Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Future of the U.S Supreme Court

2016 Election U.S. Supreme Court Labor Unions Corporate Personhood Voting Rights Act

  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#61
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Oh crap.  Another potential opportunity for Trump to do further damage.

 

Anthony Kennedy Retirement Watch at a Fever Pitch

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...mors/index.html

 

Introduction:

 

Washington (CNN)Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who so often determines the outcome of the most controversial Supreme Court cases, is himself the center of brewing speculation.

 

Will he stay or will he go?
 
The rumors have swirled for months and the 80-year-old justice has done nothing either personally or though intermediaries to set the record straight on whether he will step down.
Helping drive the speculation, dozens of Kennedy's former clerks are traveling to Washington to participate in a private clerk reunion that occurs regularly -- and many of them wonder if it will be their last chance to meet with him while he is still on the bench.
 
Sources close to Kennedy say that he is seriously considering retirement, but they are unclear if it could occur as early as this term.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#62
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,518 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

This would really be horrible..especially if additional civil/LGBT rights cases come up next term.


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#63
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump's Travel Ban in Part

 

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump's immigration travel ban go into effect for some travelers only, blocking the actions of lower federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold.

 

The justices' action gives Trump a partial victory following a string of defeats from coast to coast. Some courts struck down the travel ban as a form of religious discrimination against Muslims. Others said it showed bias based on nationality and exceeded the president's authority without a firm national security justification.

 

It represents a setback for immigration rights and civil liberties groups that had bottled up two executive orders through legal action, exacerbating the president's battles with federal courts that began during the election campaign. 

 

The action isn't expected to set off the kind of chaos seen around the world when Trump signed the first travel ban into effect on Jan. 27. That's partly because travelers with a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" will be allowed in.

 

The original travel ban, which went into effect immediately, barred all travelers from seven countries from entering the U.S. even if they had green cards, valid visas or refugee status. It led to at least 746 people temporarily detained at U.S. airports, some being deported back to their home countries, and untold numbers of others prevented from boarding their flights at airports overseas.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#64
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Supreme Court Rejects Gun Rights Appeal

 

 

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

 

 

Introduction.

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

 

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

 

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

 

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

 The article goes on to quote Justice Clarence Thomas as in dissent of the Court's decision, complaining that the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

 

Scalai's statement only makes sense if you ignore the "well regulated militia" clause in the Second Amendment.  That clause clearly implies that the restriction to regulating the right to bear arms applies only to Congress and not to the State.  A conclusion with which the departed Scalia did not agree.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#65
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Alarming Tax Precedent Faces High Court Scrutiny

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/alarming-tax-precedent-faces-high-court-scrutiny/

 

Introduction:

 

Carlo Marinello, the septuagenarian former owner of Express Courier Group/Buffalo, was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for failing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal or corporate taxes on U.S. and Canadian-generated revenue between 2005 and 2008. 

 

Marinello was saddled with nine convictions, but only one involving the so-called “omnibus clause” of the criminal tax code has sparked controversy.

 

Casting a wide net, the statute punishes anyone who “corruptly… obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede” the administration of all 27 volumes of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Prosecutors argued that jurors only had to find him guilty of one of eight offenses listed against him, and a federal judge instructed them that they did not need to agree upon which one.

 

When the Second Circuit embraced this broad reading of the statute in October 2016, other members of the New York federal appeals court called for a rehearing en banc.

All but two appellate judges rejected that rehearing, however, in February.

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#66
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Judging from recent results from Google searches, I am beginning to think that conservatives do a better job of following the court than do liberals. Fortunately, there is Mother Jones.  Below is a link to an article from that progressively minded publication as well as the introductory paragraphs to that article.

 

 

The Supreme Court Could Prevent Millions of Workers From Suing Their Employers

 

http://www.motherjon...heir-employers/

 

Introduction:

 

Tens of millions Americans forfeit their right to sue their employer every time they take a job. In 2012, Sheila Hobson and three coworkers at Murphy Oil, a gas station and convenience store chain, learned they were among them. After allegedly failing to get paid for overtime work, Hobson and her colleagues took their employer to court. But when they had first been hired, they had been required to sign an agreement forfeiting their right to sue Murphy Oil and instead settle disputes through individual arbitration hearings. A federal court in Alabama found that Hobson and her colleagues didn’t have the right to sue, upholding the agreement they’d signed.

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court opened its fall term with National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, and two similar cases, that will determine whether companies can force workers like Hobson to sign away their right to file collective suits. The decision in the cases, which were heard jointly, has the potential to push millions more workers into individual arbitration hearings that lack many of the protections of the US legal system.

