“But now that I’ve been speaking out and saying that mass incarceration is the new Jim Crow, now all of a sudden the Clintons are saying, ‘oh wait a minute, we are going to be back on the other side of this issue right now.’”

w.soundcloud.com

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul said Thursday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are "proud" to have presided "over the incarceration of a whole generation of young black men" in comments singling out mass incarceration as "the new Jim Crow."

The senator from Kentucky is an advocate for making changes to the criminal justice system and has co-sponsored legislation with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to help keep nonviolent criminal offenders out of prison.

"Bill Clinton presided over the incarceration of a whole generation of young black men," Paul said on The Wilkow Majority. "We are putting young black men in jail at a rate never before seen in history and it's because of this war on drugs."

Paul said Hillary and Bill Clinton were "proud to do this."

Hillary Clinton spoke earlier this year of ending "the era of mass incarceration." Clinton's remarks rejected the "tough-on-crime" mantra and legislation advocated by her and her husband during his time as president which included signing the 1994 crime bill.

"And so Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, they were all proud to do this," said Paul. "But now that I've been speaking out and saying that mass incarceration is the new Jim Crow, now all of a sudden the Clintons are saying, 'oh wait a minute, we are going to be back on the other side of this issue right now.'"

Paul said Democrats saw him as "a threat to Hillary Clinton" because he goes to communities like Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland and says "what have the Democrats done for you?"

"And I hate to tell you this, but someone from the Democrat National Committee is listening to our radio interview right now and they are looking for ways to attack me, because they see me as a threat to Hillary Clinton, because I'm going to the south side of Chicago, I'm going to the inner city of Philadelphia, I'm going to Baltimore, I'm going to Ferguson, and I'm saying, what have the Democrats done for you? What have they done to alleviate poverty? What have they done for crime? What have they done for the young men in your community and you know why? It's starting to gain traction, and that is why we lead her in several states that Obama won."

Paul said he that understands marijuana isn't good for people, but the law needs to be fair and not incarcerate one race more than another.

"I think that the law needs to be fair and that we shouldn't incarcerate one race more than another and I think the law should be fair in the sense that the penalties should be proportionate to the crime," said Paul.

"You can kill someone in Kentucky and be eligible for parole in 12 years, but we have people in jail for marijuana sales for 55 years, life, 20 years, 25 years. We've gone too far in all of this and then when you add up the numbers, even the white kids and black kids use marijuana at about the same rate and in national surveys the arrests and incarceration rate is four times greater for black males than it is for white males."

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

Two of the leading Republican contenders responded nearly in lockstep on Friday to the Supreme Court ruling that has legalized same-sex marriage nationwide: by waving a white flag in the fight over marriage — and promising to take up arms in a new culture war battle over religious freedom.

"While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law," Marco Rubio said in a statement, then called for officials to "protect the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage."

"It is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other," Rubio said.

Jeb Bush cited his Catholic faith to explain his personal belief in "traditional marriage," but added, "I also believe we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments." He then pivoted to the need to "protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

No one said they agreed with the court, but a number of the candidates signaled the desire to cut their political losses on the losing issue of marriage — and instead reframe their party's social agenda in terms of protecting the viewpoints of the dissenting. The distinction may seem like mere semantics, but it represents a profound shift in the culture wars, in which Republicans are deliberately moving from offense to defense.

For decades, Republicans rallied the religious right by championing "family values,” and pressing for policies meant to infuse American society with Judeo-Christian morals — from anti-sodomy laws to crackdowns on pornography and keeping condoms out of schools. Social conservatives presented themselves as the country's "moral majority" — the banner under which Jerry Falwell mobilized millions of Christian voters in the ‘70s and ‘80s — and their mission was to defeat the disproportionately powerful secular elites in media and government.

The populist disavowal of Washington elite has remained, but as the GOP's agenda on gay issues has fallen out of favor in recent years, party leaders are no longer claiming to be in the majority. Instead, they are making appeals to pluralism — which are much more popular — arguing that while society has changed where LGBT issues are concerned, religious conservatives should be able to object when they believe their principles have been infringed.

Not all of the 2016 candidates on Friday followed the example of Bush, Rubio, and also dark-horse candidate Lindsey Graham, who said in a statement that he opposes a marriage amendment to the Constitution: "Rather than pursuing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans." Conservative culture warriors like Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal all quickly released statements harshly condemning the court, signaling that they still have an appetite to fight the marriage movement on the merits.

And, more importantly, Scott Walker — considered a top-tier candidate — took a sharper tone on Friday’s ruling. Walker argued in favor of a marriage amendment to the Constitution and called the court's decision a "grave mistake." Walker is expected to make a serious bid to win the Iowa caucuses next year; his response seems aimed at the conservative Iowa voters who can help him do that.

But those candidates signaling surrender in the marriage fight are no doubt hoping that an emphasis on religious freedom will be enough to placate the still-influential conservative Christian primary voters in states like Iowa and South Carolina. It remains to be seen whether those voters are ready to embrace the same political pragmatism that their prospective standard-bearers are exhibiting.

“You now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”

w.soundcloud.com

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and 2016 presidential candidate, said Friday that the Supreme Court rulings that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and upholding the federal subsidies in Obamacare marked a low point for the United States, calling the decisions "naked and shameless judicial activism," and declaring the past day "some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."

Cruz made the remarks in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity.

