Vote Trump 2016 !

Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Friday, October 24, 2014

Tea Party Patriots Statement on SCOTUS Decision

Statement by Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party PatriotATLANTA, GA – Yesterday, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed almost all counts brought by more than 40 tea party groups against the IRS in two lawsuits because the IRS had granted the groups their tax-exempt status in the interimToday, Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, who are engaged in their own lawsuit against the IRS over their illegal targeting of tea party groups.

Today, Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, who are engaged in their own lawsuit against the IRS over their illegal targeting of tea party groups for additional scrutiny, issued the following statement:
“Within days of the Citizens United ruling in January 2010, which strengthened free speech rights and the freedom for the people to criticize the government, the Internal Revenue Service – the branch of government most feared by American citizens, and, therefore, best suited to act punitively on behalf of a lawless regime – launched a program that systematically targeted what it believed to be “enemies” of the Obama Administration. That scandal – which went on for several years – was admitted by the IRS and by the person most responsible for the agency’s misconduct, Lois Lerner.
Several dozen victims of the targeting sued the IRS and individual IRS agents for violation of their constitutional rights. Yesterday a federal judge sided with the IRS and dismissed the claims of our fellow citizens and patriots. Amazingly, the Court’s ruling acknowledges the illegal activity by the IRS – but nonetheless concluded that because the IRS says it has discontinued its targeting, the case is “moot.”
We are dismayed, disappointed, and disheartened that the IRS would be allowed to get away with not just infringing on the rights of American citizens, but bulldozing them, casting aside any sense of propriety or privacy in its years-long effort to suppress the Obama Administration’s political opposition.
Tea Party Patriots – while not a plaintiff in the lawsuits – was a victim of the IRS targeting, having been subjected to a delay of more than three years in obtaining its tax exempt status, merely because of our name and beliefs.
The Court’s decision not to sanction either the IRS or the individual agents because it and they had taken “remedial measures” is unconscionable.
Under this view of the law, Al Capone need not have been arrested, prosecuted and convicted; he merely need have surrendered and promised to never cheat on his taxes again.
It is wholly unacceptable simply to accept the IRS’s hollow promises as “remedial measures” in the eyes of the law. When the IRS demands to know the content of people’s prayers, among other outrageous misconduct we have now learned the IRS engaged in during its persecution of tea party groups, a line has been crossed. Forgive us for not taking the Obama Administration at its word when it says it won’t happen again, which is what the Court has asked us to believe.
This Administration is out of control, and has shown time and again it has zero respect for the law or the Constitution.  Sadly, the Court’s ruling will do nothing to discourage such behavior.”
In February, the Tea Party Patriots were granted their tax-exempt status after years of no action the day before Jenny Beth Martin was scheduled to testify before a House Committee on the issue.

Tea Party Patriots is a national grassroots coalition with more than 3,400 locally organized chapters and more than 15 million supporters nationwide. Tea Party Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing personal freedom, economic freedom, and a debt-free future. Visit Tea Party Patriots online at www.TeaPartyPatriots.org.

For further information or to schedule an interview with Jenny Beth Martin, please contact Mike Rudin with Shir


Lawyers for lesbian mayor tell Supreme Court city petition never 'validated'

HOUSTON STORY CHANGES IN FIGHT WITH PASTORS


Friday, October 10, 2014

The Supreme Court to Consider When Threats Can Be Punished Consistent with the First Amendment

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR AND ALAN E. BROWNSTEINOCT 10, 2014 12:01 AM

