Court halts Obama's key climate plan... Obama climate initiative: Supreme Court calls halt Wed, 10 Feb 2016 - President Obama's plans to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from US power plants are stalled by the Supreme Court. See also: Intelligence Director: Climate Change Could Lead to Larger Refugee Crisis February 9, 2016 – Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned Tuesday that the effects of climate change could lead to mass migrations in the years ahead that will strain the western world on a much larger scale than the Syrian refugee crisis, adding that worldwide resources to support a growing population are “somewhat of a finite resource.”
Justices considering legality of profiling... Justices Divided Over Giving L.E. More Leeway Feb 23, 2016 | WASHINGTON The Supreme Court resumed hearing arguments Monday for the first time since Justice Antonin Scalias unexpected death and immediately plunged into a heated dispute over police powers that underscored how the remaining eight justices might find themselves increasingly deadlocked this term.
The Electrical Grid and the Supreme Court... Trio of Supreme Court Cases Could Electrify US Energy Markets February 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON A consequential energy case that cuts to the heart of the delicate balance between state and federal regulation of electricity markets in the United States made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court last week.
I work with utilities, none of them can define smart grid. It means nothing really. The common usage is about smart meters which are really just digital meters that can be read remotely via WIFI or the internet. A smart meter can be used by the utility to measure time of day usage and drain on the grid. Why? So they can move to a metered cost model in anticipation of greater demand for electronics and battery operated cars. Expect to see tiered pricing in the future. As for the grid itself, it has always been smart. It is managed electronically down to the millesecond. Every substation you have ever seen is managed remotely in case of a shut down, a power outage or some teleprotection related event. The entire grid is interconnected folks. Base power is supplied by nuclear power plants which can never shut down, ever. That forms the base electrical supply, around 20%. The rest is metered so that demand is satisfied on an hourly basis. Think of a power plant as a battery that turns on or off depending upon the need. The water behind a damn is another battery just as coal is...stored energy just waiting to be used. Its a fascinating industry.
Supreme Court to take up Obama immigration policy... Supreme Court takes up Obama immigration policy April 17, 2016 -- An evenly split Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday challenging the Obama administration's program that allows undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States without fear of deportation. See also: Supreme Court Considers Fate of Millions of Undocumented Immigrants April 17, 2016 | WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court will consider the fate of as many as 4 million undocumented immigrants Monday, when Supreme Court justices hear opening arguments in a landmark case debating the legality of President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
This is an extremely important case from a national interest perspective and the Supreme Court will consider four different issues but I have a feeling it's not going to come out like most might expect. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/ The federal court, and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals only addressed issues #1 and #3 while ignoring whether the Executive Order violated the immigration laws and whether the President has the executive power to issue the order but I think issue #1 is the ultimate key to any actual Supreme Court decision because I believe it's the only issue that will result in a majority decision. Does Texas have "standing" when the financial harm it might suffer, based upon the executive order, are a voluntary act of it's own legislative actions? Historically the Supreme Court has held that if it's the voluntary actions of the plaintiff that causes the financial harm, which is the case with Texas providing the subsidies, then they don't have standing and the case is thrown out of court. It becomes a problem for the Texas state legislature to correct by changing their laws if it chooses to do so. I believe there will be a majority decision to deny standing to Texas and that renders the other three issues before the court moot. But even if "standing" is acknowledged we still have a problem if the case results in a 4-4 split decision that's effectively a non-decision by the US Supreme Court that neither upholds or strikes down the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the lower federal court's ruling that President Obama's executive order violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals "stay" on implementing the executive order would remain intact but the "stay" only applies to the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and not to the rest of the United States. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction is limited to Texas, 3/4ths of Louisiana, and 3/4ths of Mississippi and doesn't cover the 26 states that joined Texas by submitting amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the case because they're not actual litigants in the case. That leaves President Obama with the ability to implement his deferred prosecution executive order throughout the other 47 states and in 1/4th of Louisiana and Mississippi that aren't under the "stay" issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Effectively this action would render the "stay" moot because undocumented (illegal) aliens that qualify for deferred prosecution only need to go to a place where the executive order is in effect, secure the necessary documentation, and then return to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction where they now have proper documentation to temporarily live and work in the United States. What I don't see is a 5-3 decision to strike down the executive order and in all other situations the executive order can fundamentally go into effect because we only have eight justices on the US Supreme Court. As noted though I believe the case will be dismissed by the Supreme Court due to a lack of "standing" by Texas to bring the lawsuit in the first place. That's the most likely decision by the Supreme Court based upon historical precedent and the historical precedent is so strong it could even be a 8-0 decision to dismiss the case due to a lack of standing.