He began by taking a sharp swing at the Court's ruling in King v. Burwell, in which Chief Justice John Roberts — joined by Anthony Kennedy and the Court's four liberal-leaning justices — ruled that the Affordable Care Act allowed the federal government to provide Obamacare subsidies in states that opted to use the federally-run health insurance exchange, rather than establishing their own.

"Six justices joined the Obama administration" by voting to uphold the subsidies, said Cruz. "You now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths."

Cruz then pivoted to "this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state," in reference to Obergefell v. Hodges, and Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the Constitution.

"It has no connection to the Untied States Constitution, they are simply making it up," Cruz said. "It is lawless, and in doing so they have undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court."

Cruz told Hannity that he has introduced a constitutional amendment "that would protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," as well as "legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage."

The Texas senator did not sound optimistic about either becoming law, however, due to what he said was his own party's unwillingness to work for their passage.

"The sad thing," Cruz told Hannity, "is there aren't a whole lot of Republicans in Congress willing to stand and fight on either one of those."

In an email from the DEA, a regulator refers to “another state” in addition to Nebraska that has tried to purchase execution drugs from the same overseas distributor. She adds that the federal government will detain the shipment.

Neb. Gov. Pete Ricketts

Nati Harnik / AP

At least one other state has purchased execution drugs from a source in India attempting to sell them illegally, emails obtained by BuzzFeed News show.

The state of Nebraska purchased a massive amount of an execution drug — sodium thiopental — from HarrisPharma, a small distributor run by a man named Chris Harris. In emails with Nebraska Corrections officials, Harris claimed that the state wouldn't be the only one buying the drugs — he had "a few other states who have already ordered sodium thiopental."

The drugs Harris is selling are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and they would be illegal to import into the United States.

At the time, it was unclear if Harris was being honest, or exaggerating to enhance his sales pitch. But emails from the Drug Enforcement Agency to Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Director Scott Frakes make clear that there is at least one other state that purchased the overseas drugs as well.

DEA Regulator Cathy Gallagher writes she has been talking with "another state on the same issue," and adds, "You are using the same manufacturer in India."

Gallagher's emails reiterate that the drugs would be illegal to import, and that the federal government plans to detain the shipment if the sale proceeds.

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

It's unclear which state is being referenced in the email. The DEA did not return a request for comment. Harris has declined to speak with BuzzFeed News, saying he doesn't speak to "reporters, as they always say what is not true."

Additionally, many states that perform executions also have secrecy laws that prohibit or otherwise bar disclosure of information about the source of execution drugs.

Nebraska officials turned to Harris because they were facing the same problem that many other states are facing: The drugs are hard to obtain through reputable means. Drug manufacturers have enacted stringent safeguards to keep their drugs out of the hands of departments of corrections that would use it for lethal injections.

Nebraska also paid an exorbitant price and purchased far more drugs than it could ever use. The state legislature repealed the death penalty, but Gov. Pete Ricketts believes the state will be able to execute the 10 men currently on death row.

The state paid Harris more than $54,000 for more than 300 executions' worth of drugs. Harris said that was a "minimum order."

View Entire List ›

The presidential residence was adorned in rainbow colors Friday night in celebration of the Supreme Court decision to strike down same-sex marriage bans.

Evan Vucci / AP

Evan Vucci / AP

Mladen Antonov / Getty Images

In Friday’s decision striking down bans on same-sex couples’ marriages, Kennedy summed up his legal legacy for gay people: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Matt Slocum / AP

WASHINGTON — With the Supreme Court's ruling that ended marriage bans for same-sex couples nationwide on Friday, Justice Anthony Kennedy cemented his legacy.

He is, in short, the person whose words brought gay, lesbian, and bisexual people fully under the protections of the Constitution.

"Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right," he wrote in Friday's opinion for the court in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Twelve years to the day that Kennedy wrote the court's opinion ending sodomy laws across the nation, he wrote the opinion ending marriage bans across the nation.

He did so against harsh criticism from four of his colleagues — all of whom wrote their own opinions explaining why they believed Kennedy and the four more liberal justices, who joined his opinion, were wrong.

Among the dissenting justices was Chief Justice John Roberts, who called the court's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment."

For Kennedy, though, the "legal judgment" has been one a long time in the making. In deciding that the "right to marry" applies "with equal force to same-sex couples," Kennedy laid out four principles that underpinned Friday's decision regarding the Fourteenth Amendment's "fundamental rights" due process protections. None of them should have been surprising to anyone on the court — or anyone who has watched Kennedy's two-decade journey on gay rights.

First, Kennedy wrote that the protection of marital choice by the Supreme Court has, in significant part, been about the protection of "individual autonomy." In other words, marriage — as a constitutional protection — is about "choices ... that shape an individual's destiny." Marriage is not only a right about a couple; it also is a right exercised by an individual choosing to enter into a marriage.

Second, Kennedy wrote that marriage, as more commonly understood, "supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." This is protection for what he goes on to detail as "intimate association" — protection underlying Kennedy's 2003 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas striking down sodomy laws.

Marriage, Kennedy wrote third, "safeguards children and families." He continued at length on this subject on Friday, writing, "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser." This "central premise" of safeguarding children is not new; the argument played a part in Kennedy's 2013 opinion for the court in United States v. Windsor that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In his fourth and final point, Kennedy wrote that marriage "is a keystone of our social order." He wrote, "There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle." This echoed Kennedy's first gay rights opinion in Romer v. Evans — which struck down a Colorado amendment in 1996 that barred local nondiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians. In that opinion, he wrote that a law that "classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else" is unconstitutional.