Constitution Gavel
’Tis the season to begin looking carefully at the Supreme Court’s 2014–2015 docket, now that the Justices have returned from their summer recess and are hearing cases again. One interesting case to be argued in a couple of months, Elonis v. United States, raises questions about how courts should define so-called “true threats” that fall outside First Amendment protection and thus are subject to punishment. Anthony Elonis was convicted of violating federal criminal statutes that prohibit the interstate transmission of communications containing threats to injure other persons, and his convictions were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Background Facts of the Dispute
Mr. Elonis allegedly posted threats on Facebook directed at, among others, his ex-wife, federal law enforcement officials, and school children. For example, in referring to FBI officials (who had visited his home to interview him about his activities), Elonis wrote (seemingly in rap-style cadence):
[T]he next time you know, you best be serving a warrant
And bring yo’ SWAT an explosives expert while you’re at it
Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb . . .
I was jus’ waitin’ for y’all to handcuff me and pat me down.
Touch the detonator in my pocket and we’re all goin’ BOOM!
In another posting, Elonis wrote:
That’s it. I’ve had about enough.
I’m checking out and making a name for myself.
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous shooting ever imagined. . .
The only question is. . . which one?”

http://justia.com/

TweetMe Please 

Friday, October 03, 2014

Libs bring the hate after ‘utterly stupid’ Justice Scalia speaks in Colorado

Here’s the excerpt from Justice Scalia’s speech that has libs all-a-flutter:
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.
“That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way,” Justice Scalia said. “And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
That’s it? The A.P. wrote it up differently, minus the outrage:
Scalia spoke earlier in the day to about 400 people at Colorado Christian University, where he said religious people can express belief in a society that sepaates church and state. But he warned that government must not try to compel religious belief.



TwitchyTeam

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Supreme Court asked to review the U.S. Trademark Office’s rejection of “STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA” trademark


sioa_logo_stor-150x150It is astonishing that the Trademark Office would reject our trademark because the concept of resisting Islamization is supposedly demeaning to Muslims, when millions of Muslims in Egypt last year successfully stood up against Islamization and threw off the Muslim Brotherhood regime. The mainstream media regularly referred to their resisting Islamization, only considering the term disparaging when we used it.
“Supreme Court Asked to Review the U.S. Trademark Office’s Rejection of ‘STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA’ Trademark,” American Freedom Law Center, August 11, 2014:
Washington, D.C. (August 11, 2014) — Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer asking the Court to review the rejection of their trademark application for STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA.  Geller and Spencer are two well-known bloggers, authors, and social-political activists who oppose the imposition of Islamic law (or sharia) in any form in America and elsewhere in the West
http://jihadwatch.org/

TweetMe Please

Thursday, July 31, 2014

SCOTUS Has a lot of work left

0

Supreme Court has 17 cases to decide by June



It's crunch time at the Supreme Court, where the justices are racing to issue opinions in 17 cases over the next two weeks.
The religious rights of corporations, the speech rights of abortion protesters and the privacy rights of people under arrest are among the significant issues that are so far unresolved.
Summer travel, European teaching gigs and relaxation beckon, but only after the court hands down decisions in all the cases it has heard since October.
In rare instances, the justices will put off decisions and order a case to be argued again in the next term.
This is also the time of the year when a justice could announce a retirement. But the oldest of the justices, 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has signaled she will serve at least one more year, and maybe longer.
The justices will meet Monday and again on Thursday to issue opinions, and could wind up their work by the end of the mo

TweetMe Please

Sunday, July 06, 2014

THE NUCLEAR OPTION: THE SUPREME COURT’S BIGGEST LOSER – BARACK OBAMA


Summer is hot upon us, another Supreme Court term is ending, and now it is time to evaluate America’s most tutored — and tortured — constitutional law student.

It is unusual for a pupil of the Constitution to have such exhaustive continuing education courses, with such arduous nine-on-one tutoring from the foremost experts in the entire world. It is especially unusual since the pupil in question has actually had a constitutional law degree conferred upon him by an esteemed Ivy League institution and lectured on constitutional law at an equally esteemed institution of higher learning.
Indeed, this is no ordinary student. This is a very special student with very special needs. Nine patient teachers. Limitless free school supplies. And a class size of one.
http://www.breitbart.com/

