From NRA.org, by James O.E. Norell, Contributing Editor, May, 2012 – “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa … a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights …” -Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012.
That stunning disavowal—by an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court—of the Constitution she has sworn to uphold, drew widespread and instant condemnation from conservative pundits and legal scholars.
The Quorum Report website http://www.quorumreport.com, January 20, 2012 – Although not yet pre-cleared, Court says deference should be paid to legislative intent.
The U.S. Supreme Court today tossed out interim legislative and congressional maps drawn by a panel of federal judges in San Antonio, ruling that maps adopted by the Legislature earlier this year should have been used as a starting point.
The decision by the court sends the case back to the San Antonio panel with instructions to draw maps that give greater deference to the state plan while making adjustments where lawmakers’ choices either stand a “reasonable probability” of failing a preclearance review under the Voting Rights Act or where other VRA challenges “have a likelihood of success on the merits.” Continue reading →
In an unsigned opinion issued just 11 days after holding oral arguments, the justices said a revised map that differed greatly from the one created by the legislature used ambiguous standards. Continue reading →
WASHINGTON — In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference. Continue reading →
From txredistricting.org, December 10, 2011 –
What does the Supreme Court’s order do?
In the simplest of terms, two things.
First, the order halted further use of the court-drawn interim state house, state senate, and congressional maps, at least for now.
This means that until further notice, candidates are not able to file to run for those offices.
Second, the Supreme Court set an exceptionally expedited briefing schedule in the state’s appeals with briefs from both sides due on December 21, reply briefs on January 3, and oral argument set for January 9. Continue reading →
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation’s biggest companies.
The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit. Continue reading →
What has been the driving force behind America’s rapidly accelerating swing toward a Federalist form of government – a big all-powerful federal government that tends to ignore the 10th Amendment?
Federalists support a powerful centralized government that limits or restricts states rights. Federalists were the first step in the creation of the Democratic Party.
Anti-Federalists believe in a limited federal government with more power given to the states.
The tension between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is certainly not a recent phenomenon.
Throughout America’s history the division of power between the federal government and state governments has been the subject of many political and legal battles with the pendulum of government swinging from Federalists to Anti-Federalist since 1776. Continue reading →
by Mark Sherman (RealClearPolitics)
The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said that the Second Amendment right “applies equally to the federal government and the states.”
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/28/2010 9:20:00 AM
The Supreme Court has said a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home in California.
In ruling the cross could stay, the justices said federal judges in California did not take sufficient notice of the government’s decision to transfer the land in a remote area of California to private ownership. The move was designed to eliminate any constitutional concern about a religious symbol on public land. The ruling was 5-4, with the court’s conservatives in the majority. (See earlier story)
Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is delighted with the decision, saying it addresses a crucial issue “on whether or not the government is going to allow individuals and others [to use religious symbols] to recognize those who’ve died in the service of our country….”
Dacus points out that the use of religious symbols has been a part of the nation’s history and a practice that has been long accepted in the past — and he is pleased that the high court has not deviated from precedent.
With the permission of Congress, the federal land the cross sits on was turned over to private parties. That fact, says Dacus, was a critical factor in the court’s decision.
“The fact that that [land transfer] did occur is such that this court was correct in that you can’t have a federal endorsement if the land is not federal property any longer — and that’s what this case hinged on,” says the attorney.
Because lower courts held the cross to be unconstitutional, it had been encased in a wooden box — pending a final ruling — so people could not see it.