 

 

Following the Equifax hack, consumers across America were reminded that buying a company’s products often means giving up the right to class-action litigation. Upon signing up for these products, customers are required to forfeit this right and instead agree to go before arbitrators hired by corporations. Unlike the US court system, arbitration is conducted in private, making it difficult for others to learn of abuses. There is generally no right to appeal.

 

 

In rulings in 2011 and 2013, the Supreme Court upheld corporations’ right to use “class-action waivers” that force consumers into individual arbitration. Murphy Oil will determine whether employees can also be bound by those waivers. 

 

 

In the early 1990s, less than 4 percent of companies surveyed by the Government Accountability Office, an independent government agency, used mandatory arbitration for their employees. Today, more than half of private-sector non-union workers are subject to it, according to a report published last week by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. Forty-one percent of those employees—24.7 million workers—have also waived their right to class-action litigation.

 

171002_supreme-court-new-term.jpg?w=990

 

People stand in line at the Supreme Court on October 2, the first day of the new term. 

Susan Walsh/AP


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#67
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Also, from Mother Jones.

 

The Supreme Court Could Finally End Partisan Gerrymandering

 

http://www.motherjon...gerrymandering/

 

Introduction:

 

John Steinbrink, a 68-year-old corn and soybean farmer, represented Kenosha and the surrounding area in the Wisconsin legislature for 16 years. A Democrat, he won his 2010 reelection race with more than 99 percent of the vote in the blue-tinted district. But after Republicans gained control of the Wisconsin legislature in the 2010 election and unilaterally redrew the state’s political maps for the first time in more than 40 years, Steinbrink’s farm was placed in a new district, held by a Republican incumbent, that no longer contained the city of Kenosha but instead its red exurbs and rural farmland.

 

“It was much more conservative, much more Republican,” he says. He lost reelection to incumbent Rep. Samantha Kerkman, a strong supporter of Gov. Scott Walker, in 2012 by 11 points. “I kind of knew it wouldn’t work out because of how the lines were drawn,” he says.

 

Republicans replicated this partisan gerrymandering across Wisconsin, turning a purple state into a solidly red one at the state legislative and congressional level, even as voters across the state remained about evenly split. In 2012, the same year Steinbrink was defeated, Barack Obama carried Wisconsin by seven points and Democratic legislative candidates received 51.4 percent of the statewide vote, but Republican candidates won 60 of 99 seats in the state assembly.

 

The hard-right policies pursued by Republicans in Wisconsin—dismantling unions, restricting voting rights, undermining environmental protections, deregulating campaign finance laws—are the result of the creation of safe Republican seats that are unwinnable for Democrats in even the best of times, Steinbrink says.

 

Now Democrats are challenging Wisconsin’s legislative gerrymander before the Supreme Court in a case with far-reaching ramifications. In November 2016, a three-judge federal court in Wisconsin struck down the assembly maps as “an unconstitutional political gerrymander” that was “intended to burden the representational rights of Democratic voters…by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats.”

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#68
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

There is also Courthouse News which tends to strike  more neutral tone. Here is their take on the gerrymandering issue.

 

High Court Gears Up for Partisan Gerrymandering Case

 

https://www.courthou...mandering-case/

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON (CN) – In a case Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to as the “most important” that will come before the court this term, the Supreme Court will hear a partisan gerrymandering challenge Tuesday that could change the drawing of U.S. political districts.

 

Gill v. Whitford comes to the Supreme Court from Wisconsin, where a federal court struck down the state’s legislative map last year. The court held Republicans meticulously carved up the districts for the state Legislature to systematically favor their party over Democrats. 

 

The Wisconsin government has defended the map by saying it is the result of an inherently political process that dates back to 19th century Massachusetts, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry and his fellow Democrat-Republicans carved out a district people at the time said looked like a salamander. The combination of Gerry’s name and the shape of the district led to the term still in use today.

 

While challenges to racial gerrymandering have built decades of precedent for courts to follow, the casebook for political gerrymandering cases is thinner. Tuesday’s hearing in Gill v. Whitfordwill mark the first time in over a decade that the Supreme Court has heard a major partisan gerrymandering case.

 

In the 2004 case Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the judiciary branch should stay out of partisan gerrymandering cases because of the lack of an appropriate test to determine when a legislature has gone too far.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#69
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

This is more about the lower courts, but I figure anybody interested in the Supreme Court would also find the lower courts to be of interest as well. This also demonstrates that there really is a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans.  

