Posted on 06/20/2013 5:14:09 AM PDT by Perdogg
Big cases left
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action
Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
Hollingsworth v. Perry - California's definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause
United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
ping
those are some biggies
Thank you.
My predictions;
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action
Decision: Race based entry quotas and standards are OK, when promoting minorities. There is no issue if whites are treated unfairly in the process.
Result: Status quo unchanged
Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
Decision: It stays, because the south has not proven that it has made sufficient progress in race relations and equality, and it it the federal governments responsibility to ensure progress on this front.
Result: Status quo, unchanged
Hollingsworth v. Perry - California’s definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause
Decision: California can decide what it wants, because in this case the 10th Amendment is supreme. The wording will essentially be, “change it if you want”.
Result: Another big push to redefine marriage in Cali.
United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
Decision: DOMA will be tossed.
Result: This will open a flood gates for a federal definition on “marriage”
Well if that’s your expectation then you at least aren’t setting yourself up for disappointment.
My head tells me that the change from SDO to Alito means we flip the affirmative action case 5-4 our way, but my experienced and troubled heart tells me Kennedy or Roberts won’t want to get called a racist and we could end up with a narrow victory (by way of a concurring opinion) leaving some affirmative action jurisprudence undisturbed.
I’m just glad that the part of DIMA that says states don’t have to give Full Faith and Credit to gay marriages from other states isn’t up for review (that I know of).
But overall, I’d say any faith in SCOTUS is misguided since we commonly get screwed.
:) Bump.
Here we go.....
First decision 8-1 11-9540, Descamps. Per Kagan. The modified categorical approach does not apply to statutes that contain a single indivisible set of elements.
In Plain English, it is now harder for the government to use the facts of a prior conviction to enhance a federal criminal sentence.
The dissenter was Justice Alito. The decision of the court of appeals against the defendant is reversed.
waiting...
Thanks for the ping on this!! Will be watching the thread closely.
Prayers up!
The Federal Arbitration Act enforces a class action arbitration waiver; cannot defeat the waiver on the ground that individual arbitration is too expensive.
5-3. Per Scalia.
In Plain English, this means that if you have a contract with a business in which you agree to arbitrate a dispute but it says you can’t get together with other plaintiffs in a “class action,” that contract will be enforced, even if it may be too expensive for you to pursue your own claim given what you might win.
Next AID. The Court holds that the policy violates the First Amendment by compelling affirmation of a belief outside the scope of the program.
It looks like we will get the major decisions next Thursday, maybe one on Monday
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.