Tag: SCOTUS

Commentary: Immortalizing Bureaucracy

Admin

Just as the infamous Dred Scott case in 1857 would have extended slavery throughout America, so Thursday’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California threatens to make the machinations of bureaucratic government supreme and unrepealable.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ 5-4 court opinion strengthens the grip of the administrative state – the interlocking network of bureaucracy and political correctness – over the democratically elected branches that are supposed to make us a nation of self-governing citizens.

Read the full story

Leahy and Carmichael Discuss Juneteenth and Chief Justice Roberts’s Decision on DACA

Julie Carr

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed in-studio all-star panelist Crom Carmichael.

During the second hour, Leahy and Carmichael discuss Juneteenth and how Trump has done more for the black and Hispanic communities than previous presidents. The men also touched on the recent position that Chief Justice John Roberts took on an executive order that was signed eight years ago by former President Obama called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Read the full story

Crom Carmichael Points Out the Silver Lining in the Recent LGBTQ Discrimination Ruling

Julie Carr

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed in-studio all-star panelist Crom Carmichael.

During the third hour, Leahy and Carmichael discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling that said LGBTQ people can’t be legally discriminated against. 

Read the full story

Supremes Revive Permit for Pipeline Under Appalachian Trail

The Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Monday paved the way for a critical permit for a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cross under the Appalachian Trail, siding with energy companies and the Trump administration.

The justices ruled 7-2 to reverse a lower court ruling that had thrown out the permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It would bring natural gas from West Virginia to growing markets in Virginia and North Carolina. Its supporters say the pipeline would bring economic development, thousands of jobs and reduced energy costs for consumers.

Read the full story

Justices Rule LGBT People Protected from Job Discrimination

The Associated Press

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

Read the full story

The Supreme Court Heard Its First Gun Rights Case in Years, but It Might Be a Misfire

Admin

by Kevin Daley   The Supreme Court heard arguments in a gun rights case for the first time in nearly 10 years Monday, involving a challenge to since-repealed New York City rules that greatly restricted the transportation of firearms. Though the case is closely watched as a possible bellwether for future disputes over the Second Amendment, several members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed ready to dismiss the case for procedural reasons, without a decision on the contested New York regulations. New York City’s gun transportation rules Under a since-repealed ordinance, New York residents had to obtain a “premises license” from city authorities to lawfully possess a firearm. That license restricted possession to the address listed on the license itself. The transportation guidelines that license holders had to follow were before the high court Monday. Those rules provided that gun owners could carry their firearms to one of seven shooting ranges in the city. To do so, however, they had to keep their weapons in a locked container, with ammunition carried separately. They could not carry their guns past city lines. If they wished to transport weapons to any location besides an approved range, they had to…

Read the full story

Commentary: The Courts Would be Wise to Stay Out of Political Battles

Admin

The nine philosopher-kings enthroned on the Supreme Court were finally gracious enough to let President Trump proceed with his plans to build a wall at the southern border, at least for now. In a 5-4 ruling, the court last month overturned an appellate court’s decision, allowing the Trump Administration to tap into military funds and continue construction while litigation is pending.

Read the full story

Democrats Join Forces to Urge the Supreme Court to Block the Southern Border Barrier Based on ‘the Environment’

Admin

by Kevin Daley   Environmental groups and House Democrats urged the Supreme Court not to disturb a lower court order blocking the reallocation of military funds for border wall projects. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to put that ruling on hold while litigation continues July 12. Granting that request — called a stay — would give the government an irreversible victory, a coalition of environmentalists led by the Sierra Club warned. “If a stay is granted and wall construction begins, there will be no turning back,” the green groups told the justices in court papers. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam barred the administration from using $2.5 billion in military funds for border wall construction. The trial court’s injunctions stalled border barrier construction projects in Arizona and New Mexico. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s request to stay Gilliam’s ruling while litigation continued by a 2-1 vote July 3. The government filed a stay application with the Supreme Court on July 12. Environmentalists fear ‘irrevocable victory’ Stays are supposed to preserve the status quo among litigants while a lawsuit proceeds through court. If the justices grant the administration’s request, the government can begin construction on several border wall projects the courts…