 

 

How Donald Trump Is Remaking the Federal Courts in His Own Image

 

http://www.motherjon...-his-own-image/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) When Donald Trump took office, he inherited more than 100 federal judicial vacancies. It was a nearly unprecedented number, roughly twice the number that President Barack Obama inherited in 2009. Trump has moved quickly to fill these lifetime appointments with a slate of the most conservative and least diverse nominations since Reagan.

 

While Trump’s legislative efforts can be repealed and his executive orders undone, federal judges are rarely removed from the bench. By working to install judges with remarkable speed, Trump and his grateful conservative allies are creating a durable legacy that will last long beyond his administration. And as the minority party, Democrats in Congress have few tools to oppose him aside from a Senate tradition allowing lawmakers to block certain nominations affecting their home states.

 

Beyond new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump has already nominated judges to more than half the vacancies, putting forward an astonishing 18 names for federal appellate courts and 40 more for the district courts. Of those, 12 have been confirmed. By this time in Obama’s first year, only two circuit court judge and four district judges had been confirmed.

 

Trump’s nominees are, so far, roughly 90 percent white and 80 percent male. “You’re going radically backward, even further back than George W. Bush in terms of diversity,” says Chris Kang, a former Obama White House lawyer who oversaw judicial selections for four years.“The Supreme Court only hears 80 cases a year. For 99 percent of cases, the lower courts, whether the federal district trial level or court of appeals, has the last say and is the last stop,” says Daniel Goldberg of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal legal advocacy organization. “Whether they have a fair day in court comes down to who these lower-court judges are.”

 

While the average age of current US district court and circuit judges at the time of their appointment has been about 50 years old, according to a 2017 congressional report, Trump’s nominees for these lifetime appointments skew slightly younger. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#70
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

While we are on the subject of the lower courts.

 

GOP Senators Push Divisive Judicial Nominees Toward Confirmation

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON (Courthouse News) – The Senate Judiciary Committee approved five judicial nominees on Thursday, including a White House lawyer up for a spot on the DC Circuit and two federal district court nominees the American Bar Association rated not qualified earlier this week.

 

The votes on two of the three controversial nominees were contentious and fell strictly along party lines, with Republicans supporting the nominees and Democrats vigorously opposing them. Holly Lou Teeter, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, received a yes vote from all but one Democrat on the committee despite her receiving a not qualified rating from the ABA.

 

The ABA said Teeter did not have enough trial experience to earn a qualified rating, but as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., explained on Thursday, she missed the organization’s benchmark by a “matter of months.” Durbin said Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran forwarded “unequivocal” support from judges in the state that convinced him Teeter is qualified for a spot on a federal bench.

 

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama nominee Brett Talley came with no such recommendations and also carried the baggage of a series of blog posts he wrote defending gun rights. Talley graduated from Harvard Law School in 2007 and admitted to the committee he has never tried a case in federal court.

 

A member of the conservative Federalist Society, Talley told senators in written responses to questions posed to him after his nomination hearing that he worked behind the scenes preparing motions for many cases while deputy solicitor general of Alabama, even if that work never put him before a judge during a trial.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#71
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Legal Footnote: You Have to Look Hard to See the Supreme Court Correct Its Mistakes

 

https://www.propubli...ct-its-mistakes

 

 

Introduction:

 

(ProPublica) Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court often come with great anticipation and attention, even true drama. Anxious crowds gather outside the court at dawn. Opinions first go out on paper to the waiting hands of television news interns, who sprint the documents to correspondents to be immediately deciphered on the air. Justices later announce their decisions in open court, and occasionally read aloud the opinions.

 

But when the court fixes mistakes in its opinions, it does so very quietly. No press releases. No public reading of corrections. For most of the court’s history, the justices have only signaled their fixes and edits by adding the word “modified” in small type to newly issued print and digital versions of the opinions.

 

The changes thus have proved hard to find — not just for the general public, but for lawyers and judges and scholars of the law.

 

Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, an advocacy group pushing for judicial transparency, thinks that’s a problem.

 

 “The court does what it can to obscure its mistakes and to obscure some of the finer points of what they do,” Roth said.

20180102-scotus-errors-3x2.jpg

 

Ryan McGinnis/Getty Images


  • rennerpetey likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#72
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

So, all you pro-proletarian activists out there, still think there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the interest of the working class?

 

We All Must Live With Mitch McConnell’s Proudest Moment

 

Introduction:

 

(New York Times) Remember when the Senate confirmed Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, the veteran federal appeals court judge, to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly two years ago this month? It was a brilliant tactical move by Mr. Obama — picking a moderate, widely respected jurist who had won the highest praise from top Republicans, and giving the court a majority of Democratic-appointed justices for the first time in nearly half a century.

 

Oh, right. That’s not what happened.

