Posts Tagged ‘ SCOTUS ’

Supreme Court compromise: The case for a temporary justice

October 30, 2016
posted by

Cato Institute Cato Institute
by Thomas Berry  

"Senate Republicans seem to face an almost apocalyptic choice: either confirm a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court that could shift its ideological balance indefinitely, or continue to be labeled as an obstructionist party keeping a ninth vote off the Court. This is a false dilemma. Congress can give the president his choice of a Supreme Court justice without allowing that justice to remain on the Court indefinitely. Such a short-term justice would be the best compromise available to both sides of a dispute that currently seems intractable." (10/28/16)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/supreme-court-compromise-case-temporary-justice  

No Comments »

The Senate should refuse to confirm all of Hillary Clinton’s judicial nominees

October 27, 2016
posted by

Ilya Shapiro Cato Institute
by Ilya Shapiro  

"When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the #NoHearingNoVote position, he argued that, given the nation's polarization and that the next justice could swing the balance of the Supreme Court, this election-year vacancy should be filled by the people’s choice. It was a principled position, but a controversial and risky one. Yet McConnell's calculus has been borne out. ... But the McCain volley, launched while campaigning for embattled Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, is something new: are Republicans really planning to keep that seat empty for four (even eight) years if Clinton wins? (Presumably this would be in a scenario where they keep the Senate; Democrats would surely get rid of the filibuster if it came to that.) Doesn't that expose their motivations as purely partisan regardless of their high-minded rhetoric?" (10/26/16)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/the-senate-should-refuse-confirm-all-of-hillary-clintons-judicial-nominees  

No Comments »

The Legal Tender cases

October 24, 2016
posted by

David S. D'Amato Future of Freedom Foundation
by David S D'Amato  

"In the December term of 1870, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a statute authorizing the issuance of U.S. notes (or 'greenbacks') and making those notes 'legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private.' That statute, the Legal Tender Act of 1862, was signed into law less than a year after the introduction of the nation's first federal income tax, a time of transformation during which the government of the United States seized an alarming host of new powers. ... The Court's opinion in the Legal Tender Cases foreshadows a willingness to yield to the accretion of power in the federal government; in the years to follow and throughout the next century, ever fewer fundamental rights, particularly economic rights, would rate serious judicial review, the judiciary increasingly acquiescing to government abuses of power." (10/21/16)

http://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/legal-tender-cases/  

No Comments »

Justice Scalia and Congress’s power to regulate immigration

October 20, 2016
posted by

10th Amendment Center Tenth Amendment Center
by Michael Rappaport  

"Claiming that the federal government possesses an immigration power through an inherent attribute of sovereignty is a stake in the heart of the enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment. This isn't even reading an acknowledged power broadly, like the Commerce Power. It is just making up a new power where there is no textual indication." (10/19/16)

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/19/justice-scalia-and-congresss-power-to-regulate-immigration/  

No Comments »

Trump will torch the Supreme Court

October 13, 2016
posted by

Shikha Dalmia Reason
by Shikha Dalmia  

Many conservatives and libertarians are openly flirting with voting for Donald Trump because they fear ceding control of the Supreme Court to liberals. They reckon that Hillary Clinton's judicial appointments are guaranteed to be awful. Trump, on the other hand, despite all his flaws, has no reason to oppose originalist jurists committed to protecting limited government and constitutional checks and balances. If it were any other candidate, this would be a reasonable argument. But this is Donald J. Trump we are talking about." (10/12/16)

http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/12/trump-will-torch-the-supreme-court-not-r  

No Comments »

Should racism in the jury room lead to a new trial?

October 4, 2016
posted by

The Atlantic The Atlantic
by Garrett Epps  

"Every American knows that, if charged with a crime, he or she has a right to 'a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.' What can a defendant do if the jury 'decides' by the impartial flip of a coin? Three centuries of common law cases suggest that the answer is 'nothing.' That's because courts usually won't allow jurors to testify about what happened behind closed doors. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a case testing whether that rule applies even when two jurors swear the deliberations contained overt racism against the defendant. A ruling either way would have important implications for a core part of the American criminal justice system -- the right to an impartial trial by jury." (10/04/16)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/should-racism-in-the-jury-room-lead-to-a-new-trial/502796/  

No Comments »

