Page 10 of 61 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 607

Thread: Supreme Court of the United States

  1. #91
    Moderator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newport, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,454
    Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas in 2016! RIP Ant.

    Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.jpg

  2. #92
    Senior Member CnCP Legend CharlesMartel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    FRANCE
    Posts
    3,073
    The Lethal Gaps in How the Supreme Court Handles the Death Penalty

    Seven of the 12 jurors who convicted Ronald B. Smith in the murder of a convenience store clerk voted to spare his life. When the case reached the Supreme Court, four of the eight justices voted to stay his execution.

    The arithmetic of capital punishment can seem curious. Mr. Smith was executed Thursday night.

    Mr. Smith was convicted of murdering the clerk in 1994 in Huntsville, Ala. The jury recommended life without parole, but the trial judge overrode that determination, sentencing Mr. Smith to death.

    Alabama is the only state that allows such overrides. It is a good bet that the Supreme Court will soon weigh the constitutionality of the practice.

    That will be too late for Mr. Smith, who came up one vote short on Thursday night, illuminating a lethal gap in the Supreme Court’s internal practices. It takes four votes to put a case on the court’s docket, but it takes five to stop an execution.

    Over the years, in fits and starts, some justices have sought to address this anomaly by casting a “courtesy fifth” vote to stay an execution when four justices thought the case worthy of further consideration.

    In a 1985 concurrence, Justice Lewis F. Powell explained his reluctant decision to supply such a courtesy vote. The inmate’s case had “no merit whatever,” he wrote. “But in view of the unusual situation in which four justices have voted” to hear it, he wrote, “and in view of the fact that this is a capital case with petitioner’s life at stake, and further in view of the fact that the justices are scattered geographically and unable to meet for a conference, I feel obligated to join in granting the application for a stay.”

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was asked about the practice at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

    “How would you feel, if you were chief, if you had four of the justices now voting for a stay of execution?” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, asked. “Do you feel as chief you would do the courtesy of kicking in the fifth one?”

    Chief Justice Roberts seemed receptive. “I don’t want to commit to pursue a particular practice,” he said. “But it obviously makes great sense.”

    “You don’t want to moot the case by not staying the sentence,” he added.

    In the 11 years that Chief Justice Roberts has led the Supreme Court, its commitment to such courtesy votes has been inconsistent. Until Thursday, though, it seemed to be on the upswing.

    The recent trend started with a case on transgender rights. A Virginia school board wanted to stop a transgender boy, Gavin Grimm, from using the boys’ restroom at his high school while the Supreme Court considered an appeal from a decision in Mr. Grimm’s favor.

    In August, the court’s four more conservative members — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — voted to grant a stay. Justice Stephen G. Breyer added a fifth vote “as a courtesy.”

    Justice Breyer’s motives were not hard to discern. He was concerned about execution chambers, not restrooms. The only case he cited in his concurrence in the transgender case was Medellin v. Texas, a death penalty decision in which he had expressed frustration that “no member of the majority has proved willing to provide a courtesy vote for a stay.”

    Last month, Justice Breyer’s gambit seemed to pay off. On Nov. 3, the court considered an application for a stay of execution from another Alabama death row inmate, Thomas D. Arthur. Chief Justice Roberts provided the fifth vote needed to halt the execution.

    He said he would not ordinarily have favored a stay, but noted that four justices had voted in favor of one. “To afford them the opportunity to more fully consider the suitability of this case for review,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “I vote to grant the stay as a courtesy.”

    On Thursday, in Mr. Smith’s case, the court’s more liberal members — Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — voted for a stay. But this time there was no courtesy fifth vote.

    Upon hearing that news, Mr. Smith’s lawyers immediately filed a last-minute request for reconsideration.

    “The court should not permit executions in the face of four dissents,” the motion said, adding that the court’s practices in this area “clash with the appearance and reality both of equal justice under law and of sound judicial decision making.”

    That motion was denied, too, this time without noted dissent.

    The leading student of the courtesy fifth is Eric M. Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University. The title of his 2015 law review article on the subject makes his views plain: “No Execution if Four Justices Object.”