 

Let’s pause to recall once again what did happen: Justice Scalia’s body wasn’t even in the ground before Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said he would refuse to consider any nominee President Obama might put forward. The reason, he claimed, was the importance of letting Americans “have a voice in the selection” by voting in the presidential election, which at the time was nine months off. It was his coded way of saying he intended to preserve the court’s Republican-appointed majority at any cost.

 

Against long odds, Mr. McConnell won. Now parked for life in the seat where Judge Garland should be sitting is the ultraconservative Neil Gorsuch, who we’re supposed to believe represents the “voice” of a citizenry that preferred Hillary Clinton by a margin of nearly three million votes.

 

That enormously consequential swap is already having concrete effects on American society, and very likely will determine the outcome of a case the justices heard on Monday — a challenge to the ability of public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for expenses related to collective bargaining, such as negotiations over wages, hours and working conditions. The plaintiff says his First Amendment rights are violated by being forced to pay these so-called fair-share fees to a union whose political positions he disagrees with.

 

 

Oh, there I go again, supporting the lesser of two evils. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#73
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

A thanks to Sciencerocks  for finding this article.

 

 

McConnell Promises Fall Vote to Confirm Next Supreme Court Justice
Source: The New York Times

 

By Carl Hulse
June 27, 2018

Quote

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell quickly promised on Wednesday a Senate vote on a new Supreme Court nominee by the fall, and Democrats will have little power to prevent confirmation of President Trump’s choice on their own.

“The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent on President Trump’s nominee to fill this vacancy,” Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. “We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall.”

The decision to move rapidly throws a volatile new issue into the already charged midterm campaigns and will provide new challenges for both Republican and Democratic candidates.

It also means that Mr. McConnell, who led the blockade against President Barack Obama’s choice in 2016, in the last year of his presidency, will have the opportunity to usher two Republican-nominated justices on to the Supreme Court in the first two years of Mr. Trump’s presidency.

 

 

Read more: https://www.nytimes....court-vote.html


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#74
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Kennedy’s Retirement Will Have Huge Consequences for Minorities and Women

 

 

https://www.motherjo...ties-and-women/

 

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy could signal a dramatic turnaround in protections for minority groups. More than any Supreme Court retirement in decades, Kennedy’s exit could strike a mortal blow to abortion rights and other protections for groups that have been subject to discrimination.

 

For more than 40 years, abortion has been a constitutional right for women in the United States. That right has been repeatedly upheld because Kennedy, a Republican appointee, was uncomfortable with undoing the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade—though he did limit it multiple times. But President Donald Trump will almost certainly nominate a justice hostile to abortion rights.  While the court is unlikely to ban abortion outright, it could overturn Roe and send the matter back to the states to resolve. Some states would impose stringent new limits on abortion or ban it completely.

 

Some Republican-controlled states have already prepared to ban abortion if Roe is repealed. As of today, 18 states will automatically ban abortion as soon as Roe is overturned thanks to so-called “trigger laws.” With that possibility now on the horizon, more states could pass those law

anthony-kennedy-6.27.18.jpg?w=990

President Donald Trump greets Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy after addressing a joint session of Congress in February 2017. 

Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#75
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Pro-Choicers Are Sending Coat Hangers to Sen. Susan Collins

 

https://www.motherjo...-susan-collins/

 

Introduction:

 

(Mother Jones) With President Donald Trump poised to nominate a new Supreme Court justice in the wake of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, all eyes are on senators such as Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins, who is considered a critical vote in the confirmation process. Today, the moderate Republican came under fire after an article in Maine’s Portland Press Herald reported that she “won’t factor a nominee’s support for the landmark abortion-rights ruling of Roe v. Wade into her confirmation decision.” Collins’ spokeswoman Annie Clark told the paper that “Senator Collins does not apply ideological litmus tests to nominees.” 

 

Some have interpreted Collins’ noncommittal stance as a potential threat to Roe v. Wade, which experts believe a more conservative Supreme Court lineup could overturn. In response, Twitter users have posted photos showing they’re sending metal coat hangers—a symbol of the pro-choice movement that evokes the dangers of illegal abortions—to Collins’ offices in Washington, DC, and Maine.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#76
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Trump Pledges July 9 Announcement on Supreme Court Nominee

 

https://www.courthou...-court-nominee/

 

 

 

MORRISTOWN, N.J. (AP - Introduction) — Moving forward quickly on a key decision, President Donald Trump said Friday he plans to announce his choice to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on July 9. He added that two women are among his top candidates for the job.

 

The president, who spoke aboard Air Force One on the way to his golf club in New Jersey, said he had identified a group of at least five potential candidates for the nation’s high court and he may interview as many as seven.

