Tag Archives: US Supreme Court

The Supreme’s ok Trump Muslim Ban 3.0 to go into effect…

There are still appeals to the ban going through the Appelite courts…

But the High Court turned down the ACLU request for an induction /stay of the enforcement of the Trump excutive action…

The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Trump’s request to fully enforce his revised order banning travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries while legal challenges to it proceed in lower courts.

It was a victory for the White House, which has seen the courts trim back various iterations of the travel ban, and it bodes well for the administration if the Supreme Court is called upon to finally decide the merits of the president’s actions.

Two lower courts had imposed restrictions on Trump’s new order, exempting travelers from the six countries who had “bona fide” connections with relatives — such as grandparents, aunts or uncles — or institutions in the United States. Those exemptions to the president’s order, issued in the fall, were along the lines of those imposed by the Supreme Court last summer on a previous version of the travel ban.

But in an unsigned opinion Monday that did not disclose the court’s reasoning, the justices lifted the injunctions, which had been issued by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would not have lifted the restrictions. The new ban also bars travelers from North Korea and Venezuela, but they were not affected by the injunctions….

More…

Share on Facebook

The Supreme’s refuse to rule against Maryland’s assault weapons ban…

This has to be a surprise to assualt gun advocates…

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal from gun owners and dealers in Maryland challenging the state’s ban on military-style rifles and detachable magazines.

The Maryland General Assembly enacted the ban in 2013 after a gunman killed 20 children and 6 adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the ban. That court said the weapons are excluded from Second Amendment protections because they are the kind of weapons most often used by the military.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,” Judge Robert King wrote in the majority opinion, citing a landmark Supreme Court case from 2008.

Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 bans the AR-15 and other military-style rifles and shotguns, often referred to as “assault weapons,” and detachable large-capacity magazines….

More…

Share on Facebook

Supreme’s could rule against some union fee collections for teachers and public employees

…from the LA Times….

The Supreme Court is set to deal a sharp blow to the unions that represent millions of teachers and other public employees, announcing Thursday it will consider striking down the mandatory fees that support collective bargaining.

The justices will hear the case of Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee who objects to paying fees to the union, which represents 35,000 state workers.

The decision, due by next June, could prove a costly setback for public sector unions in 22 states, including California, where such fees are authorized by law. Labor experts have predicted a significant percentage of employees would stop supporting their union if given a choice. The other 28 states have “right to work” laws that forbid requiring workers to join or support a union….

More….

Share on Facebook

The Supreme’s conservatives just ensured that Latino votes still won’t count in Texas.

Elections DO MATTER….

On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court blocked two rulings by a federal district court that would have required Texas to redraw its state and federal congressional districts. The lower court had ruled that the Texas Legislature illegally gerrymandered these districts along racial lines and ordered new maps for the 2018 election. But by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court put that order on hold, ensuring that the gerrymander will remain through 2018. The decision may also indicate that the five Republican-appointed justices will eventually reverse the district court’s decisions altogether.

The Supreme Court’s abrupt intervention is a devastating blow to the years-long fight against race-based voter suppression in Texas. Since 2011, federal courts have ruled nine times that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters. Before Tuesday, civil rights advocates had good reason to believe that the judiciary would finally put a stop to the Texas GOP’s anti-democratic chicanery. Now it seems that the high court’s conservative bloc may thwart this progress and force Texan minorities to continue suffering under a self-perpetuating and racist system of vote dilution….

More….

Note….

The court has also backed Donald Trump on his Refugee Ban….

Share on Facebook

Supreme’s to rule on several immigration cases shortly….

The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on the travel ban.

Of the remaining cases argued during the court’s current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group. The ruling potentially could narrow the separation of church and state.

The church sued after being denied state taxpayer funds for a playground improvement project because of a Missouri constitutional provision barring state funding for religious entities.

Trinity Lutheran could be headed for a lopsided win, with two liberal justices joining their conservative colleagues in signaling support during the April oral argument. It was one of the first in which Trump’s conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, participated.

The most notable of three immigration-related cases in which rulings are due on Monday is a dispute over whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months while deportation proceedings unfold should be able to request their release. The case takes on additional significance with Trump ratcheting up immigration enforcement, placing more people in detention awaiting deportation.

The court also is set to decide a case that could clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be deported. Another involves whether the family of a Mexican teenager shot dead while standing on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas can sue for civil rights violations.

As the justices look to finish work before their summer break, they must decide what to do with Trump’s travel ban, which was blocked by lower courts. The administration wants the ban to go into effect while the litigation continues….

More….

Share on Facebook

Justice Kennedy thinking around retiring from the Supreme’s?