Read the full story

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Has Died

Tennessee Star Staff

by Kyle Daley   Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Republican corporate lawyer who became the leader of the Court’s liberal wing, died Tuesday night in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He was 99. The Supreme Court’s public information office said Stevens died from complications of a stroke suffered earlier in the day. “A son of the midwest heartland and a veteran of World War II, Justice Stevens devoted his long life to public service, including 35 years on the Supreme Court,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. “He brought to our bench an inimitable blend of kindness, humility, wisdom and independence. His unrelenting commitment to justice has left us a better nation.” “We extend our deepest condolences to his children Elizabeth and Susan, and to his extended family. Steven’s 35 year tenure is the third longest in the Court’s history. When he retired in 2010 at age 90, he was the second oldest justice ever to sit on the high court. – – – Kyle Daley is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.           Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher…

Read the full story

Pennsylvania Farmer Wins Supreme Court Case That Finds Federal Property Rights are Equal to Other Constitutional Rights

Jason M. Reynolds

  The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania farm owner who said the government effectively took her property without paying for it. Rose Knick won the victory in the case of Knick v. Township of Scott. In making its ruling, SCOTUS overturned a 1985 precedent, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. The Supreme Court’s opinion is here. Knick was represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, which argued for SCOTUS to overturn the 1985 ruling that allowed federal courts to refuse to hear her challenge to a local ordinance that forced her to allow public access to her private farmland, according to a press release by PLF. PLF said in a story that Knick’s ordeal began in 2013, when government agents forced her to allow public access to a suspected gravesite on her farmland. She sued over the unconstitutional taking. A federal court refused to hear her federal claim, citing the 1985 decision. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, Tennessee owned of a tract of land in Williamson County and intended to develop it into a residential subdivision, according to a case summary by Oyez. The Williamson County Regional Planning Commission denied the…

Read the full story

Commentary: Justice Thomas on the Dynamite That Is Natural Right

Admin

by Ken Masugi   If it’s true that “natural right is dynamite,” as political philosopher Leo Strauss wrote, then Justice Clarence Thomas just went nuclear on the abortion debate. While Thomas’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood has received considerable commentary, his deepening of the judicial and, hence, the political debate over abortion demands further elaboration. His reply to the leading threat to the principles of the Declaration of Independence is his latest attempt in a career of restoring its authority. Thomas had argued, “this [Indiana] law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” The Indiana law had barred abortion for the purposes of sex and race selection, and for fetal disabilities. Thomas critics contend he wrongly introduced elements of the now-(justly) maligned eugenics movement into the abortion debate. But recall that Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade observed (as Professor David Bernstein reminded me), “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.” I would argue instead that Blackmun was trying to obfuscate the issue, whose terrible clarity Thomas was trying to highlight: “From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating…

Read the full story

Supreme Court Turns Down Trump Administration Bid to Accelerate DACA Appeal

Admin
United States Supreme Court

by Kevin Daley   The Supreme Court rejected a request Monday to expedite its consideration of the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA is an Obama-era amnesty initiative that extends temporary legal status to 700,000 non-citizens who arrived in the U.S. as children. There were no noted dissents from Monday’s decision. As is typical of orders of this nature, the Court did not give reasons for rejecting the government’s request. The Department of Homeland Security first took steps to terminate DACA in September 2017. Federal trial judges subsequently entered injunctions requiring that Trump maintain the program while litigation continued. Beginning in November 2018, the administration challenged three of those injunctions in the Supreme Court. The justices were poised to decide whether to hear those cases in January, but no action came. The Court’s continued inaction on those petitions is perhaps the greatest mystery of the current Supreme Court term. The administration filed a fourth DACA petition at the high court in May, after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld one of the injunctions against DACA repeal. This time, the Department of Justice asked the Court to put the petition on the fast track…

Read the full story

Joe Robertson Was Imprisoned for Digging Ponds on His Montana Land, and Now His Widow Continues the Fight

Admin

by Kevin Mooney   The name of a Navy veteran may be cleared after he was convicted, fined, and imprisoned for digging ponds in a wooded area near his Montana home, to supply water in case of fire. The Supreme Court has vacated a lower court ruling against Joe Robertson, who was sent to federal prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks. Any definitive legal victory for Robertson would be posthumous, since he died March 18 at age 80. But his lawyers describe the Supreme Court’s action as a “big win” for Robertson’s widow, Carrie, who plans to carry on the fight. [ The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more ] President Barack Obama’s Justice Department had prosecuted Robertson for digging in “navigable waters” without a permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling against Robertson in November 2017 and denied him a rehearing in July 2018. The Navy veteran’s initial trial at the district court level resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial. He then was…

Read the full story

Justice Neil Gorsuch Will Replace Joe Biden as Honorary Chair of the National Constitution Center

