BlogAds

Show Me Progress blog advertising is good for you

Blogads

MMA
Search




Advanced Search
Local / Regional Links
National Links

Missouri news, views, and issues - Show Me Progress

Supreme Court

CHG WE VOTED 4 US TO BIG TOBACCO

| More

by: merch

Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:54:39 PM CST

The Obama administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court to help it recover $280 billion from the major tobacco companies, money described as "ill-gotten gains" from past racketeering violations.

http://www.globe-democrat.com/...

Discuss :: (0 Comments)




Democrats propose to quash Supreme Court ruling on corporate election spending

| More

by: Byron DeLear

Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 23:14:45 PM CST

"It's one of the most wrongheaded decisions in court history," said Sen. Chuck Shumer of New York, referring the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of cash supporting or opposing candidates.

Nobody would claim there needs to be more money in electoral theater, and yet removing any impedance to corporate political spending has some heralding the highest Court's recent ruling as a victory for free speech and others proclaiming the end of democracy that the "floodgates of corruption, now burst open."

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 902 words in story)




PenroseOnPolitics: Stan and Ida

| More

by: bpenrose

Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:52:01 AM CST

Discuss :: (0 Comments)




California Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8

| More

by: Michael Bersin

Tue May 26, 2009 at 12:24:18 PM CDT

Demonstration at the J.C. Nichols fountain in the park at 47th and Main in Kansas City on November 15, 2008.

They cut the baby in half.

May 26 2009 S168047 Strauss v. Horton 5/26/09 SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA...

...For the third time in recent years, this court is called upon to address a question under California law relating to marriage and same-sex couples...

...Accordingly, we conclude that each of the state constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 advanced by petitioners and the Attorney General lacks merit.  Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5...

...Finally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8.  Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively.  Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state...

Our previous coverage of public demonstrations:

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City

Proposition 8 rally in Kansas City - more photos

Join the Impact in Saint Louis

You can bet there'll be more.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)




Some of what you need to know about the people who don't like Sonia Sotomayor

| More

by: Michael Bersin

Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:05:29 AM CDT

The right wingnut Mighty Wurlitzer has been going after Sonia Sotomayor for the simple reason that she was on President Obama's short list for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.

Jameson Foser (via Murshed Zaheed):

Where does Sonia Sotomayor go to get her reputation back?
May 08, 2009 6:14 pm ET

With last week's news that President Obama will soon get to choose a Supreme Court nominee, media immediately began speculating about who he would choose. And, just as quickly, some media started trying to undermine potential selections. (Back when Democrats were expressing skepticism about President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court, the media chastised them for "pre-judging" the nomination. Now the media itself is rushing to judge nominees before they are even nominees. What a difference a few years make.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor has been the subject of the harshest criticism, led by New Republic writer Jeffrey Rosen. Rosen took a brief glance at Sotomayor's rulings, talked to a few people who don't like her, and typed up their anonymous complaints. Sound like an overly harsh assessment of Rosen's research? It isn't. In fact, that's pretty much how Rosen himself describes his research...

Also from Media Matters: Will media note political motives behind conservative criticisms of SCOTUS nominee?

It now appears that she may indeed be his nominee:

Worst Kept Secret In Town To Be Revealed: Sotomayor Announcement

Discuss :: (2 Comments)




Antonin Scalia: on privacy, then and now

| More

by: Michael Bersin

Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:59:22 AM CDT

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on March 4, 2008 in Warrensburg, Missouri:

[Do you believe that there is a right to privacy under the United States Constitution?]

Oh, there certainly is and it us, uh, contained in the Fourth Amendment. And it says "that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." Period. There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means. What is a generalized right of privacy [garbled]? One of our, one of our, one of our opinions says it means "the right to be left alone". [laughter] Right. This is anarchy...

...[wire tapping] So, there is no, what should I say, exclusion from democratic debate of - conversations. It's something for the people to decide whether you should have wiretapping or not....[as practice now]...This generalized right of privacy which comes from, what is it, penumbras and emanations from the Fourth and a lot of other ridiculous stuff. Uh, you know the consequences of that? Surely one of the major policy issues around these days is whether, uh, the Federal government can listen in on these international phone calls to find what the bad guys are doing. It used to be up to the Congress to decide whether the danger was high enough and the risk of invading people's privacy high enough to permit that. No longer. It's a question for me now. It's a question for me. That's what happens when you, when you read more and more stuff into the Constitution - you reduce democracy.

This is now:

Fordham Law Class Collects Personal Info About Scalia; Supreme Ct. Justice Is Steamed

Posted Apr 29, 2009, 01:58 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Last year, when law professor Joel Reidenberg wanted to show his Fordham University class how readily private information is available on the Internet, he assigned a group project. It was collecting personal information from the Web about himself.

This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview...

...And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy:

"Professor Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any," the justice says, among other comments...

Justice Scalia Responds to Fordham Privacy Invasion!

It must all depend on whose ox is getting Gored.

Discuss :: (1 Comments)




That idiot republican Senator from Arizona

| More

by: Michael Bersin

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 15:32:27 PM CST

Steve Benen:

...The second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, just a few days after the election, is already talking about blocking Supreme Court nominations that haven't been named, in response to Supreme Court vacancies that don't exist...

In an Arizona business publication:

Kyl issues warning to Obama on Supreme Court appointments

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.

Kyl, Arizona's junior senator, expects Obama to appoint judges in the mold of U.S Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. Those justices take a liberal view on cases related to social, law and order and business issues, Kyl said.

"He believes in justices that have empathy," said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster...

Steve Benen points out that John Kyl (r - Arizona) was against judicial appointment filibusters before he was for them:

April 25, 2005

SEN. JOHN KYL: ...This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do...

Discuss :: (2 Comments)




Habeas corpus: Antonin Scalia has a problem with 800 years of freedom

| More

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 22:55:30 PM CDT

Magna Carta

...No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice...

Today the United States Supreme Court restored habeas corpus in a 5-4 opinion.

ACLU...In a stunning blow to the Bush administration's failed national security policies, the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 that the U.S. Constitution applies to the government's detention policies at Guantánamo. The Court concluded that detainees held at Guantánamo have a right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus....

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dyspeptic dissent.

...Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed..."
via The Left Coaster

Associate Justice Souter, joined by Associate Justices Breyer and Ginsburg issued a righteous smackdown of that dissent in an "afterword":

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 1081 words in story)




Those who ignore history are, well....stupid

| More

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 15:32:13 PM CDT

Yesterday I wrote about the rank stupidity of what passes for enlightened political discourse in our country: Barack Obama and "The Star Spangled Banner"

The Raw Story
...Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama is again facing questions about his patriotism from some conservative blogs -- this time for apparently failing to put his hand over his heart during a rendition of the national anthem at an Iowa campaign event....

In 1943, at a time when we were at war, the United States Supreme Court had a thing or two to say about "required" displays of patriotism.

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 940 words in story)




About
Read before posting:

Getting Started

Posting Guidelines

Diary Formatting Tips

Congressional Contact Info

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


SMP on Facebook
Show Me Progress on Facebook

Other State Blogs
News & Announcements

(Sitemeter stats from July 01, 2008)

Powered by: SoapBlox