Eric Schneiderman (Photo: Facebook)

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman took to the airwaves today to denounce the Defense of Marriage Act on legal grounds, arguing that it will be ruled unconstitutional because it "discriminates" against New York State's recognition of same-sex marriages. The high-profile case is set to go before the Supreme Court later this week.

"This is something that, without getting too far into the merits of the case, I think the Supreme Court will strike down," Mr. Schneiderman said this morning on The Brian Lehrer Show. "This is an overreach by the federal government, this is inconsistent with our federalist system and I think this one will definitely fall." 

DOMA, which stipulates that marriage is a legal union between one man and one woman, permits states that have outlawed same-sex marriage to disregard same-sex marriages in other states where they are legal, like New York. Several federal appeals courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional already and the Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court to declare a crucial part of DOMA unconstitutional.

Mr. Schneiderman, who filed an amicus brief in support of the case--United States vs. Windsor--further contended that it's "a fairly straight forward case" for the court to evaluate and rule upon.

"[DOMA] discriminates against the states that recognize same sex marriage because it says not only the federal government doesn't have to respect our marriages and provide married couples from New York with all the benefits that every other type of marriage gets; it also says that other states don't necessarily have to respect our marriages," Mr. Schneiderman said. "This really runs against hundreds of years of jurisprudence in which the United States government, Congress, kept its hands out of domestic relations matters and that have always traditionally been a matter for the states. The DOMA case is a fairly straight forward case. It's a matter of overreaching by Congress and overreaching by the federal government into an area that should be committed to the states."

(photo msnbc.msn.com)

While selling his book at Princeton University earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended moral opposition to gay marriage by asking, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?" According to the Associated Press, Mr. Scalia said he wasn't equating murder and homosexuality but rather making a logical argument entitled "reduction to the absurd," but Council Speaker Christine Quinn, an openly gay candidate for mayor next year, wasn't remotely satisfied with his explanation.

"It's offensive!" Ms. Quinn exclaimed on Hardball yesterday evening. "Sexual orientation is who we are as people, it's how we're created if we're the LGBT [community]. To compare that--even in a way you want to say was some philosophical exercise--to a heinous, horrible crime of murder? It's just wrong. He can say it's a slip of the tongue and that's fine and we all of them; God knows I have. Just apologize. But don't compare me to a murderer because I'm a lesbian. Just don't do it. It's wrong."

Mr. Scalia’s comments come as the Supreme Court is poised to hear two cases on gay marriage. There are concerns among LGBT activists of how the court, with its conservative faction headed by Mr. Scalia, will ultimately rule. Nevertheless, Ms. Quinn was optimistic about the outcome of the decision even as she criticized Mr. Scalia's remark.

"He wasn't teaching a law class there, he was  making a point, I believe, about what he actually thinks," she argued. "The job of the Supreme Court when they're going to take up this very important matter isn't what they personally think about LGBT people, it is what the Constitution sets out as a framework for protecting the rights of Americans. That's the question here and I believe the Supreme Court is going to rise to that occasion, as they have before, and look at those important issues. And really, the justice should apologize for what he said there."

Watch below:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jeffrey Toobin (Photo: CNN.com)

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision upholding President Barack Obama's healthcare law, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin gave a lecture about the case at the Hebrew Center in the well-heeled beach haven of Martha's Vineyard, however according to at least one attendee, the July 5 event turned into "utter mayhem." Doreen Kinsman penned a letter to The Martha's Vineyard Times describing how an "unruly mob" descended on Mr. Toobin's event leading to "utter pandemonium" and a scene straight out of Lord of the Flies.

Ms. Kinsman said the "shameful debacle" began shortly before the event's scheduled start as "a long line of patient would-be attendees" waited outside the Hebrew Center to hear Mr. Toobin speak when "suddenly" a woman came from inside and waved to the last group of people on line to come in as she had apparently been saving them seats.