Image result for justice kennedy

Democrats worst fears for the nation’s highest court….

Sources close to Justice Anthony Kennedy tell CNN that he “is seriously considering retirement, but they are unclear if it could occur as early as this term.”

“His departure would cause a seismic shift and offer President Donald Trump a chance to continue reshaping the court. Trump’s first nominee — Justice Neil Gorsuch, himself a former Kennedy clerk — joined the court earlier this year.”…

Politicalwire….

image…politico

Share on Facebook

Supreme’s strike down North Carolina voting district’s rigging….

The High Courts calls things as they where meant to be….

Racially based….

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that North Carolina illegally packed black voters into two voting districts.

In a 5-3 ruling, the justices affirmed the decision of the lower court, which found that state officials used race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines without a compelling reason when they created two majority black districts — the 1st District and the 12th District.

Both of those districts are represented by Democrats; Rep. G.K. Butterfieldrepresents the 1st District, while Rep. Alma Adams represents the 12th District.

“Although States enjoy leeway to take race-based actions reasonably judged necessary under a proper interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, that latitude cannot rescue District 1,” Justice Elena Kagan said in delivering the opinion of the court.

“We by no means ‘insist that a state legislature, when redistricting, determine precisely what percent minority population demands.’ But neither will we approve a racial gerrymander whose necessity is supported by no evidence and whose raison d’être is a legal mistake.”…

More…

Share on Facebook

Counter against Schumer filibuster of Gorsuch to the Supreme’s…

I have said here that Neil Gorsuch IS gonna be a US Supreme Court Justice….

I’m comfortable with my call…

I’m aware that Sen. Schumer is in a tough place…

But the counter IS something to ponder….

The imperative of The Resistance is unambiguous, however quixotic the mission. Collaboration will not be tolerated, a message thousands delivered to Schumer’s Brooklyn doorstep mere weeks ago.

As a matter of political calculation, this is all well and good. Turnabout is fair play, and whatever the short-term ramifications, a majoritarian body will one day benefit Schumer’s party. But given the structural realities of the Senate map—Democrats are defending 25 seats in 2018, 10 of them in states they failed to carry last fall, compared to just 9 and one for Republicans—the “short term” horizon runs through 2020 at the very least. In the meantime, they’re not only paving the path for less qualified nominees in the likelihood of future Trump-era vacancies, they’re needlessly greasing an already slippery procedural slope. With GOP efforts stymied thus far in part by the specter of the Senate parliamentarian—the arbiter of what can pass majoritarian muster under reconciliation—how long until pressure mounts to change the rules for legislation? Given the tenor of the first two months of this administration, I suspect many Democrats aren’t terribly sanguine about the prospect of unchecked GOP control for the remaining 46.

Just a few short months ago, Leader Schumer was publicly lamenting his predecessor’s judicial power play; today he seems poised to reprise Reid’s folly, only this time with far greater stakes….

More….

Share on Facebook

Neil Gorsuch is a sure bet to be confirmed….

Democrats really can’t afford to actually stop him….

Despite the annoyance from Democratic activists that want Democratic Senator’s to push HARD against Trump pick?

That has too much risk for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer….

Right now Republicans need 60 votes to get Gorsuch confirmed….

Majority leader Mitch McConnoll has 51 Republicans starting off….

But here’s the problem….

Democrats have several Senator’s that running for re-election in states that voted FOR Donald Trump in November…

Those Senator’s can ill afford to have Trump dropping in their state this summer and fall helping someone run against them….

Added to this is the abilty of McConnell to change the Senate rukles to have just  a simple majority vote for the NEXT Supreme nominee which make the court a SOLID right wing one….

Thes things taken together for the long game ace out the push against Schumer to go too hard against Gorsuch getting the job…..

With him there?

You have about the same court President Obama had to deal with….

Hillary Clinton’s loss had a LOT of consiquences a lot of people on the left REALLY did NOT understand….

“When is it that [Democrats] fall on the sword?” said New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, summing up his party’s quandary. “Is it on this one or the next one?”

Exacerbating the indecision is the fact that a handful of Democrats facing tough reelection bids next year may face political retribution from the right or left, no matter how they vote on Gorsuch. The competing impulses have produced a public posture of apparent ambivalence and, according to one Democratic senator, a feeling that “there is no caucus strategy.”

It was really only last week — when a trio of liberal senators held a news conference to denounce what they called Gorsuch’s “anti-worker, pro-corporate” record — that some Senate Democrats began criticizing the judge’s credentials.

“There’s a fierce urgency at the grass roots that is not being echoed by the Senate Democrats,”…

More….

