-
-
Connecticut favors gay marriage!!
The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage Friday in a victory for gay-rights advocates that will allow couples to marry in the New England state.
The court found that the state's law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
Eight same-sex couples sued in 2004, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses. The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage Friday in a victory for gay-rights advocates that will allow coupl... more -
CT Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Couples May Marry
A divided Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in Connecticut.
-
Supreme Court Snapshot
The Supreme Court kicks off its new term on Monday, smack in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election in which the court itself is not just a campaign issue, but the subject of TV attack ads against both candidates for the first time anyone can remember. Perhaps in a sign that the justices have a sense of humor, they've scheduled oral arguments in FCC v. Fox Television for Election Day—a case that's all about the F-word. That case, you may recall, got its start during the live broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, when Cher and Nicole Richie landed the network in hot water for a few fleeting expletives. (Richie: "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple." And the always entertaining Cher, who, upon receiving her "artistic achievement award," said of her many critics, "So fuck 'em. I still have a job and they don't.")
As the FCC squares off against Fox, whose lawyer launched his argument in the lower court with his own string of profanity, oral arguments promise to be entertaining. The FCC is hoping the high court will restore some of its power to regulate the F-word during prime-time TV. The rest of the cases in this term's lineup are more consequential. None, however, is expected to land with the punch of Heller v. DC, the Second Amendment case from last term that undid 100 years of gun control law. Nonetheless, there's plenty of substance to look forward to—or fear.
The tobacco company Altria/Philip Morris has two cases on the calendar. One, involving the limits of a state court's power, is making its third appearance before the court from the state of Oregon, where the state's highest court has essentially taken Cher's attitude toward John Roberts and his brethren by refusing to overturn a multimillion dollar punitive damage award against the tobacco giant. The other involves lawsuits over whether the company's marketing of light cigarettes constituted fraud that could be challenged in state court. The court will also hear an important case involving retaliation in employment litigation and another involving pregnancy discrimination, which court watchers have dubbed "Ledbetter II," in reference to the case last year in which the court severely restricted womens' ability to sue for pay discrimination. And the court will hear its third major case in the past year involving the arcane but important issue of federal preemption. In this case, the court will decide whether regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration can prevent injured citizens from suing drug companies for damages in state court.
As it stands the court hasn't taken on any major cases of the culture wars this term—no abortion cases or gay marriage challenges. But there is one free speech case that will be argued by a major culture warrior, Jay Sekulow. A veteran of religious freedom litigation, Sekulow represents the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, which has been sued by a fringe religious group known as the Summum. The city denied the Summum the right to install a monument in a city park that outlines the group's "Seven Aphorisms," which it claims were inscribed by God on the first set of stone tablets given to Moses. The Ten Commandments are inscribed on another monument in this very park. The Summum argue that the city has violated their right to free speech by allowing one religious monument but not another, and a lower court sided with them. You'd think that Sekulow might be representing the Summum here, given his interest in religious free expression. He's working for the city out of concern that a decision in favor of the Summum would require governments around the country to remove all existing religious monuments, fearing that they otherwise would have to grant the Aphorisms (or other unusual religious monuments) equal space.
******CONTINUES The Supreme Court kicks off its new term on Monday, smack in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election in which the court ... more -
Supreme Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban
court. The media have been suggesting all year that after all its splintered, contentious decisions in 2007, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has been working hard to find some common ground with the liberals and to just get along better for the good of the country. The story line seemed to hold up all term, as the court issued one 6-3 or 7-1 decision after another. But today, the court issued a whopper of a 5-4 decision that split entirely on ideological grounds. Saving the biggest case for last, the court ended the term by releasing its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court upheld a lower court ruling invalidating the District’s strict ban on handgun ownership.
The case was unusual in large part because the court hasn’t ruled on a Second Amendment case in 70 years, but also because the Solicitor General—the legal arm of the Bush administration at the court—supported the District, while the Vice President entered into the case on his own to recommend overturning the city’s gun ban. During the oral arguments in the spring, the justices spent a great deal of time mulling over whether early settlers in this country would have needed guns to protect themselves from grizzly bears or for hunting, a sign that the right to bear arms extended beyond the well-regulated militia identified in the language of the Second Amendment. So it’s no surprise that hunting figures prominently in the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, who has, of course, spent a great deal of time hunting with the vice president.
