 1981, was part of the 5-4 majority deciding to stop the recount in the crucial battleground state of Florida.

The United States Supreme Court has declined to take up the hottest question about gun rights now dividing the nation's courts: is there a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home?

The justices today passed up a challenge brought by five residents of New York's Westchester County to a state law that forbids carrying a gun unless a person desiring to do so can show "proper cause" -- some special need for protection that goes beyond a general desire for self-defense. Those who can demonstrate that need can be granted a license to carry a firearm. The federal appeals courts are split on whether the Second Amendment provides a right to carry a gun in public.

Related - First Thoughts: Under the gun

In striking down an Illinois law that banned the concealed carrying of a gun, an appeals court in the Midwest said "the Second Amendment right to bear arms implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home." But other federal courts have gone in the opposite direction, upholding the New York law as well as one in Maryland that requires gun owners to show "a good and substantial reason" for carrying a handgun. California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have similarly restrictive laws.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision on gun rights in 2008 declared that the Constitution provides an individual right to own a gun, not a right granted simply to organized militias.  But the ruling dealt only with the right to keep a gun at home for self defense. Though the court took a pass today on it today, the issue is bound to return, requiring the justices to consider whether that right applies outside the home as well and, if it does, how much state and local laws can restrict it.

In a Supreme Court test of whether a company can be granted a patent on the genes in the human body, a majority of the justices indicated during Monday's oral arguments that the court is likely to rule that a human gene can’t be patented. 

It would be one thing, several of the justices said during Monday’s oral arguments, for a company to seek a patent on a test for breast cancer that was developed by analyzing a human gene, but it would be going too far to be awarded a patent on the gene itself.

"What's the difference between snipping off a piece of the liver or kidney, and seeking a patent on that, and seeking a patent on a piece of a gene?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito made a different analogy, to someone seeking a patent on a plant found in the Amazon rain forest that bore leaves containing a cancer cure. "You could patent the process used to get the chemical out and the use of the result, but you cannot patent the plant," he said. 

Stelios Varias / Reuters file photo

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

The case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. The test can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.

Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer.

Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.

In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.

"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who argued the case for Myriad.

The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.

"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.

"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.

But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.

In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.

The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.

"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.

Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.

The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.

But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.

The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."

Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.

As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.

The Obama administration has urged the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."   

NBC's Tom Curry contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:17 AM EDT

Two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two highly publicized gay-marriage cases, a majority of Americans continue to say they support same-sex marriage, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. 

Fifty-three percent of respondents favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, which is up 2 points since the NBC/WSJ survey last asked this question in December, though that increase is within the poll’s margin of error.

Forty-two percent oppose gay marriage – also up 2 points since late last year.

By party, 73 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents back gay marriage, while 66 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Strikingly, nearly 8-in-10 respondents (79 percent) say they know or work with someone who is gay or lesbian, which is an increase of 14 points since December and 17 points since 2004.

However, only 15 percent say that knowing or working with someone gay makes them more likely to back same-sex marriage; 4 percent say it makes them less likely to support it, and more than half say it doesn’t make a difference.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images file photo

Equal rights supporters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments March 26, in California's proposition 8, the controversial ballot initiative that defines marriage only between a man and a woman.

These numbers come after numerous Democratic politicians, plus a handful of Republicans, have recently announced their support for gay marriage. They also come as the Supreme Court is expected to decide two different cases this summer – one on the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law which prohibits the government from recognizing gay marriages performed in states where they are legal, and the other on California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in that state.

The poll also finds that 63 percent of respondents believe the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages in states where they are legal, and 56 percent think that the question of allowing gay marriage should be left to a federal standard rather than to the states.

In reversal, majority thinks abortion should be illegal
At the same time that general support for gay marriage has increased – albeit within the margin of error – so has opposition to abortion.

According to the survey, a combined 52 percent say that abortion should be illegal either with exceptions or without them, versus a combined 45 percent who say it should be legal either “always” or “most of the time.”

