Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference, June 14, 2013 in Washington, DC.

It’s about winning, Jeb Bush says.

David Brody, of “The Brody File” at the Christian Broadcasting Network, may have heard what we heard at last week’s Faith and Freedom Coalition: a Jeb Bush speaking a different line from Ralph Reed’s.

Brody sat down with Bush for an interview Friday — airing on “The 700 Club” today — in which the host asked about the state of the Republican Party: “Where do you see evangelicals’ role in all of this? Because really, there is somewhat of a fight for the soul of the Republican Party. Many evangelicals feel the culture is not where it needs to be and it’s going down pretty quickly.”

And Bush replied: “I think we could focus on all our disparate parts, all of the points of disagreement that conservatives have and never win again. My general thought is that the focus ought to be on how you get fifty plus one. Not how you win amongst forty-five. ”

“And that’s kind of where we are where everybody has a view that’s slightly different than one another and certainly social conservatives are a huge part of a winning coalition which means that we have to change our language to be inclusive but not abandon principle and that’s not as hard, I think, as people make it out to be.”

Original post is Jeb Bush: ‘Fifty Plus One’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Republican supporters gets ready to hold a South Carolina Faith & Freedom Coalition Event in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on January 16, 2012.

Gary Bauer will be here.

That will take us back to the presidential campaign of 2000, when the former president of the Family Research Council sought the Republican Party’s presidential nomination with a fervent anti-abortion campaign.

Sarah Palin is on the roster. That will take us back to 2008, when the former Alaska governor was the Republican nominee for vice president.

And so are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Georgia businessman Herman Cain (“9-9-9”) and retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, which will take us back to 2012, when all of them sought the Republican presidential nomination.

Yet the ones to watch at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” conference getting under way in Washington this morning are the ones who may take us to 2016.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have the lunch hour slot today at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is on this evening. And former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is on the roster Friday morning.

Paul and Cruz already have made some intentions about a 2016 presidential campaign known with forays to Iowa and South Carolina. Rubio is viewed by many as another possible contender. And Bush is the party’s equivalent of a one-man bull pen — they could put him in at any time and he’d become an instant front-runner.

This is a gathering of the base, featuring some, such as Cruz, who want nothing to do with the immigration reform that is putting Rubio front and center in his party’s bid to reach a broader audience in 2016. This is a crowd traditionally warm to the words of a Bauer or Bachmann, the religious right.

It will present a challenge for the likes of Bush or Rubio to demonstrate their fealty to the most conservative members of their party while articulating a vision that plays beyond a Republican Party primary — if they have such intentions.

Original post is Rubio, Paul, Cruz, Bush: Together Again by Political Capital.

Photograph by Michael Mathes/AFP via Getty Images

U.S. Representative and former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, tries Google Glass after leaving a meeting Republican Party Caucus on Capitol Hill on May 15, 2013.

“Michelle, My Belle,” the theme music plays in the introduction to Mike Huckabee’s interview with Michele Bachmann today — he being someone who won the Iowa Republican caucuses, she being someone who bombed in Iowa.

Bachmann explains her impending retirement from Congress after four terms.

“It really was a stirring in my heart from the Lord… I just felt this stirring that this chapter was coming to an end,” Bachmann says. “I am not done with politics… It’s just that running for this particular seat, this is coming to an end.”

Huckabee, a Baptist minister as well as former governor of Arkansas, says: “I totally can relate to that… It is your faith that drives decisions like this… Following convictions you believe God has put in your heart.”

It’s the same reason she ran for president, she says (she won the Iowa Republican Party’s straw poll but finished. “I have just tried to follow where the Lord has called me to go… This is really a leap of faith. The Lord is calling me to not seek another term in Congress, but it is a leap of faith because I do not know what I will be doing next… I fully believe the Lord… Will tell me where to go.”