Which of these present justices do you think have the courage to tell any President that he is exceeding his powers with any executive order? This isn't 1936 when 6 justices were appointed by Presidents who rarely made any executive orders. All of them were appointed by Presidents who overstepped their authority, and at least 2 justices were party to those actions in the past.
There's a more fundamental problem. Texas has never claimed that President Obama exceeded his presidential power (or that the executive order violates the immigration laws). If Texas hasn't made the claim previously then who's supposed to argue he has before the Supreme Court? Admittedly there could be amicus curiae briefs claiming he has but those briefs, without support of lawyers for the plaintiffs, really don't influence the Supreme Court very much and the plaintiff's lawyers have never made the claim that the President exceeded his Constitutional authority. In fact we would expect at least one of the Justices to ask the attorneys for Texas why they never claimed that President Obama violated his powers as president under the Constitution if those lawyers attempt to make that case before the Supreme Court. The plaintiff (Texas) might be compelled to admit that they never believed the president violated his powers of office in which case that issue would be dismissed for lack of a dispute by the plaintiff. Once again this issue becomes moot if the Supreme Court denies standing the Texas because that would dismiss the case without any decision on the other three issues and there's a lot of Supreme Court precedent to deny standing to Texas in this case. As mentioned I actually believe that "denial of standing" could be an 8-0 decision based upon historical precedent established by the Supreme Court. "Standing" comes before all other considerations on any case presented before the US Supreme Court.
You could be sure Scalia would bring it up if he had to write a dissent on a case like this. I think the precedent would be found in the 1936 NRA (National Recovery Act) decision. That would make good reading about now though I never studied the details. James McReynolds was Attorney General when Wilson appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1914. If he had remained Attorney General he would have had to defend Wilson's World War I policies against all challenges of law or press. Yet as a passionate conservative I think he voted against the NRA that he would have had to champion 20 years earlier if he was AG. The others had no such problem because they were appointed by Presidents who had no such radical actions (except of course Brandeis who favored the NRA and Wilson's actions. In this case all the Presidents who appointed these people to any job did similar things and none can escape charges of inconsistency.
SCOTUS okay with voter ID law... Supreme Court refuses to block Texas voter ID law April 29, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an emergency appeal to stop Texas from enforcing its challenged voter ID law. But the court said it could revisit the issue as the November elections approach.
SCOTUS allows remote search... Court expands FBI hacking powers Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - The US Supreme Court approves a rule change that could allow law enforcement to remotely search computers located anywhere in the US, and beyond.
Seattle business lose challenge to minimum wage law... Supreme Court rejects challenge to Seattle minimum wage law Mon May 2, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by business groups to Seattle's law raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move echoed by other locales, in a case focusing on how the ordinance affected local franchises like McDonald's.
Claiming that the "SCOTUS okay with voter ID law" is a false or misleading statement. The case is still under adjudication in the lower courts and the SCOTUS is merely withholding any determination at this time while the lower federal courts are still hearing the case. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the Texas law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act confirming the lower Federal Court ruling but it has sent the case back to the lower court to determine if that violation was intentional or unintentional by the Texas State legislature. If it's determined it was intentional then Texas could be re-subjected to federal oversight of it's election laws that ended with the striking down of Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act in 2012. The SCOTUS has merely deferred any decision until the adjudication in the lower Federal courts is complete or until such a time as the issue becomes compelling prior to the 2016 election.