Admin

  Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is taking on a new role as the honorary chairman of a nonpartisan group devoted to education about the Constitution, replacing former Vice President Joe Biden. The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia said Tuesday that Gorsuch, named to the high court by President Donald Trump, will serve as a spokesman for civics education and civility in politics. The 51-year-old Gorsuch is the first sitting Supreme Court Justice to be the center’s chairman. Vice President Biden stepped down when he launched his campaign for the presidency in April. Justice Gorsuch said he’s concerned by polls that show most Americans would flunk a citizenship test and many say incivility keeps them away from public affairs. “For a government of and by the people to work, everyone must have some idea how our Constitution works and we must be able to talk to each other about important ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect,” Gorsuch said in a comment provided by the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Rosen, the National Constitution Center’s president and CEO, said the organization was attracted by Gorsuch’s commitment to civics and civility. “We’re genuinely excited about this partnership because Justice Gorsuch is so passionate…

Read the full story

SCOTUS: iPhone Users Can Sue Apple for App Monopoly

Admin

by Kevin Daley   The Supreme Court ruled Monday that iPhone users can bring an antitrust lawsuit against Apple alleging the tech giant has monopolized the market for software applications. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the 5-4 decision, joined by the high court’s liberal bloc, which may have far-reaching consequences for Silicon Valley. “The plaintiffs seek to hold retailers to account if the retailers engage in unlawful anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers who purchase from those retailers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That is why we have antitrust law.” The iPhone app market is a tightly-controlled system. iPhones are programmed so they cannot download apps outside the Apple-administered App Store, and users who modify their devices to download apps from other sources — called jailbreaking — risk adverse consequences like voiding their warranty. What’s more, Apple has broad discretion over products in its store, and may remove apps for any reason whatever. Other requirements include a mandate to price all apps on a .99 scale, like $1.99 and $2.99. When an application is purchased, Apple collects a 30 percent commission and gives the other 70 percent to the developer. For subscriptions, Apple collects a 15 percent share after the first year. Taken together, the plaintiffs say…

Read the full story

Commentary: A Deep-Dive into the Other Deep State – Public Sector Unions

Admin

by Edward Ring   When government fails, public-sector unions win. When society fragments, public-sector unions consolidate their power. When citizenship itself becomes less meaningful, and the benefits of American citizenship wither, government unions offer an exclusive solidarity. Government unions insulate their members from the challenges facing ordinary private citizens. On every major issue of our time; globalization, immigration, climate change, the integrity of our elections, crime and punishment, regulations, government spending, and fiscal reform, the interests and political bias of public-sector unions is inherently in conflict with the public interest. Today, there may be no greater core threat to the freedom and prosperity of the American people. In the age of talk radio, the Tea Party movement, internet connectivity, and Trump, Americans finally are mobilizing against the uniparty to take back their nation. Yet the threat of public-sector unions typically is a sideshow, when it ought to occupy center stage. They are the greatest menace to American civilization that nobody seems to be talking about. Ask the average American what the difference is between a government union, and a private sector union, and you’re likely to be met with an uncomprehending stare. That’s too bad, because the differences are profound.…

Read the full story

Michigan, Ohio Republicans Ask Supremes to Put Gerrymandering Rulings on Hold

Admin

by Kevin Daley   Republican lawmakers in Michigan and Ohio asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block lower court decisions ordering them to produce new district lines for their congressional and state legislative maps. Separate three-judge panels found the Michigan and Ohio maps were rigged to favor of Republicans, in violation of the Constitution. Both applications were presented to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who reviews emergency applications arising from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Michigan and Ohio. Sotomayor may ask both sides to submit further briefs, refer the matters to the full Court for consideration, or both. The applications come as the Supreme Court is considering related challenges from Maryland and North Carolina, which ask whether and how federal courts should police partisan gerrymandering. Decisions in those cases will bear directly on the Michigan and Ohio disputes, since all four matters present similar issues. In the Ohio case, the lower court ordered the state to produce a new map by June 14. There is a good chance the Maryland and North Carolina disputes will not be decided at that time. Ohio Republicans said that could cause ordinary people to conclude that the lower court is trying to impose a new map on…

Read the full story

Two Key Cases the Supreme Court Will Hear in April

Admin
Supreme Court of the United States

by Elizabeth Slattery   Conversations about the Supreme Court this spring have been dominated by discussion of conspiracy theories about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, Democratic presidential hopefuls’ plans to “pack the Supreme Court,” and a manufactured “controversy” over Justice Brett Kavanaugh teaching at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School. But on Monday, the justices begin their final argument sitting of the term, with 13 oral arguments scheduled over the next two weeks. Here are two cases to watch this month. 1. Whether the Term ‘FUCT’ Can Be Trademarked In Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices will look at whether a federal law called the Lanham Act that prohibits registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office violates the First Amendment. [ The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more ] If this sounds familiar, that’s because the Supreme Court heard a similar case, Matal v. Tam, challenging the same law’s prohibition on “offensive” trademarks in 2017. The justices unanimously ruled for the challengers, an Asian-American band called the Slants, with Justice Samuel Alito declaring that the ban on “offensive” trademarks “offend[ed] a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not…