    On Thursday night, as it became clear that Mr. Smith was going to die, Professor Freedman made a more modest point. The justices, he said, should at the least explain their reasoning and standards.

    “The time has long ago passed for the court to address forthrightly a situation which is simply unseemly,” Professor Freedman said. “For people to live or die in the middle of the night on the basis of no visible rule is simply at odds with any defensible system of judicial decision making.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us...h-penalty.html

  3. #93
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Related

    Supreme Court Protest Ends in 18 Arrests

    Eighteen protesters were arrested on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday morning after displaying a large "STOP EXECUTIONS!" banner calling for an end to capital punishment in America.

    The demonstration was timed to mark the 40th anniversary of the 1977 execution by firing squad of Garry Gilmore, the first since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. Similar protests have taken place every five years and have almost become a ritual that ends with the arrests. Federal law prohibits displaying banners and "moving in procession" on Supreme Court grounds.

    More than 100 anti-death-penalty activists assembled first at the Methodist Building across the street from the court. They prayed and discussed strategy, then walked to the court, with some carrying signs that listed, year by year, the names of the more than 1,400 people executed in the 40 years since Gilmore.

    They stood right in front of the marble plaza of the court, the point at which "freedom of speech stops," as protest leader Bill Pelke said to the crowd. After singing protest songs, the protesters quietly made room for the 18 who planned to get arrested.

    Among the 18 were death-row exonerees, family members of murder victims, as well as survivors of those who were executed. Sam Reese Sheppard, whose father was the convicted murderer — ultimately acquitted — in Sheppard v. Maxwell, the 1966 Supreme Court case, also got himself arrested.

    As court police looked on, the group marched across the forbidden marble plaza and then up the marble steps. They strewed roses on the steps, then unfurled the illegal banner. Police stood mute for the first 15 minutes or so, until an officer warned them with a bullhorn that arrests were imminent. Protesters were peacefully handcuffed one by one, and the banner sagged as fewer people were left to hold it up.

    http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id...20170017164834
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. #94
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Examining the top contenders on Trump's Supreme Court list

    President Donald Trump has made clear he's winnowed down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees -- and may be days away from making the announcement.

    Trump himself said on the campaign trail that he would look at judges William Pryor and Diane Sykes as top contenders, and has touted his list of 20 possible choices from conservative legal circles. Sources close to the search say as things stand now, Judge Neil Gorsuch has emerged on top of the list as well as Judge Thomas Hardiman.

    "I think in my mind I know who it is," Trump said during a luncheon at his hotel Thursday with Republicans, according to cell phone video of the event obtained by CNN. "I think you're going to be very, very excited."

    In recent weeks, the search has intensified as lawyers and outside groups have joined the effort pouring through legal briefs, opinions, articles and congressional transcripts.

    The decision will all come down to a calculation by top staff weighing the judge and the current court against a series of factors including his or her record, age and background.

    A look at four of those on the top of the list reveal arguments that Trump will weigh both for and against.

    William Pryor

    Trump knows, for example, that if he picks Pryor, he is asking for a fight with Senate Democrats. Pryor sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and he is a dream candidate for many conservatives. He's called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, an "abomination." He's a committed member of the Federalist Society, and in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning.

    "I am a conservative, and I believe in the strict separation of governmental powers," Pryor wrote in 1997 when he was attorney general of Alabama. "Courts should not resolve political problems."

    Pryor has faced the Senate gauntlet before.

    In 2004, Democrats blocked his confirmation to the appellate court, and it was only in June 2005 that he was officially confirmed by a vote of 53-45.

    But despite Pryor's record, some conservatives have questioned an opinion he joined that they perceive as expanding transgender rights.

    Neil Gorsuch

    Gorsuch, who sits on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Colorado, has never called Roe an abomination. In fact, he's never had the occasion to write an opinion addressing Roe.

    That might disappoint some who want to make sure that he wouldn't surprise them on the issue.

    But he's become a favored candidate in part because of his opinions on religious liberty including one he joined siding with closely held corporations who believed that the so-called contraceptive mandate of Obamacare violated their religious beliefs.

