Truth Has No Agenda (GB)

Posts tagged “SCOTUS

Justices indicate interest in narrow ruling on gay marriage in landmark hearing

[FoxNews.com]

Published March 26, 2013

supreme_court_gay-protesters-THUMB

Several Supreme Court justices indicated they might lean toward issuing a narrow ruling on gay marriage during a landmark hearing Tuesday on California’s same-sex marriage ban, even as lawyers for the plaintiffs argued for legalizing the unions nationally.The case heard Tuesday, the first of two gay-marriage cases the high court is weighing this week, centered on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage but could have national implications. If the justices choose to rule broadly, they could overturn Prop 8 and in doing so invalidate every other restriction on gay marriage in the country.But the justices suggested Tuesday they could decide the case without issuing a ruling that ripples through all 50 states.Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts Tuesday that the case was properly before them. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.
Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.Click to listen to the Supreme Court arguments in the Prop 8 case.

Kennedy said he feared the court would go into “uncharted waters” if it embraced arguments advanced by gay marriage supporters. But lawyer Theodore Olson, representing two same-sex couples, said that the court similarly ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states.

Kennedy challenged the accuracy of that comment by noting that other countries had had interracial marriages for hundreds of years.

There was no majority apparent for any particular outcome and many doubts expressed about the arguments advanced by lawyers for the opponents of gay marriage in California, by the supporters and by the Obama administration, which is in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” by including same-sex couples.

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 argued that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

The case attracted high interest. Spectators were waiting in line since Thursday for the chance at being in the room while the two sides try to sway the court.

By ruling broadly, the court could overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California’s ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. By choosing the middle route, though, the justices could dismiss the case — a move likely to let gay marriages resume in California, with no impact anywhere else.

The case before the high court came together four years ago when the two couples agreed to be the named plaintiffs and become the public faces of a well-funded, high-profile effort to challenge Proposition 8 in the courts.

The fight began in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses. Six months later, the state Supreme Court invalidated the same-sex unions. Less than four years later, however, the same state court overturned California’s prohibition on same-sex unions.

Then, in the same election that put President Obama in the White House in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, undoing the court ruling and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California. Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.

The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.

They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson’s onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

On Wednesday the court will consider a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, as part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The arguments come at a time of changing views on the issue. Support for gay marriage is becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue is causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told “Fox News Sunday” that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking “for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state.”

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that’s not likely, he said the court should let the states decide.

However Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a “conservative legal argument.”

“They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people,” she told “Fox News Sunday.” “There’s also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage.”

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage — and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions — have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit.

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.

“They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a “huge mistake” that would “undermine respect for the judiciary.”

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it.

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 — when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling.

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Could Obamacare Go the Way of McCain-Feingold?

[American Spectator]

By on 11.30.12 @ 6:10AM

McCain-FeingoldThe “Affordable Care Act” might die a death of a thousand legal cuts.

Last June, upon learning that the Supreme Court had ruled Obamacare’s individual mandate constitutional, many observers were forced to concur with the Dickens character who opined, “If the law supposes that… the law is an ass.” Yet, the increasing number of anti-PPACA lawsuits that have been receiving serious attention from the courts suggests that the legal system may not be as irrational as it seemed when Chief Justice John Roberts began braying from the bench on June 28. If this seems Pollyannaish, consider the fate of McCain-Feingold.

(more…)


Supreme Court orders new look at Liberty University’s health care challenge

[FoxNews.com]

Associated Press

Published November 26, 2012

The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms.

A federal district judge rejected Liberty’s claims, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school’s arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.

The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty’s.

The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.

(more…)


Conservative Radio Host Mark Levin Takes To Fox News To Argue That Federal Judges Need Term Limits

[Mediaite.com]

by Jon Bershad | 4:04 pm, July 3rd, 2012

The Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act was about a bazillion years ago. However, some people are still angry about it. Shockingly (SHOCKINGLY!!!), the man who once wrote a book called Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is one of them. That man, of course, is conservative radio host Mark Levin. Levin is furious at the recent CBS News report that Chief Justice John Roberts may have been swayed by the media. Levin is so furious at this kind of media tomfoolery that he went on Fox News (where’s he’s appeared a few times the past couple days) and called for Roberts to lose his job.