Scalia suggests that the District and its supporters (including Justice Stevens, at whom he makes several caustic digs) are foolish to think that the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment applies only to a military context, given how much hunting those drafters of the Constitution did. He writes, “[I]f “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.”
In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer points out that nothing in the District’s handgun ban would have infringed upon city residents’ ability to go hunting. Indeed, unless they really intend to use handguns to shoot rats and pigeons in the alley, D.C. residents have to leave town to find game worth killing anyway. But the practical concerns of the District didn’t carry much weigh with Scalia, who not only struck down the handgun ban, but also found that requiring guns in the home to have trigger locks was also unconstitutional.
..................more at link................. court. The media have been suggesting all year that after all its splintered, contentious decisions in 2007, the Supreme Court's ... more -
U.S. Navy Sonar Linked To Whale Strandings, Environmental Scientists Argue
Earlier this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off the coast of Southern California. The court is due to hear the case after its term begins again this month.
For many years, professor Chris Parsons has been tracking the patterns of mass whale strandings around the world. In his most recent paper, "Navy Sonar and Cetaceans: Just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?" Parsons and his co-authors bring together all of the major whale and dolphin strandings in the past eight years and discuss the different kinds of species that have been affected worldwide. They also strongly argue for stricter environmental policies related to this issue.
"Generally, if there is a large whale stranding, there is a military exercise in the area," says Parsons. "Sonar is killing more whales than we know about."
Parsons is a national delegate for the International Whaling Commission’s scientific and conservation committees, and on the board of directors of the marine section of the Society for Conservation Biology. He has been involved in whale and dolphin research for more than a decade and has conducted projects in South Africa, India, China and the Caribbean as well as the United Kingdom.
Though Parsons believes that there is a good chance the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Navy, he thinks there is a chance for a win-win situation on both sides.
"If the Navy uses proper mitigation efforts, it can still perform its exercises and affect less of the whale population," he says. However, he argues they need to avoid sensitive areas completely, and have trained, experienced whale experts as lookouts when performing these exercises—"not just someone who has watched a 45-minute DVD, which is sadly the only training most naval lookouts get with respect to finding and detecting whales."
Even with all these efforts, however, Parsons worries that sonar is affecting many more whales than we even know about. "Eventually the Navy may have to reconsider the use of certain types of sonar all together. They could be wiping out entire populations of whales, and seriously depleting others." Earlier this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the Navy's use of sona... more -
Suit on Tobacco Ads Sparks Feisty Debate - washingtonpost.com
The Supreme Court waded yesterday into a complicated legal debate over whether tobacco companies can be sued in state courts for deceptive advertising of "light" cigarettes, a dispute that has divided government regulators and the business community.
As the justices began their new term, they engaged in a spirited oral argument over a lawsuit filed in Maine by three smokers against Philip Morris USA and its parent company, Altria Group. Using internal company documents and supported in part by the Bush administration, which helped them argue their case, the smokers accused Philip Morris of falsely marketing low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes as less harmful than regular brands.
The tobacco company said it should be shielded from such state law claims by federal law, a position that drew skepticism from several members of the court's liberal wing. Conservative justices seemed generally more receptive to Philip Morris's argument, with Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia suggesting that if consumers were misled into thinking that light cigarettes are safer, the fault is more the government's.
"The FTC's position seems to me incomprehensible," Alito told a Justice Department lawyer, referring to the Federal Trade Commission's regulation of the industry through a controversial test that measures tar and nicotine yields. Alito added: "You've created this whole problem by, I think, passively approving the placement of these figures . . . in the advertisements. And if they are misleading, then you have misled everybody who's bought those cigarettes for a long time."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote when the court divides along ideological lines, told an attorney for the smokers that he is probably "going to have difficulty in accepting your position in this entire case."
The argument in Altria Group v. Good was the latest in a growing national debate over "preemption," a doctrine under which state product liability lawsuits against companies can be thrown out under federal law. Courts are filled with such cases, and the Supreme Court decided several last term in favor of corporations. The justices will hear another major preemption case, involving the pharmaceutical industry, in November. The Supreme Court waded yesterday into a complicated legal debate over whether tobacco companies can be sued in state courts for decep... more -
US Supreme Court opens a new term
The US Supreme Court today opens a term in which it will interpret
protections for minority voting blocs, decide whether a town may display the Ten Commandments in a public park but forbid a religious minority from installing its own monument, and rule on other paramount issues.
