Tag: SCOTUS

Posted on

Sen. Ted Cruz Gets Fact-Checked At GOP Debate Over SCOTUS Confirmations

At last night’s GOP debate, Sen. Ted Cruz asserted that presidents shouldn’t appoint Supreme Court justices in the final year of their terms.

Moderator John Dickerson asked Cruz if he would follow the same restriction should he be elected. What followed was a bit of confusion on Cruz’s part and then a crowd booing when facts were introduced.

From Vox:

“Where do you set that date if you’re president?” Dickerson asked. “Does does it begin in election year, in December, November, September? And once you set the date, when you’re president, will you abide by that date?”

Cruz argued that there were “80 years of precedent” of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year. In fact, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year by a Democratic Congress. Dickerson tried to fact-check Cruz in real time, and the audience was not having it.

“Kennedy was confirmed in ’88,” Dickerson said.

“In ’87,” Cruz said. (Kennedy was nominated in 1987 and confirmed in 1988.)

“That’s the question, is it appointing or confirming?”

“In this case it’s both. If I could finish–” Cruz started.

“I want to get the facts straight for the audience,” Dickerson said. The audience promptly booed. “But I apologize.”

Posted on

Marco Rubio: Obama Shouldn’t Appoint New SCOTUS Justice With Just “A Few Months” Left In His Presidency

Sen. Marco Rubio took to just about every Sunday morning show he could find to say President Obama should not appoint a replacement for the late Antonin Scalia because Obama has only a “few months” left in his presidency.

From Raw Story:

On Meet the Press, Rubio again insisted that there should be no nominations from a “president nearing the last few months of his administration.”

“Do presidential terms end after three years?” NBC host Chuck Todd shot back at the candidate.

“There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating,” Rubio said. “You basically say, at this point, with a few months left in your term, no accountability from the ballot box on the appointment you’re going to make — on a lifetime appointment.”

“Eleven months!” Todd interrupted.

Republicans keep saying there’s an 80 year precedent of not confirming justices in a president’s last year, which is false. Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February of President Reagan’s final year in office.

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead At 79

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away at the age of 79 in San Antonio, Texas.

From the New York Post:

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was found dead Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. MySanAntonio.com said he died of apparent natural causes.

Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people, the website of the San Antonio Express News said. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

A federal official who asked not to be named told the San Antonio Express News paper there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies at age 79. Here's a look at the justice's life — http://cnn.it/1mzdvWsPosted by CNN Politics on Saturday, February 13, 2016

Posted on

Hillary Clinton On Possible SCOTUS Appointment For Obama: “What A Great Idea!”

At a campaign stop in Deocorah, Iowa, yesterday, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was asked her thoughts on the idea of nominating President Barack Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Clinton was quite bullish about the proposition.

Via ABC News:

“Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow,” the Democratic presidential candidate responded. “He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that’s a great idea.”

Clinton went on to talk about how the next president could have to appoint up to three Supreme Court justices, but she then circled back.

“I would certainly take that under advisement,” she told the crowd of 450 people inside a ballroom at the Winn Hotel about a potential Justice Obama. “I mean he’s brilliant, and he can set forth an argument, and he was a law professor, so he’s got all the credentials.”

Posted on

Hillary Clinton Op-Ed Underscores Importance of Next President’s SCOTUS Nominations

Hillary Clinton has an op-ed that’s completely on point in the Boston Globe today making the very important point that the next president could possibly nominate 3 Supreme Court justices.

Who do you want making those nominations? Hillary or someone like Ted Cruz? Huge gap in political perspective.

On Election Day, three of the current justices will be over 80 years old, which is past the court’s average retirement age. The next president could easily appoint more than one justice. That makes this a make-or-break moment — for the court and our country.

As president (and a lawyer and former law professor), I’ll appoint justices who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; make sure the scales of justice aren’t tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; and protect citizens’ right to vote, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections.

I’ve been making this point for a long time now. Whatever your pet policy leaning is, so much precedent is set by SCOTUS which affects us all day to day.

Marriage equality, women’s right to choose, organized labor, voting rights – important issues that are in the docket for this term.

It’s really worth the read.

Posted on

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Slaps Down Anti-Gay Brian Brown Over Marriage Equality & SCOTUS

In an effort to find some semblance of relevance in today’s world of marriage equality, virulently anti-gay Brian Brown (of the ironically-named National Organization for Marriage) made an appearance on Fox News last night to talk on Alabama state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore’s feckless attempt to stop same-sex marriages in his state.

Of course, as we all know, last June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was a right in this country, and thus making it possible for gay and lesbian couples everywhere in America to wed.

Grasping at straws, Brown tried to make an (illogical) legal case for Moore’s impertinence. The results – and response from experienced lawyer Megyn Kelly – were not exactly what Brown was hoping for.

From Mediaite:

Brown’s opening gambit was the fine legal thinking of Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee (imagine that wedding), which holds that Supreme Court rulings are more, like, guidelines. Kelly lost it a little when Brown said officials shouldn’t “kowtow” to the court (which might be NOM-speak for some kind of man-dairy animal union), then patiently tried to explain the legal concept codified in Marbury vs Madison.

