Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

SCOTUS

#751

Post by Foggy »

Somebody tell Trump, he'll go ballistic. :mrgreen:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#752

Post by RTH10260 »

Justices to take aim at race-conscious college admissions in affirmative action cases

DEVIN DWYER and SARAH HERNDON
Fri, October 28, 2022 at 2:09 PM·

In her 2003 opinion upholding affirmative action in higher education, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor famously predicted that in 25 years "the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary" in America.

Next week, years after that milestone and with lingering gaps in minority college acceptance and achievement, a new group of justices will decide whether to overrule O'Connor – and more than 40 years of precedent – to declare that admissions policies must be race-blind.

"That would be a sea change in American law with huge implications across society," said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

In a pair of oral arguments Monday, the justices will take up race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University, the nation's oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, the nation's oldest public university.

It is the first test for affirmative action before the current court with its six-justice conservative majority and three justices of color, including the first-ever Black woman justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"I think we have to be realistic in that this is a very conservative Supreme Court," said David Lewis, a Harvard University junior and member of the school's Black Students Association. "But this issue has been tried over and over again at the court, and the precedent has still been upheld."




https://www.yahoo.com/gma/justices-aim- ... 00034.html
(original GoodMorningAmerica)
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#753

Post by RTH10260 »

Hundreds of Publishing Staffers Call for Cancellation of Amy Coney Barrett’s Book Deal

Brittany Bernstein
Fri, October 28, 2022 at 11:56 PM·

Hundreds of publishing staffers have signed an open letter calling on Penguin Random House to axe Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s $2 million book deal because she voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Barrett’s book deal with Sentinel, an imprint of Penguin Random House that focuses on conservative content, was first reported in April 2021. Politico reported at the time that Barrett had a deal for a book about how judges should avoid letting their decisions be impacted by personal feelings.

In an open letter that had received more than 550 signatures as of Friday afternoon, Barrett’s detractors called the deal “a case where a corporation has privately funded the destruction of human rights with obscene profits.”

The letter claims its signatories “care deeply about freedom of speech” and “recognize that harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship, but also in the form of assault on inalienable human rights.”

“As such, we are calling on Penguin Random House to recognize its own history and corporate responsibility commitments by reevaluating its decision to move forward with publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s forthcoming book,” the letter said.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-pub ... 22093.html
(original NYT)
User avatar
tek
Posts: 2250
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:15 am

SCOTUS

#754

Post by tek »

Politico reported at the time that Barrett had a deal for a book about how judges should avoid letting their decisions be impacted by personal feelings.
There goes another irony meter
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

SCOTUS

#755

Post by keith »

RTH10260 wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:22 pm
Hundreds of Publishing Staffers Call for Cancellation of Amy Coney Barrett’s Book Deal
:snippity:
How is she supposed to pay for her college loans then?


(Edit to fix markup)
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#756

Post by Gregg »

Maybe her and Kegs could get lobbying Justices made more legal than it is now.

By which I mean, if it is illegal, how would anyone know for sure and who exactly would tell them? :confuzzled:

(go ahead, say something related to shame and/or appearances)
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#757

Post by AndyinPA »

Why? They don't have any and don't care.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

SCOTUS

#758

Post by Dr. Ken »

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

SCOTUS

#759

Post by Foggy »

Disclosure form for what? Is it signed under penalty of perjury? :nope:

Is it a crime to lie on the disclosure form?

Those are questions. :popcorn:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

SCOTUS

#760

Post by June bug »

One reply says this is an old story from 2011, so apparently there’s no legal consequence for doing that.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

SCOTUS

#761

Post by Foggy »

That must be what the word "BREAKING" means in a tweet about an event 11 years old. :roll:
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#762

Post by Gregg »

Today the Court heard arguments in cases meant to ensure that white people are not be discriminated against at Harvard.

Because that is what this court sees as one of our time's great injustices that needs righting. White people at Harvard.

Jesus wept.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#763

Post by RTH10260 »

humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

SCOTUS

#764

Post by humblescribe »

And they continue to bemoan the fact that the public does not have much confidence in them despite their strict adherence to THE LAW. They do not let personal feelings or opinions enter into their sacred deliberations and keen analysis. :fingerwag:

So, if by some weird twist of fate the Federalist Society is a party to a lawsuit that is pending before these individuals, would they have the presence of mind to recuse themselves? My guess is no.

I'd rather play cards with a card cheat than rely upon these people to do what is morally and ethically right.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#765

Post by raison de arizona »

Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach
Years before the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a landmark contraception ruling was disclosed, according to a minister who led a secretive effort to influence justices.

As the Supreme Court investigates the extraordinary leak this spring of a draft opinion of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a former anti-abortion leader has come forward claiming that another breach occurred in a 2014 landmark case involving contraception and religious rights.

In a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times, the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.
:snippity:
In early June 2014, an Ohio couple who were Mr. Schenck’s star donors shared a meal with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann. A day later, Gayle Wright, one of the pair, contacted Mr. Schenck, according to an email reviewed by The Times. “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails,” she wrote.