 

Kennedy, a key swing vote on the court, announced Wednesday that he would retire this summer. Kennedy’s news that he’ll leave the court next month immediately activated a network of White House aides, congressional allies and outside advocates, all set for their second Supreme Court confirmation fight in two years.

 

(Conclusion)

 

Steven Law, president of the Senate Leadership Fund, a campaign group aligned with McConnell, said the group began running ads Thursday in 10 states that Trump won in 2016 where Democratic senators are now up for re-election.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#77
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

What is Citizens United?

 

http://reclaimdemocr...itizens-united/

 

 

Introduction:

 

 

What is Citizens United? The short answer is it’s two different but related things: a Political Action Committee (PAC) in Washington, D.C., and a Supreme Court case about election spending in which the aforementioned PAC was the plaintiff. Both lie at the center of a debate over the role corporations play in society. Read on (in the linked article) for the long answer.

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#78
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Farewell to Anthony Kennedy  - Defender of the Infamous Citizens United Decision

 

https://theintercept...-court-history/

 

Introduction:

 

(The Intercept) SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he will retire effective July 31.

 

While appointed by Ronald Reagan, and quite conservative, Kennedy has occasionally been a wild card. For instance, he wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. He likewise authored the majority decision in Boumediene v. Bush, when the court held that prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay had the right to habeas corpus review.

 

But Kennedy’s greatest legacy will likely be writing the notorious 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which declared that the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on so-called independent expenditures by corporations and unions. Kennedy’s ruling contains some of the silliest, wackiest, most preposterous pronouncements in the tens of millions of words extruded by the Supreme Court in its 229-year history:

 

[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. …

 

The fact that speakers [i.e., donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. …


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#79
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

Dear Trumpians,

 

Don't bother reading the article linked below.  It is just about a very dull legal case.  If you do read it, you will just conclude that I am a purveyor of fake news and/or conspiracy theories. Since that conclusion on your part is already known, why waste your time?

 

Right-Wing,  Business-Funded Groups Are Preparing to Use the Janus  Decision to Bleed Unions, Internal Documents Show

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/30/janus-bleed-unions-state-policy-network/

 

Introduction:

 

 

(The Intercept) JUST MOMENTS after the Janus vs. AFSCME ruling came down, several conservative think tanks launched campaigns to leverage the pivotal Supreme Court decision as a means of starving unions of funds and eventually disbanding them altogether. The effort is aimed at encouraging public-sector workers in 22 states to withhold minimum bargaining fees from their labor unions, a shift made possible by the Janus decision. As labor comes under attack, the advocacy groups will launch decertification campaigns to nullify certain unions in certain jurisdictions.

 

Withholding the funds and dismantling the unions could have profound effects on American politics — a feature, not a bug, of the conservative activism following Janus. Many public-sector unions and the activists who work with them are affiliated with the Democratic Party, and the organizing they carry out is dependent on the hundreds of millions of dollars they expect to collect in union fees in the coming years.

 

“In the short-term, labor unions are going to feel the pinch,” said Moshe Marvit, a fellow with the Century Foundation. “They will simultaneously have to devote far more resources to keeping their current memberships, while having to adjust to less money coming in from free-riders. This will leave unions with less resources to spend on political issues and candidates that affect working people.” 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#80
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,962 posts

'You Get Played': CNN's Jake Tapper Corners GOP Rep Claiming She Won't Vote for Anti-Roe Supreme Court Justice

 

https://www.alternet...e-supreme-court

 

Introduction:

 

(Alternet) CNN host Jake Tapper on Sunday confronted Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) about her history of getting “played’ by confirming judges who believe that abortion right for women should be restricted or abolished.

 

During an interview on CNN’s State of the Union, Tapper noted: “You’re going to get a lot of pressure from groups and individuals who support abortion rights and one of the things that they think about you is that you get played by these judges and that ultimately, if you vote to support whoever President Trump nominates presuming the person comes from the list of 25, that one of your longest lasting legacy is likely going to be you vote to confirm a justice that ultimately tipped the balance of political power on court and voted to overturn [Roe v. Wade].

 

Collins, however, defended her record.

 

“I have year after year been named the most bipartisan member of the whole United States Senate,” the senator insisted. “I have proved my independence and more important, I cared deeply about who serves on the court.”

 

According to Collins, President Donald Trump promised her that he would not make opposition to abortion rights a litmus test for his Supreme Court nominee — even though he had said as a candidate that women deserved to be punished for abortion.

screen_shot_2018-07-01_at_10.19.38_am_co

Jake Tapper and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users