Supreme Court has a chance to clarify insider trading

October 4, 2016
posted by

Cato Institute Cato Institute
by Thaya Brook Knight  

"Insider trading is a crime that can put a person away for more than a decade, and yet this crime exists nowhere in our federal statutes. It is a crime created by unelected judges, case by case, with each case differing slightly from the one that came before. On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case out of the Ninth Circuit, which held that the difference between insider trading and lawful trading might depend simply on the relationship between the people involved." (10/04/16)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/supreme-court-has-chance-clarify-insider-trading  

No Comments »

SCOTUS takes a pass on Redskins, NCAA, immigration cases

October 4, 2016
posted by

Forbes    

"The Washington Redskins will have to remain on the sidelines while the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the government can refuse to register offensive trademarks in the case of a rock band whose Asian frontman named The Slants. The high court also refused to hear an appeal of an antitrust ruling against the NCAA over how much financial aid colleges can award to athletes and declined the Obama administration's request to rehear the appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that halted the administration's plan to award semi-legal status to millions of immigrants. The decision not to combine the Redskins case with that of The Slants wasn't a surprise, since Pro-Football Inc., the firm controlled by billionaire Dan Snyder that owns the NFL team, is still awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the Fourth Circuit." (10/03/16)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/10/03/supreme-court-takes-a-pass-on-redskins-ncaa-immigration-cases/  

No Comments »

SCOTUS to decide if names some people don’t like can be trademarked

September 29, 2016
posted by

Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times    

"The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether the Slants, an Asian American rock band from Portland, Ore., can trademark its name despite the government's objection that it is an offensive term. This clash between free speech and trademark protection has drawn wide attention in part because the Washington Redskins football team is locked in the same dispute. Simon Tam, the founder of the band, said his aim was to adopt a word that had been a slur directed at Asians in order to make fun of the term. But officials at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office were not in on the joke, and they rejected Tam's application for a protected trademark." [editor's note: Trademark is exactly the opposite of free speech -- it's a claim of ownership of a word and a demand that other people not use that word - TLK] (09/29/16)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-supreme-court-trademarks-20160929-snap-story.html  

No Comments »

Schrodinger’s Supreme Court

September 6, 2016
posted by

The Atlantic The Atlantic
by Garrett Epps  

"The day after the election, the justices will take the bench in what will be, either way, a very different America. Perhaps fittingly, they will hear a case about a statute that withholds citizenship from some foreign-born children of citizens, not on the basis of religion or 'ideology' but on whether their mothers are married at the time of their birth. Harsh discrimination in immigration law may be a foretaste of things to come. Or it may not. Or to put it differently, who the hell knows? The Court is operating at a reduced level while waiting for a ninth justice who will determine whether the conservative or liberal wing will have a majority. Call it Schrodinger's Court. Like the cat in the box who is both alive and dead, the Court finds itself in a state of quantum superposition, a possible far-right Court shimmering simultaneously beside and within an equally ectoplasmic liberal one." (09/06/16)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/schrodingers-supreme-court/498707/  

1 Comment »

The battle for the Supreme Court

August 17, 2016
posted by

Future of Freedom Foundation Future of Freedom Foundation
by George Leef  

"Every case that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court has its unique factual setting and contentious legal issues, but in a large percentage of them, the decision ultimately comes down to this: Should the Court defer to the legislative and executive branches and thereby allow democracy to work, or should it overrule what they have done if their handiwork violates the Constitution? With all the furor over facts and holdings in individual cases, people are apt to miss the bigger picture -- the different judicial philosophies that shape judges' views. The clash of those philosophies is the subject of an excellent book by Damon Root, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court." (08/17/16)

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/battle-supreme-court/  

No Comments »

SCOTUS blocks lower court ruling against Virginia educrats feeling up students

August 4, 2016
posted by

Newsweek    

"A Virginia school board may temporarily block a student who was born a girl from using the boys' bathroom while a legal fight over transgender rights proceeds on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday. The case is the first time the fight over transgender bathroom rights has reached the Supreme Court. The subject arrived in the heat of a U.S. presidential election in which the makeup of the court is a central issue. In a brief order, the country's highest court put on hold an order from a lower court that had permitted the high school student to use the bathroom of his choice." (08/03/16)

http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-transgender-bathroom-virginia-appeal-law-block-breyer-487081?rx=us  

No Comments »

