Will same-sex marriage prevail as the law of the land?

MoonHowler

Washingtonpost.com:

Obergefell, 48, could become as famous as Brown (the lead plaintiff in the historic school-desegregation decision) or Roe (the pseudonym for Norma McCorvey in the case that legalized abortion nationwide). But his goal isn’t to make history; it’s to make sure he is listed as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate.

There are two basic questions being asked of the Supreme Court:

The justices are considering two simple-sounding questions: whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, if not, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.

But the arguments were filled with discussions of equal protection and fundamental liberties, how an understanding of the Constitution changes with society, and when majority rule must give way to minority rights.

 

Read More

Is the Supreme Court too powerful and too political?

MoonHowler

Many people have noticed that the Supreme Court, comprised of 9 members, is far too powerful and far too political.  Go back to 2000.  Basically, the Supreme Court decided who was to be  the president of the United States.  9 people chose the President of the United States of America. Today, we are on the brink of perhaps losing health care.  Should 9 people get to make that choice?    Many people are still seething over Eminent Domain and Citizens United.  They feel the High Court has been too far reaching.  There are 100 other examples.

Read More

No Fast Track for Cooch

MoonHowler

The Richmond Times Dispatch:

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Virginia’s petition to have its lawsuit against federal health-care legislation bypass appellate review and be heard directly by the court.

As a result, the lawsuit will continue on its current path to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to hear the case May 10 in Richmond.

Read More

Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Westboro Baptist

MoonHowler

 

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of Westboro Baptist Church to demonstrate at the funerals of fallen heroes. According to CNN:

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.

The justices by a 8-1 vote on Wednesday said members of the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars.

The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here– inflict great pain,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Roberts explanation was that the real criticism was of the government and military and not the individual. Tell that to the families who are grieving. The Roberts Court has been very disappointing.

Will Bill O’Reilly pay the father’s judgement?  He did say he would.

5-4 Citizens United Decision Clearly Judicial Activism

MoonHowler

Today the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission which overturned a hundred years of campaign finance laws, including part of the McCain FeingoldAct.  Corporations and Unions can now spend money directly on the support of candidates.  According to Michael Waldman of the Washington Post:

This far-reaching ruling augurs a significant power struggle. For the first time since 1937, an increasingly conservative federal judiciary faces a progressive and activist Congress and president. Until now, it was unclear how the justices would accommodate the new political alignment. The Citizens United decision suggests an assertive court, eager to overturn precedent, looming as a challenge to President Obama’s agenda.

The Atlantic explains the decision:

Justice Kennedy, in the majority opinion, reasoned that the government can’t discriminate against speakers based on their corporate identities, and that “all speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.”

This basically eliminates a middleman: before today, corporations and unions had to set up PACs (political action committees), filed separately with the IRS, that would receive donations. And they did. Corporations and unions spend millions of dollars on elections. Now, however, the accounting firewall is gone, and Wal-Mart or the Service Employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate/union money directly on candidates.

 

 
Read More

Supreme Court refuses to hear Redskins’ naming case

MoonHowler

 

 The Supreme Court  has refused to hear a case brought by Native American activists regarding the use of the trademark name Redskins for the Washington-based football team. This case involved a long running dispute over the name that is several decades old. The activists claim:

“[T]he Washington Redskins’ team name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection.”

The decison, which happened without comments, lets stand the lower court decision that the complaintants let the case go too long before bringing suit. The Washington Redskins have been named as such since 1937 when the name was changed from the Boston Braves, when the team moved south.

According to the Washington Post:

The lawsuit was filed in 1992, when seven activists challenged a Redskins trademark issued in 1967. They won seven years later in a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which said the name could be interpreted as offensive to Native Americans. The case is Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Trademark law prohibits registration of a name that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, . . . or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The team appealed to federal court.

Judges at the district and circuit levels said the activists’ trademark cancellation claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which serves as a defense against claims that should have been made long ago.

The activists argued that disparaging trademarks can be challenged at any time, citing a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The decision was written by then-judgeSamuel A. Alito Jr., who now sits on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the rest of the world disagrees with the activists. There will always be someone who doesn’t like a team name or mascot. This seems like a frivolous lawsuit to me, especially when a team name is held in high esteem.