 |
| Goddess of Justice |
SUPREME COURT
BLOG POST
6.28.13
by Felicity Blaze Noodleman
United
States Supreme Court in Washington DC
* Art and photos supplied through "Google Images".
Special thanks to "The Los Angeles Times", "New York Times", "Reuters" and ABC News.com.
* Art and photos supplied through "Google Images".
Special thanks to "The Los Angeles Times", "New York Times", "Reuters" and ABC News.com.
As I ponder subjects for future articles, trying to consider subjects worthy of commentary and research for the Group along came two big decisions from the US Supreme Court which begin to exemplify some of my deepest feelings concerning justice in this country over the past sixty years. Just when I was beginning to articulate expressions to describe the US High Court such as "The Leftest Political Bench" and describing The Greek Goddess of Justice as "needing a complete make over - in need of Laysik Eye Surgery and obtaining a new set of scales"!
- Affirmative Action
- Voting Rights
- Gay Rights
- Texas Voting Rulings
The waters of Justice have been so badly polluted by the influences of the communistic left leaning
politicians in Washington it is doubtful the toxic effects will ever be purified!
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/supreme-court-rejects-california-ban-on-violent-video-games/
Justices uphold race-based admissions in a 7-1 vote that also questions whether such policies are necessary to achieve diversity.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published:
June 25, 2013
“Reuters”
Supreme Court Nixes Texas Voting Rulings
politicians in Washington it is doubtful the toxic effects will ever be purified!
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/supreme-court-rejects-california-ban-on-violent-video-games/
As a student in school I was taught of the three branches of Government with the checks and balances in our system of Democracy. The same teachers were just so all over themselves with praise for the decisions of the Supreme Court over the last sixty years or so. But I thought; just a minute here - how are these branches separate when such a heavy influence was being exerted by the political thinking of the Democrats? This seemed to be a paradox even to myself during my High School years. As a young adult i was affected by the society Washington was rebuilding. During the confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court I was given a real lesson on Constitutional Law.
Illustration of the nation’s Nine Supreme Court Justices. “ABC News.com”
Judge Bork was not confirmed to the Supreme Court but he left a lasting impression on me. I have never heard any person who knew so much about the law and how justice should be administrated. It was an education to hear him speak before the Congressional Senate Judiciary Committee. So now that I have made an introduction for the articles we are publishing this week from the most recent Supreme Court decisions in the news. They announce the Court may be taking a path away from the political right and back to the center of the law and determining judgements with respect to their Constitutionality. Something like this hasn't done in Washington for quite some time now!
The High Court rises at the end of June, but does not remain in recess long; over the summer they review cases for the upcoming Term, then hold a conference in late August to discuss which cases they want to hear. The new Term always begins on the first Monday in October. This has Felicity reporting on the Supreme Court for the Noodleman Group.
THE JUSTICES
The High Court rises at the end of June, but does not remain in recess long; over the summer they review cases for the upcoming Term, then hold a conference in late August to discuss which cases they want to hear. The new Term always begins on the first Monday in October. This has Felicity reporting on the Supreme Court for the Noodleman Group.
THE JUSTICES
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/01/170235/aging-supreme-court-justices-may.html
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, second from right, appears to take a nap while the rest of her
fellow justices listen to President Obama's State of the Union speech.
2.13.13 (Jason Reed/Reuters)
2.13.13 (Jason Reed/Reuters)
THE CASES :
“The Los Angeles Times”
Supreme Court Takes Middle Ground On
Affirmative Action
Abigail Fisher, who sued the University of Texas after being denied admission in 2008, arrives at a news conference after the Supreme Court upheld race-based admissions policies in a decision that also handed her case back to a lower court.
(Charles Dharapak / Associated Press / June 24, 2013)
Justices uphold race-based admissions in a 7-1 vote that also questions whether such policies are necessary to achieve diversity.
By David
G. Savage, Washington Bureau This post has been corrected, as indicated
below.
June 24,
2013, 7:59 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Defying
expectations that it was on the brink of doing away with affirmative action in
higher education, the Supreme Court upheld using race as a factor in admissions
decisions Monday as long as the race-based policies were truly necessary to
achieve diversity.
