Where is the conservative Blog 4A
Supreme Court taking us?
Why is the Court limiting public access?
In a July 2, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal writer Jess Bivins noted, "The Supreme Court delivered this term a series of decisions conservatives have long yearned for”.Decisions then listed.
“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather. it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place. In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’.. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.
One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough and tumble of the free market”. The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. When interpreting statutes the conservatives have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court. When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.
When a suit is dismissed preventing the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”.
.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
the World turned upsideedown
Where is the conservative Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Th original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Th original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
The World turned UPSIDE-down
Where is the conservative Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down. II
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,
and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down. II
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,
and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The World turned Up-side Down
Where is the conservative Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
The World turned upside down.
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
The World turned upside down
Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
Friday, August 1, 2008
Is the Court doing away with civil liberties?
IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.
In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”,unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE
LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.
Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.
The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Rightsby passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.
In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.
In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”,unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE
LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.
Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.
The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Rightsby passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.
The Rehnquist L egacy
Where is the consevative Supreme COURT TAKING US?
By 1788 James Madison realized that the public desire for a Bill of Right could not be ignored.. As a result 10 Amendments to the constitution called the” Bill of Rights” were ratified in 1791. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights from violation by the Federal Government.
William Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1986 . An examination of Rehnquist’’s voting record over 30 years brings out some very surprising information.
An analysis of Chief Justice Rehnquist.s decisions show 1) in cases between individuals and the government, Rehnquist almost always voted for the gov’t against the individual, the opposite of the purpose of the Bill of rights. 2)In cases of the state VS the federal gov.t Rehnquist usually favored the state. (3) In cases where the Federal gov.t wanted to exercise Rehnquist voted against exercise.
According to Anan analysis by Geoffrey Stone law Professor at the University of Chicago. showed that Justice Renqquist in 30 years participated 259 case decisions concerning Freedom of Speech or Press; First Amendment. Justice Rehnquist supported the First Amendment claim 20% of the time. An average of all the Justices Rehnquist served with supported the claim 53 % of the time.
63 unanimous decisions were removed from the 269 cases. Unanimous cases do not describe the Justices. individual views. With these cases deleted Rehnquist rejected 92% of the free speech first amendment claims.
Rehnquist rejected 100% of the free press claims. In 30 years Rehnquist never found once for the free press claims. Rehnquist was by far the least likely Justice to support the first amendment.
By 1788 James Madison realized that the public desire for a Bill of Right could not be ignored.. As a result 10 Amendments to the constitution called the” Bill of Rights” were ratified in 1791. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights from violation by the Federal Government.
William Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1986 . An examination of Rehnquist’’s voting record over 30 years brings out some very surprising information.
An analysis of Chief Justice Rehnquist.s decisions show 1) in cases between individuals and the government, Rehnquist almost always voted for the gov’t against the individual, the opposite of the purpose of the Bill of rights. 2)In cases of the state VS the federal gov.t Rehnquist usually favored the state. (3) In cases where the Federal gov.t wanted to exercise Rehnquist voted against exercise.
According to Anan analysis by Geoffrey Stone law Professor at the University of Chicago. showed that Justice Renqquist in 30 years participated 259 case decisions concerning Freedom of Speech or Press; First Amendment. Justice Rehnquist supported the First Amendment claim 20% of the time. An average of all the Justices Rehnquist served with supported the claim 53 % of the time.
63 unanimous decisions were removed from the 269 cases. Unanimous cases do not describe the Justices. individual views. With these cases deleted Rehnquist rejected 92% of the free speech first amendment claims.
Rehnquist rejected 100% of the free press claims. In 30 years Rehnquist never found once for the free press claims. Rehnquist was by far the least likely Justice to support the first amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)