Read the full story

Clarence Thomas Clerks Dominate Trump’s Judicial Appointments

Admin

by Kevin Daley   One credential in particular has been a boon to candidates President Donald Trump considers for judicial appointments: a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas. As of this writing, the president has appointed seven Thomas clerks to the federal appeals courts, while an eighth is expected in the near future. As such, Thomas’s legal approach — sometimes branded unusual or idiosyncratic — can claim adherents among a new generation of judges. “At this point, Justice Thomas is clearly the leading intellectual force on the conservative side of the bench,” said Carrie Severino, a former Thomas clerk who leads the Judicial Crisis Network, an advocacy group that supports Trump’s efforts to recast the judicial branch. “His principled approach to the law is very much in the ascendency and those are the kind of judges that this president has pledged for the courts,” Severino added. Thomas generally hires law clerks who share his originalist judicial philosophy. Among the Supreme Court’s conservatives, he is somewhat unique in that respect: former Justice Antonin Scalia periodically hired liberal “counter clerks” to sharpen his work, while the hiring practices of other conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appears slightly more varied. “I’m…

Read the full story

Kavanaugh Warns Of ‘Pure Discrimination’ as Supreme Court Denies Church Bid for Historic Preservation Grant

Admin

by Kevin Daley   The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide whether religious institutions may be disqualified from public historic preservation funding, after a New Jersey court forbade local officials from dispersing $4 million to 12 churches. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion addressing the dispute, calling the lower court’s decision “pure discrimination.” “Barring religious organizations because they are religious from a general historic preservation grants program is pure discrimination against religion,” Kavanaugh wrote. “At some point, this Court will need to decide whether governments that distribute historic preservation funds may deny funds to religious organizations simply because the organizations are religious.” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined the Kavanaugh opinion. Morris County, New Jersey awards grants for the maintenance of historically significant structures. Several churches dating back to the colonial period have received public support through that program since 2012. The case at issue Monday arose in April 2016, when the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and a local taxpayer brought a lawsuit claiming the Morris County program violates New Jersey’s constitution. The state constitution provides that no person shall be “obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches.” The New Jersey…

Read the full story

Supreme Court Expedites Citizenship Question in Census Case

Admin
Supreme Court of the United States

by Fred Lucas   The Supreme Court will settle the question on whether the question of citizenship can be included in the 2020 census, bypassing an appeals court hearing. The high court announced Friday it will hear arguments in April, with a likely decision by June. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last year the Census Bureau would add the question. Last month, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York ruled the Census Bureau could not ask about citizenship. The judge ruled the question would lead to undercounting illegal residents and Hispanics. The next week, the Trump administration moved to bypass the appeals courts, and take the issue straight to the Supreme Court, given the urgency to prepare the census. The case would normally be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >> Citizenship would seemingly be more important than knowing the race or gender of someone filling out a census form, said Michael Gonzalez, a senior fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation, since the government’s job is to protect the…

Read the full story

Anthony Kennedy Says Loss Of Decency Is a Threat to Democracy

Admin
Kennedy

by Kevin Daley   Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned university students that democracy is endangered by the decline of free and open civic debate. “We have a social framework of decency that we’re very quickly losing,” Kennedy said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which was on hand during the recent event at the UC Hastings College of Law. Without that framework, he explained, free societies cannot endure. Elsewhere in his remarks, the justice bemoaned the “egocentrism that the cyber age has brought us.” “Our young people in the cyber age don’t think the past is important,” Kennedy said. “If it’s not on your screen, it’s not important.” The importance of civil, wide-ranging discourse was a major touchstones of Kennedy’s jurisprudence during his tenure on the Supreme Court. Even in closely-divided cases touching hot social controversies, the justice emphasized the respect due to all parties and extolled the virtue of free expression. Perhaps the most significant of Kennedy’s opinions was the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. There he repeatedly argued that the decision’s detractors had good faith objections to same-sex unions which should be aired in a respectful exchange of views. “Many…