The 7-1 vote brought
conservative and liberal justices together on a middle-ground approach that
reaffirms the importance of racial and ethnic diversity on campus while pushing
college officials to try "race-neutral" policies for enrolling more
minority students.
The decision in the case
from the University of Texas was
written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He was joined by Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
That outcome came as a
relief to university officials and civil rights advocates. Since the justices
agreed to hear the case last year, many had expected the conservative majority
to use it as a vehicle to end affirmative action in education.
"The educational
benefits of diversity are clear," said Wade Henderson, president of the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "The court's decision
reaffirms that it is in our national interest to expand opportunities for
everyone."
Critics of affirmative
action said they were pleased the justices remained skeptical of the idea of
treating applicants differently because of their race.
Edward Blum, the American Enterprise Institute fellow
who led the challenge to the Texas policy, said the court had "established
exceptionally high hurdles" for universities that wish to continue
race-based admissions policies. "This decision begins the restoration of
the original color-blind principles to our nation's civil rights laws," he
said.
The justices did not rule
on the constitutionality of the University of Texas admissions policy, which
favored some minority applicants, or on whether the university had violated the
rights of Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was turned down in 2008 and who
brought the original lawsuit.
Instead, the justices told
the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to take another look at the case and
decide whether the Austin campus still needed to give a preference to some
minority applicants. The justices noted that the state's "top 10"
law, which awards college admission to the top 10% of each high school's
graduates, has already led to an influx of Latino and black students.
Citing that improvement,
Kennedy said it was no longer clear that the university needed to give an edge
to black or Latino applicants to ensure a significant percentage of minorities
on campus. The judges who review the Texas policy "must ultimately be
satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the
educational benefits of diversity," he said in University of Texas vs.
Fisher.
"If a nonracial
approach" could work to bring about diversity, "then the university
may not consider race," he said.
Kennedy's opinion won
support from the conservative and liberal wings of the court, though Scalia and
Thomas said they would have ended affirmative action if they could have.
The decision marked the
first time that Roberts and Alito had endorsed the use of race as one factor in
college admission decisions.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented alone,
saying she would have upheld the Texas policy. JusticeElena Kagan took no part in the decision, since the
case was under appeal when she served as U.S. solicitor general.
University of Texas
President Bill Powers said he was encouraged by the ruling, noting the court
had preserved precedents dating to 1978 that permit affirmative action.
"Today's ruling will have no impact on admissions decisions we have
already made or any immediate impact on our holistic admissions policies,"
Powers said.
Despite its progress in
achieving diversity with the "top 10" law, the university's
leadership said that success relied on the continued segregation of many high
schools. The "top 10" plan also left out too many talented minority
students from integrated, highly competitive high schools, they said.
A leading liberal critic of
affirmative action said he was pleased the court told college officials they
should consider race-neutral policies to achieve diversity. Richard Kahlenberg,
a scholar at the Century Foundation, said universities should give "a
break to economically disadvantaged students of all races."
Since the 1970s, the
justices, like the American public, have remained divided over affirmative
action. On the one hand, many liked the idea of the nation's leading
universities opening the doors of opportunity to qualified minority students.
At the same time, others objected to giving an explicit preference to some
applicants over others because of race and ethnicity. This seemed to conflict
with the Constitution's promise of "equal protection of the laws."
That tension has remained.
In 1978, the court by a 5-4 vote struck down a policy at UC DavisMedical
School because it reserved 16 of 100 slots for minorities. This was a quota,
the majority said. At the same time, Justice Lewis Powell's controlling opinion
said universities may consider a student's race in order to achieve a diverse
class.
Powell's opinion became the
governing rule, and his reference to diversity became the standard
justification for affirmative action.
The Supreme Court revisited
the issue in 2003, in a pair of cases from the University of Michigan. In one case, the justices
struck down the undergraduate admissions policy at Ann Arbor because it awarded
extra points to minority applicants. But in a 5-4 decision with an opinion
written by JusticeSandra Day O'Connor, the court upheld the
admissions policy at the law school because it evaluated students as
individuals, but gave some weight to their race.