The case on Friday, in fact, was about more than marriage, Kennedy wrote.

The case also was about the equal protection of the laws — the kind of dual-track approach to finding provisions unconstitutional that has drawn scorn from academics and court watchers. On Friday, Kennedy seemed ready to defend his approach.

"In any particular case one Clause [of the Constitution] may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right," he wrote. "This interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding of what freedom is and must become."

What freedom must become, he went on to write, is a goal that the court has strived to meet in the past, over decades of marriage cases — from protections for interracial couples and protections against "sex-based inequality" in marriage.

"Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them," Kennedy wrote. "And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry."

Kennedy took hits from the dissenting justices for lacking caution — a criticism raised by Roberts — and not respecting the democratic process, a criticism raised by Justice Samuel Alito.

In response to the "democratic process" argument, Kennedy was short. "The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. ... An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act."

Regarding the "caution" argument, Kennedy pointed to the court's own experience of having held that sodomy laws were unconstitutional in 2003 after upholding them as allowed in 1986. "Although Bowers was eventually repudiated in Lawrence," Kennedy wrote on Friday, "men and women were harmed in the interim, and the substantial effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled."

Kennedy most harshly responded, however, to a point raised by Justice Antonin Scalia. Among other criticisms, the acerbic conservative lambasted Friday's decision as not being legitimate since those who ratified that Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not allow same-sex couples to marry.

"If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied," Kennedy responded. "This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians."

While the "right to marry" cases of the court, have been written by many justices over many decades, the "rights of gays and lesbians" did not exist in Supreme Court jurisprudence until Kennedy started protecting them.

Nearly 20 years after he wrote his first gay rights opinion, in writing about the men and women in the marriage cases before the court, Kennedy also captured his legacy on gay rights.

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," he wrote. "The Constitution grants them that right."

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Getty Images

FAIRFAX, Va. — On a Saturday night in April — hours before Hillary Clinton declared herself a candidate for president — advisers previewed her campaign message for the first time. The crux was this: She would be a “tenacious fighter.”

Later that week, she unveiled the pillars of her campaign — the “four fights.”

And at her first rally two months later — when she ascended an H-shaped stage on Roosevelt Island to explain, with a careful mixing of biography and position, her reasons for running — she cast herself repeatedly as a “fighter for all Americans.”

The characterization, reinforced in official memos and emails and reprinted frequently in the press, has acted increasingly as the discernible through-line in a campaign that has already sought to address a vast spread of policy issues: mass incarceration, immigration, small businesses, voting rights, the economy.

At a Virginia Democratic Party dinner here on Friday night, the Clinton campaign turned to the same theme again to address the last nine days — a period that began with a mass shooting at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and ended with the Supreme Court's decision in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage.

Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia and an old friend of the Clintons, introduced the candidate at George Mason University’s Patriot Center. Clinton, he said, was “smart.” She was “tough.” She was “compassionate.” Then he paused. “But most of all, why do I love Hillary Clinton?"

"Because Hillary Clinton is a tenacious fighter,” McAuliffe told the crowd of 2,000 in the arena. “She’s been beaten up, she’s been knocked down, but every time she does, she gets right back up. She dusts herself off, and she gets right back in that arena again, folks.”

While other political figures were reticent to discuss the racial motivations behind the shooting, McAuliffe said, Clinton “stepped forward and began a national conversation about race [and] gun violence.” The week after nine died in Charleston, Clinton described the killings “an act of racist terrorism.” And earlier on Friday, she attended the funeral of one of the victims, Rev. Clementa Pinckney.

“Now, I know it’s tempting to dismiss a terrible tragedy like Charleston as an isolated incident, to believe that in today’s America bigotry is largely behind us,” Clinton said on Friday night.

“But despite our best efforts, and our highest hopes, America’s long struggle with racism is far from finished. And let’s be honest, let’s be honest, despite today’s ruling, our struggle to end LGBT discrimination is also far from finished.”

“That’s because fear and hatred are far from finished. And so our march goes on.”

In one, long line that closed her speech — and moved the arena into a standing ovation — Clinton pitched herself as the president to best wage that fight.

“I will go to bat for the successful, the striving, and the struggling; for the innovators and the inventors; for the factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day; for the nurses who work the night shift; for the truckers who drive for hours,” she said, starting to lose her breath, “for the farmers who feed us; for the veterans who served our country; for the small business owners who took a risk; for the gay couple who loved each other; for the black child who still lives in the shadow of discrimination; and the Hispanic child who still lives in the shadow of deportation.”

“Just as Terry said,” Clinton told the crowd, winding down, “I’m on the side for everyone who’s every been knocked down but refused to be knocked out.”

“I will always stand my ground.”

When she finished speaking, Clinton moved from the podium to shake hands below the stage, and the loudspeakers filled the hall with a song by pop singer Kris Allen that the campaign will no doubt play again and again and again.

They could knock you down and make you fall...

We’ll get back up cause after all...

We’re born to be fighters.

“I know a lot of people, actually a lot of people who are friends of mine in the gay community, who also think it was a bad decision.”

Susan Walsh / AP

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he has a lot of friends in the LGBT community who thought the Supreme Court decision on Friday ruling bans on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional was a "bad decision."

"It's a very liberal court and we saw what happened last week,' Inhofe told the CBS-affiliated KOTV in Oklahoma on Friday.

