This is a bit of a surprise. In a move that buys time before the ultimate reckoning from the Supreme Court, the proponents of Proposition 8 asked for an en banc re-hearing of their case before the full Ninth Circuit. This will add a step to the legal outcome of Prop 8, which a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit just ruled in violation of federal law.

Underpinning the bishops’ complaint about the Admistration’s rule to require contraception coverage in health insurance is the idea that nobody in America should have to assent to government policies that violate their personal beliefs. This comes as news to committed pacifists.

A group of fifty doctors along with the non-profits groups, Single Payer Action and Our Economy, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act should be struck down. The brief argues that Congress doesn’t need the new power to compel individuals to buy a product from a private company to effectively regulate the healthcare marketplace. It can easily do so with its current approaches, such as a single payer system, which is used for Medicare.

Supporters of Proposition 8, the California initiative banning marriage equality, which was declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, plan to take their fight directly to the Supreme Court, if their reaction to yesterday’s ruling is accurate. Their statements trashed the Ninth Circuit and said they always believed the issue should be settled by the Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional this morning, relying on arguments used by Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in another case. This furthers a process that will almost certainly end in the Supreme Court, with a precedent-setting ruling on the right of same-sex couples to marry. However, the ruling today is limited to the circumstances of the California initiative.

Citizen’s United is not merely a mistake easily corrected, nor is the case simply about campaign finance or money in politics. Citizen’s United is a corporate power case masquerading as a free speech case. In many ways, the decision was less a break from the recent past than a proclamation about the sad reality of corporate power in America.

The Texas redistricting mess, with a Supreme Court ruling moving in the direction of Republicans, could bounce back. The SCOTUS ruled on which interim maps to use while a lawsuit from minority groups against the maps worked out by the legislature made its way through the courts. Now there are indications that Texas attorneys will settle on this issue, in a big win for the minority groups.

Given how many people actually expect the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate, it is hard to guess whether a favorable ruling for the administration would be a political positive or negative for Obama. On one hand, the court upholding the mandate could get people to resign themselves to the idea of the mandate and the new law.

One day in August 2007, Daniel Coleman, an administrator in the Maryland court system, decided he should stay home to recover from an illness, as his doctor had ordered. But the day after he requested time off, he suddenly had more to worry about than his health; he was unemployed, too.

The Supreme Court just boosted Republican chances to hold the House of Representatives today by throwing out maps drawn by a panel of judges, and ordering new maps for the state’s reapportionment.