MetaFilter posts tagged with supremecourt and usa

Rumsfeld v. FAIR

thirteenkiller — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:16:38 -0800

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a case challenging the Solomon Amendment, a US federal law that allows the government to cut federal funding to universities that refuse to allow military recruiting on campus. FAIR is a coalition of law schools challenging this law on the basis that the US military's policy of prohibiting open homosexuals from serving violates the schools' anti-discrimination policies (see section 6-3). Summing the issue up nicely, the dean of one law school said of the US military, "If it were a private employer who discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, race or gender, we wouldn't allow them here on campus." .rm C-SPAN coverage here.

SCOTUS rules for seperation of church and state for once.

skallas — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:47:11 -0800

SCOTUS rules for seperation of church and state for once. The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else. "Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."

Is the Pledge Unconstitutional

sourbrew — Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:58:27 -0800

A follow up on the debate concerning the Constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance. Apparently the Supreme Court is going to hear it.

The state wants to watch you have sex...

eas98 — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:59:29 -0800

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about the constitutionality of homosexual sex. While this may not be news, just listening to some of the comments by the conservatives on the court can be a chilling experience, whether you are straight or gay. Is it possible that there can be supreme court justices, supposedly the best of the best, who are really this ignorant?

civil disobedience

Ty Webb — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:57:44 -0800

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler Is being heard by SCOTUS today. The case may decide whether non-violent civil disobedience can be prosecuted under federal RICO laws. Here's the ACLU's amicus brief. And comments from NRO's Rod Dreher.

U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider anti-homosexual laws

pardonyou? — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:49:01 -0800

On September 17, 1998, in response to an armed robbery call, Houston police burst in to the home of John Lawrence. The police didn’t find a robber (nor would they – the call was deliberately false), but they did find Lawrence having sex with another man, Tyrone Garner. Lawrence and Garner were promptly charged with “engaging in homosexual conduct,” a misdemeanor under Texas law. They paid their fine and began a long legal challenge to Texas’ anti-sodomy law. That challenge has finally reached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, which today agreed to hear their appeal early next year. Standing in the way is the Court’s own 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, in which it held that anti-sodomy laws are constitutional. That may be about to change.

MAYORBOB — Sun, 30 Sep 2001 08:19:07 -0800

Justice O'Connor foresees cutbacks in personal liberties. Sandra Day O'Connor, during remarks given at the groundbreaking ceremonies for a Law School Building at NYU, cautions Americans that we may face restrictions in our personal freedoms. No real specifics in the remarks, but intriguing in that she would be among those having the final say as to the constitutionality of any laws that arise out of the "War on Terrorism". She poses some interesting questions in her remarks. And she is considered to be one of the moderate Justices.

crasspastor — Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:59:19 -0800

Granted I don't speed anymore, but handcuffs hurt. Is it just me? But the Supreme court, it seems, cares nothing for the citizenry of this country. Who's hoops are they jumping through, dragging us along with our sore handcuffed wrists?

jasonshellen — Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:47:49 -0800

U.S. Supreme Court to review death penalty for retarded. Regardless of what you think of the death penalty for people of normal(?) mental capacity, can you believe that they are just starting to reconsider this now?

darren — Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:35:04 -0800

Is the Consitution a "living" document? Following "Scary" Scalia's arguments, the Dread Scott decision was a wise and appropriate one, right?

aaron — Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:03:23 -0800

Nat Hentoff on the Supreme Court and Bush v Gore: "Far from stealing the election for Bush, the majority of the Supreme Court shamed the politicians of both parties who, for so long, have failed to secure everyone's meaningful right to vote."

holgate — Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:45:00 -0800

Bush, by a technicality. They've run out the clock. Oh dear. This could be messy.

aaron — Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:26:03 -0800

Supreme Court II: Election Boogaloo. Programs, getcher programs here! Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you can get your grubby hands on the Bush and Gore briefs right now. Fascinating reading. PDF files, of course.

mathowie — Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:08:43 -0800

John Scopes, the defendant in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, was born 100 years ago yesterday, but teaching evolution 76 years later is still considered controversial. Are we ever going to stop having to defend evolution?

veruca — Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:07:35 -0800

Damn Supreme Court. Just when you thought this was a free country, now they're telling strippers to keep their G-strings on.