Nominator-in-chief: How the Supreme Court will change under President Trump. THERE are two ways to think about the future of the Supreme Court in the wake of last night’s stunning upset in the presidential race: taking Donald Trump at his word when he says he will load the bench with conservatives, or, in view of his penchant for changing his mind, taking these promises with a shaker full of salt.
Neither offers much solace to liberals. Mr Trump has pledged to appoint highly conservative justices who will uphold gun rights, walk back the 18-month-old decision allowing gays and lesbians to wed and “automatically” overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling recognising a right to abortion choice. On the campaign trail, Mr Trump provided more information about his intentions with regard to the nation’s highest court than any presidential candidate has ever divulged: not one list of potential nominees but two, totalling 21 souls he says merit a shot in one of the Supreme Court’s nine seats.
Justice Ginsburg's Ominous Warning About Creeping Corporate Power. If you’re a business looking for new ways to squeeze money out of your consumers without having to worry about whether doing so is illegal, than you had a very good day in the Supreme Court on Monday.
In its first divided decision of the current Supreme Court term, the Court held in DIRECTV v. Imburgia that the satellite television company DIRECTV could effectively immunize itself from many suits claiming that they charged illegal fees, despite the fact that this decision cuts against language in DIRECTV’s own contract. Only three justices, the conservative Clarence Thomas and the liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. On the surface, not very much is at stake in DIRECTV. The company allegedly charged early termination fees that violate California law. Yet the very smallness of the claim in DIRECTV makes it an important case. DIRECTV builds off a similar decision.
The DIRECTV case closely resembles Concepcion, with one exception. Concepcion is an odd decision. State Law Will Fine Schools $1,500 if They Fail to Force 100% of Students to Say Pledge. Evincing the West’s alarming push toward authoritarian nationalism, a Mississippi lawmaker has now sponsored a bill to fine any school $1,500 for failing to make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag within the first hour of classes every day.
State Representative William Shirley apparently deigns the matter so critical to children’s schooling, as the Sun Herald reports, he’s seeking to amend the 1972 Mississippi code dictating treatment of the U.S. flag on school grounds and guidelines regarding the Pledge of Allegiance to include a $1,500 penalty for errant schools.
While it seems Shirley’s bill constitutes coercive, forced nationalism — pledge your allegiance to that flag, or literally pay the consequences — a provision in the proposal provides a loophole for any objectors, as “any student or teacher who objects to reciting the oath of allegiance shall be excused from participating without penalty.” “Here’s the deal. Bossdictateshealth. Scott Walker Leaks Could Force Supreme Court to Confront Dark Money. Caricature of Scott Walker.
Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey via Flickr arely do members of the public get to see behind the closed doors of political nonprofits, which may receive unlimited amounts of money from mega-donors without disclosing anything about their operations. But a trove of leaked documents from an investigation into Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s 2012 recall election campaign has offered an unprecedented look at how politicians operate in a post-Citizens United world that features record levels of undisclosed political money. The documents, leaked to The Guardian newspaper, detail the allegedly illegal coordination between Walker’s campaign and an outside group. Walker, in a scramble to win a bitterly contested election, asked a slew of right-wing billionaires in 2011 and 2012 to pour money into the Wisconsin Club for Growth, a dark money group working closely with a top aide to the governor. The campaign’s coordinated effort with the outside group was a success.
SCOTUS Just Delivered A Huge Victory For Criminal Justice Reform. The verdict in Montgomery v.
Louisiana is in and considering the implications, I’m almost certain Jan. 25, 2015 will go down in history as a signature victory for criminal justice reform in the United States. By a margin of 6-3, the Supreme Court extended a 2012 ruling (Miller v. Alabama) retroactively, striking down automatic life sentences without parole possibility for teenage killers in the United States. Moreover, the ruling is retroactive, meaning that inmates who were given life sentences without the possibility of parole as teenagers long ago can now petition their freedom.
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Chief Justice John Roberts ruled in favor, while Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia ruled against extending Miller v. From left to right: (top row) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. The verdict in Montgomery v. Consider Norway’s criminal justice system.
Big Money. Citizens United.