Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 27  28  29 

 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
The United States Supreme Court


The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they die, resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment (though no justice has ever been removed). In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.


*****


Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Current Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, where it has since remained.


*****
The U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court." Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

--Wikipedia

---
Robbie
8/16/2017, 6:26 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Bellelettres wrote:

Gorsuch bodes ill.

Over liberals’ objections, Supreme Court says Texas need not draw new districts now

By Robert Barnes September 12 at 9:49 PM

Over the objections of four liberal justices, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday night that Texas does not immediately have to redraw electoral districts that a lower court found diminished the influence of minority voters.

The 5-to-4 ruling almost surely means the 2018 midterm elections will be conducted in the disputed congressional and legislative districts.

The justices gave no reasons in their one-paragraph statement granting a request from Texas that it not be forced to draw new districts until the Supreme Court reviewed the lower court’s decision.

But the court’s liberals — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — signaled their unhappiness by noting they would not have agreed to Texas’s request.

The court’s intervention was a victory for Texas Republicans, who had drawn the districts. It disappointed civil rights groups, who had noted that even though growth in the state’s Hispanic population was the reason for additional congressional seats, none were drawn to favor minority candidates.

The decision was yet another indication of the influence of President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who joined the court in April. Without a full complement of five conservative justices, the court likely would have tied 4 to 4, and Texas’s request for a stay would have failed.

The state has been in the midst of an extraordinary losing streak in federal courts over the way it conducts elections.

Over the latter part of the summer, federal judges in four separate cases ruled that the Texas Legislature discriminated against minorities in drawing congressional and legislative districts, setting ID requirements for voters and even regulating who can assist voters whose first language is not English.

Two courts are considering whether the actions were intended to discourage African American and Hispanic voters. If the courts find that the efforts were intentional, it could return Texas to the kind of federal oversight from which the Supreme Court freed it and other mostly Southern states in the
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) called the rulings “outrageous” and “astonishing.”

A lower court overseeing the redistricting cases called for a special session of the Texas Legislature to redraw the electoral lines. But Paxton went quickly to the Supreme Court, saying it would be a waste of time if the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Texas that the districts did not have to be redrawn.

The decision by a three-judge panel ordering new districts “is not just wrong, but egregiously so,” Paxton told the court in a brief.

Without a special session or a court redrawing the legislative and congressional district lines, it would seem impossible to have the new districts in place in time for the 2018 elections. Redrawn districts probably would have increased the chances for Democrats and minorities to capture them.

http://tinyurl.com/y8hrb6uc
 



Justice Gorsuch is going to haunt us for a very long time.

---
Robbie
9/13/2017, 10:03 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


This isn't a decision on the merits. Roberts could decide to annex Mexico.
9/13/2017, 10:53 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

CooterBrown44 wrote:

"Diminished the influence of minority voters". That reminds me of their "not being able to elect a candidate of their choice".

I know that Texas has and will gerrymander districts to ensure GOP majorities so that the white folks can run things to their satisfaction. I've just always felt that there were better language that the attorneys and politicians could have used.

I also don't find Sotomayer to be that liberal. Neither is Breyer, necessarily. The other two are.

This actually seems to me that the court is going to let things stay until they have a chance to review the case. It's no hint on how they might rule, and with Roberts, anything is possible.



Is this the redistricting done a decade or so ago when a bunch of Republicans (Tom DeLay was a leader in this, I think) redrew the districts to make sure Republicans would always rule?

---
Robbie
9/13/2017, 11:26 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

quote:

CooterBrown44 wrote:

"Diminished the influence of minority voters". That reminds me of their "not being able to elect a candidate of their choice".

I know that Texas has and will gerrymander districts to ensure GOP majorities so that the white folks can run things to their satisfaction. I've just always felt that there were better language that the attorneys and politicians could have used.

I also don't find Sotomayer to be that liberal. Neither is Breyer, necessarily. The other two are.

This actually seems to me that the court is going to let things stay until they have a chance to review the case. It's no hint on how they might rule, and with Roberts, anything is possible.



Is this the redistricting done a decade or so ago when a bunch of Republicans (Tom DeLay was a leader in this, I think) redrew the districts to make sure Republicans would always rule?



Hmmmmmmm............good question. I somehow think this is newer. Given the deterioration of my gray matter, it could have been last week...lol.
9/13/2017, 12:57 pm Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Tuesday’s orders are only the latest developments in an incredibly complicated six-year legal fight over the state’s political lines. The state’s current maps — adopted by the Legislature after judges in 2012 tweaked boundaries drawn following the 2010 U.S. census — have been used during the past three election cycles.

http://tinyurl.com/yd9sh7gl
9/13/2017, 1:12 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Thanks, Belle. I was remembering the same redistricting you were, Robbie, when DeLay was involved.

What a mess....

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
9/15/2017, 10:35 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


That was an exciting one, Lis, with Democrats hiding out to keep the vote from being held. Is that the one you are remembering?
9/15/2017, 10:42 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Yes.