"I've been disappointed, and I was not surprised. I thought they would rule the way they did. I know a lot of people, actually a lot of people who are friends of mine in the gay community, who also think it was a bad decision," he said.

Inhofe's statement released by his office on Friday merely said he was "disappointed by today's Supreme Court decision" and that his position had not changed.

"It is unfortunate that the Court took it upon itself to decide for the people what was being appropriately debated and decided in the states through the democratic process," the statement added.

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

LINK: President Obama Calls Supreme Court Ruling For Nationwide Marriage Equality “A Victory For America”

View Entire List ›

“Which is very, very sad to see how the culture’s changed and how this one man, this is it, this one man, this one man, a 5-4 decision is going to try to affect the basic foundation of America, and frankly, now, with America leading the way, potentially disrupting the foundation of the world.”

w.soundcloud.com

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum says the Supreme Court decision on Friday ruling bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional is "potentially disrupting the foundation of the world."

Santorum, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said he wasn't surprised at the ruling, citing the previous ruling from the court striking down the Defense of Marriage of Act. He called Friday a "very sad day."

"Justice Kennedy said -- this is remarkable but listen to it -- the only reason that any could oppose gay marriage is because they hated gays and lesbians. Which is almost stops you in your tracks," Santorum said.

"That five thousand years of human history, a biblically-given thing that God somehow gave us marriage as a man and woman, that that was, that somehow that was intrinsically about hating other people. Which is very, very sad to see how the culture's changed and how this one man, this is it, this one man, this one man, a 5-4 decision is going to try to affect the basic foundation of America, and frankly, now, with America leading the way, potentially disrupting the foundation of the world."

Santorum said the next thing to do after the court ruling was to fight to be able "to even to talk about it," because people will try to "silence any disagreement." He said it was not time "to move on," because then they would lose ground in arguing for religious liberty.

"There's no slippery slope here," the former Pennsylvania senator added, "religious liberty is under assault today, not going to be, it is, and it's going to be even more so as we say with this decision."

"Now that this is the law of the land," he said. "The question is going to be whether we are going to allow people to actually dissent on this or whether if they are going to be treated as the proponents of this position have advocated: this is a civil rights position and if you oppose this you're the equivalent a racist back in the 50s and 60s."

Santorum suggest churches and others who dissent could lose the privileges of tax benefits.

Rosie Gray/BuzzFeed

TAMA, Iowa — Lindsey Graham was in the full swing of his pitch to a group of potential voters gathered at a VFW hall in this small town an hour outside Des Moines on Saturday when, while he was talking about his relatively liberal stance on immigration, there came an unwelcome interruption.

"Towel heads," grumbled a man sitting at the bar, sporting a denim shirt with the arms cut off. "Sand n*****s."

Graham did what every candidate must in the age of smartphones and opposition trackers following a candidate anywhere he or she goes.

"I totally dissociate myself from this guy," Graham said. "What I would say is that what he said is not who I am. I'm not running to be president to please this guy." He then moved on and continued on taking questions from the other attendees.

At this early stage, running for president can be a weird thing — especially in these tiny, intimate gatherings where people are able to to speak their minds. In an earlier era, maybe before a woman once notoriously insisted to John McCain that Barack Obama was an Arab, Graham could probably have gotten away with ignoring the man; today, he had to act.

But Graham is also a long-shot candidate without much to lose, and his response ended up being different from the kind of tight-lipped, efficient shutdown one could imagine coming from someone for whom the stakes are higher. A few minutes after the exchange, Graham concluded his spiel to the 15 or so people assembled in the dark, low-ceilinged room by drawing a comparison between his own hardscrabble upbringing in a bar in small town South Carolina and people like the man who had issued the slurs.

"I'm tired of telling people things they want to hear that I don't believe. I changed a long time ago as a politician. I was scared to death of going into a room to be disagreed with. I don't feel that way anymore. I feel free. I feel able to tell you exactly what I believe and why I believe it," Graham said.

"Put me on your list of people to consider, talk to a neighbor, and if you can support me, bring somebody to the caucus — that's the only way I'm going to make it, is to have people like you buy into what I'm trying to do," he said. "I grew up in a place just like this. This guy at the bar, I grew up with people just like him."

Graham then took it a step further: The event had been billed as "Politics and Pool," and he wanted to play pool with someone.

There was silence.

Finally, a couple guys suggested the very man who had offered the slurs — the one Graham himself had called out, twice. The man agreed to play, Graham shook his hand, and the men played pool. Graham won.

On the way out, BuzzFeed News asked Graham why he had played pool with the man.

"Because he was the only one that would play," Graham said. "And I wanted to beat him. I was going to beat him if it's the last thing I did in Iowa."

The former Arkansas governor also said Chief Justice John Roberts “apparently needs medication for schizophrenia.”

Ross D. Franklin / AP

w.soundcloud.com

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says Chief Justice John Roberts "apparently needs medication for schizophrenia," citing his decision last week to dissent in the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional but also writing the majority opinion upholding federal subsidies in Obamacare.

Huckabee further added if he was president he would not follow the rulings of the Supreme Court.

"I would say the Supreme Court has issued a ruling, we will review it, we will respect it, but we will not follow it, because it goes against the will of voters in over 30 states," said Huckabee.

Huckabee was speaking with the Iowa radio show "Mickelson in the Morning" on Friday when he made the comments.

"Justice Roberts apparently needs medication for schizophrenia because his opinion is almost the direct opposite of his logical in the opinion yesterday," Huckabee said to Jan Mickelson on Friday.