“I’m not a super saint,” says Bachmann, whose congressional campaign has paid a $8,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for bookkeeping errors in its contributions. Her 2012 presidential campaign also is under scrutiny. “It’s because I recognize what a profound sinner I am that I need a savior,” she tells Huckabee.

“I appreciate the clarity of your convictions,” Huckabee says in the interview on “The Mike Huckabee Show.”

Congresswoman @michelebachmann on her retirement and th @justsayinapp justsayinapp.com/post/130672abf…

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 11, 2013

Original post is Bachmann: ‘Lord Calling Me’ to Retire by Political Capital.

Photograph by Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg

Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, speaks to reporters following a hearing in Washington, D.C.

Then there were three.

Retiring Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota became the 52nd Democratic senator to endorse same-sex marriage today. That leaves only three members of the party’s caucus — Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry people of the same sex.

“After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation,” Johnson said in a statement. “This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.”

Johnson is the fourth Democrat in less than a week to endorse same-sex marriage.  Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Bill Nelson of Florida did so last week. Johnson, Donnelly and Heitkamp represent states that backed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 over President Barack Obama. Johnson is not seeking re-election next year.

As for the three holdouts, Pryor and Landrieu are up for re-election in November 2014 in states that backed Romney and Manchin, who also rerpresnets a red state, gave no indication last week that he was even considering changing his position.

“I believe that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” he said in a statement. “My beliefs are guided by my faith, and I support the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Original post is Tim Johnson Latest Senate Democrat to Back Same-Sex Marriage by Political Capital.

Photograph by Bruce Smith/AP Photo

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford addresses supporters in Charleston, S.C., on March 19, 2013, after advancing to the GOP primary runoff in a race for a vacant South Carolina congressional seat.

Updated at 5:25 pm EDT

Mark Sanford played “a ping-pong match” in his gut.

He won, deciding to go for an open congressional seat after bowing out of public life a few years back following an extramarital affair that coined a new term in the annals of political scandal: Appalachian Trail.

And now he has won his party’s nomination. The special election is May 7.

The former governor of South Carolina and former congressman once considered a possible presidential contender within his party, whose state Capitol office initially told the press in 2009 that he had gone hiking in the mountains when he was away with an Argentine mistress, says opportunities for redemption such as this seat don’t come along often. “Once in every 1,000 years,” he joked today, a South Carolina senator retires, and when Jim DeMint did that, opening his seat and then the seat of Rep. Tim Scott, the Republican congressman appointed to replace him, he saw that opportunity.

He went through, “to be honest with you, a whole lot of fear and trepidation just in human terms before you hop into this particular frying pan,” he said the morning after his runoff victory in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Friends such as former Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a college-mate, called on him to make this race. “You do a whole lot of soul-searching, you have a ping-pong match in your gut for a couple weeks there, and you are fearful, you are frightened, you don’t know how you’re going to be received, but ultimately you make a decision.” He asked his sons, he said, and they encouraged him to go for it, “and off to the races we went.”

On the question of public forgiveness: “At some level, any opponent to any idea I happen to espouse will always be able to hit me with `Appalachian Trail’ or whatever. But I go back to a sermon that was given at our church two weeks ago. The preacher focused in on, ‘Do the events of your life define or refine your life?’… We all have events that we regret, that we mishandled… Some people, you know, may never forgive me for that, and some people it may take a little longer… None of us are perfect, we all have feet of clay.”

The Argentine, now the divorced Sanford’s fiancee, stood beside him at last night’s victory rally.

Sanford told CNN today that  he was “completely” surprised when Maria Belen Chapur showed up.

A Democrat has not held the seat that the former congressman is seeking again for about 40 years, he notes. His opponent, Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, is citing internal polling that shows she can win. Yet she “has not held office,” Sanford said, and for now may be enjoying the benefits of name recognition. “Right now, the one thing that people know about her is, is that she’s Stephen Colbert’s sister. Well, at the end of the day, Stephen Colbert is a very popular, well-regarded comedian, but at the end of the day, he’s not on the ticket.”