Read the full story

Biography Reveals New Details Of Roberts’ Obamacare Vote

Admin

by Kevin Daley   A forthcoming biography of Chief Justice John Roberts contains the first account of the Supreme Court’s internal politicking over the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision, in which Roberts joined with the Court’s four liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. A review of the much anticipated book — the first major Roberts biography — will appear in the March edition of the Atlantic, which disseminates new details of the chief’s scheming in advance of the book’s release. The book relates that in the weeks following the March 2012 arguments, Roberts voted with the conservative bloc to strike down the individual mandate, finding Congress had exceeded its power under the commerce clause by compelling people to buy insurance. Roberts elected to keep the majority opinion for himself — one of the few formal powers of the chief justice is the duty to assign opinions. As time progressed, Roberts grew uneasy and sought a third way. Initially, he hoped Justice Anthony Kennedy — the vaunted swing justice who had negotiated compromise decisions in seminal cases before — would be amenable to such negotiations. Whatever his reputation, Kennedy was not a moderate but an idiosyncratic ideologue, and he was convinced the ACA was unconstitutional.…

Read the full story

A Little-Noticed Opinion Portends Big Changes for Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court

Admin

by Kevin Daley   The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc released a short, little-noticed statement on Jan. 22 that portends far-reaching changes for religious liberty. The statement — which Justice Samuel Alito authored and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined — criticized the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, a landmark ruling that held laws interfering with religious exercise are constitutional provided that they apply to everyone and are neutrally enforced. “In Employment Division v. Smith the Court drastically cut back on the protection provided by the free exercise clause,” Alito wrote. “In this case, however, we have not been asked to revisit that decision.” In the understated parlance of the Supreme Court, it was a clarion call for litigants to bring cases challenging Smith. It was all the more remarkable in that four justices signed onto the statement, an uncommon occurrence for opinions of this nature. The late Justice Antonin Scalia authored the 5-4 Smith ruling. Outrage at the decision prompted passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires courts to subject federal action that infringes on religious practice to the highest degree of scrutiny. More recently, something approaching an anti-Smith consensus has developed on the right. Most…

Read the full story

SCOTUS Will Hear North Carolina Partisan Gerrymandering Case

A.P. Dillon

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that in March it will hear partisan gerrymandering cases involving North Carolina and Maryland. These partisan gerrymandering cases are the first of their kind to be heard since Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy on the court. The decision to hear these cases will likely have ramifications for a suit filed last November by Common Cause and the North Carolina Democratic Party. The case, Common Cause v. Lewis, alleges partisan gerrymandering in district maps drawn by the Republican majority-held legislature.  The case was recently denied a delay and remanded back to North Carolina Superior Court by Federal District Judge Louise Flanagan. Filed in Wake County court, the complaint demands the maps be redrawn for use in 2020 and alleges that the districts violate the state’s constitution in three areas: The Equal Protection Clause, the Free Elections Clause, and the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly clauses. The suit also alleges that the current districts are “intentionally burdening the protected speech and/or expressive conduct of Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters, including members of Common Cause and the NCDP, based on their identity, their viewpoints, and the content of their speech.” “Because lawmakers…

Read the full story

Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Miss Arguments Following Lung Cancer Procedure

Admin

by Kevin Daley   Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments Monday as she recuperates from cancer surgery. It’s not clear when the 85-year-old justice will return to work, though the Supreme Court’s public information office said she will continue to participate in official business from her home in Washington. Despite Ginsburg’s absence, a Court spokeswoman said the justice would participate in Monday’s cases by reading transcripts of the proceedings, then voting as normal. Monday is the first time that Ginsburg has missed arguments since she joined the high court in 1993. Surgeons at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York removed two cancerous nodules from Ginsburg’s lungs on Dec. 21. She was discharged on Dec. 26. The justice’s doctors said the surgery was successful and there are no signs of disease elsewhere in her body. The growths were detected when Ginsburg was hospitalized for a rib fracture in November 2018. On that occasion, the justice fell in her chambers and was admitted to a Washington-area hospital after experiencing discomfort in her chest. In a public appearance just days before December’s procedure, Ginsburg said her health was “fine”, and made no mention of the pending surgery. The justice has been diagnosed…

