Posts Tagged ‘ SCOTUS ’

Justice Sotomayor’s powerful defense of equality

April 23, 2014
posted by

The American Prospect
by Scott Lemieux  

"The core of the Court's 'political-process' precedents, Sotomayor observes, is that minorities have access to the state's democratic procedures. The Constitution 'does not guarantee minority groups victory in the political process,' but it does 'guarantee them meaningful and equal access to that process. It guarantees that the majority may not win by stacking the political process against minority groups permanently, forcing the minority alone to surmount unique obstacles in pursuit of its goals -- here, educational diversity that cannot reasonably be accomplished through race-neutral measures.' Reallocating power in the way Michigan does here therefore raises serious equal-protection concerns." (04/23/14)

http://tinyurl.com/k94afgo  

No Comments »

SCOTUS upholds Michigan affirmative action ban

April 23, 2014
posted by

Fox News    

"The Supreme Court has upheld Michigan's affirmative action ban, ruling that the state has the right to determine whether racial preferences can be considered in college admissions. In a 6-2 ruling on Tuesday, the justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to bar public colleges and universities from using race as a factor in admissions." (04/22/14)

http://tinyurl.com/mu6ct4r  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: Roberts denies Teva Pharmaceutical stay in Copaxone patent fight

April 20, 2014
posted by

Financial Express [India]    

"US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday denied a request by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to stay a lower-court ruling in a patent case that favored the developers of generic versions of Teva's top-selling multiple sclerosis drug. The decision could help pave the way for generic competitors of Teva's Copaxone drug to go on the market as soon as next month. Teva had sought to prevent the lower-court ruling from going into effect while the Supreme Court considers its appeal in the patent fight." (04/19/14)

http://tinyurl.com/kzbgry5  

No Comments »

SCOTUS eliminates limits on total campaign donations

April 3, 2014
posted by

CNN    

"If you're rich and want to give money to a lot of political campaigns, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that you can. The 5-4 ruling eliminated limits on much money people can donate in total in one election season. However, the decision left intact the current $5,200 limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate during a two-year election cycle. Until now, an individual donor could give up to $123,200 per cycle. The ruling means a wealthy liberal or conservative donor can give as much money as desired to federal election candidates across the country, as long as no candidate receives more than the $5,200 cap." (04/02/14)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/politics/scotus-political-donor-limits/  

No Comments »

SCOTUS sides with land owner over abandoned railroad right of way

March 11, 2014
posted by

Washington Post    

"The Supreme Court sided Monday with a Wyoming landowner in a dispute with the federal government that raises legal doubts about 'rails-to-trails' programs that turn abandoned railroad lines into recreational venues for the public. ... The railway line was abandoned in 2004. [Land owner Marvin] Brandt argued that the rail line was an easement, which becomes part of his property under an 1875 law. The government said the right of way reverts to the public." (03/10/14)

http://tinyurl.com/ktlzvx5  

No Comments »

SCOTUS dismisses “I Heart Boobies” appeal

March 10, 2014
posted by

Raw Story    

"Two U.S. students won the right to wear breast cancer awareness wristbands bearing the slogan 'I Heart Boobies' Monday after the Supreme Court dismissed a bid by a school district to ban the bracelets. The top court announced it would not hear a case sought by Easton Area Middle School, meaning that a lower court ruling last year in favor of the students will stand. ... Lawyers for the Pennsylvania school district had argued that the wristband’s lighthearted slogan carried sexual connotations but the schoolgirls continued to wear them citing rights to freedom of expression." (03/10/14)

http://tinyurl.com/llddtl6  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: Screw the 4th Amendment, police can do whatever they want

February 25, 2014
posted by

Christian Science Monitor    

"The US Supreme Court on Tuesday made it significantly easier for police to conduct a warrantless search of a home when one of two occupants objects to a police search but the other does not. ... The question in the case, Fernandez v. California (12-7822), was whether the girlfriend’s agreement to allow the police to search the apartment overcame Fernandez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from such police intrusions without a warrant. The majority justices ruled that because Fernandez had been lawfully arrested by police and taken to the police station for booking, his girlfriend’s subsequent agreement to allow a search superseded his earlier objection." (02/25/14)

http://tinyurl.com/pao9br2  

No Comments »

UT: SCOTUS reinstates marriage apartheid pending appeal by anti-family pols

January 7, 2014
posted by

San Francisco Chronicle    

"The U.S. Supreme Court halted Utah’s same-sex weddings while the state presses an appeal, reducing the number of states with gay marriage to 17 and slowing the drive toward nationwide rights. ... Utah officials said in court papers that, if it ultimately won the case, it might try to 'unwind' same-sex marriages." (01/06/14)

http://tinyurl.com/mxljmjd  

No Comments »