Original post is Mark Sanford’s ‘Ping-Pong Match’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by AP Photo

President Roosevelt witnesses the signing of International Labor Organization’s declaration for world economic security in his White House office in Washington on May 17, 1944. From left are: seated, Roosevelt, Walter Nash, minister to New Zealand and president of recent ILO Philadelphia conference; Edward J. Phelan, acting ILO director, signing. Secretary of State Cordell Hull (left) and Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins are standing.

The Department of Labor marks its 100th anniversary this month, yet budget cuts have prevented it from celebrating in style. Now comes consolation in the form of Lent Madness, a whimsical online tournament to pick the best saint.

The winner: Frances Perkins, mother of the minimum wage, architect of the Social Security Act, U.S. labor secretary under President Franklin Roosevelt and the first woman Cabinet member. And yes, an Anglican saint.

“Sequestration prevented us from doing many of the education efforts, including activities about Perkins, that we’d planned in conjunction with the centennial,” Labor spokesman Carl Fillichio said. “It looks like Lent Madness may be our small salvation.”

The month-long saints competition, which wrapped up today, is the work of Timothy Schenck, rector of St. John the Evangelist, an Episcopal parish in Hingham, Massachusetts. He calls Perkins “an inspirational figure” who put her faith into practice by insisting on caring for the poor and marginalized.

“Voter turnout was exceptionally high this year,” Schenck said. “It’s rewarding to see so many people engaged with the lives of the saints.”

Labor Department staffers weren’t the only ones stuffing the ballot box, Fillichio said. The New York State Department of Labor, which Perkins led before going to Washington, was a powerful voting bloc, as was Mount Holyoke College — Perkins’ alma mater. “Don’t mess with Mount Holyoke women on a mission,” Fillichio said.

Perkins, who was canonized in 2009, defeated Hilda of Whitby in the final four, and got 57 percent of the vote to beat out Luke the Evangelist for the tourney’s golden halo.

Original post is Labor’s Birthday Consolation Gift: Labor’s Saint Celebrated by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

Hollingsworth v. Perry Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, left, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo are pictured on the steps of the National Archives in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2013.

5:10 p.m. Today’s coverage of  Hollingsworth v. Perry is ending. Check back with Political Capital early Wednesday morning for our live blog of the oral arguments in U.S. v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

4:35 p.m. Nearly lost in the shuffle of tweets was this post-arguments assessment by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, co-counsel to the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case.

@erin_gs wonderful day @ Court.fusillade of questions for both sides. thrilling and inspiring day 4this country #time4marriage

— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) March 26, 2013

Boutrous recently talked about the sustained coverage and heightened awareness of the Prop. 8 case over the last few years. He spoke with us by phone on the one day in March when he wasn’t on the road and away from his Los Angeles office. Boutrous has been fielding most of the press requests for the plaintiffs’ team and working on addressing public interest in the case.

“We’ve been very sensitive to the fact that we were treading into an area with a lot of political sensitivity, and we had to match our team and public discussion about the case to that reality,” he says. “We live in a time of incredible modes of communication that can affect public views and public discussion but when it’s a case of such national importance, and it’s important to real people across the country, it’s necessary to also engage in the public sphere.

“There have been comparisons to Roe v. Wade but it’s not even close to a comparable situation. Back in 1973, people didn’t know what cases were being argued at the Supreme Court. Here we have a situation in which for four years, there’s been nation-wide and global discussion of the case, of the issues…So the Court’s rulings, when they come out, their decisions are less controversial because the public knows what the possible outcomes are.”

4:20 p.m. Another excellent recap of today’s proceedings comes from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who offers the following details on the arguments put forth by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and the questions he faced:

The Obama Administration’s argument ran into considerable skeptical questions from both wings of the court. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. argued that same-sex marriage should be imposed on those states that already grants all of the benefits and duties of that status through their recognition of civil unions–nine states.

