Category: Supreme Court
FoxNews offers this report. It appears the conversation has shifted from whether Chicago may ban guns, to whether any of its regulations are constitutional.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., refused on Tuesday to block a District of Columbia court’s order that cleared the way for same-sex couples to get marriage licenses and wed in the capital city, beginning on Wednesday. The Chief Justice, in denying an emergency stay filed by opponents of gay marriage, issued a three-page opinion.
"The Supreme Court majority that two years ago ruled a near-total ban on handguns in the District to be unconstitutional seemed equally willing on Tuesday to extend the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms to the states. But the court appeared skeptical, even hostile at times, to an approach by the lead attorney in the case that would involve overturning long-held court precedents to achieve the result."
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of 'due process,' since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emer Read more »
"You can accuse the black inner-city grandfather of betraying Chicago neighborhoods overrun by thugs with guns. . . . The liberal South Side Democrat said he put himself in the spotlight over the right to pack a pistol because he's living on a block where the bad guys with guns have him outnumbered and overpowered."
"The Supreme Court today is the scene of a Constitutional duel in a case that will decide if the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to the states. The answer will determine whether the Court's landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is a hollow legal anomaly, or if it extends nationwide."
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument Tuesday on whether the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies to state and local governments. The lead plaintiff is a 76-year-old man on the far South Side of Chicago who has seen his community become crime-ridden and fears for his safety. See here for more detail and briefs.
"In 1996 Congress enacted legislation designed to cut off material aid to terrorists. . . . On Tuesday, February 23, . . . the Supreme Court . . . hears oral arguments in Holder v. Read more »
In the official United States Reports, Jensen [v. Quaring] is a summary disposition - the Court split four to four and so affirmed the lower court without opinion. The Blackmun Papers, however, show that the vote after oral argument was five to three to reverse the court of appeals. After Chief Justice Burger circulated a draft Opinion of the Court that would have radically altered the Court’s approach to the Free Exercise Clause, Justice Blackmun switched his vote, making the tally four to four.
Democrats gearing up for a possible Supreme Court vacancy are divided over whether President Barack Obama should appoint a prominent liberal voice while their party still commands a large Senate majority, or go with someone less likely to stoke Republican opposition.
More.
The Hill offers this explanation of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC and what it means for the 2010 election cycle. As they explain, the Supreme Court did not open the floodgates to corporate financing of campaigns as many "reformers" have predicted. Indeed, the federal ban on corporate contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. Read more »
ACLU's Executive Director, Ira Glasser, explains why the Supreme Court was right in Citizens United and why campaign-finance "reformers," MSM, and liberal Democrats complaining about the decision are wrong.
"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United stands with Brown v. Board of Education as a landmark refutation of discriminatory treatment. It is ironic that the President accused the members of the Supreme Court, who have upheld freedom of speech for corporations and unions, as being politically motivated [i]. Read more »
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) responds to President Obama's comments during the State of the Union address about the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Hatch avoids discussing whether it was appropriate to criticize the Court, but explains that they next time the President decides to do it, he might want to make sure his understanding of the case is correct first.
Senatory John Kerry is calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Kerry said the amendment is necessary to "make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals." Read more »
Law.com offers this report on how the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Citizens United v. FEC is already sending shockwaves across the country, effecting more than a dozen campaign finance cases already pending in the courts. James Bopp, Jr., one of our founding members, is involved in many of the cases discussed.
"In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States . . . . He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president display a gross lack of grace in doing this, but many members of Congress in the audience surrounding the seated justices threw fuel on the fire . . . . Read more »
Human Events article: "Somehow, we doubt that, if the media corporations were not specifically exempted, the New York Times and the Washington Post would now be warning that the free political speech of corporations threatens our democracy. As Justice Scalia concluded, to 'exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.'"