Lil' sister don't you cry... Little Sisters Win: Supreme Court Tells Lower Courts to Protect Them From HHS Mandate May 16, 2016 The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion today in the case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, which have been fighting to not be forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees.
No more stackin' the jury against black defendants... Supreme Court upends all-white jury verdict, death sentence May 23,`16 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upended the conviction and death sentence of a black Georgia man Monday because prosecutors violated the Constitution by excluding African-Americans from the all-white jury that determined his fate.
That phrase "jury of peers is interesting. A poor black man's peers most literally is 12 poor blacks. Of course a white racist's peers in that state was always 12 white racist men. I think we know how those trials went.
It's funny. I've posted a few times in the thread about the Texas Republican platform and this little post fits there because it hinges on state's rights. Back then states could be counted on to make bad things illegal so the federal government was only concerned if interstate commerce was involved. Even the Bill of Rights was not thought necessary because the states protected those rights anyway. It was fear of the government that got those through. I think the term comes from English common law which literally means a Lord can only be tried before the House of Lords.
and where did that come from? 'Peerage' lol Which is those days was the way the state gave itself the ability to rule any damn way they wanted to. Peer requirement in the US is based upon 'citizen', and to make up for their loss of power compensate for it by stealing the juries power and now use them only in an 'advisory' capacity effectively undermining the jury system entirely. Cant give 'The People' any 'real' power as to how they want to be governed after all, that is reserved strictly to the state overlords.
There is no Constitutional requirement for a "jury of one's peers" or that the jury must be limited to "citizens" of the United States but instead the 6th Amendment establishes that the person is entitled to an impartial jury in a criminal case. The problem exists related to an "impartial jury" when it comes to the prosecution of minorities by exclusively white juries because of the documented and extreme anti-racial prejudice of whites against minorities in the United States. The likelihood of anti-black racial prejudice is extremely high when a jury is only comprised of white jury members and this has been well documented. Only a racially mixed jury can prevent a miscarriage of justice when a black or Hispanic man is prosecuted and that is the foundation of the Supreme Court's decision.
As a matter of tradition, Its a due process requirement. Of course you are singing to the choir While it isn't specifically stated anywhere in the Constitution, criminal defendants generally have the right to be tried by "a jury of peers." You may be wondering what exactly that entails. Contrary to popular belief, defendants are not entitled to a jury containing members of their own race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. The phrase dates back to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. At that point, the provision ensured that members of the nobility were tried by a jury comprised of fellow nobles, rather than being judged by the king. Now, however, "a jury of peers" more accurately means "a jury of fellow citizens." While courts do not have to ensure that a defendant's race, gender, or age group is represented in the jury pool, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts may not remove a potential juror based solely on his or her race or gender. Below, you'll find an explanation of the jury selection process and the constitutional limitations placed on it. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html#sthash.aXuEpNJX.dpuf People today are rightfully pissed. They made fools of all of us. You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU! Jury Nullification in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Oregon, and New York his year, four states introduced measures that addressed the issue of jury nullification. Even though all measures failed, it still reveals a greater level of attention towards the power of juries to nullify than it has historically received. Although two of these measures have been reviewed in previous posts, below is a collection and summary of the measures addressing jury nullification in the state legislatures this session. New Hampshire Over the past decade there have been efforts in New Hampshire to codify the right of juries to nullify the law, and to require that juries be informed of that right. These efforts culminated in the enactment of HB 146 in 2012, which was viewed by some proponents of jury nullification instructions as a victory, but by others as too watered down to be meaningful; and so efforts have continued. Two bills were introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representative this session. Both HB 246 and HB 470 were responses to a New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling in October 2014, discussed in a previous post. This ruling significantly narrowed the scope of RSA 519:23-a, the statute created by HB 146, by declaring that it does not provide a right to jury nullification instructions. RSA 519:23-a, reads: In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy. Both measures attempted to circumvent that ruling by amending the statute to more explicitly provide for jury nullification instructions. HB 246 was discussed in the previous post mentioned above, and would have added an additional