“So a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but a state that has made no progress doesn’t have to do anything at all?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who along with Justice Stephen Breyer, saw that argument as “internally inconsistent.”

But Verrilli said, “We’re not prepared to close the door (on states that might have legitimate interests not yet known).” The Proposition 8 proponents have offered no state interest to justify the exclusion of gay couples when the state already gives them all of the benefits of the marriage status, he argued.

Read the full article here. There is also this report from Coyle’s colleague and fellow Supreme Court reporter, Tony Mauro.

3:40 p.m. Three big, and telling, questions were asked during today’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, writes Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Paul Barrett.

I just wonder if the case was properly granted.

The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?

Was not the appellate-court decision in the California case ‘very odd’?

It’s no surprise that all three questions came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, as Barrett sees it, “hold[s] the decision in his hands.” That’s in keeping with much of what’s been put forth in the hours after the hearing ended, shortly before 12 p.m. ET on Tuesday. “When the Supreme Court rules, probably by late June, it’s a safe bet that Kennedy’s answers will determine the outcome.”

2:28 pm.Every now and then, a break from reading — the recaps of today’s arguments as well as the previews of tomorrow’s equally important questions in U.S. v. Windsor (Political Capital will also cover Wednesday’s DOMA case)–is in order. There’s a link to a nice artists’s rendering of Ted Olson making the case against Proposition 8 earlier today in this tweet:

Lawyer Theodore Olsen, representing same-sex couples, addresses #SCOTUS in artist rendering of today’s arguments: apne.ws/XadF9v — AP Courtside Seat (@AP_Courtside) March 26, 2013

1:50 p.m. Major media outlets issued assessments of oral arguments shortly after the proceedings concluded. Here is a selection of some of the coverage:

Supreme Court Justices Conflicted on Gay Marriage Case – The Washington Post

“Defending the 2008 law that effectively banned same-sex marriage in California, Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper encountered skeptical questions from at least four justices, including Anthony M. Kennedy, who is considered a potential swing vote in the case.”

Justices Hint at Fears of Acting Too Quickly on Gay Marriage – The New York Times

“In a vivid comment as the Supreme Court conducted the first of two days of arguments on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often a swing vote in major cases, spoke strongly about the interests of the children of same-sex couples, saying there were an estimated 40,000 such children in California alone. ‘They want their parents to have full recognition,’ Mr. Kennedy said.”

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban – The Huffington Post

“The justices spent a good deal of time in the first half of the hour examining whether the parties defending Prop. 8 had legal standing, and seemed to cast doubt on whether they did. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that the case may not reach the central issue of whether gay couples are entitled to marriage, and might fall on issues of standing.”

High Court Hears Arguments on Calif. Gay Marriage Ban – Associated Press

“The Supreme Court is raising the prospect that it will find a way out of the case over California’s ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a substantial ruling on whether gays have a right to marry.”

Justices Wary of Broad Ruling Endorsing Gay Marriage – Reuters

“As the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on the delicate and divisive issue of gay marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed doubt that California opponents of gay marriage had a right to be heard in federal court.”

Supreme Court Justices Wary of Sweeping Vote on Gay Marriage – Politico

“The country may seem to be in a hurry on same-sex marriage, but not the Supreme Court.”

1:20 p.m. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, in his recap of this morning’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, details the options before members of the Court in this case and includes reactions from the Justices. Justice Kennedy, Denniston writes, “appeared to be troubled about the Court entering ‘uncharted waters,’ on the core issue of who may marry, but at the same time, he also did not look comfortable with any of the other, more limited options. So he openly wondered why the Court had agreed even to hear this case.’”

12:50 p.m. The audio recording of today’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop. 8) is now available at this link, as is the transcript of the proceedings.

12:40 p.m. Here’s a nice state-by-state look at same-sex marriage laws, from Bloomberg Visual Data reporter @AlexTribou.

12:20 p.m. There’s an abundance of analysis to review. First up is SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein’s take on today’s oral arguments. Goldstein already has predicted how the Justices might vote on the case. It comes down to the question of “standing”:

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

As for the constitutionality of Proposition 8, there is equal division among all the Justices–other than Justice Kennedy –along ideological lines, Goldstein notes. “For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.”

Read Goldstein’s full report here.

12:00 p.m. Charles Cooper is now addressing reporters. “We believe that Proposition 8 is constitutional and the place for redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts.”

Charles Cooper, who argued for proponents of Proposition 8. #SCOTUS twitter.com/learyreports/s… — Alex Leary (@learyreports) March 26, 2013

11:52 a.m. David Boies is now addressing reporters outside the Supreme Court, and cautions people not to read too much into the questions asked by the Justices. Ted Olson says, “the questions might not even reveal how they’re thinking…they put every advocate to the test.” The live feed is being carried by Reuters at this link.

Boies and Olson outside #Scotus talking to the press. twitter.com/josephax/statu… — Joseph Ax (@josephax) March 26, 2013

11:39 a.m. With arguments now completed, SCOTUSblog, via its Twitter feed, is predicting that the Supreme Court will neither uphold nor strike down Proposition 8 — “Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.”

11:32 a.m. Much of the discussion has centered on the question of the effects on children of having same-sex parents. Justice Antonin Scalia noted that there’s “considerable disagreement” over this question. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child?”, he said, according to Bloomberg News. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not.”

11:28 a.m.

SCOTUS Breyer, Kagan + Ginsburg question Prop. 8 argument gay unions interfere with goal of marriage: procreation. ow.ly/jqK7C — JamesVGrimaldi (@JamesVGrimaldi) March 26, 2013

11:20 a.m. From the Wall Street Journal’s live coverage:

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominated the questioning at the end of Mr. Cooper’s argument time. Each of the three justices questioned the argument that same-sex marriage interferes with a traditional goal of marriage: procreation.

11:14 a.m. SCOTUSblog is back with another update from inside the courtroom. Blog founder Tom Goldstein is taking a strong stand, saying there are not five votes to strike down Prop. 8. He was one of the few observers to call the Obamacare cases correctly.

There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 26, 2013

11:04 a.m. Arguments are nearing the one-hour mark. The Court announced on March 19 that audiotapes of today’s arguments will be released in short order, no later than 1 p.m. this afternoon, according to the announcement (via SCOTUSblog). Visit the Court’s website at www.supremecourt.gov to access the materials. (Update 11:10 a.m. – Chief Justice Roberts has allotted a few more minutes to the parties.)

10:59 a.m. Here’s a shot of the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, shortly before the start of oral arguments this morning:

The first picture of the #Prop8 plaintiffs in the Supreme Court today, up at @buzzfeed: bit.ly/11GYwKH #SCOTUS — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 26, 2013

10:57 a.m. The Wall Street Journal has some of the details on Chief Justice John Roberts’s comments during this morning’s oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry:

Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether Mr. Cooper’s clients were any different from any other citizens of California to be able to defend Prop 8, when the state’s elected officials refused to do so. Mr. Cooper argued that the California Supreme Court had argued that the citizens had a vital interest to have the law defended and had agreed his clients could do so, since the state was refusing to defend the initiative approved by voters.

10:54 a.m. Here’s the link to the full Bloomberg News story by Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr, reporting on Justice Kennedy’s remarks.

10:46 We’re waiting on more details as reporters emerge from the arguments to report on the proceedings. This is one exchange we’ll be looking for more on:

U.S. Chief Justice Roberts, midway into gay marriage arguments, raises doubts about California case #breaking #Prop8 — Reuters Top News (@Reuters) March 26, 2013

10:44 a.m. Bloomberg News’s Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr report that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in early questioning, “suggested that children of same-sex couples suffer an “immediate legal injury” from California’s ban. ‘They want their parents to have full recognition and status,’ Kennedy said. ‘The voices of those children’ is important, he suggested.”

10:40 a.m. Here’s a BREAKING update from SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed –

Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 26, 2013

10:25 a.m.

If a history of discrimination were sufficient to justify its perpetual existence, as Proponents argue, our public schools, drinking fountains, and swimming pools would still be segregated by race, our government workplaces and military institutions would still be largely off-limits to one sex–and to gays and lesbians, and marriage would still be unattainable for interracial couples. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men, and lesbians from the most important relationship in life.

‘In respect of all civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.’ Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896)

–Hollingsworth v. Perry, Brief For Respondents

10:21 a.m.

The arguments this week pose an unusually stark choice among the radically different paths of heroism, restraint, not deciding and minimalism. The lawyers will be offering some highly technical arguments. But the competing analogies, and history’s likely verdict, loom large in the background. — Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley Professor at Harvard Law School, writing for Bloomberg View.

10:07 a.m. Bloomberg News is reporting that oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Texas are underway.

10:00 a.m. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs challenging California’s Proposition 8 have a lot to do with the attention that’s been focused on the case over the past three years–Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Legal veterans, both, they were unlikely allies, it seemed, when they first emerged as partners on the case in 2009, given their differing political views. The two had faced each other in Bush v. Gore. But as The American Lawyer reported in “Marriage Brokers,” a March 2011 profile (subscription required) of the lawyers and the case, the pairing was “a culmination of a professional and personal relationship that bloomed over the past decade.”

As Ross Todd reported then, “The case is the most closely watched that either lawyer has handled since their election showdown. And, one way or the other, it will shape their professional legacies.”

Olson, a legendary Supreme Court attorney, now stands before the Justices to argue the case for the plaintiffs.

“Lawyers sometimes get caught up in what they want to accomplish and what their goals are,” he has said. “We represent four people whose lives are in our hands, in a sense. We want them to have their goal. We want them to be married and to be treated as equals in California…We can’t forget that we’re representing human beings.”

9:40 a.m. Who’s arguing the case against same-sex marriage rights?

Charles (Chuck) Cooper, the founder and chairman of Washington, D.C.-based litigation boutique Cooper & Kirk, is the attorney for the sponsors in Hollingsworth v. Perry . He is a champion of conservative causes, the Wall Street Journal notes, “including preserving gun rights and limiting affirmative action and gay rights.”

A graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, Cooper was a clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (1978-79) and to Judge Paul Roney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1977-78).

“Chuck is a traditionalist,” Kenneth Starr told the Wall Street Journal. “[He] has great and abiding respect for traditions embodied in law—a historic position in American jurisprudence.”

9:27 a.m. There are just over 30 minutes to go before the Court opens for business. A procedural note, via SCOTUSblog:

At 10 a.m. on both Tuesday, March 26 and Wednesday, March 27 we expect opinions argued in cases… Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe previews the case here.

9:13 a.m. “The Phelps family has arrived,” reports Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed, via Twitpic. Phelps patriarch Fred Phelps, Sr., who heads the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, is a staunch gay marriage opponent. Follow Geidner’s Twitter stream for frequent photo updates.

The Phelps family has arrived. #SCOTUS twitpic.com/ceihm6

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 26, 2013

9:09 a.m. Lawyers Ted Olson (left) and David Boies are on the way to the courthouse. Olson is arguing against Prop 8 today.

On the way to #Scotus #time4marriage twitter.com/BoutrousTed/st…

— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) March 26, 2013

And the New York Times’ Adam Liptak reports the reporters are getting restless.

The ordinarily sleepy #scotus pressroom is as crowded and anxious as a European train station in wartime

— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) March 26, 2013

8:43 a.m. The wait is almost over for everyone standing on line at the Supreme Court this morning. Spotted among the crowd was director Rob Reiner (click here for a photo), as AP legal affairs reporter Mark Sherman noted via Twitter:

Actor-director Rob Reiner at the head of line for gay marriage argument. Must have missed him waiting out front all weekend. #gaymarriage

— Mark Sherman (@shermancourt) March 26, 2013

Reiner is one of the founders of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage. “I was raised in a political family,” he told the Huffington Postin March of last year. “Civil rights issues were talked about around my kitchen table. People say, ‘Do you remember where you were when President Kennedy died?’ Well, I remember where I was when Medgar Evers died. This was something I was raised in. [Gay rights] is an extension of the civil rights movement. There are basic civil rights denied to people.”

8:20 a.m. A big development in this debate in recent weeks has been the increasing support for gay marriage, notably among Republican lawmakers. As Bloomberg News reports, two Democratic senators have joined the “growing and bipartisan chorus of support” for same-sex marriage. Saying it is the “fair and right thing to do,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia expressed his support on Monday. Late last week, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri became the second sitting U.S. Senator in recent weeks to endorse gay marriage. “I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love,” McCaskill wrote on her Tumblr page. (McCaskill’s statement follows an announcement by Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio earlier in March that he supports same-sex marriage. Noting that his son, Will, told his parents that he is gay two years ago, Portman admitted his stance “isn’t how I’ve always felt.”)

7:55 a.m. Welcome to Day One of the Supreme Court oral arguments in this week’s landmark gay marriage cases – Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. This is your blog to all the action. Reload this page throughout the day for our latest updates.

We’ll be aggregating the best coverage from across the Bloomberg media universe, as well as from other news outlets, the blogosphere and social media channels. And we’ll do the same on Wednesday in U.S. v. Windsor.

Up first shortly after 10 a.m. ET Tuesday is Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the court will consider whether there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. The case stems from California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in that state.

Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr has outlined the issues in both cases here. Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia spoke with SCOTUSblog* founder and noted Supreme Court attorney Tom Goldstein – watch the video interview here.

Dimitra Kessenides is an editor and blogger with the multimedia team at Bloomberg Law.

*Bloomberg Law is a sponsor of SCOTUSblog.

Original post is Live Blog: Tuesday’s Gay Marriage Arguments at Supreme Court by Political Capital.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama host a Passover Seder Dinner for family, staff and friends, in the Old Family Dining Room of the White House, March 25, 2013.

It’s a holy week, on the front end, and on the back.

And tonight, President Barack Obama celebrated Passover at the White House at the start of a week that will end with Easter. Pete Souza, the White House photographer, is working overtime:

Photo of POTUS at Passover Seder Dinner: bit.ly/YB2rJn

— petesouza (@petesouza) March 26, 2013

and the first lady:

Photo of FLOTUS lighting candle at Passover Seder Dinner at WH tonight: bit.ly/ZnXSxU

— petesouza (@petesouza) March 26, 2013

Original post is First Seder: Obama’s Passover by Political Capital.

Photograph by Johannese Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

Boxes of rosaries with a picture of Pope Francis in a gift shop at St Peter’s square on March 14, 2013 at the Vatican, a day after his election.

President Barack Obama has offered House Speaker John Boehner, a Catholic, a trip to the Vatican.

The speaker, immersed in budget talks, has declined.

Plus, the prime minister of Ireland is coming to Washington for St. Patrick’s Day-centered festivities.

Pope Francis may be getting his formal investiture in Rome, but Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny is going to the White House on Tuesday for the annual Shamrock ceremony that dates to Harry Truman’s days and a St. Patrick’s Day (two days later) luncheon at the Capitol.

Obama plans to join the Taoiseach at the Capitol luncheon.

Yet Boehner will not be joining Vice President Joe Biden, the nation’s highest ranking Catholic politician, in Rome.

“I am grateful for the invitation to attend the papal investiture in Rome with Vice President Biden, and would like to be able to join the trip,” the speaker said today in a statement released by his office. “Unfortunately, my duties in the House next week – including hosting President Obama and the Prime Minister of Ireland at the Capitol on Tuesday, and the debate on the budget – make that impossible. ”

“I wish the vice president all the best in his journey, and hope he communicates the prayers and warm regards of every American, especially Catholics, to the first pope from the Americas.”

