U S Supreme Court - all related issues

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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 ...

[deep]

did you hear the softball question Lindsay Graham threw her yesterday?

I think they are on the same team, too.

[Irvine511]

he does throw like a girl.

[deep]

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to send the nomination of Elena Kagan on to the full Senate, moving her closer to confirmation to the Supreme Court.


The final vote was 13-6, with Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) joining the panel's 12 Democrats in voting to support the former Harvard Law School dean.


Kagan likely will attract additional Republican votes in the full Senate, which will take up the nomination before the August recess.


President Obama nominated Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, on May 10 to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens.

looks like Kagan will get less votes than Sotomayor

[deep]

Key Republican calls Kagan a 'dangerous' nominee

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Wednesday, July 28, 2010; 6:27 PM

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan picked up more GOP backing Wednesday in her drive toward near-certain confirmation next week, even as a top Republican lashed out at her as "dangerous."

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, warned senators in unusually dire terms against voting for President Barack Obama's choice, saying, "Be careful about it, because I'm afraid that we have a dangerous nominee. She is Jewish and an attorney, that can be a lethal combination."

.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Is he related to Mel Gibson?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Is he related to Mel Gibson?

The actual quote:

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, warned senators in unusually dire terms against voting for President Barack Obama's choice, saying, "Be careful about it, because I'm afraid that we have a dangerous, progressive, political-type nominee."

[MrsSpringsteen]

Ok, so deep was just having some fun I didn't think any politician would actually say something like that but these days I would actually believe it. I fell for that one

[anitram]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Ok, so deep was just having some fun

Fun is one word for it.

[BVS]

Deep baiting...

Be weary.

[deep]

The vote will most likely happen later today

Brown to Vote ‘No’ on Kagan Nomination -

she will not get the votes she deserves