U S Supreme Court - all related issues

[deep]

Very good chance Obama will name replacement for Ginsburg too.

So we will have 3 of the most liberal Judges changed out.

2 of them, for what most will describe as less liberal than their predecessors.

If he noms a middle of the road type for Ginsburg the court will be fairly conservative for a very long time.



Scalia should be the next to go, he is getting old and pretty fat, he must have some health issues.

If Obama can get a second term, maybe he can name his replacement.

 

[anitram]

Very good chance Obama will name replacement for Ginsburg too.

So we will have 3 of the most liberal Judges changed out.

2 of them, for what most will describe as less liberal than their predecessors.

Justice Stevens said that since he was named to the Supreme Court, and mind you this was 35 years ago, each and every justice named to the Supreme Court after him, with the sole exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been more conservative than the justice that preceded him or her.

And conservative hypocrites yell and scream every time there is a nomination process so you'd think they're facing unbearable persecution.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be replaced by Pamela Karlan when the time comes. One of the sharpest legal minds in the country, perhaps the sharpest. Also a brilliant constitutional expert.

 

[deep]

If Ginsburg can hang on until 2013 and the Dems keep a solid hold on the Senate.


Maybe we can have a Good win?




44 - Goodwin Liu's controversial judicial nomination approved by Senate committee

he could reign for 50 years.

 

[anitram]

Another excellent choice.

Though I don't think she'll be replaced by a man.

 

[deep]

Really?

O'Connor was replaced by a man.

And we have 2 women replacing men?

I think 3 women nominations in a row from Obama would be more unusual.

I also think a Goodwin nom is unlikely because they are always worried about the next election, even if it is only mid-terms.

 

[Irvine511]

seems to me, though, that it's less important as to how far left a judge is and more important that they are persuasive to the justices who are to the right of them. so if someone comes along and is super left, but can't get Kennedy to listen to him/her, then what good are they when it comes to these 5-4 decisions?

Kagan's apparent strength is how she is universally beloved by everyone. though she may be to the right of JPS, perhaps she'll be more persuasive>

it also seems as if she's all but confirmed. all the non-insane GOP Senators have said she's perfectly qualified.

 

[anitram]

Really?

O'Connor was replaced by a man.

By W not Obama. And Sandra Day O'Connor is not Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Two women out of 9 would be bad enough. But replacing Ginsburg in particular, a woman who stands on the right side of history when it comes to issues of women's equality, with a man, no matter how liberal, just comes with all sorts of terrible optics.

I would not support 2/9 being women, that is completely absurd in a nation where most law students are now female and where there is NO SHORTAGE of qualified females to be named to the court. It would be unequal and it would be inequitable.

 

[INDY500]

I'm really not trying to be mean with this but it's been bugging me for a week who this nominee reminds me of. I finally thought of it.

 

[deep]

what S C nominees look like is of little relevance


Clarence Thomas looked like a black man.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

what S C nominees look like is of little relevance

Unless they're female

 

[UberBeaver]

Unless they're female

That dude Kagan is female? Really?

 

[Irvine511]

That dude Kagan is female? Really?

does a lady cut her hair like that, not get married, and play softball?

i think you have your answer.

 

[UberBeaver]

Ahhhh, of course! How could I not put all those pieces together!

It would be great if she got confirmed, and then on her first day, ripped off that little wig and it turned out to be Al Gore. Looks kinda like him.

 

[Irvine511]

Sully nails the whole gay thing:

They Still Don't Get It
19 MAY 2010 03:31 PM

Drum objects to asking public figures about their sex lives. So do I. I have zero interest - less than zero, actually - in Elena Kagan's sex life or lack of it. I do have an interest in someone's public identity. And how many times can I say this before my straight friends get it? Being gay is not about your sex life. It's about a core element of your identity, one that no gay person can bypass or ignore.

Lane Wallace makes a similar category error here:

In short, while a potential justice's personal life or sexual orientation can certainly influence her innate understanding and experience in the world, it is no more relevant than thousands of other factors in her life experience.

This is a sentence that could only be written by a straight person.

This is what a gay person must go through to get to adulthood: he or she must figure out she's different at varying ages, but usually, clearly by mid-adolescence. The dating question looms, as does the marriage question. What do you do? Many gay kids pretend to be straight for a while (mercifully fewer than in the past); many come out and begin the difficult pursuit of love and intimacy and, in some states, marriage; others make a strategic decision to lie about themselves or to construct a public persona drained of any emotional or relationship content so they always avoid the question. At every stage of this evolution, the gay person is made deeply aware of his or her marginalized status as a citizen and as a human being. Few identities expose as much how the law can oppress, stigmatize and alienate.

With all due respect, this is more relevant than "thousands of other factors" in someone's life. This experience, certainly for someone of my generation and older, cannot but be formative, whether it is repressed, engaged, hidden or run from. To remain closeted requires a massive use of emotional and psychological resources to distract, dissociate, lie, euphemize, cover, appease. It requires deception every day.