During that same period,
while affirmative action was winning narrowly in the Supreme Court, it was
losing when put before voters. California's voters approved a measure in 1996
that prohibited state agencies, including universities, from discriminating
against or "granting preferential treatment" to any individual
because of race. Similar bans have been adopted in Washington, Michigan,
Florida, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire.
Following the court's 2003
ruling, the University of Texas decided to reintroduce an affirmative action
policy that had been suspended in the 1990s after a loss in a lower court. That
decision set the stage for Monday's ruling.
“The Los Angles Times”
“The New York Times”
Supreme Court
Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
Wade Henderson, president and C.E.O. of
the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, criticized the decision on
Tuesday.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published:
June 25, 2013
WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively
struck down the heart of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in
the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological
lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the
civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial
discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial
minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of
discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial
discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation
it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate
practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter
identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and
that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in
voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including
ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to
after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as
the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence
that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summarized
her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of
deep disagreement. She cited the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
and said his legacy and the nation’s commitment to justice had been “disserved
by today’s decision.”
She said the focus of the Voting
Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation barriers to ballot
access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws
requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said the
law had been effective in thwarting such efforts.
The law had applied to nine states —
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina,
Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other
states, including Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that
Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where
voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. But the
chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal
oversight is required are small, most analysts say.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M.
Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion.
Justice Ginsburg was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The majority held that the coverage
formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and
most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section
determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a
federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting
procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing
electoral districts.
Section 5, which sets out the
preclearance requirement, was originally scheduled to expire in five years.
Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975,
and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive
hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again
extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years. But it relied on data from
the 1975 reauthorization to decide which
states and localities were covered.
The current coverage system, Chief
Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical
relationship to the present day.”
“Congress — if it is to divide the
states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that
makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely
on the past.”
The decision did not strike down
Section 5, but without Section 4, the later section is without significance —
unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states would be
covered.
It was hardly clear, at any rate,
that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question
returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new
coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down
Section 5 immediately, saying that the majority opinion had provided the
reasons and had merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.”
The Supreme
Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the
preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct
by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.
Critics of Section 5 say it is a
unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the
affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements
of the civil rights movement, and Chief Justice Roberts said its “strong
medicine” was the right response to “entrenched racial discrimination.” When it
was first enacted, he said, black voter registration stood at 6.4 percent in
Mississippi, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more
than 60 percentage points.
In the 2004 election, the last
before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was
76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the
2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout
exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by
Section 5.”
The chief justice recalled the
Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew
Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while
seeking to register black voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when
police officers beat marchers in Selma, Ala.
“Today,” Chief Justice Roberts
wrote, “both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems
remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the
Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.”
Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent
from the bench, drew a different lesson from those events, drawing on the words
of Dr. King.
“The great man who led the march
from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights
Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama,” she said. “ ‘The arc of the moral
universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a
steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.”
In her written dissent, Justice
Ginsburg said that Congress was the right body to decide whether the law was
still needed and where. Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 by large
majorities; the vote was 390 to 33 in the House and unanimous in the Senate.
President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed the bill into law, saying it was
“an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person
is valued and treated with dignity and respect.”
The Supreme Court considered the
constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it
avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an
opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on
Tuesday, did not respond.
Justice Ginsburg suggested in her
dissent that an era had drawn to a close with the court’s decision on the
Voting Rights Act, in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96.
“Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no
ordinary legislation,” she wrote. “It is extraordinary because Congress embarked
on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the
purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment,” the Reconstruction-era
amendment that barred racial discrimination in voting and authorized Congress
to enforce it.
“For a half century,” she wrote, “a
concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks
to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been
achieved and continues to be made.”
“The court errs egregiously,” she
concluded, “by overriding Congress’s decision.”
“The New
York Times”
“Reuters”
Supreme Court Declines To Take Up Two More Gay Rights Cases
Married
couple Bill Hacket,
53, (L) and Thom Uber wave
flags in West Hollywood, California after the United States Supreme court ruled
on California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, June 26,
2013.
Credit:
Reuters/Lucy Nicholson
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:20am EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court,
a day after deciding two major cases on gay marriage, declined on Thursday to
take up two more cases on the issue.