The landmark case that destroyed economic liberty

July 15, 2016
posted by

David S. D'Amato Future of Freedom Foundation
by David S D'Amato  

"If the Supreme Court's 1905 holding in Lochner v. New York is the widely reviled embodiment of the constitutional right to freedom of contract, then West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish is its celebrated antithesis. The New Deal era case has been identified with the beginning of a 'Constitutional Revolution' that freed progressive social policy to march triumphantly onward. But the official, approved story of West Coast Hotel, a case almost uniformly lauded by legal scholars, has it quite wrong. Far from heralding an enlightened era of reform, West Coast Hotel signals a break from traditional liberal values of freedom and individualism, a move in the direction of social engineering and control by political elites." (07/14/16)

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/landmark-case-destroyed-economic-liberty/  

No Comments »

Restoring “diversity” to the Supreme Court

July 4, 2016
posted by

Rob Natelson Heartland Institute
by Rob Natelson  

"Liberals talk a great deal about 'diversity' these days, so it is ironic that so many have lined up in favor of President Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. On important measures, Garland would render the Court less diverse than it is now. One measure of diversity among justices is where they received their legal education. The Supreme Court hears cases nationwide. Because an attorney's law school training affects his or her outlook as a lawyer and as a judge, it makes sense for the justices to come from a range of different law schools, but they do not. When Justice Antonin Scalia was alive, eight of the nine justices had attended only two of the nation's more than 200 law schools." (07/03/16)

http://blog.heartland.org/2016/07/restoring-diversity-to-the-supreme-court/  

No Comments »

Supreme Court legalizes influence peddling: McDonnell v. United States

June 30, 2016
posted by

CounterPunch CounterPunch
by Rob Hager  

"Until now, it has been the corrupt Congress, not the Court, that has been responsible all these years for the failure to enforce traditional conflict of interest prohibitions against the increasing levels of legalized campaign finance corruption of politicians who divert their delegated public powers to the service of their benefactors' private interests against the public interests of the electorate. While the Supreme Court has given the benefactors nearly absolute First Amendment protection from any laws effectively prohibiting the supply of political investments, it is the politicians who have given themselves a free pass to deliver the influence they have peddled in return for those investments." (06/30/16)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/30/supreme-court-legalizes-influence-peddling-mcdonnell-v-united-states/  

No Comments »

Supreme Court eliminates corruption! (by defining it out of existence)

June 30, 2016
posted by

The Intercept The Intercept
by Jon Schwarz  

"Back in 2010, the majority held in Citizens United that corruption should be defined only as straightforward bribes. Do big donors to 'independent' Super PACs get a receipt saying 'Received: $5 Million in Return for Cutting Your Taxes?' No? Then according to the decision, the donation did 'not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption,' and that's all that matters. Now in the unanimous McDonnell decision, the Court held that a lower court's interpretation of quid pro quo defined the quo too broadly, because for McDonnell to run interference for his generous donors with state officials didn't actually qualify as an 'official decision.' In other words, the Court first decided in 2010 that only out-and-out bribes matter, and now it has decided that only a carefully defined subset of bribes qualify." (06/29/16)

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/29/supreme-court-eliminates-political-corruption-by-defining-it-out-of-existence/  

No Comments »

Equal means color blind — not

June 30, 2016
posted by

Timothy J. Taylor Authority!
by Timothy J Taylor  

"[E]very SCOTUS justice should, by the mandate of his or her sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, vote to strike down any state law which does not protect all persons in the jurisdiction equally, right? Wrong, say Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Anthony Kennedy, in a 4 to 3 decision upholding a Texas affirmative action policy which blatantly takes the race of student applicants for admission to the University of Texas into account, and thereby denies equal protection of the law to whites." (06/29/16)

http://authoritycon.blogspot.com/2016/06/equal-means-color-blind-not.html  

No Comments »

SCOTUS turns down Washington pharmacy’s appeal against state enslavement

June 29, 2016
posted by

NBC News NBC News    

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to take up a challenge to a Washington state law that makes it illegal for pharmacies to refuse to dispense medications for religious reasons. The court's action, bypassing an invitation to wade back into the issues of religion and contraception, allows the state to enforce the law. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito called the court's refusal to hear the case 'an ominous sign.' The case involved a small family-owned business whose owners objected to stocking birth control pills." (06/28/16)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-declines-hear-pharmacy-s-religious-objections-case-n600261  

No Comments »

Why libertarians should applaud the SCOTUS ruling against Texas abortion regulations