"Then came the deluge," Ms. Kinsman wrote. "Suddenly, and totally unexpectedly, a sea of folks from Pine Street descended en masse, dashing across the lawn, rushing to the entrance, creating utter pandemonium. All law, order, and self-discipline departed as this appalling horde of people clamored to enter. It was utter mayhem."

According to Ms. Kinsman, many people remained in line and "watched helplessly as the unruly mob stormed the doors." In her letter to The Martha's Vineyard Times, Ms. Kinsman described her shock at seeing the "mostly older" crowd behave like "desperate, starving people."

"How could such civilized? educated? mostly older folk sink into a herd mentality?" Ms. Kinsman asked. "We have viewed on TV mob scenes at rock concerts, football matches, and desperate, starving people when food supplies are delivered, but for a lecture? It reminded one disappointed man of the novel Lord of the Flies, where mere children resorted to anarchy."

As if the horror of being cut in line was not enough, according to Ms. Kinsman a "second disaster loomed" when those who waited in line and were unable to enter Mr. Toobin's lecture gave up and tried to leave.

"Because they came early to the event and parked their cars in the adjacent lot, latecomers parked their cars perpendicular to the early arrivals. So now, not only did the conscientious folk who had stood in line, some since 6:00 pm, not hear the speaker, but they could now not retrieve their cars," wrote Ms. Kinsman.

Ms. Kinsman concluded her dispatch from the front lines of the Martha's Vineyard lecture circuit by noting that there is "no doubt" that "the staff at the Hebrew Center will attempt in future to prevent a re-occurrence." Though she came away from the horrific ordeal optimistic future events at the Center will be better managed, Ms. Kinsman's faith in humanity was permanently damaged.

"It was indeed a sorry sight and one which gives me cause to believe that civility is indeed only skin deep," she wrote.

As of this writing, the Martha's Vineyard Hebrew Center has not responded to a request for comment on this story.

(Photo: Neighborhoodr New York)

Opponents of New York's 2011 gay marriage law had sought to overturn the legislation under grounds that it violated New York's Open Meetings Law, arguing the closed-door meetings held by New York State Senate Republicans with Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Michael Bloomberg constituted an illegal violation. But the State Supreme Court stymied their hopes today and ruled in favor of New York State and gay marriage supporters.

"Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment should be reversed insofar as appealed from, and judgment should be entered in favor of defendants declaring that defendant New York State Senate did notviolate the OML in enacting the [Marriage Equality Act] and that marriages performed thereunder are not invalid," Acting Justice Robert Wiggins declared.

The State argued that a meeting with Senate Republicans was not subject to the Open Meeting Law, and that the legislation itself was passed during an open session of the State Senate. Although a lower court initially allowed the lawsuit to proceed, Mr. Wiggins felt the claims did not merit overturning the entire legislation.

He wrote, “Even assuming, arguendo, that the Bloomberg and Cuomo meetingsviolated the OML, we would not invalidate the MEA and the marriages performed thereunder."

Governor Cuomo, unsurprisingly, was buoyed by the good news, issuing a statement announcing, “The court’s decision affirms that in our state, there is marriage equality for all, and with this decision New York continues to stand as a progressive leader for the nation."

View the ruling below:

John Yoo (Photo: Facebook)

John Yoo, a former Department of Justice attorney in the administration of George W. Bush who wrote the so-called “torture memos” that provided the legal rationale for the government to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation is not pleased with the Supreme Court's decision upholding President Barack Obama's healthcare law. Mr. Yoo, who is now a professor at Berkeley law school, penned an editorial in which appeared in Saturday's edition of the Wall Street Journal in which he speculated the healthcare ruling may allow the government to "force us to buy electric cars, eat organic kale, or replace oil heaters with solar panels."

Like many conservatives, Mr. Yoo is disappointed with Chief Justice John Robert, who was appointed by President George W. Bush  and wrote the healthcare ruling.