"Yesterday, the Supreme Court, with Roberts agreeing, essentially rewrote a law that Congress screwed up. They legislated from the bench. They did something they are constitutionally prohibited from doing. That they are restricted from doing. They did it anyway, just to save Obamacare. They made a political decision, not a legal one. They clearly flew in the face of the law."

Citing the ruling that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, Huckabee said the Supreme Court had become the "extreme court" and decided it was "the Supreme Being" and that "it could overrule the laws of nature and of nature's God."

"Today, they did the same thing, except this time Roberts, I guess woke up and realized that the Supreme Court was becoming the extreme court, that it had decided it was no longer just the Supreme Court -- it was the Supreme Being," said Huckabee.

"It has today acted as if it could overrule the laws of nature and of nature's God. Today was not a ruling about same-sex marriage, that's what I keep hearing. This was not quality of marriage, this was about redefinition of marriage, and Scalia got it right. The rest of the majority, including Kennedy, got it incredibly wrong."

Huckabee made further comments in line with his Friday written statement from his campaign: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

He told the Iowa radio host his reading of the Constitution said the court could not make laws, but only give opinions.

"Five unelected people in black robes cannot write laws," said Huckabee. He added most of the justices, citing comments from Scalia, were either from the West or East coasts, or went to Harvard or Yale law school.

"While that shouldn't matter, it clearly does matter because you don't have a representative cross section of America on the court," said Huckabee.

"The Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and until the Congress of the United States, consisting of elected representatives from the people, present a bill to enable such a thing and until the president signs it and agrees to enforce it, it is not the law of the land. It remains an opinion of the court, nothing but an opinion of the court."

"The courts simply cannot overturn the ultimate authority in the United States under our Constitution: the people themselves," he added.

Huckabee added government officials shouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples because there's been no legislation to authorize them to do so.

He further cited the Dred Scott decision to ask if those who endorse same-sex marriage would support the court if there was a future ruling in which the court changed their mind.

LINK: Rick Santorum: Justice Kennedy Is “Potentially Disrupting The Foundation Of The World.”

View Entire List ›

There’s no indication the fires in states across the South are connected, a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, but FBI and ATF officials are cooperating with local investigators.

WASHINGTON — The FBI and ATF are cooperating with local authorities to investigate the recent spate of fires at black churches, a spokesperson for the FBI confirmed Sunday.

In recent days, there have been four fires at churches across four states — Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Three of the four have been ruled arsons by investigators; a cause for the fourth, at Grover Grove Baptist in Warrenville, S.C., had not been determined by investigators on Friday.

"They're being investigated to determine who is responsible and what motives are behind them," said FBI spokesperson Paul Bresson. "I'm not sure there is any reason to link them together at this point."

The cause of a fifth fire, at College Heights Baptist Church in Elyria, Ohio, was still being investigated Sunday.

The fires come just days after Dylann Roof allegedly went on a racially-motivated killing spree at a black church in Charleston, S.C. The shooting left nine dead and sparked a nationwide outcry against racial intolerance, and even a nationwide debate about the symbolism of the Confederate flag. The alleged shooter was seen in multiple photos posing with the flag.

LINK: Arsonists Strike Black Churches Across The South

Rosie Gray/BuzzFeed

DES MOINES, Iowa — Lindsey Graham, whom everyone agrees is one of the longest of the long-shot candidates, has a plan.

He will focus to an unusual degree on foreign policy, betting that his hawkish views on national security will carry him through months and months of a long primary.

“The key to me is Iowa and New Hampshire: Can I get people to buy into what I’m doing on national security and problem solving?” Graham told BuzzFeed News in an interview at the Linn County Fair in Iowa on Saturday. “I’m a social and fiscal conservative, but I’m talking about things that we need to do as a nation.”

“There are more terrorist organizations with capabilities to strike the homeland than any time I’ve seen since 9/11,” Graham said. “The next commander-in-chief needs to be ready to go on Day One to deal with that threat.”

After a season of wins for liberals, Graham is among those Republicans who appear to be ready to cede fights on social issues and stick to their guns on more sellable conservative views on, for example, national security. During his Iowa campaign swing, he repeatedly told conservative voters that he is against the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, that flying the Confederate flag over the South Carolina state capitol is wrong, and that the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country should not be made to leave — a stance that led to an uncomfortable moment at one campaign stop.

But on national security, Graham is as much of a pure hawk as anyone, and he devotes large portions of his stump speech to it. Radical Islam, he tells them, is “running wild” and is coming to our shores. The Obama administration is getting close to signing a nuclear deal with Iran that, Graham warns, could very well end up with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Our ally, Israel, has been abandoned. In order to restore order to the situation in the Middle East, we must commit more troops to the effort in Iraq.

“The only way you’re going to destroy and degrade (ISIS) is by going on the ground in Iraq and Syria to do it,” Graham told BuzzFeed News. “That means some of our soldiers have to go back over there to integrate within regional armies.”

“I think most voters believe they would kill us if they could, that (ISIS) wants to do things we can’t allow — they want to destroy Israel, they want to purify their religion, and kill every Christian they can find in the Mideast, and it’s not good for us to allow that to happen,” Graham said. “I think most voters realize that radical Islam has to be fought, not compromised with, they realize that some of us have to go back to do the fighting, they would insist that the region up its game, so would I.”

There’s “an appetite in this country to stop radical Islam before it comes here.”

