Like most great story arcs, our discussion into Equal Protection has a depressing epilogue.  Through cases concerning equal protection and affirmative action, Brett and Nazim talk about how the Court's rigid approach to Equal Protection has blocked anti-discrimination efforts up through this term of the Supreme Court.  The current case before the Supreme Court, which deals with the Texas Housing Authority and the Court's Disparate Impact test, is the litmus test under which to be depressed by.

This week discusses the Supreme Court's decision on whether a State can ban gay marriage.  Brett & Nazim cover this history of gay rights in the Supreme Court (spoiler:its bad), and how the current court may decide the issue (spoiler:its good). 

Brett and Nazim discuss the convoluted way that the Supreme Court evaluates Equal Protection Claims.  In addition to walking through the three major tests used by the Court, the primary cases discussed involve why Virginia Military Academy could not exclude women, and then UPS v. Young, which deals with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.

Brett and Nazim start a three-part discussion on Equal Protection and the Gay Marriage decision this summer that begins with how the Constitution has used creative means to ban private discrimination in states and private businesses.  The Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC case is also discussed, which discussed the age-old battle between trendy clothes and religious freedom.

Brett and Nazim continue to empty out the mailbag, discussing whether the Federal or State government could require mandatory vaccinations, the inner workings of the Supreme Court, and the difference between judicial interpretation of the law and judicial activism.  The last email also brings up the cases of Johnson v. U.S. and Whitfield v. U.S., where simple semantics could influence broader sentencing policy on guns and drugs.