This question is not about someone's sexual preferences - by which I mean, whether you like your partners tall, short, hairy, buxom, skinny, fat, whatever, and what you might like to do with them. It's about your emotional core and the integrity with which you have lived your life. It matters if a Supreme Court Justice has lived his life as a convenient careerist lie. It tells us a lot about him. And for gay people who have had to make these choices, and risked a huge amount to do so, it is somewhat offensive to be told this experience is just not that big a deal.

Really? You try it.

also touches on the idiocy of DADT. imagine going to work and not being able to talk about your spouse, your kids, your vacation with your spouse, your date on friday, where you had dinner on saturday ... it's all about not having to lie, every day.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Right to remain silent? Suspect better speak up

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 1, 2010; 3:54 PM

WASHINGTON -- Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.

In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday - over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans' rights of protection from police abuse "upside down."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.

"It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.

The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

He was joined in the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. "Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn't want to talk to police?" said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.

This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision - it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix - requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.

Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody - the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer - and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.

For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

She was joined in her dissent by Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."

"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.

Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.

"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."

Sotomayor called that reasoning "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation."

The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.

 

[BVS]

I think I have to side with the conservatives on this one.

Remaining silent for 3 hours and then saying something isn't remaining silent.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It would be fair if police also had to tell them that suspects have to at least state that they want to remain silent. Might make it easier for both sides.
If he said he understood, but then sometimes said something or nodded then I think he cannot later say that those things that incriminated him should have fallen under the right to be silent, while the rest was okay.

 

[INDY500]

Two-Thirds of Americans Can’t Name Any U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Says New FindLaw.com Survey

EAGAN, Minn., June 1 /CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM/ — Nearly two-thirds of Americans cannot name any members of the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new national survey by FindLaw.com (Lawyer, Lawyers, Attorney, Attorneys, Law, Legal Information - FindLaw), the most popular legal information website. Even as Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan awaits Senate confirmation hearings to replace retiring justice John Paul Stevens, only 35 percent of Americans can name even one member of the nation’s highest court.

Clarence Thomas is the most well known justice but could be named by only 19 percent of Americans.

Only 1 percent of Americans could correctly name all nine current members of the Supreme Court.

Wow, lack of SCOTUS knowledge isn't a problem in this forum. Applaud yourself fellow FYM'ers.

 

[BVS]

Explain to us how this makes sense indy

Once again you get another

 

[INDY500]

What don't you understand about a compliment?

There are probably a dozen posters here that could name all 9 justices in a second and many more that could name 7 or 8. Way, way above normal.

Jeez, get some fresh air BVS.

 

[BVS]

What don't you understand about a compliment?

There are probably a dozen posters here that could name all 9 justices in a second and many more that could name 7 or 8. Way, way above normal.

Jeez, get some fresh air BVS.

Sorry it's just normally you use the sarcastically...

 

[U2DMfan]

I could name all 9 and most of the 9 they replaced, but because of geography, I've already been proven to be a dumb ass on another glorious FYM thread.

 

[U2387]

I think I have to side with the conservatives on this one.

Remaining silent for 3 hours and then saying something isn't remaining silent.

Exactly.

I don't know if Sotomayor et al are just reading precedent too strictly or the law too literally or what the deal is.

I am especially surprised at Breyer, usually he comes down on the side of law enforcement over the criminal element. And he is more of a practical than a theoretical or ideological justice like Scalia.

You pipe up, agree to be questioned, acknowledge and do this repeatedly, you are not being silent. Why did the cops keep questioning when the overwhelming balance of the time he was silent? Because he had given them some information, so they were using their interrogations training to try and get more. Its not like they took the guy, hung him upside down and pulled out finger nails until he confessed.

If the guy wanted to remain silent, he would have got up and left, told them to just bring him to his cell, or done whatever every other suspect on the face of the earth does when they want to remain silent. This just smacks of "Bucky the lawyer had a slick idea, and somehow, it worked as far as the 6th District Court of Appeals."

To my small mind, if there were no allegations of improper conduct on the part of the police in this case, then this should have been a slam dunk 9-0 for SCOTUS.

After all, the rationale for Miranda was to prevent the widespread practice of police forcibly extracting confessions, without regard to guilt or innocence. I have studied Miranda quite a bit, and I can't think of anyone outside the Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, who would see something wrong with how this guy was interrogated.

Well, since there are plenty of times where I disagree with the conservatives and some where I disagree with the liberals(none more strongly than here) I think we can all understand what Madison and the other founders saw as the necessary evil of judicial supremacy.

It is definitely an evil- but you just can't trust the branches of government accountable to the majority to restrain themselves and protect minorities.

That fact there is, despite it being a big, 80000 pound elephant argument, the only argument for judicial supremacy.

If that is not clear from naked reasoning, then things like Bush V Gore from the conservatives, and this from the liberals should make it crystal clear.

The judiciary is far from the smartest, most well reasoned, practical and effective branch of government

 

[U2387]

Wow, lack of SCOTUS knowledge isn't a problem in this forum. Applaud yourself fellow FYM'ers.

That is very scary, but not surprising at all to anyone who follows this stuff like we do.

