Categories
Commentary Links from other news sources. The Courts

Still winning. W20-L3. At the Supreme Court.

Still winning. W20-L3. At the Supreme Court.
According to NPR.
By the end of last week, the court had granted 20 of Trump’s requests to block lower court orders opposed by the administration. In contrast, the court ruled against the administration in these emergency cases just three times.

More Supreme Court news.

After months of emergency orders delaying final decisions, the Supreme Court is back in session and will hear arguments involving some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial executive orders.

In one case, the Justices will consider whether Trump’s tariffs are constitutional, debating whether it’s within his power to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose import taxes. A decision will likely impact massive amounts of money involved in trade, according to experts.

In other cases, the Supreme Court will determine the limit of the president’s power to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve.

“Whether the FTC will hold up, and the betting odds are that it will not, then the question becomes what other agencies will go down with it?” Alan Morrison, a George Washington University Law professor, said.

The Trump administration is asking the court to allow the president to remove transgender markers from passports as well, and it’s likely his effort to end birthright citizenship will come before the court again this term.

Other than the cases involving the president, the court is also taking up other notable issues this term. One of those will be seen Tuesday, as the court considers whether a Colorado law against conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people is constitutional. A number of states have similar laws.

The Supreme Court will also take up cases from West Virginia and Idaho banning transgender athletes in school sports.

There are high-profile election cases, too, like whether Louisiana’s congressional map is drawn to prevent minorities from being represented and a petition to loosen rules on how candidates and political action committees, or PACs, can spend campaign money.

Share
Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Courts

Supreme Court makes major announcement.

Supreme Court makes major announcement.

Which Cases Are on the Docket?
Story by Gabe Whisnant.

The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6 with oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas, which presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant’s right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.

The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court.

Other cases set for oral argument in October are Chiles v. Salazar, Barrett v. United States, Bowe v. United States, Ellingburg v. United States, Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, Postal Service v. Konan, Louisiana v. Callais, Robinson v. Callais and Case v. Montana.

Why It Matters
The Court is set to hear several cases on issues that have drawn public interest.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights.

In 2023, the Court declined to take up a case challenging a ban on conversion therapy for children in Washington. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh voted to hear that case, but four votes are needed for the case to proceed.

Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana’s congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

What To Know
Cases scheduled for oral argument in November include Rico v. United States, Hamm v. Smith, Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton and Fernandez v. United States.

Current Supreme Court Justices: Full List
The current Supreme Court justices are Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

When does the Supreme Court Reconvene?
The Supreme Court’s 2025 term begins on October 6.

Share
Categories
Commentary Links from other news sources. The Courts

Supreme Court rules that Protective Status for criminals can be removed.

Supreme Court rules that Protective Status for criminals can be removed.

Joe Biden had issued an executive order that gave over 300,000 illegals protective status. President Trump cancelled that order. A judge put a stay on that order. Well the US Supreme Court with a 8-1 vote removed that temporary stay. The affirmative action judge was the one who voted to keep it.

Share
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Government Overreach Harris Harris Cartel Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts

Biden’s new Supreme Court reform proposals are mostly useless.

Biden’s new Supreme Court reform proposals are mostly useless. Two things we know for sure. No changes this year for the Supreme Court. Odds are it won’t even come up for a vote. And next year the Republicans will control the Senat for sure. So forget about it.

The ethics code would be unenforceable. Biden forgets that there’s a thing called seperation of powers. Even the fanatics at VOX agree.

 

Share
Categories
Elections The Courts The Law

Why this must never happen again. Hopefully Moore Vs. Harper will fix this.

Why this must never happen again. Hopefully Moore Vs. Harper will fix this. Back in 2020 four states, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in which the state executive branch (that is, the governor or other executive official) and or the judicial branch (that is, the state supreme court) changed the rules of the election apart from the authority of the state legislature.

The Democrats claim this is illegal gerrymandering. But the Republicans use the Constitution as their reason it’s not. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution tells us who makes the rules regarding national elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. . . .” In other words, the Constitution gives the authority over national elections to the legislatures in each of the states.

With the 2024 elections less than two years away, Giving a Secretary of State or Governor dictorial powers was not what the founding fathers wanted. That’s why the state legislatures were given that power. A group of men and women elected by the people for the people.

 

 

 

Share
Categories
Crime The Courts

Winning again. Supreme Court: Police Knee in Back During Arrest Not ‘Excessive Force’. Supreme Court in two cases supports cops putting rapid dogs down. If needed.

Once again the Supreme court has ruled that In two unsigned decisions without noted dissents, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police officers accused of using excessive force. The rulings were a signal that the court continues to support the doctrine of qualified immunity, which can shield police  from lawsuits seeking damages. Will the Floyd family have to refund the money they received? Edited.

In one of the cases, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in favor of a California police officer who was accused of using “excessive force” during an arrest, reversing the liberal Ninth Circuit appeals court on an issue at the center of the “defund the police” movement.

“Officers saw a knife in Cortesluna’s left pocket,” The Supreme Court explained. “While Rivas-Villegas and another officer were in the process of removing the knife and handcuffing Cortesluna, Rivas-Villegas briefly placed his knee on the left side of Cortesluna’s back.”

The second decision on Monday, in City of Tahlequah v. Bond, No. 20-1668, also arose from a 911 call, this one in Tahlequah, Okla., reporting that a woman’s ex-husband was drunk in her garage and would not leave.

When three officers arrived, Dominic Rollice, the ex-husband, brandished a hammer. Officers Josh Girdner and Brandon Vick fired their weapons, killing Mr. Rollice. His estate sued, and the Tenth Circuit, in Denver, let the case proceed, ruling that a jury could find that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because previous rulings had put them on notice about creating circumstances that could lead to the shooting.

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeals court had not identified any earlier decision that “comes close to establishing that the officers’ conduct was unlawful.”

 

Share
Categories
Elections

Opinion. Why the Supreme Court should hear the Texas Case.

Why the Supreme court should hear the Texas Case. MSM and most if not all on the left feel this is a waste of time. As do some on the right and many Independents. Let me explain why it’s not.

Now we are looking at Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. All four states had laws passed by the legislature. In all four states either the governor or the Secretary of state under the pretense of you’re gonna die ( Covid-19 ) if you don’t do this my way. Totally ignoring what the law was. Here’s where this effects the other 46.

Say Ohio or any other state has existing laws passed by the state legislature already in place. A new Governor or Secretary of State comes into power and says I think the elections should be done my way. Uses some type of catastrophic event as an excuse to do it their way. If that’s allowed, why have Senators and House reps to make laws? Just let the Governor or Another office holder decide what the law should be.

What say you?

Share
Verified by MonsterInsights