Read the full story

Justice Ginsburg Has Surgery to Remove Cancerous Growths

Admin

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery Friday to remove two malignant growths in her left lung, the Supreme Court said. It is the 85-year-old Ginsburg’s third bout with cancer since joining the court in 1993. Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York found “no evidence of any remaining disease” and scans taken before the surgery showed no cancerous growths elsewhere in her body, the court said in a statement. No additional treatment is currently planned, the court said. Ginsburg, who leads the court’s liberal wing, is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days, the court said. The growths were found during tests Ginsburg had after she fractured ribs in a fall in her Supreme Court office on Nov. 7. The court’s oldest justice had surgery for colorectal cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer 10 years later. Among other health problems, she also broke two ribs in a fall in 2012 and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014. She was hospitalized after a bad reaction to medicine in 2009. Ginsburg has never missed Supreme Court arguments in more than 25 years on the bench. The court won’t hear arguments again…

Read the full story

Mueller and Manafort Have a Lot Riding on a Supreme Court Double Jeopardy Case

Admin

by Kevin Daley   The Supreme Court appeared skeptical Thursday of overturning an exception to the Constitution’s double jeopardy prohibition, which allows state and federal prosecutors to bring successive prosecutions for the same offense. The case is carefully followed in Washington because of its potential ramifications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “The notion that the federal government would step in and prosecute a defendant after a state jury acquitted him of the same offense would have shocked the founding generation,” one of the briefs at the high court reads. Thursday’s case arose in Alabama, when Terence Gamble was arrested during a 2015 traffic stop after police recovered two baggies of marijuana and a 9mm handgun from his car. State prosecutors charged Gamble, a convicted felon, for illegal possession of a firearm. A federal charge for the same crime followed. The so-called separate-sovereigns doctrine allows state and federal courts to prosecute individuals for the same offense, double jeopardy notwithstanding. The question in Thursday’s case was whether that rule should be overturned. That move could hinder the Mueller probe, should President Donald Trump choose to pardon aides and associates who the special counsel has since indicted. Since the president can only issue…

Read the full story

Brett Kavanaugh Keeping a Low Profile in His First Months as a Justice

Admin

by Kevin Daley   Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to be keeping a low profile in his first months on the U.S. Supreme Court after his bitter confirmation inflamed much of the public and recast the 2018 elections. The new justice’s approach to his first months on the high court is in marked contrast to President Donald Trump’s other appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch. The justices have done their best to project normalcy since Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The panel was especially lighthearted during his first day on the bench, as when Justice Sonia Sotomayor turned and pinched Gorsuch while posing a hypothetical about the term “violent felony” within the meaning of a federal sentencing law. Gorsuch reacted with good-natured surprise, eliciting laughter from the courtroom audience. Kavanaugh himself has been an understated presence at oral arguments, clearly engaged but deferential to his colleagues. As a general matter, he has waited for the other justices to ask their questions before posing his own, and his inquiries have been largely confined to technical matters. He did, however, appear to break type in a Nov. 6 death penalty case, signaling concern that Missouri’s death penalty protocol could inflict “gruesome and brutal pain” on an elderly convict. Kavanaugh was…

Read the full story

Ranchers and Native Americans Battle at Supreme Court Over Hunting Rights

Admin

by Tim Pearce   A coalition of agricultural interests is backing the state of Wyoming in a Supreme Court Case over the hunting rights of Crow tribal members from a 150-year-old treaty. Eight agricultural groups filed a motion in support of Wyoming on Tuesday for arresting a tribal member, Clayvin Herrera, after he and several other Native Americans killed elk in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest in 2014. Herrera sued the state, claiming a right to hunt on “unoccupied” federal land secured in a 19th century treaty between the U.S. and the tribe. “We are not seeking to overturn the hunting rights the Crow Tribe reserved in their treaty with the United States,” Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) attorney Cody Wisniewski said in a statement. “Quite the contrary, we are just asking the Court to treat the right as the both the tribe and United States understood it in 1868.” MSLF is representing the agricultural groups Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Colorado Farm Bureau Federation and South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association. Herrera’s case against Wyoming rests on the meaning of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty that set up the…

Read the full story

McConnell Says Confirming Judges Will Be His ‘Top Priority’

Admin

by Rachel del Guidice   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says his “top priority” for the rest of the year and into the new Congress is filling the judiciary with President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. “The president, I think, has done an excellent job in picking young men and women who believe the job of the judge is to follow the law and we intend to keep confirming as many as we possibly can as long as we are in a position to do it,” McConnell said Wednesday at a press conference. “It’ll still be my top priority in setting the agenda here in the Senate,” McConnell said. McConnell also said that the Senate has been successful in making two Supreme Court appointments and 29 circuit judges, adding that, “we’re not through doing those this year.”While not all Senate races are settled, Republicans are poised to pick up two seats in the Senate. John G. Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that McConnell is correct to set his sights on judicial confirmations.…