SCOTUS declines to stop Texas law on abortion clinics

November 19, 2013
posted by

Los Angeles Times    

"The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote cleared the way Tuesday for Texas to enforce a strict new abortion regulation that some womens' groups fear will prevent a third of the state’s clinics from performing the procedure. The court split along ideological lines in turning down an appeal to block the law that abortion rights advocates challenged as unconstitutional. The measure, adopted by Texas lawmakers in July, requires that abortion providers have a doctor on their staff who has admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic." (11/19/13)

http://tinyurl.com/ocfmr3t  

No Comments »

SCOTUS closes US courts to foreign human rights cases

April 18, 2013
posted by

USA Today    

"The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that international human rights violations with no direct link to the United States cannot be challenged in U.S. courts under an obscure 1789 law. In a unanimous decision with several caveats, the justices turned back a claim of detention, torture and executions filed by 12 Nigerians in 2002 against foreign oil companies they said had aided a military dictatorship in the 1990s." (04/17/13)

http://tinyurl.com/d5mta9n  

No Comments »

SCOTUS to rule on human gene patents

April 11, 2013
posted by

The Raw Story    

"The US supreme court will hear oral arguments next week to decide whether companies can patent human genes, in a landmark case which could alter the course of US medical research and the battle against diseases such as breast and ovarian cancer. A coalition of scientists, cancer survivors, patients, breast cancer groups and professional medical associations, which has brought the case, will argue that genes are 'products of nature,' like organs of the body and should not be exploited for commercial gain. Such patents are illegal and violate the first amendment, they say. They are challenging patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer owned by Myriad Genetics, a biotechnology company, because they say the patents have stymied research and the free exchange of ideas." (04/11/13)

http://tinyurl.com/ctnuyjt  

No Comments »

The Supreme Court’s latest drug dog ruling has a downside

March 28, 2013
posted by

Steve Chapman Reason
by Steve Chapman  

"The New Yorker magazine once had a cartoon showing a storefront office with the company name on the window: 'None of Your Damn Business Inc.' If it were publicly traded, the corporation's stock would be down this morning. That's because of Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Court in a case barely noticed amid the frenzy of interest in the arguments on same-sex marriage. The decision looks like a victory for personal privacy. But the beauty may prove to be skin deep." (03/28/13)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/28/is-privacy-going-to-the-dogs  

No Comments »

Uniting court … and country

March 27, 2013
posted by

Reuters
by Nicholas Wapshott  

"The comedian Peter Cook once joked, 'I could have been a judge, but I never had the Latin.' Instead, he became a coal miner. ... 'Being a miner, as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly, you have to go. Well, the very opposite applies with the judges.' It seems that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy may have been listening to some of Cook’s old records. ... Kennedy made a sharp and surprising critique of the role the court has played in recent years in settling awkward matters that would have been far better decided by Congress. 'A democracy,' he declared, 'should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.'” (03/26/13)

http://tinyurl.com/c4ywpxd  

No Comments »

SCOTUS rules for Comcast in class action

March 27, 2013
posted by

Reuters    

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of Comcast Corp in an antitrust case over how much it charged cable TV subscribers, further curtailing the ability of people to pursue class action lawsuits. In a 5-4 decision, the court said a group of cable TV subscribers in the Philadelphia area who accused Comcast of overcharging them as part of an effort to monopolize the market could not sue as a group." [editor's note: Does this surprise anyone reading this? - SAT] (03/27/13)

http://tinyurl.com/csjjxoh  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: That dog can’t hunt

March 26, 2013
posted by

USA Today    

"A drug-sniffing dog at your doorstep is a step too far, the Supreme Court has decided. ... Tuesday's ruling stemmed from a 2006 incident in which Miami-Dade police and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration set up surveillance on a house after being tipped to a possible marijuana growing operation. An officer went up to the house with a dog named Franky, who quickly detected the odor of pot. The sniff was used to obtain a search warrant from a judge." (03/26/13)

http://tinyurl.com/ce98orp  

No Comments »

SCOTUS refuses to hear appeals of batshit insane “intellectual property” verdicts

March 18, 2013
posted by

The Wrap    

"The Supreme Court without comment rejected attempts to overturn two big entertainment cases on Monday. In one, TV networks and TV station owners won a court order that effectively shut down Seattle pay-TV service ivi’s effort to offer viewers TV signals over the web without paying broadcasters retransmission fees. ... In the other case, the court let stand a decision that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Brainerd, Minn., single mother, owed various record companies $222,000 for illegally downloading 24 songs." (03/18/13)

http://tinyurl.com/bs6qykb  

No Comments »

SCOTUS nullifies Fifth Amendment

May 24, 2012
posted by

New York Times    

"The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a criminal defendant may be retried even though the jury in his first trial had unanimously rejected the most serious charges against him. The vote was 6 to 3, with the justices split over whether the constitutional protection against double jeopardy barred such reprosecutions." (05/24/12)

http://nyti.ms/LdLspP  

No Comments »