Share on Facebook

Democrats will fight Trump’s Supreme’s pick…

The fight to fill the seat left open Justice Scalia’s passing WILL BE intense and politically bare knuckled ….

Trump will need 8 votes from the Democrats….

Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to the fill the current vacancy.

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump’s nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.

Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly if he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote.

Merkley’s party leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has said he will fight “tooth and nail” any nominee that isn’t “mainstream.”

It will be only the second time in modern history that the Senate has mounted a filibuster against a nominee. Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, tried to block the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 but failed. Obama’s Supreme Court nominees each received more than 60 votes but Republicans did not require a supermajority or the procedural vote that Merkley will demand….

McConnell is loathe to change the rules of the Senate to allow confirmation of Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority but has not said explicitly what he would do if Democrats block Trump’s nominee. The Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority by the so-called “nuclear option” — last invoked by former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to ease the confirmation of Obama’s judicial and executive nominees….

More…

Share on Facebook

The Surpeme’s will NOT help President Obama on Immigration…

Flip side of this?

The South and Mid West State’s GOPer’s  get their way on the President’s effort to keep some illegals from deportation by ‘executive order’…

The courts 4 to 4 political legal lean is the primary reason…..

The administration’s request was a longshot bid to salvage what had been the biggest legal defeat of Obama’s presidency. In June, a deadlocked court failed to revive his stalled plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work legally in the United States.

The justices’ votes at the time were not announced, but the court’s liberals and conservatives were split at oral argument last spring. The tie meant that a lower court’s decision that Obama probably exceeded his powers in issuing the executive action kept the plan from being implemented.

The court’s action affected about 4 million illegal immigrants estimated to be covered by Obama’s plan, which would have deferred deportation for those who have been in the country since 2010, have not committed any serious crimes and have family ties to U.S. citizens or others lawfully in the country.

The Supreme Court rarely grants motions for rehearing. But the administration’s lawyers made the request in hopes that by now the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia would be filled.

Instead, Senate Republicans have blocked consideration of Obama’s nominee to the court, appeals court judge Merrick Garland. They say the next president should fill the election-year opening.

The fate of the program now awaits the election. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has said she will revive and expand the program; Republican nominee Donald Trump would end it for good….

More….

Share on Facebook

North Carolina Strict Voter Law vacated by the Supreme’s…

The Courts have been systematically throwing out Republican voter restrictive laws passed by Republican majority state legislatures…

Add North Carolina to the list….

U.S. Supreme Court rejects bid to reinstate North Carolina voting limits

By Lawrence Hurley @ Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by North Carolina to reinstate for November’s elections several voting restrictions, including a requirement that people show identification at the polls.

The eight-justice court, divided in most part 4-4, rejected a request made by Republican Governor Pat McCrory after an appeals court ruled last month that the 2013 law discriminates against minority voters. Five votes are needed for an emergency request to be granted.

“We’re thrilled. Elections in North Carolina this fall are going to be conducted under a fair and nondiscriminatory election law scheme,” said Allison Riggs, a lawyer with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, one of the civil rights groups that challenged the law.

The U.S. Justice Department, which has also been involved in fighting the law, did not immediately comment on the decision.

McCrory said in a statement that the state “has been denied basic voting rights already granted to more than 30 other states to protect the integrity of one person, one vote through a common-sense voter ID law.”

The brief order noted that three of the court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts, would have allowed the voter identification provision and limits on early voting to be in effect for the election. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed on that point, but was the only justice to say he would have also allowed a requirement blocking pre-registration of 16-year-olds to stay in place….

More….

DSD…..

 

Share on Facebook

What does Mitch MConnell do about Supreme Court Confirmation for Garland?

Hmmmmm?

Don’t look like Donald Trump will be making the cut…..

Senate Majority Leader MitCh MConnell is gonna have to make a call in the next two months before the November Gneral election…..

Hillary Clinton COULD ask President Obama to pull the Garland appointment if she wins on November 8th and the Senate  majority is under the control of New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer…

Her own choice , with a Democratic Senate majority, could a Liberal…..(and she could have  few more in the next two years of a Democratic Senate majority)

Hmmmm?

With yet another poll showing Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by double digits — this time from NBC|SurveyMonkey — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has an important choice to make. Does he continue to block President Obama’s pick to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, and risk the possibility that a President Hillary Clinton could nominate someone much more liberal (and younger) instead? Or does he relent on the Garland blockade, realizing that it might be the best outcome for Senate Republicans — simply to turn the conversation away from Trump?