Read the full story

Here Are Three Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court

Admin

by Elizabeth Slattery and Ashley Vaughan   The Supreme Court is back in session after a two-week break. The justices will hear arguments in a number of important cases, including ones dealing with coercive class-action settlements, using hovercrafts for moose hunting in Alaska, and Virginia’s ban on uranium mining. Here are three cases to watch closely in the coming weeks. Frank v. Gaos Is it fair for the majority of a class-action settlement to go to third-party recipients with ties to the defendant and the class attorneys? That’s what a district court approved in a suit alleging that Google violated users’ privacy when it disclosed users’ search terms to third parties. Google agreed to settle the case for $8.5 million, with more than $2 million going to the class attorneys, $1 million paying for administrative costs and “incentive payments” for the named plaintiffs, and the vast majority—over $5 million—going to third-party recipients. The federal district court, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on appeal, authorized this settlement because it would be impractical to distribute settlement funds to a class with an estimated 129 million members. These courts followed a doctrine known as cy pres, which…

Read the full story

Dr. Carol Swain Commentary: The War Against Conservative Supreme Court Justices

Admin

by Dr. Carol M. Swain   Supreme Court justices need secret service protection now more than ever. The Left would like to remove Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas.  Their goal is to gain control of the Court using any means necessary. On October 6, the day of the Senate vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, Charlie Savage, writing for The New York Times, discussed liberal strategies for gaining control of the Court. Acknowledging that the Supreme Court would be controlled by a conservative majority for the foreseeable future, Savage reported, “Liberals have already started to attack the legitimacy of the majority bloc and discussed ways to eventually undo its power without waiting for one of its members to retire or die.” One idea is to regain control of the of the government in 2020 and have a liberal president increase the number of Supreme Court justices to create a liberal majority.  Another scheme is to find a means to “impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh,” as well as Justice Thomas.    Currently, there is a petition with over 47,000 signatures to impeach Thomas.  In the past, opportunities to fill Supreme Court seats depended on the death…

Read the full story

SCOTUS Puts the Brakes on Kids’ Climate Lawsuit Against the Government

Admin

by Chris White   Supreme Court Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration a stay Friday night in a climate lawsuit several young people leveled against the government. The Trump administration repeatedly asked both the SCOTUS and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the trial through a writ of mandamus, a rarely used judicial tool allowing a higher court to overrule a lower court before a verdict is made. Roberts granted mandamus after the 9th Circuit twice turned down the writ. The 21 plaintiffs, all between the ages of 11 and 22, are arguing that federal officials violated their due process rights by allowing the fossil fuel industry to release greenhouse gas emissions, despite knowing for years that such emissions can cause climate change. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the federal government to implement an “enforceable national remedial plan” phasing out carbon emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate and protect the environment. Their case — Juliana v. United States — has survived several attempts by the government to torpedo the case after it was originally filed in 2015. Attorneys for the defendants said they believe the case will eventually move forward. “We are confident once Chief Justice Roberts and the full…

Read the full story

SCOTUS Clears the Way For Voter ID Requirement In Key Senate Race

Admin

by Kevin Daley   The U.S. Supreme Court will allow a North Dakota law requiring voters to produce government ID with a current residential street address when casting ballots to take effect. The decision, which came Tuesday and drew a brief dissent, will effect one November’s most critical Senate races. A group of American Indians challenged the residential street address requirement, arguing that it imposes “impossible and severe burdens on the franchise for Native American voters,” as many live on reservations or otherwise lack ordinary street addresses. A federal judge agreed and prohibited the law. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted that order, so the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to restore the injunction. North Dakota argues that the law protects the integrity of the ballot box and improves the administration of elections — the state’s filing at the high court notes there were over 800 different ballots used in the state during the 2016 election cycle, which are assigned on the basis of address. The Supreme Court’s Tuesday order allowed the law to take effect for the general election. As is typical of orders of this nature, neither the vote count nor the reasoning was disclosed. Justice…

Read the full story

Minnesota Teacher Placed on Paid Leave After Calling for Murder of Kavanaugh

Anthony Gockowski

A Minnesota public school teacher is now under investigation after calling for the murder of newly-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The teacher, identified on social media as Samantha Ness, works for Intermediate School District #917’s Alliance Education Center, which “provides services to all students with unique needs,” including children with autism, cognitive disabilities, emotional behavior disorders, and more. “So whose [sic] gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” Ness tweeted over the weekend, but has since deleted her Facebook and Twitter. Screen grabs of her social media accounts, however, show that she started at her teaching position in April, while pictures she posted to Twitter confirmed her identity. https://twitter.com/pahubb43/status/1049143893743296512 Additionally, the Minnesota Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board confirms that Ness is a licensed teacher in the state and a graduate of Minnesota State University, Mankato. Before deleting her Twitter account, Ness went on to write that “Kavanaugh will be dealing with death threats for the rest of his life being on the Supreme Court,” so she doubts her “mid-west ass is a real threat,” according to archives of her account. On Monday, her employer announced that it has “received a complaint regarding an employee” who has…

Read the full story

Kavanaugh Confirmed!