SCOTUS hearings on Arizona’s Know-Nothing Appeasement Law draw crowds

April 25, 2012
posted by

USA Today    

"As attorneys inside the U.S. Supreme Court argued the legal complexities of Arizona's immigration law and whether it interfered with federal responsibilities, a man stood outside the courthouse holding a sign reading simply, 'Thank you Arizona.' A few feet away, a group opposed to Arizona's law, known as Senate Bill 1070, chanted, 'Hey ho, 1070 has got to go!' On the day that Supreme Court justices listened to oral arguments to decide the law's fate, supporters and opponents gathered outside the Supreme Court and in different locations throughout Arizona to express their feelings." (04/25/12)

http://usat.ly/Ial7Jx  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: Immigration case weighs states’ powers

April 22, 2012
posted by

Reuters    

"A clash over immigration law will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, pitting the state of Arizona against President Barack Obama in a case with election-year political ramifications for him and Republican rival Mitt Romney. In its second-biggest case this term, the court -- fresh from hearing the Obama healthcare overhaul case -- will consider on Wednesday whether a tough Arizona immigration crackdown strayed too far into the federal government's powers." [editor's note: That's a sad boundary-issue to be discussing, when neither realm should really have such powers in a truly free society - SAT] (04/22/12)

http://tinyurl.com/76kd354  

No Comments »

Obama’s Supreme Court rebuff

April 9, 2012
posted by

Breaking All The Rules Breaking All The Rules
by SARTRE  

"Many Americans still revere the Supreme Court. As one of the three branches of the Federal government, confidence in their conduct and authority is usually higher than Congress or the Presidency. Yet when a real or contrived constitutional crisis develops, the screams and indignation arise and point to a convenient culprit. The current Obamacare case before this court has all the trappings of a full-blown confrontation. The reason is simple. The underlying question before the Supremes is not purely a legal matter. At stake is whether this country is actually a government under laws. Alternatively, is it an authoritarian dictatorship nuisance by irritating lawful restraints?" (04/08/12)

http://batr.org/reactionary/040812.html  

No Comments »

The liberal attack on the Court

April 9, 2012
posted by

Steve Chapman Reason
by Steve Chapman  

"To pillory or punish judges for doing their job undermines the legitimacy not just of the court but of our entire constitutional system." (04/09/12)

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/09/the-liberal-attack-on-the-court  

No Comments »

Point: How the Supreme Court will find the individual mandate constitutional

April 9, 2012
posted by

The Liberty Papers
by Brad Warbiany  

"Stipulated up front -- I believe that ObamaCare is a severe affront to individual rights, limited government, and the ideals upon which our Republic was founded. In my own view of Constitutional jurisprudence, overturning the law is a no brainer. But as with most things our government does, they’re not listening to me, so the question is simple: Does the Supreme Court have enough precedent to find the individual mandate Constitutional? I think they do." (04/03/12)

http://bit.ly/IuCCSB  

No Comments »

Counterpoint: The Supreme Court will find the individual mandate unconstitutional

April 9, 2012
posted by

The Liberty Papers
by Doug Mataconis  

"Brad is correct that the Court could construct a limiting principle if it ends up saying that the mandate is Constitutional. Perhaps this is what it will end up doing. However, it is worth understanding the importance of the failure of the Government to articulate a limiting principle when asked for one by the Court." (04/04/12)

http://bit.ly/IuC6Ux  

No Comments »

Does (or should) SCOTUS have the final word on the ObamaCare statute?

April 5, 2012
posted by

Independent Institute Independent Institute
by Melancton Smith  

"The real question is whether the Court should be the final word on the matter? That is, is the judiciary supreme? Must the executive and the Congress bow and move on to other issues. Or, should Congress remove the Court’s jurisdiction over the statute via the Exceptions Clause, which gives Congress virtually unlimited authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts?" (04/04/12)

http://bit.ly/HgMykt  

No Comments »

Founding Fathers helped argue healthcare case

April 1, 2012
posted by

Christian Science Monitor
by Warren Richey  

"US Supreme Court justices probably don’t believe in ghosts, but in the extraordinary arguments conducted this week at the high court could be heard the voices of the Framers of the Constitution. It wasn’t just Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, or Washington lawyers Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, at the lectern before the assembled justices. With them in a courtroom crowded with members of the Senate and House, scholars, and lawyers were some of the most outspoken leaders of the founding generation. If one listened closely their spirit was unmistakably present." [editor's note: A good analysis, and one that even properly labels the Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian continuing conflict - SAT] (03/30/12)

http://tinyurl.com/7vay898  

No Comments »

Our Sponsors

Making a living off your Drupal site?

Drupal Managed Hosting

Fed up with Maintenance and Hosting companies?





HEALTH-OF-THE-STATE-O-METER

Iraq Deaths Estimator

US Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush. Click here to learn more.