Submitted by MontanaMaven on Mon, 11/05/2012 - 3:21pm
So I referenced a piece in NY Times Magazine article "Supreme Court, Inc" in a comment over at Naked Capitalism on Stoller's piece and Hugh gave the specifics of who voted for Alito, Robert, Thomas, and Scalia. Yves Smith at NC picked up on these comments and linked to the Jeffrey Rosen NY Times piece and wrote a post called "The Democrats Dubious Record on the Supreme Court". This piece is one of several used in a extensive William Kaufman piece over at Counterpunch called "Don't Worry about a Romney Appointed Court" Read below the fold...
Submitted by MontanaMaven on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 7:50pm
Not sure whether you had linked to this story, but Montana's Supreme Court upheld a state ban on corporate money in political campaign; a direct challenge to Citizens United.
We had a whole lot of corruption because of the Anaconda Copper Mine's influence over politics that the citizens of Montana had enough and passed The Corrupt Practices Law of 1912. Read below the fold...
Submitted by Hugh on Thu, 01/20/2011 - 11:51pm
On January 19, 2011, in Nelson v. NASA, the Supreme Court decided 8-0 in an opinion written by Samuel Alito that any government employee, even those who do not work with classified materials must submit to intrusive background checks. Read below the fold...
Submitted by ohio on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:47pm
To be sure, Pitre’s decision to refuse medication may have been foolish and likely caused a significant part of his pain. But that decision does not give prison officials license to exacerbate Pitre’s condition further as a means of punishing or coercing him—just as a prisoner’s disruptive conduct does not permit prison officials to punish the prisoner by handcuffing him to a hitching post...I cannot comprehend how a court could deem such allegations “frivolous.” Because I believe that Pitre’s complaint states an Eighth Amendment violation, I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment below.
From page 4 of this PDF
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ANTHONY C. PITRE v. NATHAN CAIN ET AL. Read below the fold...
Submitted by quixote on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 11:18pm
We're on a collision course with technology. Free speech is being killed in order to save it.
Something is always boiling up that involves free speech. Cartoons are drawn of the "wrong" person, somebody is jailed for speaking out and gets the Nobel prize, there are plans to build a mosque in the "wrong" place. And some people picket funerals to gloat.
All of these things are a step too far for some people. Others insist that we can't draw any lines without sliding down a slippery slope of more and more lines until there's no free speech left. Read below the fold...
Submitted by The Mayberry Lane on Wed, 04/14/2010 - 8:55pm
Only days after the announcement of Justice Steven’s upcoming retirement, some Republicans are already proving to be full of piss and vinegar over Obama’s possible nominations. And, in the meantime, Democrats are already preparing themselves to be pissed off at another “middle-of-the-road” candidate. Summer’s lookin’ like a good time already!
So, what is it exactly each side is gettin’ worked up about?
Well, for us Lefties, it seems that the majority of comments I hear or read pertain to the fear that President Obama will chose another Sotomayor-like candidate; a Justice who turns out to be so centrist, that they actually lean to the right. Read below the fold...
Submitted by MsExPat on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 8:46am
The NYT rakes though Sotomayor's 12 year tenure on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund and turns up this interesting tidbit:
Ms. Sotomayor was part of a three-person committee of the board that recommended in 1981 that the fund oppose the reinstitution of the death penalty in New York State, according to board minutes from that time.
“Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society,” the panel wrote. “It creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender and his/her family.” Read below the fold...
Submitted by basement angel on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 6:39pm
Granholm will be at the White House tomorrow and the hopeful word in some feminist circles is that she might be there for the announcement that she is being nominated to the United States Supreme Court. If this is the case, I think Democrats have very good reasons to oppose her appointment. Read below the fold...
Submitted by danps on Sat, 11/15/2008 - 5:21am
Submitted by leah on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 11:45am
The Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 has just handed down a ruling that prisoners at Guantanamo do have a right under the U.S. Constitution, and in particular, the ruling restores habeas corpus to them, giving them the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. It does not specifically invalidate the entirety of the odious MCA as far as I can tell.
Need I tell you who the five and who the four were? Read below the fold...
Submitted by Martin Gale on Sun, 04/06/2008 - 12:36am
This is what happens when the Supreme Court becomes controlled by radicals:
For years, Johnson & Johnson obscured evidence that its popular Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, potentially increasing the risk of blood clots and strokes, according to internal company documents.
But because the Food and Drug Administration approved the patch, the company is arguing in court that it cannot be sued by women who claim that they were injured by the product — even though its old label inaccurately described the amount of estrogen it released. Read below the fold...
Submitted by lambert on Fri, 06/29/2007 - 4:22pm
As opposed to the SCOTUS:
The Supreme Court for Republicans in the United States.
Any other connotations are purely, purely coincidental.
Speaking of vituperation. Read below the fold...
Submitted by lambert on Fri, 06/29/2007 - 9:18am
Cass Sunstein does some conservative framing on the Bush Court in WaPo today:
The most intriguing development on the Supreme Court this term has been the emergence of a powerful alliance between two different kinds of conservatives: the visionaries and the minimalists. Read below the fold...
Submitted by leah on Tue, 07/11/2006 - 12:19am
If you listen to the SCLM you'll hear again and again that "Hamdan" is a political problem for the Democrats, and only an operational, policy problem for Republicans.
We demand to differ.
This is the first in a series of posts in which we will explore Republican vulnerabilities and Democratic opportunities.
We take the following truths--at a minimum--to be reasonably evident: Read below the fold...