Shockingly (SHOCKINGLY!!!), it would appear that some media pressure is better than others.

Levin called in to talk to Megyn Kelly to lash out at Roberts and the Supreme Court. He began by mocking conservatives who were attempting to see a “silver lining” in the ruling, claiming that they were “blinded by their silliness.” He then argued that it was time to instate term limits for federal judges.

“What we lack, Megyn, in too many public officials — and that would included judges and justices, not all but too many — is virtue, integrity, prudence. And, over time, they become cynical, they become deceitful, and their view of our constitutional system collapses. And one way to try to address this is to ensure that there’s more opportunity for other great people, brilliant lawyers, judges, and so forth to step up to the plate and have an honest opportunity to participate in the governance of this country.”

(more…)


Increasingly Shrill Liberal Journalists Attack ‘Legitimacy’ of Supreme Court Ahead of ObamaCare Ruling

[Newsbusters.org]

By: John Bates| June 25, 2012 | 16:50

As the ObamaCare decision looms large on the horizon, the Left is doing their best to defame the Supreme Court in anticipation of a defeat of the president signature legislative accomplishment.In the past two days, liberal journalists Michael Tomasky and James Fallows have published histrionic tirades at their respective publications, the Daily Beast/Newsweek and The Atlantic.

Let It Be (Political)

American [Spectator.org]

By on 3.30.12 @ 6:10AM Posted April 1, 2012

Obamacare, politics, and the modern Supreme Court.

And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be

Democratic political strategist and organizer Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”

Radical leftist MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says that the Obamacare decision “may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.”

(more…)


Obama admin attempting another Congressional end-around on ObamaCare defect

[HotAir.com]

posted at 1:55 pm on November 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Under ObamaCare, the IRS becomes the arbiter of health-insurance acceptability.  Now Barack Obama needs the IRS to rescue ObamaCare entirely, thanks to a massive legislative defect that the President has no hope of rectifying in the new Congress.  Thanks to sloppy legislative work, the PPACA’s subsidies to taxpayers won’t apply in states that refuse to create exchanges — which means that the states have a clear mechanism to block ObamaCare’s implementation.

That is, unless the IRS just bypasses Congress and corrects the law:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers “premium assistance”—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law’s cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law’s full cost, support for repeal will grow.)

The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

(more…)


New New York Times Boss, Same as the Old New York Times Boss

Alexander Marlow

BigJournalism.com

Posted by Alexander Marlow Jun 3rd 2011

Weinergate and Sarah Palin have dominated this space the last couple of days, but another story with major media implications is that Jill Abramson will replace Bill Keller as the New York Times executive editor beginning September 6th.  The headlines have been boasting that Abramson is the Times‘ first female boss since the paper’s inception, but this shake-up is hardly progressive: Abramson was raised in New York, is Harvard educated, has little new media expertise (if any), and has a long history of liberal bias in her reports.  She’s a daughter of the old, biased, liberal MSM.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto was quick to point out this incredible excerpt from the NYT article announcing the change:

Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like “ascending to Valhalla.”

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.

Scary.

Taranto then goes on to demonstrate that Abramson has a history of “trying to tear down” the Times‘ competitors, most notably Fox News.

Newsbusters, which has documented dozens of examples of liberal bias in Abramson’s past, focused a post on Abramson’s support of Anita Hill, the one-time Clarence Thomas colleague who bears major responsibility for the fiasco that was Thomas’s SCOTUS confirmation hearings.

(more…)


Supreme Court Refuses to Stop Enforcement of DADT

HotAir.com

posted at 1:42 pm on November 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Not that this should come as much of a surprise, but the Supreme Court ruled moments ago that it would not stop the US military from enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell” while appeals of a district court decision proceed:

The Supreme Court is refusing to block enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military while a federal appeals court considers the issue.