Reminds me of what my Dad used to say.

"People think Judge Judy is a Supreme Court Justice."

More accurate and less rhetorical flourish, apparently, than I thought at the time!

Thanks for sharing, Indy!

How was the race?

 

[deep]

Supreme court decision

Justices Allow Search of Your Texts

“The court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer,” Justice Kennedy wrote in a part of the opinion joined by every member of the court except Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Cell phone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification,” Justice Kennedy went on. “On the other hand, the ubiquity of those devices has made them generally affordable, so one could counter that employees who need cell phones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own.”

The decision did not address the privacy rights of people employed by private companies.

know your rights

you got the right to be fired

 

[deep]

Supreme court decision

Supreme Court rules for disclosure of initiative signatures
In a case triggered by the battle over same-sex marriage in California, justices rule 8-1 that the names of those who signed ballot petitions for Proposition 8 can be made public without violating their free speech rights.

By Kathleen Hennessey, Tribune Washington Bureau

11:42 AM PDT, June 24, 2010

Reporting from Washington


In a case triggered by the battle over same-sex marriage in California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that disclosing the names of people who sign initiative petitions generally does not violate their right to free speech.

The 8-1 decision is a victory for gay rights advocates who have used the 'outing' of same-sex marriage foes as a political tactic. Same-sex marriage opponents in Washington state argued that the signatures should remain secret – like ballots – under the protection of the 1st Amendment. They also claimed that, given the controversial topic, they face a particular threat of harassment and intimidation that requires anonymity.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts came down on the side of disclosure, ruling that in most cases the benefit of public petitions outweighed the "only modest burdens" that come with the disclosure. The court left it to the lower court to decide whether privacy is warranted in this particularly controversial petition; however a majority of justices seemed unsympathetic to the argument.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision was somewhat of a surprise, given that many had believed that by taking up the case the high court had indicated it was partial to the 1st Amendment argument.

The case arrived at the court after a gay rights group said it planned to publicize the names of those who signed a Washington state petition seeking to repeal a same-sex domestic partner law. The names were public record under state law and the group, Boston-based KnowThyNeighbor.org, said the move was an attempt to generate useful discussion between political adversaries.

After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to release the petition, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the claim, blocking the release of some 138,000 names just before election day.

The advocacy group Protect Marriage Washington appealed to the court, saying signers of the petition had reason to fear retaliation for their political views. They pointed to reports of harassment, scorn and verbal abuse lodged at those who signed initiative petitions for California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

But in his decision, Roberts wrote that plaintiffs did not present enough evidence that such concerns applied to the vast majority of petitions used to change state laws. Disclosing the names of signers can prevent fraud and promote open government, and those benefits outweigh the privacy concerns raised by the plaintiffs, Roberts wrote.

"Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures," Roberts wrote. "Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.

Five of the justices – conservative Antonin Scalia and the four liberals on the court – indicated they did not see the need for anonymity even in the midst of heated political discussions.

In a concurring opinion signed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor, and written by Sotomayor, the judges argue that the act of signing a petition often happens in public, has a history of being considered public record and does not carry with it the expectation of privacy.

"Even when a referendum involves a particularly controversial subject and some petition signers fear harassment from non-state actors, a State's important interests in "protect[ing] the integrity and reliability of the initiative process" remain undiminished, and the State retains significant discretion in advancing those interests," Sotomayor wrote.

one dissenting vote - Clarence Thomas

How does he get to his conclusion?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

In doing so, the justices, by a narrow 5-4 margin, signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.

Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.

That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.

Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.

Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

CNN

Court rules against Christian group in discrimination case

The Supreme Court has ruled against a Christian campus group that sued after a California law school denied it official recognition because the student organization limits its core membership to those who share its beliefs on faith and marriage.

At issue was the conflict between a public university's anti-discrimination policies and a private group's freedom of religion and association.

The ruling was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was on the bench a day after her husband passed away.

The law school, wrote Ginsburg, "caught in the crossfire between a group's desire to exclude and students' demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership."

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today's decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in this contentious case.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

How embarrassing...

Kagan mum on Twilight debate 'Edward v. Jacob'



(NECN: Washington, D.C.) - It is the classic debate amongst Twilight fans: Edward or Jacob?

The third film in the Twilight saga, Eclipse, opened at midnight in theatres on Wednesday, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) decided to bring this bit of pop-culture into the Senate hearings concerning the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The hearings have been going on since Monday, with Kagan answering questions throughout each day.

"I guess it means you missed the midnight debut of the third Twilight movie last night," Sen. Klobuchar said. "We did not miss it in our household, and it culminated in three 15-year-old girls sleeping over at 3 a.m."

"I didn't see that," Kagan said.

"I keep wanting to ask you about the famous case of Edward v. Jacob, or The Vampire v. The Werewolf," Sen. Klobuchar said, opening her questioning with a bit of lightheartedness.

"I wish you wouldn't," Kagan said with a laugh.

 

[Irvine511]

something tells me that Ms. Kagan might be on Team Bella ...