MetaFilter posts tagged with SupremeCourt

Has the Supreme Court Become Too Catholic

jefficator — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:23:27 -0800

Has the Supreme Court become too Catholic?

The Constitutional Right to Discriminate

bearwife — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:29:18 -0800

The Supreme Court has taken review in a case in which a law school barred a Christian legal group which apparently excludes non-Christian and LGBT students. The Hastings Christian Fellowship, a chapter of the Christian Legal Society, lost its official recognition as a student organization when it wouldn't agree to accept members and officers "regardless of their religion or beliefs about homosexuality" and ran afoul of the Hastings Law School's anti discrimination policy. The HCF sued and lost in district court and the 9th Circuit, which issued a two line order finding the law school's policy reasonable and content neutral. The 7th Circuit, by contrast, ruled in 2006 that such exclusion of the CLS by the Southern Illinois University law school violated the Society's free speech and expressive association rights. Today the Supreme Court, after some dithering, has accepted review of the case.

19th Century Patents -- 200 Years Later

bearwife — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:30:39 -0800

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the appeal of two "math geeks" who were denied a patent for a business method they developed for utility companies. This is one of the most watched cases of the Supreme Court term, drawing some 67 briefs. Although the patent office has recognized that business methods can be patented, it is not clear whether patents, developed to protect innovations like machines and transformative processes, are available for 21st century inventions such as software.

Good news - it's Supreme Court Week.

IvoShandor — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:02:15 -0800

Beginning Sunday, October 4 it's Supreme Court Week on C-SPAN! If you don't know much about the U.S. Supreme Court this looks like it will be a good opportunity to change that. The week starts off when C-SPAN airs its original documentary "The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court" at 9 pm (EST) on Oct. 4. (There is a preview of it in the first link). C-SPAN already spends time covering the Supreme Court and the network is known for its advocacy of cameras in the courts. Later in the week there will be some other good programming including interviews with the justices over the weekend of October 9. The web site already has some video up including a bit on the impact of the newest justice, some words from that new member (and other members) and some great stuff on the SCOTUS building, so make sure to check out the virtual tour. CSPAN has some video at its SCOTUS Week YouTube page as well. C-SPAN likes sponsoring polls too, on September 24 they released (PDF) a Supreme Court poll (PDF), not really a C-SPAN rarity. (PDF) And don't forget, no public money pays for C-SPAN.

Blasphemy!

klangklangston — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:41:51 -0800

Curt Flood's suit of Baseball. In 1970, baseball's best center fielder, Curt Flood filed a lawsuit against Major League Baseball and its reserve clause.

Strange Bedfellows Indeed

EmpressCallipygos — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:37:29 -0800

Theodore Olson was the 42nd United States Solicitor General, serving from June 2001 to July 2004. He also was attorney general during the Ronald Reagan administration, where he defended Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair. He appeared before the Supreme Court fifty-five times as solicitor general, most recently arguing Bush's side in the case Bush V. Gore which decided the outcome of the 2000 election. He is a member of the Federalist Society, which seeks to reform constitutional law to bring it more in line with an originalist interpretation of the constitution, and was on the board of The American Spectator magazine. But his current case, which he says could be the most important case of his career, has many fellow conservatives scratching their heads. Because Theodore Olson is going to argue before the Supreme Court in favor of overturning California's Proposition 8 and thus legalizing same-sex marriage.

Let the games begin

Navelgazer — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:40:43 -0800

Today began Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, with opening remarks from the Senators on the Judiciary Committee, introductions from NY Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and an opening statement from Judge Sotomayor herself. Among the shouted protests from pro-life advocates in the gallery, highlights included Sen. Lindsay Graham's statement about what he thinks the advise-and-consent function of the senate should entail, and Sen. Al Franken's first real moment in the U.S. Congress.