The cases concerned
Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage, and an Arizona law that denies state
benefits to "domestic partners."
The court declined to
take the cases without comment. Its action means an appeals court ruling
striking down the Arizona law stays in effect, while litigation over the Nevada
law will continue.
On Wednesday the
justices struck down a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), that denied federal benefits to same-sex married couples.
The justices avoided
deciding the constitutionality of a California law enacted in 2008, called
Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage. The justices found that supporters of
the law did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that
struck it down.
The Arizona case
concerns a law that limits health benefits to employees' spouses and
dependants, thereby excluding domestic partners, including those in same-sex
relationships. Gay marriage is not recognized in Arizona.
Prior to the law being
enacted via a ballot initiative in November 2008, the state had for several
months allowed same-sex domestic partners to receive health benefits.
Gay and lesbian state
employees sued before the new law was due to go into effect in January 2011,
saying it violated their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.
A federal district court
issued a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going in effect. The
San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in
September 2011, prompting the state's appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the other case,
supporters of Nevada's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage asked the
Supreme Court to rule definitively that states could limit the definition of
marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The case arose when
eight same-sex couples either tried to get married in Nevada or asked the state
to recognize their out-of-state marriages. A federal court dismissed their
claim. The case is pending before an appeals court, but the supporters of the
ban asked the Supreme Court to take an early look at the issue.
The Arizona case is
Brewer v. Diaz, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-33. The Nevada case is Coalition for
the Protection of Marriage v. Sevick, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-689.
(Reporting by Lawrence
Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller, Vicki Allen and John Wallace)
“Reuters”
“Reuters”
Supreme Court Nixes Texas Voting Rulings
TEXAS
TRIBUNE PHOTO ILLUSTRATION by TODD WISEMAN
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:14am EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court
on Thursday sent two cases concerning voting laws in Texas back to lower courts
for reconsideration in light of a major ruling this week that knocked out a key
section of the 48-year-old Voting Rights Act that fought discrimination at the
polls.
The cases concern
proposals on redistricting and voter identification that had been rejected by
federal judges under a provision of the law that the Supreme Court ruling
effectively nullified.
In Tuesday's ruling, the
court struck down a section of the landmark 1965 law that sets the formula
under which certain states have to ask the federal government or a judge for
approval before making changes to their voting procedures.
The decision neutralized
the so-called "preclearance" provision which required Texas and eight
other states to submit proposed changes for approval.
The decision indicates
that Texas will no longer have to undertake that process, at least until the
U.S. Congress comes up with a new formula for areas covered by the law meant to
protect blacks and other minorities in places where discrimination persists.
The voter identification
law, passed in Texas in 2011, requires all voters to present identification
when they vote in person. A federal judge said the law would impose a
disproportionate burden on lower income people, many of whom are minorities.
The redistricting plan,
approved after the 2010 census, was rejected by a federal court in part because
there were not enough districts in which minorities were a majority.
Texas had sought Supreme
Court review on both issues. The cases were put on hold while the court decided
the challenge to the Voting Rights Act.
Lawyers representing
minority voters had pointed out to the court that the 2011 redistricting plan
could now be viewed as moot as the Texas legislature has passed a new plan that
meets the requirements set by the lower court.
The redistricting case
is Texas v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-496 and the voter identification
case is Texas v. Holder, U.S. Supreme Court, 12-1028.
(Reporting by Lawrence
Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Vicki Allen)
“Reuters”
Defense
of marriage act,
DOMA, Editorial
cartoons,
Politics, Supreme
Court
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/taking-a-stantis/
 |
Tell your friends and associates about us!
It's easy! Just copy and paste me into your email!
* “The
Noodleman Group” is pleased to announce that we are now carrying a link
to the “USA Today” news site.We installed the “widget/gadget” August
20, and it will be carried as a regular feature on our site.Now you can
read“Noodleman” and then check in to “USA Today” for all the up to date
News, Weather, Sports and more!Just scroll all the way down to the
bottom of our site and hit the “USA Today” hyperlinks.Enjoy!
The Noodleman Group is on Google "Blogger"!