    And on more than one occasion, he's aligned himself with Scalia. In the weeks after Scalia's death last year, Gorsuch gave a talk emphasizing that "the great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators."

    Trump might conclude that Gorsuch could sidestep a major fight in Congress.

    Or not. Liberals are still seething mad that Republican senators failed to hold hearings for former President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, and could take it out on Gorsuch, or anyone else Trump picks.

    "Those of us who believe that Merrick Garland was improperly denied a vote and also recognize that the majority of the American people voted for Hillary Clinton are going to refuse a nominee who moves the court in such a a right wing direction," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society. It is unclear if progressives would accept any of Trump's nominees that have been a part of his current list.

    Diane Sykes

    Sykes hails from Wisconsin, a critical state during the last election and home to Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

    A former journalist, she flexed her interviewing skills in 2013 by sitting down with Justice Clarence Thomas for a talk to discuss his jurisprudence. She won over the room during the event -- hosted by the Federalist Society -- for showcasing Thomas' personality in an interview that at times brought down the house.

    Just last week Sykes issued an opinion striking three provisions of Chicago regulations meant to govern shooting ranges. It was a follow up opinion from one she penned in 2011 that enjoined Chicago's ban on firing ranges within city limits. Both opinions are peppered with references to Scalia's landmark Second Amendment opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller.

    Sykes would bring another woman to the Court. She would be the fifth woman ever named, the second from a Republican candidate. But Trump could calculate that it would make more sense to save her for the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should she ever retire.

    Sykes is also 59 years old, and some court watchers think that Trump might prefer someone younger.

    Thomas Hardiman

    Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, is almost a decade younger at 51 and offers Trump a compelling personal story.

    Hardiman hails from a blue collar family in Massachusetts and was the first in his family to graduate from college, driving a cab to help pay his bills. Hardiman is not product of the Ivy League having attended Notre Dame and Georgetown.

    Those close to him think that Trump might appreciate Hardiman's dry wit and the fact that while he is persuasive he doesn't take over a room.
    Like Sykes, Hardiman referred to Heller several times in a dissent he penned in 2013 in a case concerning gun licenses.

    The opposition of Hardiman has been relatively muted and Ian Millhiser of the progressive Think Progress has written that he is "one of the more ideologically enigmatic names on Trump's list." Such a sentiment could scare away conservatives who do not want a dark horse candidate.

    Conservatives believe that George H.W. Bush missed an opportunity to shape the court when he named a relative unknown -- David Souter -- to the bench. Rather than helping create a conservative legacy, Souter became a reliable vote for the left. Some might question whether Hardiman has a robust enough record to scour and get Republicans excited.

    If Trump needed a personal reference, however, he'd only need to reach out to his sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who sits on the same appellate bench.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politi...rch/index.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #95
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.)

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...63267760046080
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #96
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

    Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to fill the current vacancy.

    With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

    “This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

    It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.

    Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly whether he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote.

    Merkley's party leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has said he will fight "tooth and nail" any nominee who isn't "mainstream."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...rt-pick-234368
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  7. #97
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Nice to see once again its bad for the GOP to refuse to vote but its now ok for dems to do the same thing. I can't wait to see the media who bashed the reps for doing this, will say how patriotic they are and how they are fighting fascism.
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #98
    Administrator Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New Jersey, unfortunately
    Posts
    4,382
    The difference is that the GOP not voting was a calculated political move. This is just a futile tantrum. If the dems want to play hardball, the GOP will just nuke the filibuster.
    Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next products.

    "They will hurt you. They will hurt your grandma, these people. The root cause of this is there's no discipline in the homes, they don't go to school, you know, they live off the government, no personal accountability, and they just beat people up for no reason, and it's disgusting." - Former Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters

  9. #99
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    The GOP may actually pick up a few Dem votes such as Manchin and Heitkamp.

  10. #100
    Moderator mostlyclassics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wilmette, IL
    Posts
    627
    If it comes down to that, Mitch McConnell can always exercise the Nuclear Option, as Harry Reid did.

    Turnabout is fair play.

Page 10 of 61 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •