TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
PROBLEM: (CNN) -- The office of House Speaker John Boehner slammed comments by an architect of Obamacare who said the health care law was sold to the American public with misleading messaging, arguing Jonathan Gruber's remarks confirm the ill-will behind passage of the law. "If there was ever any doubt that ObamaCare was rammed through Congress with a heavy dose of arrogance, duplicity, and contempt for the will of the American people, recent comments made by ... Jonathan Gruber, put that to rest," Boehner's office said said in a statement Thursday. Videos recently emerged showing Gruber suggesting that the administration exploited the "the stupidity of the American voter" and the "lack of economic understanding of the American voter" in pushing the Affordable Care Act. Third video emerges of Obamacare architect insulting voters . In the statement, Boehner's office said, "the American people are anything but 'stupid.' They're the ones bearing the consequences of the president's health care law and, unsurprisingly, they continue to oppose it." White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest pushed back against Gruber's comments in a press briefing in Myanmar, saying, "I disagree vigorously with" the assessment that the White House passed the law by taking advantage of what they saw as the voters' lack of intelligence. "This was a very difficult undertaking but ultimately this is a law that has had significant benefits for millions of people," he said, adding that Republicans are the ones "who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices are available to middle class families." For his part, Gruber said Tuesday on MSNBC that he "was speaking off the cuff" and "spoke inappropriately." "And I regret making those comments," he added. Boehner's next challenge . CNN's Jake Tapper and Jim Acosta contributed to this report.

SOLUTION: John Boehner's office responded to comments by an Obamacare architect's comments .
The architect, Jonathan Gruber, said the law was passed exploiting voters 'stupidity'

PROBLEM: This week the Supreme Court heard two historic cases on marriage. Even though I was a lawyer in the litigation and in the courthouse both days, I can't predict which way the court will come down. But the outcomes range from nothing at all to fundamentally restructuring the foundational unit of western civilization. Hollingsworth v. Perry is about whether state laws defining marriage as one man and one woman violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Windsor asks whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal law and programs as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. DOMA passed in 1996 with 78% of the U.S. House and 85% of the Senate and was signed by President Bill Clinton. The whole nation is focused on the litigation. Ironically, it's possible that neither case will be decided on the merits. In Hollingsworth, California's governor and attorney general abdicated their duties by refusing to defend their state constitution. So pursuant to California law, the sponsors of Prop 8 — officially registered with the state — stepped in to defend the law, represented by Charles Cooper at Cooper Kirk and the Alliance Defending Freedom. In Windsor, the defendant was the federal government. But President Barack Obama declared that he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered his Justice Department not to defend it. So per its rules, the U.S. House voted to authorize Paul Clement  — probably the greatest Supreme Court lawyer practicing today — to defend DOMA. Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts. One requirement is that there must be adversity between the parties. Since the defendants in both cases refused to defend their own laws, the court will consider whether the Constitution allows these third-party legal teams to become a proper party to the lawsuits. There's a second issue in Windsor. Edith Windsor entered into a gay marriage in Canada in 2007 and lived in New York. When her partner died in 2009, Windsor sued to contest the federal estate tax she paid, claiming a spousal exemption. But New York did not create gay marriage until 2011, so Windsor was not harmed by DOMA not allowing the federal government to recognize her marriage, since if the IRS used state definitions Windsor would still be regarded an a single woman. Thus it's possible she lacks standing to sue over the issue. It also raises the issue of whether courts must recognize polygamous marriages, which are legal in dozens of nations worldwide. The swing vote regarding the Article III issues in both cases is probably Chief Justice John Roberts. He openly expressed skepticism in Hollingsworth and led the Court in an hour-long debate in Windsor solely focused on whether the court has jurisdiction. Assuming the court does decide the merits, the implications are historic. Windsor would alter America's system of federalism. Only the states determine who can get married. But the federal government is free to decide whom to confer federal benefits on — largely economic entitlements and federal issues such as immigration. Federalism is a two-way street. But if DOMA Section 3 is invalidated, the states will be able to dictate whom the recipients of federal benefits are. If Windsor is historic, Hollingsworth is earth-shattering. If the Supreme Court declares a constitutional right to marriage other than one-man, one-woman, then all traditional marriage laws in all 50 states will be invalid, and there will be a serious debate (already in a lower federal court) of whether polygamists also have a constitutional right to national recognition. On the merits, the court seems unlikely to declare an unwritten constitutional right to gay marriage, though arguments did not go as well for DOMA. Justice Anthony Kennedy is likely the swing vote in both. As Justice Samuel Alito said this week, the Internet and cell phones have been around on this planet longer than gay marriage. It is an energetic debate in all 50 states, and this summer we will learn whether the Supreme Court will shut down this debate by making it a constitutional issue on which the American people are not allowed to vote.

SOLUTION: Ken Klukowski: Cases heard by Supreme Court could result in momentous change .
He says there are questions of whether cases could be tossed because of special circumstances .
If court issues sweeping ruling, it could deprive voters of chance to weigh in .
Klukowski: Gay marriage is such a new phenomenon that court shouldn't freeze the debate .

PROBLEM: (CNN) -- Bayern Munich coach Louis Van Gaal has signed a one-year contract extension with the German champions. The Dutchman's current deal was due to expire at the end of the Bundesliga season but the club confirmed on Monday that Van Gaal's new contract will take him through until June 2012. Bayern won the title last season but have endured a tough start to the current campaign. They are sitting ninth in the table after losing two of their opening six games and were defeated at home by league leaders Mainz on Saturday. But chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge told the club's official website that they were keen for the coach to stay despite Bayern's patchy form. "I always prefer doing things which might not have been expected," he said. "People are always extending contracts after victories, so this sends out a very good signal to the world at large about our opinion of the coach's value, even though we lost to Mainz." Speaking ahead of Bayern's Champions League tie with Swiss team FC Basel on Tuesday, Van Gaal said: "My first priority is always the sporting perspective. Winning things is always important, and you can win things with a top club like Bayern Munich." The 59-year-old led Bayern to the Champions League final for the first time since 2001 last season, where they were beaten 2-1 by Inter Milan, then coached by Jose Mourinho. Van Gaal said his "outstanding" relationship with his playing staff and the board were major factors in his decision to commit. He added: "I couldn't wish for anything better. The chemistry's right. You get to know each other properly in difficult situations. We're seeing it again right now. "These are tough times, but the board is keeping the faith -- the faith which took us to the Champions League final in Madrid." Rummenigge said Bayern valued their coach highly: "He does a superb job every day. We're recognizing that with this contract extension." Bayern's captain -- Dutch midfielder Mark van Bommel -- welcomed the news. He said: "The coach signing a new deal is a very good sign. He's doing a great job." One of Germany's stars of the World Cup, Thomas Muller, echoed the comments of his captain. "Van Gaal been extremely important for me so far, he's made a huge contribution to my career. That settles the matter, which is good for him, for us and for the club as a whole."

SOLUTION:
Louis Van Gaal signs a contract extension with German champions Bayern Munich .
The Dutchman's deal runs until the end of June in 2012 .
Bayern won the Bundesliga last season and were beaten in the Champions League final .
Van Gaal unconcerned about Bayern's patchy start to the season .