Tag: Supreme Court of the United States

‘Huge victory for the Republican Party’: Legal experts weigh in on Supreme Court’s landmark gerrymandering decision

AlterNet logoThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on gerrymandering, deciding that federal courts cannot block lawmakers in individual states from partisan gerrymandering in political districts. And legal experts have been weighing in on the decision.

Elie Mystal, editor of Above the Law, has been highly critical of Chief Justice John Roberts in a series of tweets — complaining that the Supreme Court has, in effect, said that there is no legal remedy “if states gerrymander your vote completely away.”

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin sees the 5-4 decision as a major victory for the Republican Party. Thursday on CNN, Toobin asserted, “Two points. One: huge victory for the Republican Party here, because it’s the Republicans who control most of these states — who control Ohio, who control Florida, who will be redistricting following the 2020 census and now this is a green light to jam all the Democrats into a handful of districts and put the Republicans in Congress of all the rest of them.”

View the complete June 27 article by Alex Henderson on the AlterNet website here.

Trump asks lawyers if they can delay 2020 Census in response to SCOTUS ruling

Axios logoPresident Trump tweeted on Thursday that he has asked lawyers to delay the 2020 Census in response to a Supreme Court decision that will temporarily block the administration from adding a citizenship question.

Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!

Why it matters: It’s unclear what power Trump has to delay the Census, but it’s significant that the White House is considering additional legal action in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Per the Constitution, the Census is required to occur every 10 years.

View the complete Jun 27 article on the Axios website here.

Supreme Court set to deliver ruling on census citizenship question

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court is set to hand down its much-anticipated decision on whether the Trump administration can include a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

The question has been the subject of multiple legal challenges since it was announced in early 2018. And a courtroom twist this past week added a new level of drama that could affect the Census Bureau’s timeline for finalizing and printing the decennial questionnaire.

Opponents of the citizenship question cite studies that indicate it might lead to an inaccurate population count, which would impact the data used to determine congressional representation and the allocation of federal funds to states.

View the complete June 23 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

Supreme Court decisions could affect makeup of Congress for years

Redistricting, census questions among big-ticket items left on docket

The Supreme Court faces decisions during its last two weeks of the term that could influence congressional districts for the next decade and make the justices an even larger topic in the 2020 presidential campaign.

The court left its most consequential and politically contentious opinions for the end of the term, as it tends to do every year. The justices on Monday will release some of the 24 decisions yet to come before the end of June.

During that same period, the justices will announce which additional cases it will hear next term, which could include challenges to the Trump administration decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and whether the socially contentious LGBT rights issue about whether bakers who claim religious objections can refuse to make cakes for same-sex weddings.

View the complete June 17 article by Todd Ruger on The Roll Call website here.

Supreme Court rejects Trump request to fast track decision on DACA case

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to fast track a decision on whether it will hear a case over the president’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The justices, in an unsigned order, denied the request, which was filed on behalf of the administration last month to expedite a decision on whether to review the case.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represents the administration in cases before the Supreme Court, had urged the justices to announce their decision on whether they will hear the case by the end of their term later this month.

View the complete June 3 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.

Justice Neil Gorsuch says no-one can sue to stop the government from establishing religion

Theocrat Gorsuch says no American can challenge a Christian religious display on government property.

One inherent danger of allowing a religious minority to install a puppet controlled by religious fanatics in the White House is the now unfolding threat of government officially establishing religion – the Christian religion. Any American’s confidence that the U.S. Constitution is a protection against government establishing religion is grossly misplaced and, that belief is about to be disabused by the current religious conservatives responsible for adjudicating the law of the land.

Because a nearly half-century-old Supreme Court ruling prevented the government from advancing religion, the wall of separation between church and state is almost certainly going to be eviscerated by the Christian conservatives on the current Supreme Court. The crusade to demolish the wall of separation is being advanced by one of the Heritage Foundation SCOTUS nominees confirmed shortly after Trump corrupted every aspect of  the government his tiny little hands touched. However, it is noteworthy that Neil Gorsuch’s theocratic crusade is wholly supported by Trump’s other SCOTUS appointee, religious serial liar and sexual abuser Brett Kavanaugh.

View the complete March 28 article by Something Rmuse from the Daily Kos on the AlterNet website here.

The Supreme Court looks likely to break the wall of separation between church and state

Credit: Getty Images

They don’t seem to have any idea what to replace it with, though.

It is likely, but not entirely certain, that there are five votes on the Supreme Court to overrule Lemon v. Kurtzman, a nearly half-century-old precedent preventing the government from advancing religion. It is also all but certain that the court will uphold the so-called “Peace Cross,” a 40-foot tall, cross-shaped monument in Maryland. One or two of the liberal justices may even join an opinion favoring the cross, which was erected to honor fallen soldiers from the First World War.

Yet, while several members of the court seemed eager to blow up much of the law preventing the government from advancing a particular faith in two consolidated cases argued on Wednesday — American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association — it is far from clear what will emerge to replace the toppled precedents.

True to form, Neil Gorsuch staked out the most radical possible position, at one point suggesting that plaintiffs who challenge government endorsements of religion shouldn’t be allowed to sue in the first place. As a general rule, a plaintiff must show that they were somehow injured by the party they are suing in order to file a lawsuit, a requirement known as “standing.” Yet Gorsuch suggested that no plaintiff may have standing to challenge a religious display on government property because their only injury is that they take “offense” to the display — and “mere offense” isn’t enough.

View the complete February 27 article by Ian Millhiser on the ThinkProgress website here.

Ginsburg back at Supreme Court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the court on Friday for the justices’ private conference.

The Supreme Court’s Public Information Office told The Hill that Ginsburg was attending the regular closed-door meeting in which the justices consider requests to review cases. Ginsburg has been absent from the court since undergoing surgery in late December to remove two cancerous nodules from her lower left lung.

The 85-year-old justice missed oral arguments last month while recovering at home from the surgery. Her absence marked the first time in more than 25 years on the bench she was forced to miss arguments due to her health.

View the complete February 15 article by Lydia Wheeler on The Hill website here.

DNC on Supreme Court Allowing Transgender Troop Ban to Take Effect

DNC Chair Tom Perez released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would allow the Trump administration to move forward with its ban on most transgender troops serving in the U.S. armed forces:

“Prejudice is not patriotism. Discrimination is not a national security strategy. This ban is nothing more than bigotry codified into law and an insult to all who have worn our nation’s uniform. Not only does it go against our values as Americans, it also makes us less safe.

“Democrats believe diversity is our nation’s strength. We believe everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter who you love or how you identify. The brave service members who defend our freedoms should be able live freely. And we will keep fighting for the transgender community and all those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our country.”

DNC on Supreme Court Not Taking Up DACA

DNC Chair Tom Perez released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA in its current term:

“The Supreme Court made the right call today. Trump’s cruelty toward immigrants knows no bounds, but that doesn’t mean his administration can sidestep the rule of law. Trump’s attack on the DACA program goes against the will of almost 90% of Americans who want DACA recipients to stay in the U.S. These are our neighbors and friends, our classmates and co-workers. They are American in every way but on paper, and they deserve the chance to stay in the country they call home. It is long past time for Trump to stop using them as bargaining chips and work with Democrats to fix our broken immigration system.”