U S Supreme Court - all related issues

[deep]

When I started this thread, my thoughts were that it could include Court Decisions, also

here is one handed down today

Supreme Court strikes down animal-cruelty law
By DAVID G. SAVAGE

Dealing a setback to the animal rights movement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down on free-speech grounds an anti-cruelty law that made it a federal crime to sell videos or photos of animals being illegally wounded, killed or tortured.
It marked the second time this year that the high court wielded the First Amendment to toss out a law with popular support.

The 8-1 ruling overturned the conviction of a Virginia man who sold several dog-fighting videos to federal agents.

All the states have laws against animal cruelty, but a decade ago, Congress adopted the new measure to stop the Internet trafficking in videos that showed tiny animals being tortured and crushed. Lawmakers said hunting would be unaffected since it is legal. Moreover, the ban on animal-cruelty photos included an exemption for those that had "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

Nonetheless, the law was challenged as unconstitutional by prominent media groups, which said it threatened freedom of speech. The case arose when Robert Stevens, a promoter of pit bulls, was indicted and convicted for selling videos on his website that showed the dogs fighting each other or killing wild boar.

Government lawyers had defended the anti-cruelty law on the grounds that photos of animals being tortured, like pornography involving children, should be outside the protection of the First Amendment because the speech has little value and comes at a high cost to society.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, rejected as "startling and dangerous" the notion that the First Amendment protects only speech that is desirable or has social value. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs," Roberts said.

He also said the law was too broad and could allow for prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting, for example.

Though enacted a decade ago, the law against animal-cruelty videos had been used rarely. It came under challenge recently when federal prosecutors turned it against the underground industry of dog fighting.

After Stevens was convicted of selling the dog-fighting videos, he appealed and argued the law was unconstitutional.

He won a preliminary ruling from a U.S. court of appeals in Philadelphia last year, and the high court agreed Tuesday the law must be voided. "We do not decide," Roberts said, "whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be unconstitutional," he wrote in U.S. v. Stevens.

Only Justice Samuel A. Alito dissented. He faulted the court for striking down "in its entirety a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty - and in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of 'crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value."

The Humane Society called the decision a disappointment, but its officials said they were heartened the court left the door open for a new law that was more targeted at "crush videos" and dog fighting.

Wayne Pacelle, the group's president, said the law could be revised to apply only to "cruel" killing or wounding of animals for purposes of entertainment. "Our attorneys are confident that we can narrowly tailor a new measure that would withstand constitutional scrutiny," he said.

This is the high court's second notable free-speech ruling this year. In January, the court struck down the laws that prohibited corporations from spending money on election races. In that 5-4 decision, the court said restrictions on corporate political spending amounted to restrictions on free speech

I think the Court did the right thing here.

Once again, Alito shows he lets personal bias cloud his judgement.

[MrsSpringsteen]

^ I can't believe anyone wants to watch that sort of thing, it's beyond sick and disgusting to me. I don't care what the law is, there's no reason for that sort of thing to exist. Crush videos and fighting videos are completely depraved.

updated 5:15 p.m. ET, Wed., April 21, 2010

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and the privacy of their bodies. Yet he said he won't enforce any abortion rights "litmus tests."

Obama said it is "very important to me" that his court choice take women's rights into account in interpreting the Constitution, his most expansive comments yet about how a woman's right to choose will factor into his decision.

He plans to choose someone to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens within "the next couple weeks," he told CNBC.

When asked if he could nominate someone who did not support a woman's right to choose, Obama said: "I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction."

He said he would not judge candidates on a single-issue abortion test.

"But I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights," Obama said. "And that's going to be something that's very important to me, because I think part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity. And women are not exempt from that."

Such a detailed answer raised the question of whether Obama had, in fact, spelled out a fundamental test over abortion. The White House rejected that.

"I think a litmus test is when you say, will you ask a direct question about — do you believe this? Do you believe that?" White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "I think the president will ask any nominee discuss how they view the Constitution and the legal principles enshrined in it."

[deep]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

^ I can't believe anyone wants to watch that sort of thing, it's beyond sick and disgusting to me. I don't care what the law is, there's no reason for that sort of thing to exist. Crush videos and fighting videos are completely depraved.

that is just it

we don't make up laws on what we want, what is icky or not.

That is what Alito, seems to do.
They need to write the law properly. There is already new legislation, hopefully properly written this time, making its way through congress.

[deep]

Originally Posted by deep on April 10

It is pretty early to make any predictions, but here is mine:

Elena Kagan, and she gets around 66-69 votes to confirm.

She's the one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36967616...supreme_court/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050903489.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...upreme-court/1



looks like NBC News's Pete Williams broke the story and others are just reporting his announcement

it won't be official until I read it on Drudge

(I am still waiting for Obama's tweet)

[deep]

With Sotomayor replacing Souter and Kragen replacing Stevens, the Court will be less liberal.