This is a reversal from the NBC/WSJ poll in January, when a majority – for the first time – said abortion should be legal in some form or fashion.

Measuring the values debate
The poll also gauges public sentiment on other questions involving social and moral issues.

Asked to choose what should be a more important goal for society – either promoting greater respect for traditional values or encouraging greater tolerance – 50 percent picked traditional values, and 44 selected greater tolerance.

That’s a significant change from when this question was last asked in 1999, when 60 percent chose traditional values and 29 percent sided with tolerance.

Notably, this movement toward tolerance comes from Democrats and self-described independents – but not from Republicans. (In 1999, 76 percent of Republicans said promoting traditional values was a more important goal vs. 77 percent say that now.)

In another change, half of respondents (50 percent) say that society’s most serious problems stem primarily from economic and financial pressures.

View full poll results here

But in past NBC/WSJ polls – in 1994 and 1996 – majorities said those problems came mainly from a decline in moral values.

And Americans give the Democratic and Republican parties either mixed or poor marks when it comes to social and cultural issues.

By 47 percent to 22 percent, respondents say they disagree with the GOP’s approach to social and cultural issues, and they disagree with Democrats by a 38-percent-to-37 percent margin.

On the parties’ approach to looking out for the middle class, the numbers are even worse – they disagree with Republicans by 51 percent to 24 percent, and with Democrats by 42 percent to 33 percent.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Urging the Supreme Court to act on the pair of gay marriage cases it has heard in the past two days, President Barack Obama on Wednesday said that it is “consistent with our Constitution to recognize same-sex couples.”

“I think it is time for the justices to examine this issue,” Obama said in an interview with Telemundo.

The court heard oral arguments Tuesday and Wednesday about the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in the state, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which grants federal benefits only to married heterosexual couples.

In the Proposition 8 case, some of the justices appeared reluctant to make a sweeping ruling about the constitutionality of gay marriage. But the majority of justices appeared to indicate at the arguments Wednesday that they are prepared to strike down DOMA’s limitation of federal benefits to heterosexual couples.

In the interview, Obama reiterated that the federal government should recognize the unions of couples in states that allow gay marriage.

“I certainly believe that those states that have made a decision to recognize these couples as being married, that the federal government has to respect that decision by the states,” he said. “That's traditionally been how it works. States have defined marriage and the federal government has followed the lead of the states.”

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

George Washington University students and hundreds of others rally outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC.

“I think not only is it right and fair but also consistent with our Constitution to recognize same-sex couples,” added Obama, a former professor of constitutional law. “It doesn't mean everybody has to agree from a religious standpoint about this issue. It does mean that it is very important for us to remember that we're a nation where everybody is supposed to be equal before the law.”

The  administration has long argued that DOMA is unconstitutional on the basis that it discriminates against same-sex couples by depriving them of federal benefits even if they are legally married.

In arguments before the court today, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that, if DOMA is struck down on those grounds, it would be “difficult” to defend any state’s ban on gay marriage.

Initial readings of the Supreme Court’s oral argument Tuesday indicated that the justices will likely shy away from a broad ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

But, alluding to the less-than-accurate predictions after last year’s oral arguments regarding the Obama health care law, the White House says: Hold yer horses.

“We've seen in recent history [that] there's ample reason to be cautious about predicting outcomes in Supreme Court cases based on any particular piece of the puzzle -- in this case, oral arguments," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

After the widely-panned performance last year of the federal government’s lawyer, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., some commentators predicted that the court would flatly declare the Obama administration’s hard-fought health care law to be unconstitutional.
The court’s decision in June upheld the health care law. 

NBC's Shawna Thomas contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:09 PM EDT

The plaintiffs in this morning's landmark Supreme Court hearings challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, spoke personally on Tuesday about how the case would personally affect them.

“Jeff and I long to be married and start a family of our own and have the equal rights that are guaranteed to all Americans that are in loving and committed relationships. Today marks the final chapter of a long, four-year journey toward that goal,” said Paul Katami, who, along with his partner, Jeff Zarrillo, makes up one of two couples that filed a federal lawsuit challenging the same-sex marriage ban, approved in November 2008.