TweetMe Please

Supreme Court Rules Against Massachusetts Abortion Clinic Law

Pro-choice enthusiasts got a smackdown from the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, June 26th. The highest court in the land struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting protests in a 35-foot zone surrounding state abortion clinics as unconstitutional. Conservatives and liberals each have their ideas about the biases inherent in the Court, but it’s always nice when our system of checks and balances works the way it’s supposed to.
Of course, pro-choice liberals don’t see it that way in this case. The self-proclaimed party of free speech continually finds themselves on the wrong side of our most basic rights, and their arguments for this buffer zone are just more logs on the fire. Created in 2007, the law was intended to cut down on the amount of harassment clinic customers faced as they brought their unborn babies in for evacuation. Some supporters of the ban pointed to a rash of shootings in 1994 as reason enough for the law, but a 35-foot zone of silence would have done absolutely nothing to prevent those tragedies.
The law was brought to court by First Amendment supporters and pro-life advocates who wished to speak to women going into the clinics. What gets lost in the coverage of abortion clinic protests is that many young girls never really get the other side of the story. They don’t know to a certainty what having an abortion entails. They don’t know they have other, much more attractive options. To put criticism in its fair place, of course, many of the protestors don’t do their cause any justice; screaming like a banshee and waving photographs of abortion aftermaths changes about as many minds as the Westboro Baptist Church.
- See more at: http://www.leanrightamerica.org/health/supreme-court-rules-against-massachusetts-abortion-clinic-law/#sthash.wYJPZmeZ.dpuf

Hobby Lobby Case: In Praise of Constitutionally Minded Justices

This has been a stellar week for Supreme Court decisions, and the Hobby Lobby case acts as a nice bookend along with the court’s appropriate strikedown of Massachusetts’s protest ban.
If you haven’t logged into the news in a couple of days, The Supreme Court ruled Monday that companies need not obey the Obamacare mandate when it comes to paying for emergency contraceptive coverage. In some cases, this type of coverage could lead to drug-induced abortions which could play into direct conflict of a company’s religious beliefs.
Naturally, a company cannot strictly have religious beliefs, which is why the court’s decision resonated with logic and care. They limited their ruling to closely-held companies only, and the ruling is only in the specific area of a few birth control options. The case concerned the nationwide craftstore chain Hobby Lobby, owned by the Oklahoma-based Green family. The Greens were on record saying they had no problem covering many of the Obamacare-mandated birth control methods, but would not pay for four others because it went against their religious beliefs regarding abortion.
- See more at: http://www.leanrightamerica.org/health/the-hobby-lobby-case-in-praise-of-constitutionally-minded-justices/#sthash.0YtfKLoI.dpuf

Saturday, July 05, 2014

Supreme Court Limits, But Doesn't End Union Fees

, supreme_court_brief
    | 0 Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
The ability of public employee unions to charge non-members for their share of the costs of collective bargaining remains intact after a U.S. Supreme Courtdecision Monday that labor leaders feared would be a "kill shot" for their movement.
Ruling in Harris v. Quinn, a 5-4 majority said that Illinois home care workers who objected to joining a state-recognized union could not be forced to pay so-called agency fees, in part because they are not "full-fledged" state employees. But the court stopped short of overturning the 1977 case that allowed agency fees in public employment, in spite of a frontal First Amendment attack on the precedent mounted by union critics in the case.


Read more: http://www.lawtechnologynews.com/id=1202661431805/Supreme-Court-Limits-But-Doesnt-End-Union-Fees-#ixzz36dGeHC8Y

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

ABC, CBS Ignore SCOTUS Ruling Against Unions and New V.A. Chief Nomination

a News Analyst

On Monday, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to labor unions seeking to obtain more control over public employees who do not want to join the union. Despite the setback for union bosses, NBC Nightly News was the only network evening news broadcast to cover the ruling on Monday evening.
In addition, President Obama nominated Robert McDonald to be the next Secretary of Veterans Affairs and fix the troubled agency yet ABC’s World News with Diane Sawyer and the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley were nowhere to be found on this story either. Pete Williams, NBC’s Justice Correspondent highlighted how “the court dealt something of a setback to labor unions that represent government employees...The court said government workers who care for people at home and don’t join the union do not have to pay union fees.” 
Pete Williams, NBC’s Justice Correspondent highlighted how “the court dealt something of a setback to labor unions that represent government employees...The court said government workers who care for people at home and don’t join the union do not have to pay union fees.” 
http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/abc-cbs-ignore-scotus-ruling-against-unions-and-new-va-chief-nomination