provision to RSA 519:23-a that the refusal by a judge to administer jury nullification instructions be considered maladministration, an impeachable offense. This bill was killed by the House Judiciary Committee in February. However, this was not the only jury nullification measure introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives this session. Another bill, HB 470 , proposed to repeal RSA 519:23-a and replace it with language that would make clear the jury’s right to nullify the law and the defendants right to inform them of this power. Specifically, the language of HB 470 read: In all court proceedings, the court shall instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge the law as well as the fact and to nullify any and all actions it finds to be unjust. The court shall allow the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right of jury nullification to the jury. HB 470 was killed by the House Judiciary Committee in late February. The language of this bill is almost identical to the introduced version of HB 146 of the 2012 session, the enacted version of which created RSA 519:23-a. However, HB 146 was amended by both the House and the Senate, and by the time it was enacted no longer included any explicit reference to jury nullification. HB 246 and HB 470 are not the first bills since the enactment of HB 146 aimed at expanding the provisions of that bill. In 2014, the House considered HB 1452 (discussed here) which proposed to replace the language of RSA 519:23-a and more explicitly require that the jury be informed of the concept of jury nullification. The measure also proposed that a mistrial be declared if the court failed to provide such instructions. This bill was killed by the House Judiciary Committee. In 2012, the same session in which HB 146 was passed, two other bills, HB 1247 and HB 1397, were also considered that included more explicit provisions for jury nullification instructions. Both were killed by the House Judiciary Committee. Massachusetts Although with a much less contentious history, a measure was introduced in the Massachusetts House of Representative that required judges to permit the defense to inform the jury of their right to nullify the law. The language of this bill was very similar to HB 470 of New Hampshire. HB 1544 read: In all criminal proceedings, the court shall permit the defendant to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts by providing a specific nullification instruction to the jury. The instruction shall further inform jurors of their right to refuse to enforce unjust or unjustly applied laws. Although referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, no action was ever taken. This legislation was the first attempt to establish jury nullification instructions in Massachusetts in recent years. Oregon HB 3381 was introduced in the Oregon House of Representatives. This bill was also discussed in a previous post. HB 3381 proposed to amend ORS 136.325, which governs what information juries may and may not be given in criminal cases requiring mandatory minimum sentences and/or the adult prosecution of juveniles. The jury nullification instructions would have read: As jurors, if you feel that a conviction would not be a fair or just result in this case, it is within your power to find the defendant not guilty. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken. This was the first attempt to establish jury nullification instructions in Oregon in recent years. New York New York also introduced legislation regarding jury nullification. However, rather than attempting to inform juries of their ability to nullify, as the other measures reviewed in this post did, this measure attempted to restrict the nullification power of juries by informing them of a reason for which they may not nullify the law. Introduced as AB 6381 in the Assembly, and SB 1724 in the Senate, this bill proposed a requirement that judges deliver certain instructions to juries in criminal proceedings, including the instruction that: It is against public policy for a defendant to be acquitted of a charged offense or convicted of a lesser included offense based upon an appeal to the societal bias that may be possessed by members of a jury. Although introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate and referred to their Committees on Codes, no action was ever taken on the bill. This legislation was the first attempt to address jury nullification instructions in New York in recent years. bull(*)(*)(*)(*) smoke and mirrors pacifiers is all we will ever get. There is NO requirement for congress or the legislature to follow due process in the creation of ANY law. They can violate everything last word in the constitution and there aint jack you can say about it. They force you into the court system and the courts collude by protecting the state first and foremost. We moved from taxation without representation to EVERYTHING without representation! If you dont believe me tell me how your rep knows how to vote for any law without the people voting with official referendums? Now if you want an amendment to vote for, make it a fully empowered jury for 'ANY' case involving a gubmint OR ANY agency that functions as a regulatory/administrative public agency.
Justices rule illegally obtained evidence admissible in court... Supreme Court rules for police in search case Jun. 20, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.
SCOTUS upholds reverse discrimination... Supreme Court upholds affirmative action program June 23, 2016 WASHINGTON A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld the use of racial preferences in admissions at the University of Texas Thursday, giving an unexpected reprieve to the type of affirmative action policies it has condoned for nearly four decades.