Katami, appearing with his fellow plaintiffs and Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin outside a Washington, D.C. townhouse, added that he and Zarrillo have “faith in our country’s judicial system.”

Kris Perry said she and her partner Sandy Stier were “hopeful” that they will “finally feel the equality and inclusion that will come with the reversal of Proposition 8.”

There are several potential results of the Proposition 8 case, among them are: upholding the ban; ruling that same-sex marriage should be legal in the states that already allow them plus California; or ruling that Proposition 8’s defenders do not have legal standing to argue in its favor because they are not elected representatives of the state. (Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris both refused to defend it.)

Seeming to acknowledge the variety of possible outcomes, Griffin, the HRC president, said that “while today marks a milestone on this journey towards a more perfect union, we are all mindful that our work is not done until these plaintiffs and every single American, regardless of state borders, can truly realize that promise of equal justice under the law.”

A decision on the case is expected in June.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

A protester raises a flag outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, March 26, 2013.

How gay marriage has disappeared as a political issue (at least for now)… The power (and limits) of public opinion… Tim Johnson is expected not to seek re-election in 2014… Bill Clinton endorses HRC backer Wendy Greuel in LA mayoral race… NYT writes about “volatile” and “temperamental” Christine Quinn… And more SENATE MADNESS….

*** How gay marriage has disappeared as a political issue (for now): This time a year ago, when the Supreme Court was beginning oral arguments to decide the fate of President Obama’s health-care law, the political world was engaged in all-out conflict. Democrats and the White House fiercely backed the law on constitutional merits, while Republicans and the Romney campaign vociferously opposed it. But as the Supreme Court begins two days of oral arguments for this year’s two high profile cases -- on the topic of gay marriage -- it’s worth observing how it’s largely disappeared as a true political issue between the parties. While Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans spent millions to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the court considers tomorrow, you haven’t seen them recently hold a press conference outside the court to support the law and denounce gay marriage (though Boehner did comment on the matter last Thursday). While the 2012 Republican national platform maintained that “the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard,” the Republican National Committee hasn’t been blasting out press releases. Ditto the Democratic National Committee, whose 2012 platform supported gay marriage. Part of this is due to the change in public opinion (see below). And part of it is that we’re not in the midst of a presidential campaign. Of course, politics can always change, but the relative silence -- at least for now, and compared with health care a year ago -- is deafening.

*** The power (and limits) of public opinion: It’s also notable how quickly public opinion has changed on this subject. Back in 2004 -- when it was used as a wedge issue in that year’s presidential election -- just 30% of Americans favored gay marriage, while 62% opposed it, according to the NBC/WSJ poll. In 2009, those supporting it increased to 41%, and the percentage jumped to 49% in March 2012. And most recently, in Dec. 2012, a majority of respondents (51%) for the first time in the poll said they backed gay marriage. That’s an increase of 21 percentage points in just one year. What’s more, a March 2013 Washington Post/ABC poll found nearly six in 10 (58%) supporting gay marriage. This helps explain why so many national politicians -- President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rob Portman, Claire McCaskill, and Mark Warner -- now support gay marriage; in fact, Obama’s reversal came less than a year ago. But it’s equally important to note the limits of this change in public opinion. As Georgetown University law professor David Cole writes in the New York Times, “Same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, but is the country ready for a decision requiring all 50 states to recognize such unions immediately?” Cole also asks if there would be a backlash (like what occurred after Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) among the 40% who oppose gay marriage.

*** Tim Johnson isn’t expected to seek re-election in 2014: At 4:00 pm ET today in South Dakota, Sen. Tim Johnson is holding a press conference to announce his intentions about 2014, when his Senate term expires. And as First Read reported yesterday, Johnson is expected to announce that he WON’T be seeking re-election, according to a top Democratic aide. Democrats are hoping to be able to recruit former Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD). But make no mistake: This is a top GOP pick-up opportunity, especially in a midterm year. Here’s our retirement watch for 2014: The Democrats -- so far -- have to defend six open seats (West Virginia’s Jay Rockefeller, Massachusetts’ John Kerry, Iowa’s Tom Harkin, New Jersey’s Frank Lautenberg, Michigan’s Carl Levin, and South Dakota’s Tim Johnson), versus two for Republicans (Nebraska’s Johanns and Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss).