Tennessee Star Staff
Brett Kavanaugh

by Kevin Daley The Senate confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court Saturday afternoon, securing a conservative majority on the nation’s highest judicial tribunal. Kavanaugh’s confirmation concludes an agonizing nomination process, which in stretches pertained as much to visceral feelings about identity, violence and fairness as to the high court. The final vote was 50 to 48. GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the lone Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, voted “present,” ensuring the other absent lawmaker, GOP Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, would not have to leave his daughter’s wedding in Bozeman to cast a decisive vote for the judge. GOP Rep. Greg Gianforte lent Daines the use of his private plane in the event he would have to return to Washington, should a slim margin require his presence. Among those present in the chamber for the vote was Debra Katz, an attorney who represents Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault dating back to when the two were minors. Vice President Mike Pence presided over the Senate during Saturday’s proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts will privately swear Kavanaugh in as a justice at the Court on Saturday night. There are generally two swearing-in ceremonies…

Read the full story

Commentary: The Battle of Brett Kavanaugh

Admin

by Michael Walsh   As the smoke starts to clear over the senatorial battlefield, the outlines of the conflict have come into stark relief. What began, like Gettysburg, with the accidental clash of two mighty armies, has become a death struggle between the reactionary forces of cultural-Marxist leftism in their purest, most deracinated form, and the restorative powers of the American Republic-as-founded, including the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and the orderly workings of our constitutional government. It’s a fight only one side can win, and it had better be ours. The Pickett’s Charge of the Left came last week, with an all-out assault (to use the feminist Left’s current mot du jour) on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s record, morals, life, and future. Pinning their hopes on the plainly insincere and deceptive testimony of a fabulist—what, in fact, was “credible” about Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony?—the Left augmented her baseless charges against the judge by quickly moving the goalposts from an alleged “attempted rape” to an indictment of the radicals’ favorite bugbear, the Privileged White Male Patriarchy. Marked by their usual crude reductionism of a human being to a bloody fanged Marxist stereotype, the Democrats stripped Kavanaugh of his humanity, hurled unsubstantiated accusationswith…

Read the full story

Commentary: A Vote Against Kavanaugh is a Vote for Mob Rule

Admin

by Rick Manning   The Senate must not to cave into mob rule and instead must support confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. If the Senate votes against Judge Kavanaugh it will be assenting to mob rule to take down President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, not because of veracity of the allegations made against him or whether they could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but because of the politics of the moment. In the past, judges and justices were examined by the Senate on the basis of qualifications. Unfortunately the current process has become purely political, with a ratcheting up of the politics of personal destruction to defeat nominees as seen in the cases of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Because of these unsubstantiated allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has become one of the most divisive in our nation’s history as a fervent mob is demanding that we destroy Kavanaugh and his entire life without any proof, beyond a single person’s statement, to say he committed the actions he is accused of. It is alarming that Senate Democrats have not already rejected the mob rule that is at the heart of the Kavanaugh opposition,…

Read the full story

Commentary: Republicans Must Nationalize The Election On Kavanaugh Confirmation

Admin

by CHQ Staff   Prior to the middle of September, the Republican establishment was struggling to find a message that would motivate the Trump coalition to turn out for the November midterm election. However, the Democrats have now handed the GOP a national issue that has quickly proven it will motivate voters to shift to Republican Senate candidates: the confirmation of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In the key Senate match-up between incumbent Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp and challenger Republican congressman Kevin Cramer, Heitkamp is down 10 points in the latest NBC North Dakota News – Strategic Research Associates (SRA) poll. According to the poll, Cramer leads Heitkamp 51 percent to 41 percent. Eight percent have yet to make up their mind. According to NBC North Dakota News, sixty percent of voters in North Dakota support Kavanaugh with 27 percent expressing opposition. The poll was conducted during the recent disclosure that Kavanaugh may have engaged in sexual misconduct while in high school and college, but before the Sept. 27 testimony by Kavanaugh and one of his accusers before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to the poll, an overwhelmingly 21 percent of North Dakota voters say…

Read the full story