Indiana legislators used the same tactic when the Republican legislature tried to pass a "right-to-work" bill, and Wisconsin legislators had walked out earlier. Both sets of state legislators ended up in Illinois for weeks, as I recall.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
9/15/2017, 12:42 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


That's not what they were elected to do.
9/16/2017, 2:16 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
AZKC Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Posts: 45
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Fans of the Fourth Amendment got a rare treat today at the U.S. Supreme Court. During oral arguments, both the liberal and conservative sides of the bench delivered a thorough pummeling to the government lawyer charged with defending the practice of warrantless cellphone data collection and tracking.

At issue today in Carpenter v. United States was whether the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained, without a search warrant, 127 days' worth of historical cellphone records about a suspected armed robber named Timothy Carpenter. Thanks to those records, the government identified the cell towers that handled Carpenter's calls and then proceeded to trace back his whereabouts during the time periods in which his alleged crimes were committed.

According to Michael R. Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general in President Donald Trump's Department of Justice, this sort of warrantless law enforcement activity is perfectly constitutional.

That stance, however, evidently did not sit well with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who came out swinging against the government lawyer. "Most Americans, I still think, want to avoid Big Brother," she informed Dreeben. "They want to avoid the concept that government will be able to see and locate you anywhere you are at any point in time."

Sotomayor then suggested that the government's position in the case was at odds with the bedrock protections secured by the Fourth Amendment. "The Constitution protects the rights of people to be secure," she observed. "Isn't it a fundamental concept, don't you think, that that would include the government searching for information about your location every second of the day for months and months at a time?"

Shortly after this drubbing by Sotomayor, Dreeben found himself on the receiving end of a verbal thrashing by Justice Neil Gorsuch. "It seems like your whole argument boils down to if we get it from a third-party [such as a cellular service provider] we're okay, regardless of property interest, regardless of anything else. But how does that fit with the original understanding of the Constitution and writs of assistance?" Gorsuch pressed.

"You know," he told Dreeben, "John Adams said one of the reasons for the war was the use by the government of third parties to obtain information." The British forced those third parties "to help as their snitches and snoops." Why isn't today's warrantless cellphone snooping, Gorsuch demanded, "exactly what the framers were concerned about?"

In other words, after charging the government lawyer with ignoring the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Gorsuch then all but accused that lawyer of dishonoring the memory of John Adams. I suspect that today will not go down as Dreeben's all-time favorite day in federal court.

It is never a good idea to try and predict the outcome of a Supreme Court case based on the tenor of the oral arguments. But today's events do at least demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment still has a few fans left on the High Court.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/29/government-lawyer-pummeled-by-sotomayor

---
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. – John Adams
11/29/2017, 7:03 pm Link to this post PM AZKC
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I don't trust the courts to protect us from big government through the Fourth Amendment. The USSC has virtually abrogated it completely in favor of big brother.

Questions asked during oral argument have nothing to do with how the votes will go. I've served on a few appellate panels that were created to lighten up a case log. Sometimes you can get a feeling with certain Justices, but not often.
11/29/2017, 7:25 pm Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


We don't know the ultimate ruling, but I'm delighted with the drubbing.

---
Robbie
11/29/2017, 8:25 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
AZKC Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Posts: 45
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


It will be interesting if Sotomayor and Gorsuch end up on the same side.

I'm sure some heads will explode on both sides of the aisle.

---
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. – John Adams
11/29/2017, 9:54 pm Link to this post PM AZKC
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

AZKC wrote:

It will be interesting if Sotomayor and Gorsuch end up on the same side.

I'm sure some heads will explode on both sides of the aisle.



I never understand why you say things like that.

---
Robbie
11/30/2017, 12:22 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
AZKC Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Posts: 45
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Because both Justices have been vilified by their detractors.

Difficult after you have totally denounced someone to turn around and say "Good jub".

---
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. – John Adams
11/30/2017, 9:26 am Link to this post PM AZKC
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I know liberals and libertarians who are fine with Gorsuch. Republicans pummeled Sotomayor as being a liberal, which she isn't. Just because she's not to the right of Dick Cheney..........

I supported Sotomayor and am fine with Gorsuch. I don't see him as being another Scalia.
11/30/2017, 10:25 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

I never understand why you say things like that.




quote:

AZKC wrote:

Because both Justices have been vilified by their detractors.

Difficult after you have totally denounced someone to turn around and say "Good jub".



No, it's the "heads will explode" part. It's rightwad-speak. It's as though they can hardly wait.

---
Robbie
11/30/2017, 10:41 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
AZKC Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Posts: 45
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


It is NOT right-wad speak.

I have seen the term used by people on both the left and the right side of the aisle and I am pretty sure you have too.

Go !@#$ at someone else for their semantics.

---
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. – John Adams
11/30/2017, 1:34 pm Link to this post PM AZKC
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Always a pleasure to have you around, KC.

---
Robbie
11/30/2017, 1:49 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 27  28  29 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top