*** Bill Clinton endorses HRC backer Greuel in LA mayoral race: It’s amazing to think that the Obama-vs.-Hillary Democratic primary was five years ago, but Bill Clinton is still endorsing candidates who backed his wife over Obama. The latest example: L.A. mayoral hopeful Wendy Greuel. “Former President Bill Clinton on Monday endorsed Wendy Greuel for Los Angeles mayor, saying the city controller’s proven track record makes her the right candidate to confront the city’s problems,” the Los Angeles Times says. “Clinton has often endorsed people who have been loyal to his family, either helpful during his time at the White House or supporters of his wife’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential run. Greuel fits both categories -- in addition to being an early and active backer of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, she worked in the Clinton administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development." Meanwhile, Greuel's run-off opponent is Eric Garcetti, who was a big supporter of Barack Obama's in 2008.

*** “Volatile” and “temperamental”? And speaking of this year’s mayoral races, the New York Times writes this piece on NYC mayoral front-runner Christine Quinn. “As she pursues a high-profile bid for mayor, Ms. Quinn, a Democrat, has proudly promoted her boisterous personality, hoping that voters will embrace her blend of brashness and personal charm. But in private, friends and colleagues say, another Ms. Quinn can emerge: controlling, temperamental and surprisingly volatile, with a habit of hair-trigger eruptions of unchecked, face-to-face wrath. She has threatened, repeatedly, to slice off the private parts of those who cross her.” But here’s our question: Isn’t it unusual in politics -- especially New York City politics!!! -- if a politician didn’t have a temper and didn’t threaten those that cross them?

*** Senate Madness -- results from yesterday’s contests: Not surprisingly, all our No. 1 seeds -- Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, LBJ, and Ted Kennedy -- easily advanced yesterday to the next round. In addition, William Seward defeated John Sherman in the 19^th Century bracket; Sam Ervin topped Harry Byrd in the Mixed Era bracket; Robert Wagner bested Hugo Black in the 20^th Century bracket; and Robert Byrd triumphed over Tom Daschle in the Modern Era. Our second-round contests start next week.

*** Senate Madness -- today’s first-round match ups: Meanwhile, these are the contests that are taking place today (see here and here). In the 19^th Century era, #2 seed John C. Calhoun faces off against #15 seed Marcus Hanna, and #7 Thomas Hart Benton competes against #10 James G. Blaine… In the Mixed Era region, #2 Henry Cabot Lodge battles #15 Phil Hart, while #7 Arthur Vandenberg takes on #10 Gerald Nye… In the 20^th Century, it’s #2 Everett Dirksen vs. #15 Margaret Chase Smith, and #7 Robert Taft vs. #10 William Fulbright… And in the Modern Era region, it’s #2 Daniel Patrick Moynihan vs. #15 George Mitchell, and #7 Ed Muskie vs. #10 Bob Dole. We’ll have more first-round match ups tomorrow.

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Historic gay rights cases arrive at the Supreme Court this week as even opponents of same-sex marriage acknowledge that public opinion has shifted against them.

Vote now: March Madness - Senatorial edition

As the court prepares for oral arguments in two cases – one challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the other challenging the 1990s-era Defense of Marriage Act – the trickle of support among political leaders for marriage rights for gays and lesbians has continued to grow.

Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ralph Reed, the head of the socially conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition, admitted that the political divide over same-sex marriage was “basically a jump ball.”

“It's clearly moved,” Reed said of popular opinion, though he disputed any notion that Americans have come to universally back same-sex marriage.