The court opens for business in the shadow of the increasingly vigorous presidential campaign. Among US presidents' prerogatives is the authority to appoint justices, and with as many as three likely to retire in the next four years, Barack Obama or John McCain could affect US law far beyond his tenure in the White House.
This term is the court's third with its current makeup, which includes John Roberts and Samuel Alito, two conservative justices appointed by President George Bush. The court has hardened along ideological lines, deciding many high-profile cases by a 5-4 vote.
Between now and June, the court will decide as many as 90 cases. Among the issues the court will decide: Whether a woman fired after cooperating with an internal sexual harassment investigation may sue the company for damages; whether federal communications regulators may punish a television network for broadcasting a "fleeting expletive"; and whether a state may prohibit local governments from automatically deducting voluntary union dues from their payrolls.
The court is not scheduled to consider abortion rights cases this term, although abortion foes are set to pounce on any opportunity to revisit the landmark Roe v Wade decision of 1973 that barred the states from prohibiting the procedure.
McCain has pledged to name justices in the mould of the court's most conservative jurists, who Kathryn Kolbert, president of the liberal political organisation People for the American Way, said would likely vote to overturn abortion rights protections, weaken the separation of church and state, restrict citizens' access to the court system, and rule against equal rights for gays and lesbians.
"The outcome of the election will determine the makeup of the court for the next 40 years," Kolbert said. "We've seen 20 years of the right pushing for judges and justices on the Supreme Court who have a political agenda and have brought that political agenda to the court, and it's taken an extreme toll on Americans."
The current court overturned Washington's handgun ban, allowed the state of Indiana to require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot, and cast other decisions that dismayed liberals.
Conservatives fear that Obama would appoint jurists who will encroach too deeply on legislatures' authority to make law and will extend constitutional rights that conservatives contend do not exist in the nation's founding document.
Among the most perilous cases are those in which the Supreme Court reins in the president's hand in prosecuting suspected terrorists, said Ed Whelan, former law clerk to conservative justice Antonin Scalia and a scholar at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Centre.
In June, for instance, the court ruled that terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, may challenge their detention in court, rejecting Bush White House arguments they were afforded no such right.
McCain said at the time, "the United States Supreme Court made a very bad decision when they decided to give these people the rights that American citizens have". The US Supreme Court today opens a term in which it will interpret ... more -
Court Won't Reconsider Ban on Execution for Child Rape
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to revisit its June decision that imposing the death penalty on child-rapists is unconstitutional, although two justices said they would have reopened the case and two others sharply criticized the majority.
*do you think Palin heard of this one??? (J/K)
Are they just thinking that maybe they weren't certain that they were raping a child?
This isn't for all rapists. Maybe they should require DNA and give some years for checking the data?? If it was my child we'd all be hearing about vigilante justice! I am interested in hearing opinions if you don't like mine...... The Supreme Court yesterday declined to revisit its June decision that imposing the death penalty on child-rapists is unconstitutional... more -
Latest Palin screw up: can't name supreme court case other than Roe v Wade
"Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence." "Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric... more -
Supreme Court issues stay of execution for Davis
Troy Jones was scheduled to die at 7:00 PM EST today. The case was internationally controversial because several eye witnesses changed their testimony and claimed police harassment during their statements. No murder weapon was found. There were no finger prints or DNA at the scene. Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer. Supporters of Jones asserted the Georgia judicial system is racist.
Jimmy Carter was among those who were calling for a stay of Jones's execution. Troy Jones was scheduled to die at 7:00 PM EST today. The case was internationally controversial because several eye witnesses change... more -
Supreme Court give Habeas Corpus Legs in Guantanamo Bay!
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush administration's polarizing Guantánamo Bay policies Thursday, giving the roughly 300 foreign terror suspects being held there the right to challenge their detention through the U.S. civilian court system. In a 5-4 ruling on the jointly decided cases Boumediene v. Bush and Al-Odah v. The United States, the nation's highest court determined that the detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus despite their detention outside the borders of the United States. The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush administration's polarizing Guantánamo Bay policies Thursday, giving the ... more
-
Guantánamo Detainees: No Country for 270 Men | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com
White House and Justice Department lawyers are bracing for a flood of new court battles as a result of last week's historic Supreme Court ruling, which granted Guantánamo Bay detainees the right to seek their freedom in federal court.
