TresSugar

Say What? RNC Chair Michael Steele on Sotomayor

TresSugar — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:00:00 -0700

"The trap here for the GOP I think is enormous. I know that a lot of folks want to do the knee-jerk, you know, let’s start slammin’ and rammin’, but I think we really need to take a step back from this and deal with two things. One, the historic aspect of it, OK, acknowledge it but then move on to the substance of the conversation about what this woman believes and why she believes it."

- Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele's oddly phrased advice in a radio interview. He's referring to how Republicans and conservatives should stop attacking Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Source

Court to Take on Reverse Discrimination, Voting Rights

LibertySugar — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:00:48 -0800

Change may come to America in the form of new standards in civil rights. On Friday, the US Supreme Court decided that it would hear two cases, one dealing with work discrimination and the other with voting discrimination. Depending on how the court rules later this year, these cases could change the landscape of US civil rights law.

The first case involves Connecticut firefighters who say that even though they scored highest on the exam, they were not given promotions because they were white. Instead, the test was scrapped after no minorities qualified, and the promotions were given to African Americans. The white firefighters have lost their legal battles so far, as lower courts ruled that federal law forbids exams that have a disproportional impact on minorities.

The other law in question, a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, requires 16 mostly southern states to get federal clearance before making a change to their local voting rules. A lower court ruled last Spring that Congress was reasonable to determine that voting discrimination still persists, thus upholding the clearance requirement.

The election of the first African American president has sent a strong signal that national race relations have changed in the US, but organizations like the NAACP point out that a lot of work remains. Do you think it's time for the Supreme Court to strike down laws that help promote minority working and voting rights?

Source

Briefing Book! Domestic Abusers Can Purchase Guns

LibertySugar — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:30:26 -0800

Law: Supreme Court sides with domestic abusers? Court likely to uphold decision that allows those with domestic abuse convictions to purchase guns. - Jezebel
England: Has it hit bottom yet? Bank of England could slash interest rates to 0 percent. - Donklephant
GOP: What did big business say to the neocon? If they IM'd: Republican factions. - 23/6
Babies: Guess who's expecting? The pregnant man is pregnant again! - lilsugar
Northeast: Possible for fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republicans dying out in the Northeast to survive? The key is to cut spending and the size of government. – Red State

Source

Alabama Supreme Court to Women: No Sex Toys For You!

TresSugar — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:00:00 -0700

Love Stuff, a sex toy shop in Hoover, AL, recently filed a challenge to strike down a 1998 law that bans the sale of sex toys. Alas, anyone who wants to buy sex toys in Alabama will have to go elsewhere. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's ban in a 7-2 decision on Friday, arguing against Love Stuff's claim that the ban violated a person's right to sexual privacy.

The Legislature argued that although you can still use your Pearl Rabbit in private, they have the right to ban its public distribution. In a statement that could easily have been written by the satirists of The Onion, the 11th Circuit stated in its majority opinion, "There is nothing 'private' or 'consensual' about the advertising and sale of a dildo."

In arguing that regulating commercial activity is not a private activity (and hence doesn't fall under Love Stuff's challenge that the law is a violation of privacy), Associate Justice Michael F. Bolin claims that the law banning the sale of sex toys is an issue of public morality. Do you see any connection between morality and the sale of sex toys? Does the court's view of sex toys and their sale seem outdated to you?

Supreme Court Considers Legality of Crosses on Public Land

TresSugar — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:05:00 -0700

While the Supreme Court decides whether or not religious symbols can be erected on public land, one justice already has his mind made up. During the oral arguments on the legality of a cross at a World War I memorial, Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia more than hinted at how he is voting. Scalia said yesterday:

What would you have them erect? . . . Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star? . . . I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead.

Scalia definitely has no problem avoiding religious sensitivity. He seems to dismiss even the idea of a more inclusive memorial outright. Since the memorial was built more than 75 years ago, there could be a valid argument for preserving it for historical reasons, but it seems only right that today's memorials should not favor one religion. Then again, perhaps the separation of church and state goes even further to dictate that no religious symbols should be found on public land. That is the question the Supreme Court must decide.

What do you think? Should crosses be allowed on public lands, should religious memorials be required to be all-inclusive, or should religious symbols be banned altogether from public land?