McConnell’s office tells us that he remains firm in his opposition to the Garland pick. “The Leader has been clear: The next president will make the nomination for this vacancy,” says Deputy Chief of Staff Don Stewart. But Democrats are making a separate argument: If Republicans are looking for any way to separate themselves from Trump, moving on Garland would do the trick. “Congress is likely to be in session for a grand total of 20 days between now and the election, and it’s clear that confirming Garland a vote is the only concrete, news-driving step that Republicans can take to separate themselves from Trump,” a top Democratic Senate official says…..

More….

Share on Facebook

Supreme Ginsberg (RBG) of course is hardly the first one to give her views….

Supreme Court Justices , as have other judges, have been excersizing their first Amementment Right’s for a long time….And playing politics like EVERYONE else….

Ginsberg isn’t gonna quit because Trump and others judges don’t like that she said what she thinks….

It’s an American Right we ALL have….

If what RBG did is a disgrace to the court, she’s in illustrious company. Supreme Court justices have been messing in politics, including campaign politics, since the ink was still wet on the Constitution. In 1800, just a decade after the court was founded, so many of its justices were out campaigning for John Adams that the opening of the court term had to be delayed. Two-hundred and some years later, it’s more taboo than it once was for a justice to openly endorse a particular candidate—but that hasn’t really stopped the country’s top legal officials from taking sides: As recently as election night, 2000, when NBC declared for Democratic candidate Al Gore, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the guests at an election party that the Democrat’s election victory was “terrible.” (Of course, her criticism was a little premature, as we now know.) She then went on to participate in making sure nothing so terrible would happen, casting the crucial fifth vote in Bush v. Gore without blinking an eye. O’Connor had a long history of rooting for the Bushes in presidential elections. In 1988, she wrote to longtime political ally Senator Barry Goldwater, in a letter now in his public archives, that she “would be thankful if George B wins. It is vital for the Court and the nation that he does.”….

….

From Day One, the Supreme Court was up to its judicial collars in electioneering. In the hot election of 1800, the court’s justices were active campaigners: That year, one of the early politicking jurists, Justice Bushrod Washington, wrote an open letter admonishing the Federalists not to split their forces between Charles Pinckney and John Adams, lest they elect “Mr. J___, which God forbid.” Sixty-plus years later, Justice Salmon P. Chase helped President Abraham Lincoln draft the great Fourteenth Amendment, establishing equality under the law. When crusading liberal Louis Brandeis went on the court in 1916, he encouraged his close colleague Felix Frankfurter, then at Harvard Law School, to pursue the various progressive causes Brandeis had to forego. He even paid Frankfurter a bunch of money over the course of more than 20 years to do so. Frankfurter was unanimously confirmed to the court himself in 1939…..

More….

Share on Facebook

The Sureme’s void ex-Virginia Governor’s Corruption Conviction..

The court, in it’s ruling stated that prosectors have gone too far in making  public corruption cases based things that public official actually do as part of their jobs….

The justice’s where NOT happy with the gifts ex-Governeor McDonald Received., which where legal…..

But they pointed to the fact that public officials are in the business of using the power of their office to make contacts ….They ruled that there must be DIRECT evidence that a particular gift got a particular person a personal favor…McDonalds gifts produced no tangible results for the companies that gave the Governor gifts…The court has previously rulled that ‘access  and ingration’ to public officials is NOT corruption….

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” the chief justice wrote. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term ‘official act’ leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court.”

Mr. McDonnell, a Republican, was charged with using his office to help Jonnie R. Williams Sr., who had provided the McDonnells with luxury products, loans and vacations worth more than $175,000 when Mr. McDonnell was governor. The gifts themselves were legal, and the question in the case was whether they were part of a corrupt bargain in which Mr. McDonnell reciprocated by using the power of his office to help Mr. Williams.

Mr. McDonnell arranged meetings for and attended events with his benefactor. But Mr. Williams, whose company made a diet supplement, did not have any real success in obtaining support for his product from the state. A jury found that Mr. McDonnell’s actions amounted to corruption, and a federal appeals court upheld the conviction….

More…

Share on Facebook

Supreme ‘s rule 4-3 that Race Can be a factor in Texas College admissions…

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself. thus the seven votes, not eight….

Several state’s do NOT allow race to be a factor in college admissions to obtain diversity….

The Supreme Court on Thursday said University of Texas admission officials may consider the race of student applicants in a limited way to build a diverse student body.

The 4-to-3 decision was a surprising win for advocates of affirmative action, who say the benefits of diversity at the nation’s colleges and universities are worth the intrusion on the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection that generally forbids the government from making decisions based on racial classifications.

“The University of Texas at Austin has a special opportunity to learn and to teach” others about how to achieve diversity, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Kennedy had never before voted to uphold a race-conscious plan, but he also had been reluctant to say race may never be used. He was joined by three of the courts liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself….

More…

Share on Facebook