The biggest issue when State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump gets to the Supreme Court is to balance your traditional deference to Executive authority with the need to affirm judicial authority. Deferring to the Executive is perfectly reasonable in a country of some 300 million people, But the President’s many recent attacks on the judiciary make it necessary for you to assert your authority at this time.
I propose that you strike down the ban and uphold your authority.
- The specifics of the ban do nothing to make the country safer. The protocols previously in place did an excellent job of that.
- In light of the President’s contempt for the judiciary, if you don’t strike down the ban, you will look like a bunch of Executive lapdogs and your Court will be reduced from a co-equal branch of government to a mere rubber stamp.
- Once you strike down this Executive Order, you’ll have a free hand to do what you think best in the future.
Having quietly disposed of Philip Seymour Hoffman and David Carradine, the Star Whackers have taken out Justice Antonin Scalia, presumably on orders from President Obama and Cheryl Boone Isaacs. Their next victim is expected to be Clarence Thomas, though a hit on J. J. Abrams would be cheered by all discerning Star Wars fans.
Source: Conspiracy kooks shift into overdrive after learning Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over head
It’s time for another installment of Professor H.O. Hell’s Constitutional Lectures You Wish You Didn’t Read.
In this case, we’re covering the relatively recent strikedown of the Defense of Marriage Act by the Supreme Court. One of the cornerstones of the argument against DOMA was that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees rights to all. It’s even sort of true. Sort of. The thing is that it goes only one way. It protects citizens from States interfering in rights granted by the Federal government. It was part of the reforms rammed down the throats of the South after the Civil War (you need to rejoin the Union and we won’t let you unless you agree to these Amendments).
The point here is that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended as a way to stop Jim Crow. As we all know, that failed wonderfully because of judicial activism which ruled that it only applied to the federal government. It’s hard to understand how they kept a straight face while presenting that decision. People think judicial activism is entirely something perpetrated by liberals trying to make the world a better place and forget that many things have plenty of history with “conservative” persons (perhaps stagnant reactionaries would be a better term).
Setting all that aside, the Fourteenth Amendment was the point of this article. I’m not saying that the right to marry shouldn’t be spread evenly (why shouldn’t everyone have the right to suffer equally–ha ha ha), but that the foundation for that should not be sought within the Fourteenth Amendment which says nothing about the federal government giving equal protections. If, on the other hand, you want to know why Extraordinary Rendition is unconstitutional, you can always find it there.
And now that you know, you can’t unknow it.
Professor H.O. Hell
The U.S. Supreme Court has handed President Obama another major victory regarding his signature health care law.
Republicans made sure to disembowel the Affordable Care Act before they passed it, then they tried to defund it, weaken it and repeal it. They tried mocking it by calling it Obamacare. They forced poor Mitt Romney to back away from his signature Massachusetts legislation that was the precursor to Obamacare. They lied about it over and over. They used it to try and defeat President Obama’s reelection. They opposed it in every state legislature, denying coverage to millions who needed it. They fought it through the courts.
After a five-year full-court press, they lost in the Supreme Court.
They could have spent that time trying to fix the law’s defects but chose instead to screw Americans out of healthcare coverage.
Source: Supreme Court rules in favor of Obamacare subsidies – NY Daily News
The government can seek to have someone accused of a federal crime forfeit any money they made from the alleged crime. The government just has to show that there’s probable cause to think the person committed a crime and that the money came from that crime.
But, according to Kaley v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court this week, the government can get that forfeiture order before there’s a trial finding you guilty. And you don’t get a hearing either because a grand jury indictment is sufficient to demonstrate “probable cause.”
And you don’t get to challenge the finding of the grand jury, you don’t have the right to present evidence to the grand jury, cross-examine witnesses who testify before the grand jury, or argue that what they’ve heard does not support the conclusion that you’ve been involved in a crime.
In other words, once you’re indicted by a federal grand jury, it sucks to be you.
via The Supreme Court Holds You Don’t Get To Hire A Lawyer If The Government Thinks Your Money Came From A Crime « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources.
(PS: If you want a little surprise, read who wrote the dissent.)
“The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider religious objections made by corporations to a provision of the 2010 federal healthcare law requiring employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control. . . .
“The key question before the court in the two cases it agreed to hear is whether corporations should be treated the same as individuals when making free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
via U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare contraception cases – NY Daily News.
It seems that Chief Justice Roberts changed his mind on the Affordable Care Act, and that justices in the minority retaliated by leaking to the media.
According to Felix Salmon at Reuters, “. . . it seems very much as though the more partisan Republicans within the Supreme Court have in this case behaved more like politicians than like jurists. . . .”
In spite the the Supreme Court’s tradition of secrecy, “. . . we’re now seeing these coordinated and perfectly-timed leaks from within the Court, detailing information known only to the justices themselves. The conservative justices are leaking, and although [CBS News reporter Jan] Crawford talks about ‘law clerks, chambers’ aides and secretaries’ who have been gossiping internally about Roberts’s change of mind, it’s pretty clear that her sources were impeccable and that if they weren’t the conservative justices themselves, they were sources who had the explicit consent of those justices to start talking to the press.”
Supreme Court justices telling tales out of school? Eeeew.
When the Supreme Court leaks | Felix Salmon.