Running for president doesn’t always mean you really want to be the president. Graham is a nonentity in polling, and though he’s campaigning hard, he must know his chances are slim to none. But he clearly wants to influence the debate over national security within his party, where libertarians like Rand Paul have posed an ideological challenge to the hawkish establishment. Graham has years of experience in the Senate dealing with foreign policy and national security, and recently retired after over 30 years as an Air Force lawyer.

And pushing these issues can also unlock something that could change the equation for Graham entirely; according to two sources recently, Republican casino magnate and mega-donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam are considering supporting Graham during the early part of the race. They have supported Graham’s Senate campaigns in the past, and Adelson attended a March fundraiser in Washington for Graham’s pre-campaign exploratory committee, Security Through Strength.

“They understand that Lindsey can’t win,” said one person close to the Adelsons. “I think he believes that he is going to be well positioned to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. My guess is Sheldon’s thinking is, This doesn’t actually upset the apple cart. It gets pro-Israel issues out there and in the debate, and it positions Lindsey well for being Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State.”

Adelson “wants to wait and then support the nominee” unlike last time when he wounded Mitt Romney by supporting Newt Gingrich, that source said. “But Lindsey doesn’t upset that, because Lindsey is not really running for president like the other guys are running for president.”

Asked if he believes voters care more about national security this election than other elections, Graham said he did, and that “if they don’t, we’re crazy as a nation.”

Polling does show that the threat posed by ISIS weighs heavily on the minds of influential Iowa caucus-goers. A Des Moines Register poll from May showed that 90 percent of voters polled wanted candidates to talk about terrorist groups like ISIS. That same poll showed that 73 percent thought that the statement “The U.S. must have indisputably the strongest budget, therefore the Pentagon budget should be increased” was “about right” — another figure that tracks with Graham’s position on strengthening the military.

And voters on the trail this weekend appeared to largely agree with Graham.

“I agree with everything he said,” said Darlene Block, 72, a voter who attended Graham’s meet-and-greet in Centralia, Iowa, on Saturday. “Our military is really down, they said, to the lowest it was since World War II, so we need to straighten that out.”

“It’s a big concern, it’s a serious matter,” said Arvid Saele, the treasurer of the Dubuque County Republican Party who was at that event, said when asked about Graham’s focus on foreign policy. But he said he’s “not certain it ranks as high as it should” in the minds of Iowa voters.

Current religious liberty protections could provide protections for local officials whose religious beliefs dictate opposition to the right of same-sex couples to marry, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says.

William Hensel, left, and Justin Ables fill out their marriage certificate paperwork at the Travis County Courthouse on June 26, 2015 in Austin, Texas.

Drew Anthony Smith / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Sunday that local officials responsible for issuing marriage licenses may, under state or federal religious liberty protections, be able to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

While the notice from Paxton doesn't challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of marriage equality, meaning that same-sex couples should be able to marry in Texas across the state on Monday, it does assert that specific local officials "may" be able to refuse to issue those licenses.

In a legal opinion acknowledging the "newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage," Paxton wrote to the state's lieutenant governor that the marriage right "can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech."

Under state law, Paxton noted that clerks, who are responsible for issuing licenses, can delegate any duties to deputy clerks — including issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Deputy clerks, meanwhile, can "seek reasonable accommodation for a religious objection" to issuing such licenses, he added.

While that would not prevent a same-sex couple from being able to get a marriage license so long as at least one clerk or deputy clerk in each county were willing to do so, even Paxton acknowledged in the opinion that issues could arise from this interpretation if there were no one in a given office willing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"[W]ere a clerk to issue traditional marriage licenses while refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, it is conceivable that an applicant for a same-sex marriage license may claim a violation of the constitution," Paxton wrote.

In a statement accompanying the opinion, Paxton noted that "any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine."

He added, however, "But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights."

Tex Gov. Greg Abbott discussed similar protections extending to state officials
in a memo issued Friday, even as some county officials in Texas began marrying same-sex couples on the day of the Supreme Court's decision.

Texas AG Paxton summarized Sunday's opinion as such:

Via texasattorneygeneral.gov

LINK: Read Paxton's full opinion.

View Entire List ›

Susan Walsh / AP

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton's confidant Sidney Blumenthal played a quiet role in shaping, and sometimes steering political coverage, in the early days of The Daily Beast.

Blumenthal's role, early employees said, was touched with a bit of the conspiratorial haze that has emerged as a point of controversy in Clinton's campaign. He wasn't listed on the site's masthead, and the site's founder, Tina Brown, said she had "no idea" whether or not he was on Clinton's payroll while helping to shape the site's political coverage. In one case, he commissioned a hit piece on a potential Clinton rival, Caroline Kennedy, though his name appeared nowhere on the story.

Brown, who founded The Daily Beast, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that Blumenthal had been a "part time consultant" in 2008 and 2009 and had "assigned and connected us to some writers as asked."

"He was supposed to find writers for ideas and stuff like that," said one former Beast writer who recalled Blumenthal shaping coverage that tended to be "stuff from Democrat-(or 'Democrat-')-in-exile people who were skeptical of and/or outright didn't like Obama" — work like this piece by Michael Lind about the "Democratic suicide" under Obama. The employee suggested Blumenthal was responsible for bringing in Democratic political strategist Doug Schoen, who has written semi-regularly for the Beast since 2009. Contacted by BuzzFeed News, Schoen said Blumenthal had "never edited me" at the Beast or anywhere else.