By The Content Of Their Character

Law Talkin' Guy — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:28:48 -0800

Today, on the last day of this year's term, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano, the latest in the Court's line of decisions on Title VII and the role of race in employment decisions. The famous case centers on white firefighters' claims of race discrimination following the town of New Haven's decision to scuttle a promotion exam after white test takers performed disproportionately better than black firefighters. The case has been covered extensively in blogs and the mainstream and local media. In addition to the high-stakes questions at issue in the case itself, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sat on the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that summarily decided the case at the intermediate appellate level.

Privacy trumps idiocy...finally

dejah420 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:08:50 -0800

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials violated an Arizona teenager's rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk. Clarence Thomas demurred, suggesting that panties would become the new drug underground.

Outed

crayz — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:16:36 -0800

Ed Whelan, a lawyer and conservative law pundit at National Review has been making the rounds criticizing Sopreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, largely for her statements regarding judges making policy. publius, a pseudonymous legal blogger, wrote a harshly critical post of Whelan's behavior, accusing him of being a willing stooge of the right-wing - a "legal hitman"

In response Whelan outed publius, publishing his identity on the National Review website. publius added his side of the story. It's also worth reading Volokh's take on the original policy debate, which publius and Whelan each use in defense of their position

Prop 8 Upheld

CaptApollo — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:07:49 -0800

Proposition 8 Upheld by CA Supreme Court. In crushing blow to marriage equality, the California Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of Proposition 8 today's ruling (PDF). Protests against the decision will be held in 96 cities. The court simultaneously decided that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed prior to the passage of Prop 8 will remain valid.

Empathy = ovary?

hayvac — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:32:57 -0800

When President Obama says he's looking for a judge with the "quality of empathy" to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, is it code for a female judge? In the two decades since Bertha Wilson famously asked Will Women Judges Really Make A Difference? (mms), the answer has come back as a resounding yes (studies: 1 (pdf), 2) -- and no (studies: 1 (pdf), 2). But either way, is choosing judges based on supposed gender qualities ever a good idea?

Can you believe your eyes?

pianomover — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:53:53 -0800

Supreme Court Enters the YouTube Age. Previous posts have shown that video is a powerful tool. Now The Supreme Court views video evidence through it's eyes. Most but not all are ready to let the video speak for itself. "The video shows what is either appalling police brutality or a measured response to an arrested man’s intransigence — you be the judge."

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

Non Prosequitur — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800

The previously-mentioned Summums want to place their own monument in a park which contains the Ten Commandments, making the Supreme Court's heads explode in a a hilariously weird oral argument^[pdf]: "Scalia: I don't know what that means. You keep saying it, and I don't know what it means. [...] Breyer: Suppose that there certain messages that private people had like "eat vitamins"—and then somebody comes along with a totally different content, "ride the roller coaster," and they say this part of the park is designed to get healthy children, not put children at risk." At issue: "Pulling a crystalline, cogent rule out of the murk of the court's First Amendment, public forum, and Establishment Clause doctrine is an act of creation too complicated for mere mortals."

Oh, for F-bomb's sake

Tehanu — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:36:43 -0800

The current FCC case [PDF] before the U.S. Supreme Court presents a fascinating dilemma for the judges: how do you respectfully discuss the legality of profane words in the nation's highest court? And for reporters: how do you report on the specifics of the case? It seems decisions vary across publications: NYT, Washington Post (reg req), LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Slate, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, AP, McClatchy. As for the judges themselves, they opted to allow only substitute terms. PDF transcript with word count at bottom. Background.

Certiorari Noir

Knappster — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:49:07 -0800

"Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a threedollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood." Dashiell Hammett? Raymond Chandler? Nope. Chief Justice John Roberts (pdf).

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Troy Davis Appeal

x_3mta3 — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:21:38 -0800

The Supreme Court today issued a one line statement refusing to hear Troy Davis' appeal. Troy Davis was convicted of the 1989 murder of a police officer in Savannah, GA, and sentenced to death solely on eyewitness testimony. No murder weapon or any physical evidence linked him to the crime. Since the conviction, seven of the nine witnesses have recanted or changed their stories, and one of the two who haven't changed their stories is the other suspect in the case. Things were looking good for Davis when the Supreme Court issued a stay two hours before his execution last month. Justice may really be dead in this country.