"Justice Roberts served in the Reagan Justice Department and as a White House lawyer before his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. Yet he joined with the court's liberal wing to bless the greatest expansion of federal power in decades," Mr. Yoo wrote.

Mr. Roberts' decision upheld the most controversial element of the healthcare law, a mandate requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or face a fine by 2014. The Court ruled the individual mandate is constitutional because it can simply be read as the imposition of a tax. Mr. Yoo says this creates the possibility Congress can force us to do other things, including eating the dreaded kale, if it is construed as a tax.

"Justice Roberts's opinion provides a constitutional road map for architects of the next great expansion of the welfare state. Congress may not be able to directly force us to buy electric cars, eat organic kale, or replace oil heaters with solar panels. But if it enforces the mandates with a financial penalty then suddenly, thanks to Justice Roberts's tortured reasoning in Sebelius, the mandate is transformed into a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax," Mr. Yoo wrote.

Mr. Yoo noted that Mr. Roberts was previously seen as ideal Supreme Court justice among conservatives.

"White House judge-pickers sometimes ask prospective nominees about their favorite Supreme Court justice. The answers can reveal a potential judge's ideological leanings without resorting to litmus tests," Mr. Yoo wrote. "Since his appointment to the high court in 2005, the most popular answer was Chief Justice John Roberts."

With Mr. Roberts having "joined with the court's liberal wing," Mr. Yoo thinks future Republican presidents will need to be "more careful" than his former boss, President Bush, when they nominate judges.

"If a Republican is elected president, he will have to be more careful than the last. When he asks nominees the usual question about justices they agree with, the better answer should once again be Scalia or Thomas or Alito, not Roberts," Mr. Yoo wrote.

(Photo: Getty)

Among the many politicians who rushed out statements opposing or supporting the Supreme Court's decision that President Obama's health care legislation was constitutional, Mayor Michael Bloomberg was not among them. On John Gambling's radio show today, Mr. Bloomberg explained why he's "not sure if after all the yelling and screaming and all the politics around this, there's really any great change."

"Good or bad, at least it takes away the argument that this law was unconstitutional," he began to describe his reaction to the ruling. "It does not mean that future governments in Washington can't change the law or repeal it or something."

He proceeded to argue that everyone receives health care if they seriously need it, regardless of insurance.

"We are going to provide healthcare for everybody, that's what gets lost in this," he contended. "If you are really sick and you show up at a hospital in New York City -- and I assume everyplace else in the country -- you're going to get treated, and somebody has to pay for that. You can have everybody pay for it, you do that through, let's say, the tax system. ... But we're all going to pay for it, and whether we'll pay for it one way or pay for it another way, is the argument that sort of gets lost. "

"What are we going to call the allocation?" he continued later to explain this funding mechanism. "A lot of it is verbiage. You know, we say, 'Another 30 million people covered,' yes, but in some senses they were probably covered anyways because if they showed up in the emergency room. ... It tends to be a lot of young people who get covered all of a sudden who probably don't go for annual medical checkups and don't have real medical problems. Or older people who don't know how to get into the system."

And to conclude, Mr. Bloomberg rhetorically yawned.

"I'm not sure if after all the yelling and screaming and all the politics around this, there's really any great change. Congress passed a bill, the president signed it. Questioning whether or not it was constitutional, the Supreme Court looked at it, voted 5-4 yes, end of story. That's democracy."

President Obama (Photo: Getty)

President Obama responded to the Supreme Court decision upholding his healthcare law with an address that was broadcast live from the White House earlier this afternoon. With Mitt Romney and top Republicans in Congress vowing to repeal the law, the president encouraged people to move forward rather than trying to "refight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were."

"The highest court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law and we'll work together to improve on it where we can," President Obama said. "With today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. Now's the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time--putting people back to work paying down our debt....I'm as confident as ever that, when we look back five years from now, ten years from now, or twenty years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law."

The most controversial element of the law is a mandate requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face fines. In his speech, President Obama explained why he believes this provision will be a good thing for the country.