June 29, 2016
posted by

Avens O'Brien The Libertarian Republic
by Avens O'Brien  

"I found this case particularly clear cut as a libertarian -- this was an obvious case of over-regulation, which caused more than half of the clinics in Texas to close. If any other industry faced this sort of punitive regulation, conservatives would have been up in arms, but since it was the abortion industry, many were perfectly fine with the law. The result of this law meant 10 abortion-capable clinics would exist in Texas to serve the 5.4 million women of childbearing age. Abortions, of course, are sometimes medically necessary, and this would literally put women's lives at risk, as well as creating undue burden on the right to abortion." (06/28/16)

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-libertarians-should-applaud-the-scotus-ruling-against-texas-abortion-regulations/  

2 Comments »

SCOTUS rejects Kwame Kilpatrick appeal

June 28, 2016
posted by

Detroit Free Press    

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's appeal of a public corruption conviction, possibly ending his bid to overturn a decision that sent him to prison for 28 years. The court announced its decision not to review the case on its order list Monday without comment. ... A three-judge panel last August upheld Kilpatrick's conviction on 24 counts that include bribery, extortion and fraud for steering work to a longtime friend, Bobby Ferguson, who also was convicted." (06/28/16)

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2016/06/27/us-supreme-court-rejects-kwame-kilpatrick-appeal/86424366/  

No Comments »

SCOTUS strikes down Texas law that treats abortion clinics like other medical facilities

June 28, 2016
posted by

CNN CNN    

"In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state. The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called 'clinic shutdown' laws. ... There were two provisions of the law at issue. The first said that doctors have to have local admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, the second says that the clinics have to upgrade their facilities to hospital-like standards." [editor's note: Texas Administrative Code Rule §135.4 requires regular ambulatory surgical centers to "have a written transfer agreement with a hospital or all physicians performing surgery at the ASC shall have admitting privileges at a local hospital." Apparently pregnant women aren't as important to SCOTUS as other patients - TLK] (06/27/16)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/index.html  

12 Comments »

SCOTUS: Amply serving law enforcement’s interests versus society’s

June 28, 2016
posted by

Thomas L Knapp -- photo by Avens O'Brien William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism
by Thomas L Knapp  

"Searching the shed behind my house would certainly be 'significantly less intrusive' than searching my closet or requiring me to open the lock box in which I keep important personal documents. Does this mean that the police should be free to poke around in my shed without procuring a warrant based on probable cause to believe I've committed a crime, if doing so happens to 'amply serve their interests?' No, it doesn't. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures isn't there for the convenience of law enforcement. It's there to protect everyone else's rights from abuses BY law enforcement." (06/27/16)

http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/6478  

No Comments »

SCOTUS votes 6-2 against Second Amendment

June 27, 2016
posted by

United Press International United Press International    

"Gun ownership can be denied to those who commit reckless acts of domestic violence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. The 6-2 ruling, in which Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, upheld sentences of two men who argued their prior misdemeanor domestic abuse convictions should not deny them the opportunity to own weapons." (06/27/16)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/27/Gun-ownership-can-be-denied-to-domestic-abusers-Supreme-Court-rules/3131467042146/  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: Bribery is fine if you’re a governor and make up a good cover story

June 27, 2016
posted by

ABC News ABC News    

"A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in a ruling that could make it harder for prosecutors to bring corruption cases against elected officials. McDonnell had been found guilty in 2014 of accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was allowed to remain free while the justices weighed his appeal. The justices voted to narrow the scope of a law that bars public officials from taking gifts in exchange for 'official action,' saying it does not cover routine courtesies like setting up meetings or hosting events for constituents." (06/27/16)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-overturns-va-governors-conviction-40160581  

No Comments »

Jim Crow is alive and well and attending the University of Texas

June 23, 2016
posted by

Thomas L Knapp -- photo by Avens O'Brien William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism
by Thomas L Knapp  

"When the expression 'race-conscious' crosses my field of view, it's usually a safe bet that the person using it is a 'white supremacist' or 'white separatist' chiding those of similar skin tone for not joining him in his dislike of those of darker hue. And usually the vast majority of us see that for what it is and reject it, as we should. Usually. But not when racial quotas and set-asides come up for consideration in the courts. Then racism suddenly becomes not just acceptable but mandatory, or at least de rigueur, in stark contrast to Dr. Martin Luther King's call for a society where we are judged on the content of our characters rather than on the color of our skins." (06/23/16)

http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/6460  

No Comments »

Our Sponsors