But the shifting politics appear to be accelerating even more quickly. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally announced her support for same-sex marriage a few weeks ago, the announcement was met in some quarters by surprise – usually that Clinton hadn’t made such a pronouncement already.

On the cusp of this week’s oral arguments – and, potentially, a Supreme Court decision later this June dramatically expanding gay rights – more political notables have announced their support for marriage rights. 

Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat representing swing state Virginia, wrote on his Facebook page on Monday that he now backs gay marriage "because it is the fair and right thing to do." 

 "Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone," he wrote. 

Warner's comments came the day after Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from GOP-leaning Missouri, also announced her support for same-sex marriage. 

“My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long-term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality,” McCaskill wrote Sunday evening on her tumblr page.

Missouri is one of 38 states that prohibits same-sex marriage, either through legislation, ballot initiative or state constitutional amendment. Those state-level prohibitions could still stand in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling, depending on how expansive the court’s eventual decision might be.

It’s also banned in Ohio, where Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s endorsement of same-sex marriage rights (prompted by his own son having come out as gay) earlier this month served as an even bigger watershed moment. Nine whole years after President George W. Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Portman – a member of the Bush administration, and a serious contender for the GOP’s vice presidential nomination in 2012 – had offered high-profile support to same-sex marriage.

Moreover, Bush’s own former political adviser, Karl Rove, said this weekend on ABC that he could envision a Republican candidate (though not necessarily the nominee) for president in 2016 supporting same-sex marriage. Already, Jon Huntsman, a 2012 contender for the GOP nod who could seek the nomination again in 2016, has announced his support for marriage rights.

And while the shift might hearten gays and lesbians who hope to marry their partners, the tide toward supporting same-sex marriage is certainly driven in part by political considerations. Fifty-one percent of Americans nationwide said in December’s NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that they now support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. Just 30 percent of Americans backed marriage rights in spring of 2004, by comparison.

Republicans’ post-election autopsy last week noted, for instance, that “certain social issues are turning off young voters.”

“Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be,” the report read.

Political leaders looking to complete their political “evolution” on gay marriage (to borrow a phrase from how President Barack Obama described his own shift toward backing marriage rights) could receive political cover this summer. A Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalizes same-sex marriage across the country – a possible outcome, though not necessarily the likely one – could hasten the number of lawmakers who feel comfortable to publicly back same-sex marriage, or at the very least, abandon it as a wedge issue.

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take on a new case involving affirmative action.

Vote now: March Madness - Senatorial edition

The court agreed on Monday to consider a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to prohibit "discrimination, or the granting of preferential treatment, in public education, government contracting, and public employment based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."

The case will be heard in the fall.

The Michigan initiative itself was prompted by reaction to the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decisions upholding elements of affirmative action in the University of Michigan's admissions policies, which had come under legal challenge.

It's something of a surprise that the court agreed to hear this latest case, because it has yet to rule on an affirmation action case argued in October, which challenges the admissions system used at the University of Texas.

If Wednesday’s argument before the Supreme Court is any indication, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to strike down or curtail key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Even if the court does move in that direction, election officials in some states will have more leeway to change some procedures, but voters in 2014 won’t suddenly wake up in 1964.   

Hearing a challenge brought by Shelby County, Ala., several justices voiced skepticism about the formula the law uses to decide which states and other jurisdictions are required to get permission, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington for any change in voting procedures that they seek to make.

In 2006 Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the law for another 25 years. The current formula uses election data from 1972 and earlier to determine which places section 5 applies to. Critics of the law say the formula is archaic and ought to be scrapped.

Currently nine states, mostly in the South, as well as 54 counties in New York, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Dakota and 12 townships in Michigan and New Hampshire, are covered by section 5.

What effect would a ruling which struck down or curbed section 5 have on elections in the United States?

Would parts of the country now covered by section 5 revert to the days of poll taxes, literacy tests, murders of voter registration workers, racial gerrymandering of districts, and other devices to negate the power of African-American, Latino and other minority voters?