What happens when and if they do go free? White House and Justice Department lawyers are bracing for a flood of new court battles as a result of last week's historic Supre... more -
Dip your litmus paper into this writeup about Palin..
Excerpts....
Pray for the construction of the $30 billion natural gas pipeline, Palin told them. Pray for the military men and women overseas, "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending (U.S. soldiers) out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan and it's God's plan."
Later, senior pastor Ed Kalnins -- with Palin standing at his side -- spoke about tapping into Alaska's natural resource wealth in order to fulfill the state's destiny of serving as a shelter for Christians at the end of the world.
"I believe that Alaska is one of the 'refuge states' -- come on you guys -- in the Last Days," Kalnins said, raising his arm to underscore his point. "And hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to this state to seek refuge. And the church has to be ready to minister to them."
Now that she's been selected as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, such comments raise questions: What are Sarah Palin's religious beliefs? What churches does she attend and who are her pastors? How have her beliefs played out in her public life in Alaska? What do they portend for a possible vice president?
....
CHURCH INFLUENCE
Palin reached into her own church when she filled the seat vacated last winter by Rep. Vic Kohring, R-Wasilla, who's now serving three and a half years in prison for bribery, conspiracy and attempted extortion as part of the federal crackdown on Alaska political corruption.
His replacement is Wes Keller, one of 10 elders in the Wasilla Bible Church and one of three candidates on a short list that was submitted to Palin by state Republicans. Another of the three finalists, Keller said, was also a member of the church.
Keller said he got to know Palin when she and her husband, Todd, joined the Wasilla Bible Church in 2002. He thinks his appointment to the House seat probably had more to do with his own community achievements than his membership in the church.
But his track record so far has pleased the religious right. In the recent legislative session, Keller sponsored a bill to make performing late-term "partial birth abortions" a felony. He also introduced legislation sought by the Alaska Family Council that requires all state-funded public libraries to install filters to protect kids from "inappropriate" material.
Eventually he hopes to see the state mandate that intelligent design be taught alongside evolution, Keller said Friday. He also favors providing public funds to parents seeking private education through some kind of voucher system.
.....
Since winning her race for governor in 2006, Palin has also attended a large Pentecostal church in Juneau -- the Juneau Christian Center. She's also worshiped at the Church on the Rock, a sprawling megachurch in Wasilla.
All four fellowships the family has attended appear to have one trait in common: They all insist on the inerrancy of the Bible. Their pastors preach that scripture is literally God's spoken word.
Launching into a discourse on the purpose of man earlier this year, Juneau Christian Center pastor Mike Rose touted the Genesis version of creation while dismissing Darwin's theory of evolution, which some Christian faiths are willing to accept. Excerpts.... ... more -
60% of voters say Supreme Court should base rulings “Off of Constitution”
Rasmussen Reports survey shows a majority of Americans believe decisions should be aligned with the written document as opposed to the primary other methodology of decisions, i.e. fairness & equality. While I am glad that a majority of Americans do agree in theory with libertarians & conservatives on this issue it is unfortunate that the percentage is not higher. With many polls showing “liberals” making up less than 15% of the electorate, one has to ask the question - where do the remaining 15% of the 30% of voters who think the nation’s top court should make decisions based upon fairness and equity come from? Rasmussen Reports survey shows a majority of Americans believe decisions should be aligned with the written document as opposed to the... more
-
3 Supreme Court judges take oath of office in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: The isolation of the ousted Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhary, increased on Thursday after three judges of the Supreme Court accepted the government’s offer of reinstatement on a fresh oath of office.
Four more judges are likely to be similarly restored on Monday.
Justices Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, dismissed by the former President, Pervez Musharraf, in the 2007 emergency, were sworn in to office by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar on Friday.
Though their taking a fresh oath implies a reappointment rather than reinstatement, the PPP-led government has restored to them their seniority as on November 2, 2007, the day before their dismissal.
The restoration of the three judges followed that of eight Sindh High Court judges, four Lahore High Court judges, and the deposed Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court. General Musharraf sacked 60 judges on November 3, 2007, the day he imposed emergency rule ahead of a ruling by the Supreme Court on his eligibility to contest the presidential election.
After excluding those who retired over the ensuing months, the number of sacked judges was 42. Of these, 17 have now broken rank with the lawyers’ movement to be restored to office through a fresh oath.
The lawyers’ movement, which was demanding the unconditional reinstatement of all judges at the same time, sees in the government’s move a ploy to keep Mr. Chaudhary out of the Supreme Court, as it is unlikely that he would agree to be restored by being sworn in afresh.