"The Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons--first, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums," said President Obama. "Secondly, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions but don't require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they're sick to buy the care they need, which would also drive up everyone else's premiums."

President Obama acknowledged the law has been controversial, but he insisted he worked on it because he thinks it is best for the country and not for political gain.

"Even though I knew it wouldn't be politically popular and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who could afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so," President Obama said. "I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have showed....It should be pretty clear by now that I didn't do this because it was good politics, I did it because I believed it was good for the country."

Tish James speaking at the rally.

"Yes! Yes! Yes! Come, come, ready?" Councilwoman Tish James hurriedly exclaimed when we started to ask her about today's Supreme Court ruling on health care reform before a rally celebrating the vote on living wage legislation coming later today.

"So, today I like Roberts. I'm happy that the mandate was upheld. This is a great day for democracy, it's a great day for the budget, it's a great day for childcare and after school programs," she answered. "So, overall, today's a proud day!"

"It's a good day. It's a good day," Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the RWDSU, agreed when asked the same question. "We're doing living wage in New York and the Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration on health care reform."

The rally for living wage thus proceeded in a jubilant mood. The votes to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto have already been assembled and the outcome of today's City Council session already determined.

"Today is a great day of course, with what happened with the Supreme Court in Washington, a very important day for people of modest means throughout the country," Councilman Oliver Koppell said in front of the rallying advocates. "And what we're doing today is a movement in the same direction to try and ensure that ... there is at least a little bit of justice between those who have modest means and those who have wealth and power."

For her part, Ms. James spoke like a preacher when her turn came to stand in front of the podium.

"So I hold up this tattered and torn will of the people, because it represents their tattered lives!" she declared, displaying a ripped sign containing advocates' signatures. "Those who have been living under the weight of poverty wages, this is symbolic of their lives. ... Today, we stand up for justice! Today, justice rains down!"

Mitt Romney (Photo: Getty)

"Let's make clear that we understand what the Court did and did not do. What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy," Mr. Romney said. "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today."

He also said the Court's decision showed the president needs to be replaced in the next election.

"Our mission is clear," said Mr. Romney. "If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that."

Mr. Romney described the law as a "job killer" that "raises taxes," "cuts Medicare," and adds "trillions to our deficit and to our national debt."

"Obamacare also means that up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep," said Mr. Romney "Perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor."

Though Mr. Romney said "it's important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare" with "a real reform of our healthcare system," he didn't offer any concrete explanation of what exactly he would replace the healthcare law with.

"We have to make sure that people who want to keep there current insurance will be able to do so....We've got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured," Mr. Romney said. "We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable healthcare. And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of healthcare and health insurance. It's becoming prohibitively expensive."

Though he didn't describe the specifics of his healthcare plan, Mr. Romney finished his response to the Supreme Court ruling by framing the election as a choice between "a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your lives" or "return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in healthcare."

Mitt Romney

According to Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul the Supreme Court decision upholding President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law led to a windfall for Mitt Romney. Ms. Saul told The Politicker supporters donated at least $100,000 in the 50 minutes between the immediate aftermath of the ruling, which was issued at approximately 10:10 a.m. Shortly before 11:30, Ms. Saul said the total donations had reached over $300,000. By 1:30 p.m., Ms. Saul claimed the Romney campaign had raised $1 million following the ruling.

"Fundraising for @MittRomney ticks up to $300k since decision came down. #FullRepeal," Ms. Saul wrote on Twitter.

Mr. Romney has already vowed to repeal the ruling if he is elected and some political watchers have speculated a decision to uphold the law would be good for Mr. Romney because it will allow him to energize conservatives by pushing for repeal. The rapid flood of donations to his campaign certainly bolsters the argument the decision could help Mr. Romney fire up supporters on the right.

Mr. Romney's fundraising outpaced President Obama's in May. Prior to the Court decision, Democrats were already fretting about being outspent by the Romney campaign.

(Updated 1:30pm to note the most current fundraising numbers.)