Anita Hill on the History of Female Supreme Court Justices

TresSugar — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:00:00 -0700

"For me the critical question is not whether the Supreme Court should have seats set aside for women; the one so often asked. Nearly 30 years after Justice O’Connor’s appointment, the question we confront as a country is whether we can let go of the presumption that these lofty positions belong to men. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it, 'Women belong in all places where decisions are being made . . . It shouldn’t be that women are the exception.'"

- Anita Hill reflecting on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings today and on the scant history of women on the Supreme Court. Now a professor of social policy, law, and women's studies at Brandeis University, Hill is best known as a former colleague of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Hill testified under oath during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearings that her supervisor Thomas had sexually harassed her while they worked together.

Supreme Court: Strip Search of Girl Was Unconstitutional

TresSugar — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:00:00 -0700

I've been following the story of Savana Redding for a while now. When Savana was 13, she was strip searched at school on the false suspicion that she brought prescription-strength Ibuprofen pills to campus.

Well, today the Supreme Court handed down the ruling that it was unconstitutional for the school officials to conduct that nude strip search of Savana. "They asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side," she said of the ordeal. "They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.”

To see what the court said in the 8-1 decision, read more.

The court ruled that there was no reason to suspect that Savana was such a danger to other students that she had to be strip searched, considering the school thought she only had prescription drugs equivalent to two Advil.

Despite ruling that the search was unconstitutional, the court said that Savana cannot sue the school officials because it would have been hard for them to know they were breaking the law.

Do you think the court made the right decision about saying the strip was illegal, or is it important that officials are able to implement a drug-free policy as they see necessary? Even if you think the strip was wrong, should Savana be able to sue?

Front Page: Obama Picks Sonia Sotomayor For Supreme Court

TresSugar — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:00:45 -0700

President Obama has selected federal judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for Supreme Court. She is the court's first Hispanic nominee. - New York Times
Following the test of a nuclear missile this weekend, North Korea test-fired two more short-range missiles today. - CNN
California's Supreme Court will rule today whether the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Don't expect the battle to end either way. - Wall Street Journal
Mel Gibson has confirmed that his girlfriend Okasana Grigorieva is pregnant with his child. Mel has seven children with his still-wife Robyn. - Fox News
Reality show Jon and Kate Plus 8 premiered last night, but this time the show focused on the couple's marriage troubles. - lilsugar

Source

Voting Case: Supreme Court Rules Against Ohio GOP

LibertySugar — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:00:24 -0700

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to a Republican Ohio strategy this past Friday. The Court threw out Ohio Republicans' request for Ohio's secretary of state to provide county elections boards with the names of newly registered voters whose voter registration forms do not match DMV records exactly.

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision to require the state to set up a chaotic system that would make it easier for officials to challenge prospective voters with mismatched info. Thus, the Supreme Court decreased the likelihood that as many as 660,000 newly registered voters would be disenfranchised on election day. And guess who one of those voter could have been - Joe the Plumber! His name is misspelled in Ohio state records!

The case reveals that whether we like it or not, voting procedures can be favored or despised by either political party. It would seem that far before elections, Americans could agree on fair, nonpartisan, rules for voting, and then be content with competing for each vote based on the issues and the candidates. Yet, in American politics, every advantage, even trying to challenge or change the rules, is pursued.

Source

Supreme Court Says Abortions in Jail, A-OK!

LibertySugar — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:00:47 -0700

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court chose to allow prisoners to receive abortions. By rejecting an appeal, the Supreme Court let stand the Arizona court ruling that pregnant inmates have a constitutional right to be transported to abortion sites.

The ACLU sued an Arizona county sheriff for refusing to drive pregnant inmates to get abortions, unless the inmates obtained a court order. The ACLU argued that a woman in prison does not lose her right to an abortion any more than she gives up her right to have a child.

Behind the sheriff's policy was an Arizona law that prohibits spending public funds on non-life saving abortions. The Arizona court said that because zero tax money was spent on the actual abortion procedure, the transport did not violate the law.

Do you think the Supreme Court is leaning pro-choice, or is the Court just waiting to overturn Roe v. Wade with a broader case?

Source