Mr. Schenck said Mrs. Wright told him that the decision would be favorable to Hobby Lobby, and that Justice Alito had written the majority opinion. Three weeks later, that’s exactly what happened. The court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance covering contraception violated their religious freedoms. The decision would have major implications for birth control access, President Barack Obama’s new health care law and corporations’ ability to claim religious rights.
:snippity:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/s ... -wade.html
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3000
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

SCOTUS

#766

Post by MN-Skeptic »

This is a big story. The takeaway of a lot of folks is that it is Alito who leaked both the Hobby Lobby ruling and the Dobbs ruling.



From the article -
As the Supreme Court investigates the extraordinary leak this spring of a draft opinion of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a former anti-abortion leader has come forward claiming that another breach occurred in a 2014 landmark case involving contraception and religious rights.

In a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times, the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.

Both court decisions were triumphs for conservatives and the religious right. Both majority opinions were written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. But the leak of the draft opinion overturning the constitutional right to abortion was disclosed in the news media by Politico, setting off a national uproar. With Hobby Lobby, according to Mr. Schenck, the outcome was shared with only a handful of advocates.

Mr. Schenck’s allegation creates an unusual, contentious situation: a minister who spent years at the center of the anti-abortion movement, now turned whistle-blower; a denial by a sitting justice; and an institution that shows little outward sign of getting to the bottom of the recent leak of the abortion ruling or of following up on Mr. Schenck’s allegation.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#767

Post by AndyinPA »

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/no ... e-v-elenis
Former members of Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group, the People of Praise, are calling on the US supreme court justice to recuse herself from an upcoming case involving gay rights, saying Barrett’s continued affiliation with the Christian group means she has participated in discriminatory policies against LGBTQ+ people.

The former members are part of a network of “survivors” of the controversial charismatic group who say Barrett’s “lifelong and continued” membership in the People of Praise make her too biased to fairly adjudicate an upcoming case that will decide whether private business owners have a right to decline services to potential clients based on their sexual orientation.
Amy Coney Barrett, who was successfully nominated to the supreme court by Donald Trump.
Revealed: leaked video shows Amy Coney Barrett’s secretive faith group drove women to tears
Read more

They point to Barrett’s former role on the board of Trinity Schools Inc, a private group of Christian schools that is affiliated with the People of Praise and, in effect, barred children of same-sex parents from attending the school.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9854
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#768

Post by AndyinPA »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA14nnln

Top Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees demanded on Sunday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts comply with their investigation into the court’s refusal to abide by ethics laws. 

And if the court continues to suggest it’s not serious about policing itself, Congress will step in, warned the joint letter from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), chairs of the subcommittees overseeing the federal judiciary in their respective chambers.

“If the Court, as your letter suggests, is not willing to undertake fact-finding inquiries into possible ethics violations that leaves Congress as the only forum,” they wrote.

The letter came a day after The New York Times reported that Justice Samuel Alito leaked the outcome of a 2014 decision in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. Alito reportedly spoke about the decision ahead of its release to Supreme Court Historical Society donors who were part of an influence operation led by a former conservative evangelical leader, Rev. Rob Schenck.

The two lawmakers firmly stated Congress’ right to investigate the court and demanded Roberts provide information related to the influence operation run by Schenck through his Faith & Action group.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6691
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

SCOTUS

#769

Post by pipistrelle »

Won't Roberts wait out the calendar?
User avatar
John Thomas8
Posts: 5103
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:42 pm
Location: Central NC
Occupation: Tech Support

SCOTUS

#770

Post by John Thomas8 »

The US Supreme Court is compromised, no longer a valid arbiter of the truth.
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

SCOTUS

#771

Post by June bug »

pipistrelle wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:04 pm Won't Roberts wait out the calendar?
Yes.
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

SCOTUS

#772

Post by keith »

June bug wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:17 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:04 pm Won't Roberts wait out the calendar?
Yes.
And then the Senate will take up the issue.
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
June bug
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:34 am

SCOTUS

#773

Post by June bug »

keith wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:00 am
June bug wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:17 pm
pipistrelle wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:04 pm Won't Roberts wait out the calendar?
Yes.
And then the Senate will take up the issue.
To what avail?

If the Senate remains 50-50, the Dems won’t have subpoena power.

Even if it’s 51-49, the ultimate arbiter of any subpoena will be…the 6-3 Supreme Court.
User avatar
keith
Posts: 3705
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:23 pm
Location: The Swamp in Victorian Oz
Occupation: Retired Computer Systems Analyst Project Manager Super Coder
Verified: ✅lunatic

SCOTUS

#774

Post by keith »

June bug wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:44 am
keith wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:00 am
June bug wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:17 pm

Yes.
And then the Senate will take up the issue.
To what avail?

If the Senate remains 50-50, the Dems won’t have subpoena power.

Even if it’s 51-49, the ultimate arbiter of any subpoena will be…the 6-3 Supreme Court.
Same as the House. So?
Has everybody heard about the bird?
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

SCOTUS

#775

Post by neonzx »

:lol:
SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog

JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.

SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://t.co/OmR3rimMCH

2:26 PM · Nov 21, 2022
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”