http://goo.gl/2Xa4Ei

TweetMe Please


Image wikipedia.org


The Supreme Court Decides Riley v. California and Updates the Fourth Amendment -




SmartphoneLast week, the Supreme Court handed down Riley v. California together with United States v. Wurie, in one of the most significant Fourth Amendment decisions in recent history. The Court faced the question of whether and how to apply the “search incident to arrest” doctrine to cell phones and smart phones that police find in the possession of an arrestee. Different courts had resolved the issue differently (including in the two cases before the Court, Riley and Wurie). The Court held, in a nearly unanimous opinion, that police may not examine the digital contents of an arrestee’s cell phone as part of a search incident to arrest. In so ruling, the Court decisively embraced Fourth Amendment protection for digital privacy in the Twenty-First Century, a welcome and somewhat novel development.
Facts of Riley and Wurie
In Riley, the petitioner, David Leon Riley, was stopped by police for a traffic violation. In the course of the stop, police discovered that Riley’s license had been suspended, and the car was impounded. As a routine part of impounding the vehicle, police conducted a lawful inventory search of the car, during which they found two handguns. Police subsequently arrested Riley for possession of concealed and loaded firearms.

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2014/07/01/supreme-court-decides-riley-v-california-updates-fourth-amendment#sthash.RCZSjAXk.dpuf

http://goo.gl/ytp8Lv

TweetMe Please

Monday, June 30, 2014

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees. 


The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign. 
"Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/

http://goo.gl/avmwNv

TweetMe Please

Supreme Court Rules Home Health Care Workers Can Not Be Forced To Join A Union…

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Harris v. Quinn that politicians can no longer force family members caring for disabled relatives into public sector unions.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court found the state of Illinois violated the constitution when imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich agreed to funnel a portion of home healthcare worker checks to political allies SEIU and AFSCME. The unions collected more than $50 million from about 20,000 such people over a five-year period.
The decision, authored by Samuel Alito, did not completely limit the ability of public sector unions to collect dues from employees who do not want to join unions. However, the court recognized a category of “partial public employees” and ruled that fees cannot be forcefully extracted from these people.
http://weaselzippers.us/191727-supreme-court-rules-home-health-care-workers-can-not-be-forced-to-join-a-union/



TweetMe Please

Obama slapped down as Supreme Court Rules Employers Don't Have to Cover Birth Control

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a limited decision, ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
For-profit corporations — including Conestoga Wood of Pennsylvania, owned by a family of Mennonite Christians, and Hobby Lobby, a family-owned chain of arts and crafts stores founded on Biblical principles — had challenged a provision of the Affordable Care Act.
It requires companies with more than 50 employees to cover preventive care services, which include such contraceptives as morning-after pills, diaphragms and IUDs.
Image nbcnews.com

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Supreme Court poised to decide birth-control dispute

Jun 28, 3:28 AM (ET)
By MARK SHERMAN


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice.
ln coverage under President Barack Obama's health law. Employers must cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. Dozens of companies, including arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Scalia Accuses Fellow Justices Of Discriminating Against Pro-Lifers


Antonin Scalia on Fox News. PAUL MORIGI/GETTY IMAGES

While Thursday’s ruling overturning buffer zones outside abortion clinics pleased pro-life activists, Justice Antonin Scalia thinks it didn’t go far enough.
The court unanimously agreed that the Massachusetts law, which barred protesters and counselors from being within 35 feet of abortion clinics, violated the First Amendment, but denied that it unfairly discriminated against abortion opponents.
“Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas concurred. “There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.”
TweetMe Please