That’s when Brown really stepped in it, telling attorney Megyn Kelly “I think you are misreading Marbury vs Madison.” If Megyn Kelly ever decides to return to practicing law, her new strategy should be to just make faces during opposing counsel’s argument. She’d win every case.

Posted on

The Advocate Names SCOTUS “People Of The Year” For Historic Marriage Ruling

The Advocate has named the United States Supreme Court Justices “People of the Year” for their historic ruling this past June which brought marriage equality to the entire country:

At 10:02 a.m. Eastern on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court changed America forever.

In handing down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — declaring marriage to be a constitutionally protected right for same-sex couples — the court immediately made the lives of millions better. That doesn’t happen often: Most progress in a obstreperous country like the United States happens incrementally. But with Obergefell, the Supreme Court wiped out dozens of discriminatory measures, scrubbing away decades of antigay prejudice. Suddenly, anti-LGBT states had no excuse to degrade same-sex couples, no legal rationale to deny them marriage licenses. The worldwide push for marriage equality was given an inestimable boost, as marriage equality rights advocates in countries like Australia looked to the Supreme Court for inspiration. And here in America, in an instant, gays and lesbians made an enormous step toward becoming equal citizens under the law.

[snip]

In the days following Obergefell, Kennedy was lionized as a gay rights luminary. He is — but it was really the court itself that was the hero of the moment. Without its independence, its position as the ultimate arbiter of the law, gays and lesbians in America would still be denied access to the fundamental institution of marriage. Supreme Court decision-making involves a certain kind of sorcery which transforms an individual voice into binding legal precedent. The power of that voice lends each ruling legitimacy, and the prestige of the institution makes each ruling enforceable. It may have been Kennedy who wrote that the Constitution grants gay couples “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” But it is the Supreme Court of the United States that made that judgment a constitutional command.

Posted on

Why Does the Supreme Court Get to Decide Marriage Laws?

Matt Baume, who has a knack for breaking down why things work they way they do, drops this short video explaining why the Supreme Court became the final answer on marriage equality.

From Baume:

Where does the Supreme Court get off deciding the definition of marriage? Well, it is kind of their job.

Look at it this way: Remember a few years ago when Pluto stopped being a regular planet and became a trans-Neptunian dwarf? That happened because astronomy experts decided there should be a change in the definition of “planet.” In the same way, the Supreme Court decided what the Constitution requires from the definition of “marriage.”

Posted on

Justice Scalia: Public Officials Have To Do Their Job Or Resign

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Many feel the only path forward for Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis is to resign her post so she, not the state, can accommodate her religious beliefs.

Jonathan Adler, of the Washington Post, has found a surprisingly high profile judge who agrees that public officials cannot decline to perform their duties based on the official’s personal view of morality.

That judge? No less than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In 2002, Scalia explained that if he were to conclude that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral, he should no longer serve on the bench:

[I]n my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty” and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.

The upshot being that public officials don’t get to rewrite the rules of their duties.

While Scalia has not addressed the specific issue of Kim Davis’ refusals to do her job, he noticeably did not dissent from the recent denial for an emergency stay when requested by Davis’ lawyers.

Posted on

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Requests Extension Of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, Heads To SCOTUS

County clerk Kim Davis (R)

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, having received a big fat “no” from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a stay on a federal judge’s ruling that would compel her to follow the law and issue marriage licenses, is now heading to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for an “emergency” stay.

The original stay by federal Judge David Bunning expires on Monday, August 31st. That stay was issued in “deference” to the 6th Circuit Court. Davis has asked Bunning for an extension to accommodate time for SCOTUS.

Here is Davis’ request:

This Court granted Davis a temporary stay of the Injunction Order through August 31, 2015. (Docs. 52, 55.) The Court’s reason for granting the temporary stay was “deference to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals . . . to give the appellate court an opportunity to review, on an expedited basis,” Davis’ request for a stay pending appeal. (Doc. 55 at 1.)

The Sixth Circuit entered an order denying Davis’ motion for stay pending appeal by Order dated August 26, 2015. (6th Cir. Case No. 15-5880, Doc. 28-1.) Davis filed today, however, in the Supreme Court of the United States, an emergency application to stay the Injunction Order.

Accordingly, Davis now requests that this Court extend the same deference to the Supreme Court, to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to review and finally decide Davis’ emergency application for stay.

WHEREFORE, defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis respectfully requests that this Court extend the temporary stay of the Injunction Order pending the Supreme Court’s final disposition of her emergency application for a stay pending appeal, by the form of the proposed order attached hereto.

It is doubtful that SCOTUS would grant the “emergency” stay. Davis’ cases hinges on flouting the ruling made BY SCOTUS.

And speaking of that ruling, all requests that come from within the 6th Circuit are routed to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagen, who sided in favor of marriage equality in the recent historic ruling.

In her filing with SCOTUS, Davis’ lawyers contend that since there are county clerks in Kentucky (several hours away), gays and lesbians can still get married, so what’s the harm?

SRSLY.

UPDATE: Federal Judge Bunning denied an extension of his original stay.

We’ll see what SCOTUS says…

Bye Felecia.