In the winter of 2008-2009, the Daily Beast ran two pieces that were critical of Caroline Kennedy, one referring to her as a "puppet" and the other describing her candidacy as an "insult." Kennedy was seeking at the time to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate — the scion of a rival dynasty who, if she had she had been appointed to the Senate, would immediately have been seen as a likely national Democratic figure of a new generation. The author of the pieces, current New York Daily News columnist Harry Siegel, who was at Politico at that time, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that Blumenthal had commissioned and edited them. (He also said that Blumenthal's editing had been "intelligent and incisive.")

One former Daily Beast employee described Blumenthal as having been a "recruiter." Blumenthal, the employee said, had a preferred group of writers from whom he would draw submissions, including Scott Horton, the attorney who won a National Magazine Award in 2011 for a Harper's story about Guantanamo. Horton didn't respond to a request for comment.

Blumenthal could be somewhat of a headache for the Beast staffers. Though not officially on staff as an editor, he would send in pieces that he said had been edited, expecting them to be published as-is.

Blumenthal's involvement with the Beast didn't last for a long time; one former staffer estimated it as being around six to nine months. It appears to have been a result of his longtime friendship with Brown, for whom he worked at The New Yorker in the 1990s.

Leaked emails obtained in the Guccifer hack provide a glimpse into the Brown/Blumenthal relationship; in an email dated December 27, 2012, years after Blumenthal's ambiguous role with the Beast had ended, Brown emailed him: "How are you, sid. Are u done with lincoln? [Blumenthal has been working on a biography of Abraham Lincoln.] So want your politics brain back! Is there an aspect of BUSH you might want to do for when he goes ?the Bush clinton relationship?" The email was sent during a health scare in which George H.W. Bush was hospitalized; news organizations routinely plan out obituaries and other coverage before an aging subject has died.

"Even if Bush does get through this crisis, mark me for the piece," Blumenthal writes.

The emails also show Blumenthal reaching out to Brown for David Petraeus' contact information in 2013; she gives it to him, but says "u must never ever say came from me."

But they weren't that close: When the deal to combine Newsweek and The Daily Beast closed, Brown, a source said, had a congratulatory call with a man she thought was her new owner, Sidney Harman. "Get me Sidney," she told one of her assistants. When she learned she had actually been put on the line with Blumenthal, not Harman, she hung up.

It's unclear to what extent Blumenthal was involved with the Clinton Foundation during his quasi-employment at The Daily Beast. It has recently come to light that Blumenthal was being paid $10,000 a month by the Clinton Foundation while he was advising Hillary Clinton on Libya during her tenure as Secretary of State. He is also a paid adviser to two organizations run by Clinton ally David Brock: American Bridge and Media Matters.

Brown told BuzzFeed News she had "no idea" if Blumenthal was working for the Clinton Foundation or CGI at the time. Asked if he was on the Clinton Foundation payroll during 2008 and 2009, a Clinton Foundation spokesperson said "The dates you have are not accurate."

A spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation didn't respond to follow-up questions about whether Blumenthal was on the payroll there during his time at the Beast. Blumenthal didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Blumenthal said "we are not making any further statements."

“One guy asked me something about, what did I think of bears, and I thought, ‘really, that’s a serious question?’ So I had a little fun with that.”

Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee hosted a Facebook chat last week:

Mike Huckabee's Facebook / Via talkingpointsmemo.com

And things sort of got out of hand:

Mike Huckabee's Facebook

w.soundcloud.com

"It really was me, in fact, I was having some fun with it. It's interesting that one of the blogs took some of the questions and answers, and I did that and answered some questions very seriously and some of the questions were very bizarre and I answered with a sense of humor in a way that I'm probably the only one who would have done it that way.

View Entire List ›

A case from 2013 will return to the high court this fall.

MLADEN ANTONOV / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — On Monday morning, the Supreme Court announced that it will again be taking up a challenge to university affirmative action policies — in the same case it punted on two years ago.

The court will again be hearing the case of Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008.

In 2013, the court heard her challenge, but did not decide whether the school's program — which considers race as a "plus factor" in admissions — was constitutional. Instead, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court held that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had not properly applied the strict scrutiny standard that court's are supposed to use when examining challenges to race-based governmental policies.

Death-row inmates challenged Oklahoma’s use of the drug midazolam — at issue in several botched executions in 2014.

Sue Ogrocki / AP

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the use of the controversial lethal injection drug midazolam — a sedative — in executions does not violate the Constitution.

In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court that Oklahoma prisoners failed in their challenge because they didn't provide evidence of an alternative method of execution and because the Supreme Court found no clear error in the trial court's ruling that midazolam "is highly likely to render a person unable to feel pain during an execution."

Although the ruling has clear implications for the several states that choose to employ midazolam in executions — states like Florida, Arizona, and Louisiana — it will have an effect on every state that carries out executions.

The Court set a high bar for inmates challenging their methods of execution, making it clear that they must do more than show the method is likely to put them through pain. Inmates must instead propose a better method.

Alito wrote that "some risk of pain is inherent in every execution," but added that doesn't mean the methods are unconstitutional. "After all, while most humans wish to die a painless death, many do not have that good fortune."

In dissenting, however, Justice Stephen Breyer — joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — raised the question of whether the constitutionality of the death penalty, "in and of itself," should be revisited.

The challenge to Oklahoma's use of the drug followed the April 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett. After having been declared unconscious after the midazolam injection — the first drug in the state's three-drug execution protocol — Lockett began moving on the gurney and shaking uncontrollably. Lockett died roughly 10 minutes after the execution was called off.