Mark Silva contributed to this report. 

Original post is Boehner Passes on Rome with Biden, Hosting Irish PM for Paddy’s Lunch by Political Capital.

Photograph by Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images

White smoke rises from the chimney on the roof of the Sistine Chapel meaning that cardinals elected a new pope on the second day of their secret conclave on March 13, 2013 at the Vatican.

Updated repeatedly from 3:18 to 6:40 pm EDT

White smoke in Rome: Better than any exit poll.

This is how the word was spread, online:

HABEMUS PAPAM \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/

— VaticanCommunication (@PCCS_VA) March 13, 2013

A cardinal, by tradition, would announce this — Latin for “We have a Pope” — from the balcony of the Vatican.

But Vatican Communications beat the balcony to the Internet.

As Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman notes, President Barack Obama got the news from his deputy chief of staff, as the president met at the U.S. Capitol with Republican members of the House:

Deputy COS Rob Nabors gave POTUS note about #newpope and POTUS read it out to applause in the mtg w House GOP, per source in the room

— juliannagoldman (@juliannagoldman) March 13, 2013

Not every day the President breaks the news to you that there’s a new pope. Blessings on Pope Francis I. This is a historic day.

— Michele Bachmann (@MicheleBachmann) March 13, 2013

The president’s people later joined the tweeting — though tweets from this account are only the real Obama when signed “bo:”

Obama on Pope Francis: “I look forward to working with His Holiness to advance peace, security, and dignity for our fellow human beings.”

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 13, 2013

The president will dispatch Vice President Joe Biden, the highest-ranking Catholic politician in the U.S., to Rome for the celebration.

“I am happy to have the chance to personally relay my well wishes, and those of the American people, when I travel to Rome for his Inaugural Mass,” Biden said in a statement e-mailed by the White House. “The Catholic Church plays an essential role in my life and the lives of more than a billion people in America and around the world, not just in matters of our faith, but in pursuit of peace and human dignity for all faiths. I look forward to our work together in the coming years on many important issues.”

Democratic operative Paul Begala had his own take on the event:

Rumor has it Karl Rove is challenging the vote count in the Conclave.

— Paul Begala (@PaulBegala) March 13, 2013

When the announcement finally came at the balcony, it was Argentine Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio — the first pontiff from the New World. His chosen name: Francesco I.

Once again, Vatican communications:

Nuntio vobis gaudium magnum HABEMUS PAPAM Francesco I

— VaticanCommunication (@PCCS_VA) March 13, 2013.

And for the 1.8 million followers of the Vatican’s Twitter account:

HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM

— Pontifex (@Pontifex) March 13, 2013

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, a Catholic who had been with Obama at the Capitol, had this to say to reporters: “Reaching out beyond the traditional continent of our church is another big step in the right direction for the church.”

From his personal account, Boehner later joined the tweeting:

RT @xavieruniv: Prayers and blessings for Pope Francis I, the first Jesuit Pope! #amdg

— John Boehner (@johnboehner) March 13, 2013

The speaker also weighed in from his speaker-account:

Thanks be to God for our new pope, Francis I j.mp/ZLYqSr U.S. Catholics offer prayers & blessings to His Holiness

— Speaker John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) March 13, 2013

The White House released an e-mailed statement from Obama about Pope Francis:

“ As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than 2,000 years—that in each other we see the face of God.  As the first pope from the Americas, his selection also speaks to the strength and vitality of a region that is increasingly shaping our world, and alongside millions of Hispanic Americans, those of us in the United States share the joy of this historic day. ”

Then, there was this:

Bad news for Argentina: No country has won the World Cup during the papacy of a native-born pope.

— Paul Carr (@PCarrESPN) March 13, 2013

Original post is Vatican Tweets: ‘Habemus Papam’ — Francesco I, First From New World by Political Capital.