Tag Archives: Supreme Court of the United States

SCOTUS: The nuclear option is not enough

Source: Garrison Center
by Thomas L Knapp

“Chief Justice John Marshall was nominated to his position on January 20, 1801. The Senate stalled, declining to confirm Marshall and pushing president John Adams to substitute someone else. The matter dragged on … for seven whole days before a vote. Marshall took his seat on the court less than two weeks after Adams asked him to serve. Two weeks in 1801, when news traveled at the speed of horse. Fourteen months in 2016-17, when news travels at the speed of light. What’s wrong with this picture?” (04/02/17)


Manchin becomes first US Senate Democrat to back Gorsuch nomination

Source: Fox News

“Sen. Joe Manchin said Thursday that he would support Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, becoming the first Democrat to back President Trump’s choice. … More than half of Senate Democrats already have come out against Gorsuch, and are planning to support a filibuster if it comes to that. So far, only Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota, have indicated they would oppose a filibuster.” (03/30/17)


SCOTUS orders new look at New York’s credit card surcharge ban

Source: Bloomberg

“The U.S. Supreme Court ordered closer scrutiny of a New York law that bars merchants from imposing surcharges on credit-card purchases, giving a group of retailers a partial victory by saying the measure might violate their free-speech rights. Chief Justice John Roberts said the federal appeals court that upheld the law was wrong to analyze it as a form of price regulation. Writing for the high court, he said the measure regulates speech, requiring it to meet a tougher legal test. The decision to return the case to the lower court was unanimous. The case is part of a broader fight by retailers to reduce the $50 billion in ‘swipe fees’ they pay card companies each year. Merchants say they could discourage card use — and reduce those fees — if they were allowed to explicitly impose surcharges on credit purchases.” (03/29/17)


A trout in the milk

Source: Common Sense
by Paul Jacob

“This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Talk about a silly rite. Senators repeatedly fired questions about specific legal views that no High Court nominee ever answers. Why not? Because to answer would be to pre-judge possible future cases. That didn’t prevent displays of faux-outrage from committee Democrats, though.” (03/24/17)


Questions for Judge Gorsuch

Source: LewRockwell.com
by Andrew P Napolitano

“In the Gorsuch hearings this week, the nominee has argued that should he commit to certain positions on issues, it would not be fair to litigants who might come before him as a circuit judge if his nomination were not to be confirmed or before him in the Supreme Court if it were, as those litigants would have a proper belief that he prejudged their cases. ‘It would be grossly improper,’ he argued, for him to commit in advance to how he’d vote on any issue. He’s correct. So, what questions could both Democrats and Republicans put to him and what questions could he answer that would inform their judgment and illuminate his thinking without committing his judgment?” (03/23/17)


The life and death issue ignored at Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings

Source: The Intercept
by Liliana Segura

“Over two long days before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Gorsuch was never asked his views on the death penalty. More time was spent discussing fly-fishing and rodeos, along with more serious (if redundant) questioning on life and death issues like abortion and euthanasia. This was not particularly surprising; confirmation hearings are mostly political theater — and Gorsuch’s record on criminal justice has stirred little controversy compared to other hot-button issues. Many lawyers and experts expressed a measure of relief when Trump announced Gorsuch as his Supreme Court pick. ‘I don’t think he’s a fire-breathing, law and order, pro-prosecutor guy,’ said Tejinder Singh, the appellate and Supreme Court litigator who won a stay of execution for Mark Christeson in 2014. Yet Gorsuch seeks to join the Supreme Court at a time when the death penalty is in a state of chaos and decline.” (03/23/17)


Gorsuch tries to bridge partisan divide in start of confirmation hearings

Source: Fox News

“Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch vowed Monday to be a ‘faithful servant of the Constitution’ and ‘apply the law impartially,’ during the first day of his Senate confirmation hearings that repeatedly exposed the partisan divide in Washington. … Gorsuch, a respected, highly-credentialed judge and conservative member of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, attempted in his remarks to bridge the political divide and become President Trump’s replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.” (03/20/17)


SCOTUS publicly defecates on trial by jury in the name of countering racial prejudice

Source: Los Angeles Times

“The Supreme Court took a strong new stand against racial bias in jury rooms, ruling for the first time that reports of racist comments by jurors may require setting aside a verdict and holding a new trial. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, announcing the court’s decision Monday, wrote that the ‘imperative to purge racial prejudice from the administration of justice’ requires setting aside the traditional rule that bars judges from second-guessing what went on in the jury room. The 5-3 decision announced a limited exception to that rule against second-guessing juries. The new rule covers cases in which ‘one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict.'” (03/06/17)


SCOTUS puts off ruling on whether or not educrats can legally grope students

Source: Los Angeles Times

“The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will put off a ruling on the rights of transgender students. Instead, the justices asked an appeals court in Virginia to reconsider the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy who was denied the right to use the boys’ restroom in his high school. Lawyers for the Obama administration had weighed in on his behalf and said transgender students had a right to be treated based on their ‘gender identity,’ not their gender at birth [sic]. Based on that guidance, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the student.” (03/06/17)


SCOTUS may strike down idiotic fascist censorship law

Source: Washington Post

“Lester Gerard Packingham praised Jesus on his Facebook page and simultaneously committed a felony. But his conviction may not stand for long. A majority of the Supreme Court on Monday seemed prepared to strike down a North Carolina law that makes it a crime for a registered sex offender such as Packingham to access social media sites even years after they have served their sentences or completed probation. … Justice Elena Kagan was perhaps the most outspoken of the justices who indicated North Carolina had gone so far in restricting sex offenders’ use of the Internet that the state was violating First Amendment rights.” (02/27/17)