The more liberal Justices questioned the findings of the state's expert, pointing out that he "cited no scholarly research in support of his opinions," relying primarily on www.drugs.com.

Alito dismissed the criticisms, arguing the alleged errors were "peripheral aspects" that don't establish that midazolam is "sure or very likely to result in needless suffering."
The ruling was expected to be close, with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. He asked just a couple of questions during oral arguments, and did not author the opinion.

The majority also made the assertion that federal courts are not well equipped to handle debates over methods of execution.

"Challenges to lethal injection protocols test the boundaries of the authority and competency of federal courts. Although we must invalidate a lethal injection protocol if it violates the Eighth Amendment, federal courts should not embroil themselves in ongoing scientific controversies beyond their expertise."

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, disagreed in a dissent that questions the constitutionality of the death penalty at all.

"Lack of reliability, the arbitrary application of a serious and irreversible punishment, individual suffering caused by long delays, and lack of penological purpose are quin­tessentially judicial matters," Breyer wrote.

"In the last four decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that [legislative] responses have not worked. Thus we are left with a judicial responsibility."

Justice Antonin Scalia, however, countered that it was "Groundhog Day" again.

"Time and again, the People have voted to exact the death penalty as punishment for the most serious of crimes. Time and again, this Court has upheld that decision. And time and again, a vocal minority of this Court has insisted that things have 'changed radically,' and has sought to replace the judgments of the People with their own standards of decency," Scalia wrote.

The questions about the use of midazolam in executions arose over the course of 2014, when executions in several states where the drug is used — in Ohio and Arizona, in addition to Oklahoma — resulted in the execution taking longer than expected and reports that the person being executed either was still moving or otherwise showed signs of remaining conscious during the execution.

Although the doses and drug pairings varied from state to state, each used midazolam in an attempt to sedate the inmate. Oklahoma follows midazolam with a drug that paralyzes the inmate, and then a drug that stops their heart and would feel like fire if the inmate was conscious.

In their dissent, the four liberal Justices said the ruling "leaves petitioners exposed to what may well be the chemical equiva­lent of being burned at the stake."

In a statement, Attorney General Scott Pruitt indicated that the state will begin asking for new execution dates to be set.

The case out of Arizona addresses whether states’ voters can give redistricting power to an independent commission — and away from the legislature.

MANDEL NGAN / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Arizona's redistricting commission, set up independently from the state legislature, is allowed under the Constitution.

In 2000, Arizona voters passed an amendment to the state's constitution, creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a five-person panel that draws up new districts after each census.

The state's lawmakers have challenged the use of the commission, asserting that "the Legislature has been completely divested of its redistricting power" and that such a move is not allowed under the "Elections" clause to the U.S. Constitution.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators," according to the constitutional provision.

The lawmakers note in their brief, "In the Constitution, the Framers carefully assigned particular obligations to particular State-level entities, whether the 'people,' the 'legislature,' the 'executive,' or the 'State' generally." Because this provision specifically used the term "legislature," they argue that means a state cannot do as Arizona has done and remove the legislature from the process.

The commission, in response, argued, "[T]he Clause's use of the term 'Legislature' does not preclude the People from exerting more direct control over the holding of congressional elections through popular lawmaking."

More broadly, they stated, "The unspoken premise of [the lawmakers' brief] is that there really is no remedy for the abuse of partisan gerrymandering in congressional districts."

After the oral arguments in March, SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston noted that "[w]hat seemed like a majority [of the Supreme Court] shied away from the idea that the voters of a state could seize power away from their legislature, and lodge that authority elsewhere in government more pleasing to the people."

“If everybody gets the right to change things for their group, what will we have pretty soon, other than chaos?”

Bill Pugliano / Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said Friday that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down bans on same-sex marriages was a sign that America could be mired in "chaos," "pretty soon."

Carson's comments came hours after the 5-4 decision was handed down. They appeared to expand upon a formal statement he issued, which referred to the decision as "the law of the land," while calling for "Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected."

Speaking that afternoon to radio host Simon Conway, Carson reiterated that he was "disappointed" and "not convinced" that the Court was playing the role that "the Founders intended" for it.

But he also said, "I don't have anything whatsoever against gay people or any people of any orientation getting together."

"I don't have anything whatsoever against gay people or any people of any orientation getting together, sharing property, hospital visitation rights, whatever they want to do," he claimed. "I have no problem with it, I'm happy for them to make a legal contract to do that."

Carson then argued that his problem was with "when you want to change things" and that, if other groups started demanding changes to laws in a similar manner, it would invite "chaos."

"What I have a problem with is when you want to change things," the retired neurosurgeon explained. "If everybody gets the right to change things for their group, what will we have pretty soon, other than chaos? So let's respect everybody and let everybody do what they want to do but don't change things for everybody else."

Asked by Conway about the possibility of the 5-4 decision eroding religious liberty in the US, Carson said, "It's already happened," before telling a story of a couple he said had lost their business for refusing to "participate in a gay marriage ceremony."

"I was talking to a couple here in Iowa a couple weeks ago," Carson recalled. "And, you know, they did not want to participate in a gay marriage ceremony. And the couple could easily have gone to some other person, but no they didn't want to and they had a lawsuit and they recently had to close their business. You know, this shouldn't be going on in the United States of America. That's what religious freedom is all about."

Here's the audio:

w.soundcloud.com