According to the leaders of the lawyers’ movement, to be sworn in again implies accepting the dismissal by General Musharraf, whereas what they have been demanding is that the dismissals be declared unconstitutional and illegal. ISLAMABAD: The isolation of the ousted Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhary, increased on Thursday after three judges of the Supreme Cour... more -
Step into the future of McCain's World....
In McCain's World, judges, not women,
have control over our reproductive freedom.
Here's what McCain says:
"I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I'm very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen." McCain explained further that he "will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts" to fill future court vacancies. In McCain's World, judges, not women, have control over our reproductive freedom. Here's what McCain says: ... more -
McCain Wouldn't Have Nominated Half of Justices - But He Voted for Them
Pandering to evangelicals, or did he change his mind again? Another interesting read is McCain's issues with religion:
http://www.stopthinkvote.com/whatsnew/080508.html Pandering to evangelicals, or did he change his mind again? Another interesting read is McCain's issues with religion: ... more -
Will Your Vote Be Counted in 2008? Electronic Voting Machines and the Privatizatio...
With less than a month before Super Tuesday, every vote counts. But will every vote actually be counted? One-by-one, states across the country are finding critical flaws in the accuracy and security of electronic voting machines. We speak with Clive Thompson, the author of a New York Times Magazine cover story titled ?Can You Count on Voting Machines?? With less than a month before Super Tuesday, every vote counts. But will every vote actually be counted? One-by-one, states across the... more
-
Texas executes Mexican amid international protests
The US Supreme Court refuses to grant a reprieve urged by Mexico and an international court. Jose Ernesto Medellin was convicted of raping and killing two Texas teens in 1993.
Mexico City - Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two Texas girls, was executed Tuesday night in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a reprieve.
"I'm sorry my actions caused you pain. I hope this brings you the closure that you seek. Never harbor hate," Medellin, 33, told those gathered to watch him die. He was pronounced dead at 9:57 p.m. local time.
Demonstrations had been held in Mexico in anticipation of the execution. The controversy surrounding his execution, as well as concern here over the fate of 50 other Mexican citizens on U.S. death rows, appears likely to continue.
"It is striking the difference of perspective between the United States and many other countries," said David Fathi, U.S. program director for the group Human Rights Watch, which had opposed the execution.
"I think that [this] illustrates the widening gap."
Medellin was 18 when he and five fellow gang members raped Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14, then beat and strangled them. Medellin later boasted to friends about the deed.
The buildup to Tuesday's execution drew worldwide attention and involved a host of players and institutions beyond the United States and Mexico.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague sided in 2004 with the Mexican government's argument that the United States had violated the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform the arrested Mexican nationals of their right to seek help from the Mexican Consulate.
Mexico has asked that all 51 convictions be reviewed, creating the possibility for new trials or outright dismissals. The Hague court had ordered the United States not to execute any of five men on death row in Texas while the court reviewed their cases.
But the court, a branch of the United Nations, has no power to enforce its rulings. A spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, has said that "the world court has no standing in Texas."
The Bush administration had intervened in support of the Mexican government, urging Texas prosecutors to reopen the death row cases.
But in March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the administration's arguments, ruling 6-3 that under the Constitution, the president did not have the "unilateral authority" to compel state officials to comply with an international treaty.
The issue of capital punishment for Mexicans convicted of crimes in the United States is extremely sensitive here, driven by the perception that Mexicans convicted of capital crimes north of the border are more likely than U.S. citizens to face the death penalty.
Capital punishment was abolished in Mexico in 2005 during the Vicente Fox presidency.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International contend that executing foreign citizens in opposition to the court order could put U.S. citizens abroad at risk of being convicted and even executed for crimes without having access to U.S. consulates or embassies.
In a Monday opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow expressed that same view.
The heated debate in both countries over immigration policy probably has contributed to the controversy surrounding the execution.
"I think because of the politics around immigration more broadly, the fact that Mr. Medellin is Mexican rather than Swedish, does make a difference," said Fathi, of Human Rights Watch.
"It certainly does play into a bigger debate and bigger fears that many people have about immigration from Mexico." The US Supreme Court refuses to grant a reprieve urged by Mexico and an international court. Jose Ernesto Medellin was convicted of ra... more
-
related topics
Supreme Court
Contributors (484)
Supreme Court