The short answer is no, and that’s because a separate section of the Voting Rights Act, section 2 – which is a permanent part of the statute and need not be periodically renewed, as section 5 must be – bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified by the law, which includes not only Spanish, but Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and several Native American and Alaska Native language groups.

In recent years, the Justice Department, under both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, has brought section 2 voting discrimination cases against jurisdictions in Massachusetts, Montana, Illinois, California, South Carolina, and several other states.

For example, in 2009 the Justice Department took action against Salem County, New Jersey and the borough of Penns Grove, N.J. for allegedly discriminating against Puerto Rican voters.

The Department charged that local election officials had never translated the ballot into Spanish in any election held in Penns Grove, and thus “numerous voters of Puerto Rican descent who cannot understand the ballot in English have been unable to fully exercise their voting rights.”

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

With images of murdered Mississippi civil rights worker Medgar Evers, demonstrators rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court February 27, 2013 in Washington, DC.

These kinds of enforcement actions will continue under section 2 no matter what the high court decides on section 5.

But the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued Wednesday that getting rid of section 5 – and its requirement that covered jurisdictions get pre-approval of their voting procedures – will make it more costly and time consuming for voters to challenge allegedly discriminatory practices. He said section 5 has a deterrent effect – blocking discriminatory practices before they’re ever implemented.

He said polling place changes are the most frequent type of election procedure submitted to the Justice Department under Section 5. “Changes in the polling places at the last minute before an election can be a source of great mischief,” he told the justices. 

He contended that “there is no way in the world you could use Section 2 to effectively police that kind of mischief.” Given the cost of litigation, he said, “The cost-benefit ratio is… going to tilt strongly against bringing these suits.”

Michael Pitts, an expert on the Voting Rights Act who is a professor at Indiana University School of Law and who worked on voting rights cases when he served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, said, “There is certainly a possibility of more last-minute mischief with polling places if Section 5 were struck down.”

He said Section 5 enforcement actions “are rather simple. To attempt to get the same results using other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, such as Section 2, will be much harder.”

Responding to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s suggestion during Wednesday’s argument that some Justice Department attorneys who now are working on section 5 could shifted to section 2 enforcement, Pitts said, “The problem with Section 2 lawsuits is that at the very least, DOJ has to find out about the problem, then they have to conduct an extensive investigation before filing a lawsuit, and then they have to spend lots of time and resources to win the case.  Section 2 cases are not easy to win.”

University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock, an expert on the Voting Rights Act and Southern politics, said elimination of section 5 would “probably not” make a difference in voter registration or voting in places that are now covered by section 5.

He said in section 5 covered jurisdictions, black registration and turnout “is pretty much at the same level” as registration and turnout among white voters. He added, “Hispanic registration and participation rates are lower but that’s true whether you’re looking at section 5 states or looking at states which are not subject to section 5.”

Bullock said that when it comes to drawing new district line for state legislatures and for House seats that due to section 2, “there would still very much be a protection in place against actions which were found to be discriminatory even if section 5 were to be struck down.”

Bullock said one major change that came about as a result of section 2 was the elimination of at-large districts for school boards, county councils, etc. and the move to single-member districts. At-large districts had been used to dilute the power of minority voters.

If the court eliminates section 5, “Would they (local officials) go back to at-large elections?” He thinks not, because “politicians tend to like the system under which they have succeeded, and they think there’s less uncertainty in a system which they’ve already worked successfully. County council or school board members elected under a single-member district system would be reluctant to go back to at-large elections even if that was what was traditionally done until, say 20, years ago.”

Bullock said if section 5 is struck down he does expect some of the now-covered states would move to enact voter identification laws which the Justice Department has so far blocked from enacting.

One unknown is how Congress would react if the high court does strike down section 5. Would it devise an updated formula, perhaps based on 2012 data, for that tried to target jurisdictions with large disparities of minority and white voter turnout? Would it use some other metric? It’s too soon to know, but it’s worth recalling that in 2006 Congress chose to avoid the difficulty of writing a new coverage formula – one reason the Shelby County case reached the high court.

This story was originally published on Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:35 PM EST