The court on Friday denied a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.

As I wrote when the 9th Circuit applied an injunction that prevented the court’s ruling on DADT constitutionality from being enforced, a later reversal could have deep ramifications for all concerned.   Service members who revealed their orientation might put themselves in position for expulsion if the Supreme Court eventually overturned the ruling.  The military would have had a monumental headache in dealing with openly gay recruits who enlisted during that period of time if DADT was upheld — and without any action from Congress, the Pentagon would have been legally obligated to enforce those consequences.

(more…)


Pennsylvania City Threatens Supreme Court Battle After Immigration Ruling

FoxNews.com

Published September 13, 2010

In this June 3, 2007, file photo, a crowd gathers during a rally in support of Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in front of City Hall in Hazleton, Pa. (AP Photo)

The town of Hazleton, Pa., is threatening a Supreme Court showdown after a panel of judges last week threw out its restrictions against hiring and renting to illegal immigrants, a decision supporters say gives Washington a free pass to ignore its enforcement responsibilities.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who has championed his city’s crackdown in the face of persistent legal challenges, told Fox News on Monday that the federal appeals court ruling was a “blow” to cities trying to shield themselves from the “drain” of illegal immigration.

“The problem is that the federal government refuses to regulate the immigration problems that we’re having in Hazleton and yet tells us that we can’t defend ourselves,” he said.

(more…)


Senate Confirms Kagan as 112th Justice

Publius

BigGovernment.com

Posted Aug 5th 2010 at 12:52 pm

by Publius

kagan confirmed

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th justice and fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court.The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”

Kagan isn’t expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberals.

Read the full article here.

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet thisBookmark and Share


Kagan’s Nomination to Senate Floor Tuesday

Liveshots – FoxNews.com

August 2, 2010 – 5:32 PM | by: Lee Ross

The final debate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court will start Tuesday according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

It was widely assumed that Kagan’s nomination would hit the Senate floor this week, the last before the senators break for their summer recess, but the exact timing was unknown until Reid made the announcement Monday afternoon.

Kagan’s nomination has generated intense debate and scrutiny but hardly anyone in official Washington thinks the nominee will be denied a seat on the Supreme Court.As of Monday, 24 senators have publically announced their intention to vote against Kagan–all Republicans except for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who announced his opposition to the 50 year old last week.

“Her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded,” Nelson said. Kagan is the former dean of the Harvard Law School and now serves as U.S. Solicitor General. She has never been a judge and if confirmed would become the only member of the high court to have never worn a judicial robe.

(more…)


OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN (REPOST) Not Eligible for POTUS!


Note to the Supreme Court, FBI, CIA and perhaps INTERPOL “Renegade” must be removed for the sake of our republic.  Since this has never happened in the history of our nation, we the people must trust in God first, then in those who still have some honor and integrity to make the right moves to remove “Renegade” from his position. NOW IS THE TIME! (July 21, 2010; Editor Comment)


OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN (Was never eligible to be President)

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

October 29, 2008; REPOST, JULY 21, 2010

NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

CLICK HERE TO WATCH A YOUTUBE VIDEO THAT REVEALS THE TRUTH.

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.”

If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

(more…)


Kagan’s SCOTUS deception to defend partial-birth abortions

HotAir.com

posted at 12:55 pm on June 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

As Elena Kagan attempts to sail through a confirmation process to take her first job as a judge on the nation’s highest court, National Review’s Shannen Coffin discovers one of the reasons why the Clinton Library seemed determined to keep records of her previous work quiet.  The issue of partial-birth abortion had raged during the Clinton years, with the President ultimately vetoing a measure by Congress to ban the procedure, but Nebraska banned it on their own.  In order to defeat that law, Kagan manipulated a report by a panel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to fool the Supreme Court into thinking that doctors had supported the idea that it was a medically necessary procedure, when in fact ACOG couldn’t specify a single set of circumstances where it would save the life of the mother:

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

(more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 751 other followers