Obama's immigration executive order gets slapped down... Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan Thu June 23, 2016 In a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court announced Thursday it was evenly divided in a case concerning President Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration.
I hope they'll block the crazy things Trump will try with even more enthusiasm. Presidents, including Obama are famous for ignoring the Supreme Court and I'm sure it will be Trump's campaign promise. The other case also interests me. The second-best job I ever had was at Northeastern University helping foreign-born students learn English so they could take regular classes. That means they went to foreign countries and found students who didn't even know English to recruit. That was brilliant! It did much for the school and I think was good for America, but if the decision had gone the other way doing such things could be challenged, couldn't they?
First they say usin' race is okay in college admissions, then they question it in re-districting... Supreme Court to review NC's use of race in redistricting June 27, 2016 The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Republican lawmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew North Carolina's congressional districts to give the GOP a powerful advantage in the swing state.
Right-to-lifers win case against Texas... Strict Texas abortion law struck down 27 June 2016 - The US Supreme Court has struck down a 2013 Texas abortion law that imposed restrictive regulations on the procedure. The law requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to maintain hospital-like conditions. See also: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations Tuesday 28th June, 2016 - The justices voted 5-3 on Monday in favour of Texas clinics that protested the regulations as a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state.
Granny says, "Dat's right - da fix is in... High court overturns former Virginia governor's conviction June 27, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday threw out the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in a ruling that could make it tougher to prosecute elected officials accused of corruption.
Should have been unanimous... Gun Ban for Domestic Assault Convicts Upheld June 27, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting people convicted of domestic violence assault from owning or possessing firearms, even if the conviction is for a misdemeanor.
Pharmacists lose their religious rights... Supreme Court Rejects Pharmacists' Religious Rights Appeal June 28, 2016 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from Washington state pharmacists who said they have religious objections to dispensing Plan B or other emergency contraceptives. See also: Conservative Legal Group on SCOTUS Pharmacy Case Ruling: ‘No One Should Be Forced to Participate in the Taking of Human Life’ June 28, 2016 – Conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom expressed disappointment in Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision not to take up Stormans v. Wiesman, a case that involves rules forcing Washington state pharmacy owners and pharmacists to sell the emergency contraceptives contrary despite their religious beliefs.
It should be noted that this is only if the misdemeanor conviction results in over a one-year sentence that could be either incarceration and/or probation by the court and not to very minor misdemeanor convictions. Even in these cases the plaintiffs had the right to appeal at a later date and have their right to possess firearms re-instated by the court.
In referring to the jury selection process in the link it states: Arguably in all cases the questions by both the defense and prosecution need to address racial prejudice of the potential jury member but we know that they don't. It would require that each be subjected to a psychological test to determine prejudice such as those used by studies that established that over 50% of Americans express implicit and/or explicit racial prejudice. So why aren't all jury members being subjected to testing to determine if they have racial prejudice? If they are racially prejudiced then they don't represent an "impartial jury" that is required by the US Constitution? BTW - Studies have indicated that 40% of blacks have anti-black racial prejudice so it's not something that can be determined by the race of the jury member. Every jury member regardless of race or background needs to "take the test" to determine if they have prejudice. Of course, based upon the studies, Republicans would probably be PO'd because studies indicate that about 8 out of 10 Republicans express explicit anti-black racial prejudice so they're not qualified to sit on an impartial jury when a black person is the accused.
I have to agree with this Supreme Court decision. The admission standards are actually a 'pass/fail' standard with the exception of preferential treatment for the very highest qualifiers that, due to economic/social factors, are overwhelmingly white or Asian applicants. So the University of Texas is already giving preferential treatment to whites and Asians in it's admissions. I also checked and the blacks only represent about 4% of the under-graduate student body while they represent 12.2% of the population of Texas. Allowing preferential treatment for blacks, to offset the preferential treatment for whites and Asians, is both logical and necessary. Basically it creates off setting preferential treatment in enrollment practices. Of course the University of Texas could end any preferential treatment by simply having a lottery where everyone that passes the entrance requirements is selected randomly for admission. It would be an interesting experiment if nothing else.
What I found interesting was that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas that dissented in this opinion did not disagree with the Majority decision that an undue burden was being imposed on women under the law but instead argued that the plaintiffs didn't have standing in the case. Their dissent centered on their opinion that the medical providers could not bring the lawsuit and that only a woman affected had standing to bring the case before the court.
Lower court's injunction against Obama executive order stays in place... US Supreme Court Unlikely to Revisit Immigration Case July 20, 2016 - Legal experts are casting doubt on the Obama administrations ability to revive an executive order that would shield millions of undocumented foreign nationals from deportation. It is a long shot, said New York Law School professor Ari Waldman.
Finally, some sanity returns to the Supreme Court... US Supreme Court blocks transgender toilet ruling Wed, 03 Aug 2016 - The US Supreme Court temporarily overturns a ruling that allowed a transgender high school student to use the bathroom of his choice.
Did you post the one where the US Supreme Court says that it is ok for the US Government to sterilize imbeciles. They said that three generations of imbeciles in a famiy was enough and that the US Government should sterilize imbeciles so that USA was not swamped with incompetence. I heard about this on Australian radio yesterday. Apparently someone wrote a book about it or something. Was this case before or after USA defeated the Nazi? Pretty interesting.
The Supreme Court has had at least one inbecile The Supreme Court has had at least one inbecile[ for 49+ years.
Pharmacists did not lose their rights to practice what religion they like, or not practice religion at all if one desires. Those rights remain. The pharmacists were reminded that if they don't like to dispense legal and regulated drugs in accordance with various rules and laws, they should get another damn job. Cry babies all.
First Monday in October comin' up... Legal Expert Predicts Evenly Divided Supreme Court Will Seek Consensus This Term September 23, 2016 – Don’t expect a lot of surprises or hot-button cases divided 4-4 by a deadlocked Supreme Court during the upcoming fall term, which begins the first week of October, says Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network.
What if one of them gets very sick, giving a window of opportunity for some 4-3 decisions, Don't forget, that's why some of them are still there.
Granny says, "Dat's right - Supreme Court stops Obama from muckin' things up even more... SCOTUS Rejects Obama Admin. Petition to Rehear Illegal Immigrant Legalization Case October 3, 2016 The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the Obama administrations petition to rehear United States v. Texas, a case that challenged Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnsons 2012 decision to defer enforcement of the nations immigration laws without congressional approval.
Hasan Akbar loses challenge to death penalty... Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Military Death Penalty Oct 03, 2016 | WASHINGTON The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to the death penalty for members of the military.
Deciding not to hear, is in fact an endorsement of those who agreed to hear. That means in those circuits where left of center decisions are expected, there is no incentive for Scotus to grant certiorari . In short a refusal to hear as many cases, does not necessarily mean what Carrie Severino says it does, nor does is the real impact, what she claims it is. You just vote to hear more cases from the two more conservative circuits but reduce the total number.
I agree. And Severino is wrong when she says "Supreme Court is the only branch of government that manages to reach across the aisle and achieve consensus" "progressives" do not reach across the aisle, any consensus just means one of the conservative judges caved in, or that Roberts decided he wanted to please obama again.
Texas death penalty case gets Court's review... US Supreme Court Poised to Back Texas Death Row Inmate October 05, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the case of a black inmate on death row in Texas who contends that racially biased testimony tainted his sentence.
Interesting case. Can't really make an educated guess on which way they will go on that one. The defense witness offered the testimony so it is hard to say whether the lawyer was ineffective or not.
