Posts Tagged ‘ SCOTUS ’

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 »

The ObamaCare penalty that isn’t

March 28, 2012
posted by

Jacob Sullum Reason
by Jacob Sullum  

"On Monday U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court the 'shared responsibility payment' required of Americans who fail to obtain government-approved medical coverage is not a tax. On Tuesday he said it is. In the first instance, Verrilli was urging the Court to address the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate in spite of an 1867 law that ordinarily bars legal challenges to taxes that have not been collected yet. On the following day, he was arguing that, even if the mandate cannot be justified as a regulation of interstate commerce, it is a legitimate exercise of Congress's tax power." (03/28/12)

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/28/the-obamacare-penalty-that-isnt  

No Comments »

ObamaCare battle reaches SCOTUS

March 25, 2012
posted by

Salt Lake Tribune    

"The monumental fight over a health care law that touches all Americans and divides them sharply comes before the Supreme Court on Monday. The justices will decide whether to kill or keep the largest expansion in the nation’s social safety net in more than four decades. Two years and three days after President Barack Obama signed into law a health care overhaul aimed at extending medical insurance to more than 30 million Americans, the high court begins three days of hearings over the law’s validity." (03/25/12)

http://bit.ly/H7aYKL  

No Comments »

Obama’s justices vs. Obama

January 26, 2012
posted by

Steve Chapman Reason
by Steve Chapman  

"Barack Obama, the law professor who railed against the Bush administration's disdain for privacy, has been to civil liberties what the Hindenburg was to air travel: an unexpected debacle. Time after time, he has chosen to uphold government power at the expense of individual protections. ... But there is one big redeeming item on his record: He has appointed to the Supreme Court people who don't entirely share his taste for aggressive statism." (01/26/12)

http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/26/obamas-justices-vs-obama  

No Comments »

SCOTUS won’t review Venezuela suit

January 26, 2012
posted by

El Paso Times    

"An Ohio investment group's lawsuit seeking to collect $100 million on three-decade-old Venezuelan promissory notes is headed back to a federal judge for further deliberations. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the case was a setback for Venezuela, which argued that federal law protects it from U.S. lawsuits because it is a foreign state." (01/26/12)

http://www.elpasotimes.com/nationworld/ci_19830443  

No Comments »

How GPS tracking threatens privacy

January 25, 2012
posted by

Jacob Sullum Reason
by Jacob Sullum  

"There is a chicken-and-egg problem here that reflects the circularity of the Katz test: Privacy is expected when it's protected, and it's protected when it's expected. We need to expect more, or we will end up with less." (01/25/12)

http://bit.ly/yHMC7V  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: Woman can’t sue over firing from church

January 11, 2012
posted by

Detroit Free Press    

"In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court today held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination. ... the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford on behalf of employee Cheryl Perich, over her firing, which happened after she complained of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act." (01/11/12)

http://on.freep.com/wVPwOF  

No Comments »

SCOTUS: Lawyer makes startling argument in FCC case hearing

January 10, 2012
posted by

Christian Science Monitor    

"Not often can one watch a former solicitor general of the United States directing venerable Supreme Court justices to observe naked posteriors of the marble statues that stand sentinel at the highest court in the land. 'There’s a bare buttocks there,' Washington lawyer Seth Waxman advised the startled justices during his oral argument on Tuesday. 'And there’s a bare buttocks here,' he said, pivoting and pointing across the ornate courtroom. The black-robed justices obliged the lawyer by following his extended finger to a sculptor’s rendition of gluteus maximus." (01/10/12)

http://tinyurl.com/795xbpb  

No Comments »

SCOTUS struggles with Texas election case

January 9, 2012
posted by

Raleigh News & Observer    

"The Supreme Court appeared to struggle Monday with what to do about holding elections in Texas for the state legislature and Congress in a case that could affect the federal Voting Rights Act and even the balance of power in the House. Texas'[s] primaries already have been pushed back once from March to early April amid a dispute between the GOP-dominated state government and minority groups." (01/09/12)

http://tinyurl.com/7u63f34  

No Comments »

Fight against EPA orders heads to SCOTUS

January 8, 2012
posted by

Wall Street Journal    

"In a case watched closely by energy companies and manufacturers, the Supreme Court is set to consider Monday whether to blunt one of the government's chief tools for enforcing the Clean Water Act. Based on 'any information' -- even a newspaper article or an anonymous tip -- the Environmental Protection Agency can issue an administrative compliance order .... business groups contend that the EPA acts as a judge and jury, forcing property owners either to comply, often at great expense, or risk penalties of up to $37,500 a day if the agency later obtains a court ruling to enforce its directive." (01/08/12)

http://on.wsj.com/wyqTVf  

No Comments »

SCOTUS to enter tangled Texas redistricting case

January 8, 2012
posted by

Christian Science Monitor    

"A bitter dispute over minority voting rights in Texas arrives at the US Supreme Court on Monday where the justices must decide which legislative districts will be used in upcoming elections. At issue is whether federal judges in San Antonio overstepped their authority when they took it upon themselves to redraw congressional and state house election districts without any prior judicial determination that maps drawn for that purpose by the Texas Legislature were illegal or unconstitutional." (01/08/12)

http://tinyurl.com/7u7h7gg  

No Comments »

SCOTUS will look at Arizona Know-Nothing appeasement law

December 12, 2011
posted by

USA Today    

"The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will take up a dispute over an Arizona law that requires police to check the status of people stopped or arrested if officers suspect they are here illegally [sic]. ... At the core is the dispute is how far states can go to try to discourage people from illegally [sic] crossing the border without infringing on the [non-existent] immigration-related power of the federal government." (12/12/11)

http://usat.ly/rAouim  

No Comments »

SCOTUS refuses to address child porn law

November 28, 2011
posted by

Christian Science Monitor    

"The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal examining whether an individual convicted of possessing child pornography can be forced to pay potentially millions of dollars in restitution to a child victim identified in the seized images, even when he or she had no contact with the child. The action leaves unresolved conflicting interpretations of a federal restitution statute." (11/28/11)

http://tinyurl.com/85tze33  

No Comments »

Camera in courtroom for healthcare hearing?

November 16, 2011
posted by

Fox News    

"Republican Sen. Charles Grassley and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi are joining C-SPAN's call to have cameras in the Supreme Court hearing room for the five-and-a-half hour arguments relating to the federal healthcare law. Grassley (R-IA) ... wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday requesting that audio and video coverage be allowed in the landmark case." (11/16/11)

http://tinyurl.com/76fbude  

No Comments »

Our Sponsors





Making a living off your Drupal site?

Drupal Managed Hosting

Fed up with Maintenance and Hosting companies?