The only hope is that these two new members will be able to construct arguments that can sway Kennedy. I am not hopeful.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

With Sotomayor replacing Souter and Kragen replacing Stevens, the Court will be less liberal.

you think? with not one, not two, but three women, i am concerned that decisions will be more irrational and based on emotion, and often given to erratic changes in mood and emotional neediness. one day they're conservative, the next way liberal, what's a straight white guy to do to talk some sense into these ladies?

[deep]

yes, there is cause for concern
we will have a wise Latina and two Jewish women

will they remember to put America first?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

yes, there is cause for concern
we will have a wise Latina and two Jewish women

will they remember to put America first?

clearly, they'll have to set aside their (a)gend(a)er and/or religious or ethnic preferences and vote according to the laws.

that's a tall order. our last president knew that only a white man isn't burdened by his life experiences and can see clearly.

[Irvine511]

the Christofascist right is already calling her a lesbian.

seems like she probably is. who knows? i'd almost like it to come out and we can all discuss it. would love to see someone try to defend the point that being gay or lesbian automatically disqualifies you from SCOTUS.

[deep]

I feel the need to revise my original estimate of votes for her

I still say she gets on the court,

I now think she will get few (if any, except Lieberman) GOP votes, there is too much risk in voting for her, it is more politically savvy to vote no

just ask Bob Bennett of Utah.


there is enough political cover in saying a vote for solicitor general should not equate as approval for S C.

few solicitors general have any Judaical experience, most SC appointments have Judaical experience

[deep]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the Christofascist right is already calling her a lesbian.

seems like she probably is. who knows? i'd almost like it to come out and we can all discuss it. would love to see someone try to defend the point that being gay or lesbian automatically disqualifies you from SCOTUS.

She needs to be more like Condi Rice, make jokes about her husband, Obama

having bought property with her SO, under the radar (gaydar)


if she is gay, she will have to recuse herself from anything related to gay-issues, such as the Prop 8 lawsuit Ted Olson is pursuing.
She obviously would have a bias.

[anitram]

In a blog post for the far-right American Family Association (AFA) today, Bryan Fischer comes right out and says that the media should pointedly ask Kagan, “Are you a lesbian?” And if she is, according to AFA, she shouldn’t serve on the court:

It’s time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans.

The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

Nice people!

[Irvine511]

i think she sails through like Roberts. slam dunk.

[deep]

really? 78=22

On September 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts' nomination by a vote of 13–5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein casting the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29 by a margin of 78–22.

I think she will get less than 60 votes

with few if any GOP voting for her. I guess it is safe for Bob Bennett to vote for her now.

[anitram]

She's going to be confirmed. I still think it'll be something like 62-65 votes.

Of course the GOP has lost its collective mind so I could also see a vote of just short of 60.

[deep]

a third of the senate is up every two years, so we have this Nov and 2012 looming large

why would any GOP risk voting for her? it would just enable a viable challenge in GOP Senate primaries,
look at what happened in UT and to Crist in FL
where is the up side to voting for her? for a GOP Senator?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by deep

a third of the senate is up every two years, so we have this Nov and 2012 looming large

why would any GOP risk voting for her? it would just enable a viable challenge in GOP Senate primaries,
look at what happened in UT and to Crist in FL
where is the up side to voting for her? for a GOP Senator?

I think a couple of the women from New England will vote for her (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins). They represent different constituencies and for them to openly and in a hostile manner oppose an accomplished woman like Elena Kagan probably isn't a good thing.

[deep]

that sounds reasonable, Collins is not up for reelection until 2014
Snowe is up again in 2012, I don't know how much she would have to worry about a challenge in her primary then.

[U2DMfan]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Republicans used to vote for SC nominees on the principle that the Constitution gives the President the prerogative, end of story.

Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton) 96-3
Breyer (appointed by Clinton) 87-9

It was one thing I always admired about the Republicans.
They did have some principle at one time. I know, like I said, another galaxy...

Democrats are too diluted (or diverse) to ever have similar principles.
That's neither a good or bad thing, IMO, it just is what it is. Mostly, less effective politics. Unfortunate.

[deep]

On October 31, 2005 President Bush announced that he was nominating Alito to O'Connor's seat, and he submitted the nomination to the Senate on November 10, 2005
Judge Alito was unanimously rated "well qualified" to fill the Associate Justice post by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, which measures the professional qualifications of a nominee. The committee rates judges as "not qualified," "qualified," or "well qualified."

On January 24, his nomination was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote.

After a failed filibuster attempt by Senator John Kerry, on January 31, the Senate confirmed Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42, with four Democratic senators voting for confirmation and one Republican and an Independent voting against.