The Supreme Court and America’s international relations

homunculus — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:00:24 -0800

When Judges Make Foreign Policy. "In a globalized, post-9/11 age, decisions made by the Supreme Court are increasingly shaping America's international relations. When the next justice is appointed, our place in the world may well hang in the balance."

Happy Birthday, Justice Marshall

alms — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:52:03 -0800

"He grew up in a ruthlessly discriminatory world -- a world in which segregation of the races was pervasive and taken for granted, where lynching was common, where the black man's inherent inferiority was proclaimed widely and wantonly. Thurgood Marshall had the capacity to imagine a radically different world, the imaginative capacity to believe that such a world was possible, the strength to sustain that image in the mind's eye and the heart's longing, and the courage and ability to make that imagined world real." Born July 2, 1908, died January 25, 1993. Had he lived, he would have been 100 years old today.

Who wants to be a millionaire?

Bromius — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:55:33 -0800

Many people are up in arms (heh) over the Supreme Court's decision regarding gun control, but rather less press is being given to another opinion handed down today: Davis v. FEC. The issue was the constitutionality of the "Millionaire's Amendment", which allowed for political candidates facing self-funding challengers who intended to spend more than $350,000 to raise more money from individual donors than they would otherwise be allowed to do. In a 5-4 decision, the court found the law unconstitutional. Justice Alito writing for the majority, argues that the Amendment forces wealthy candidates to "choose between the First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations.” Justice Stevens, dissenting, writes: “The millionaire’s amendment quiets no speech at all. On the contrary, it does no more than assist the opponent of a self-funding candidate in his attempts to make his voice heard; this amplification in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes in support of his campaign.” The decision will have a marked effect on the 2008 elections, if only because parties like to recruit wealthy challengers. Check out the .rtf at the end of that last link. Incidentally, John McCain's reaction to the striking down of a section of one of his own bills is subdued. Oh, and the law really helped out a certain politician back in 2004. You may have heard of him.

Permission to approach the buffet?

Horace Rumpole — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:41:20 -0800

Learned handmade plates. For all your law-themed collectible plate needs. Some background. Etsy shop.

Not Politically Motivated

Xurando — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:10:52 -0800

Bush V. Gore: Scalia, "It's old news, get over it."

I'm sure the NRA will have something to say about this

TedW — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:51:45 -0800

As the Supreme Court ponders the Second Amendment, The New England Journal of Medicine weighs in once, twice, three times.

SCOTUS tells the ICJ to go hang

valkyryn — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:31:30 -0800

On March 25, the Supreme Court held (pdf) that rulings by the International Court of Justice are essentially not binding upon state courts. This paves the way for Texas to execute one Jose Ernesto Medellin for the rape and murder of two teenage girls. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judgment of the ruled (caution: disastrously formatted HTML) in 2006 that Medellin's objections, grounded on the fact that the Mexican consulate was not notified of his trial, were not sufficient to vacate his conviction, as he had been provided with a competent legal defense and none of his constitutional rights had been violated. The ICJ held (huge pdf) (summary) that the Vienna Convention creates individually enforceable rights, that Medellin's rights had been violated, and that Texas should order a new trial. President Bush, surprising everyone, ordered Texas to comply. The Supreme Court, which voted 6-3 to affirm the Texas court, held 1) that judgments of the ICJ are not directly enforceable as domestic law, and 2) the President cannot require states to effectuate the judgments of foreign courts. --- The Court's 2005 opinion (pdf) withdrawing certiorari as improvidently granted. Commentary: Volokh: (1, 2) OpinioJuris: (1, 2) And! discussion questions!

"we upheld against proportionality attack a sentence of 40 years' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute nine ounces of marijuana" - Justice Kennedy

daksya — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:04:29 -0800

DrugPolicyCases.com - Yakov Spektor, a New York-based attorney, combed through two decades of US Supreme Court opinions "to discern certain trends in the Court's treatment of various issues" related to the War on Drugs. The collection of opinions are organized by case, author and topic.