Posted on 06/23/2013 9:35:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
As the Supreme Court heads into its summer recess at the end of June, we're still awaiting decisions this week in four landmark cases. "In the court’s modern history, I don’t think there has ever been one week with so much at stake,” said Tom Goldstein, founder of the respected SCOTUSblog website. “We have four pending cases that may be cited for at least a century.”
Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas
Petitioner Abigail Fisher, a white Texan, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin for the Fall 2008 entering class. Fisher sued the university, arguing that the denial violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection because she was denied admission to the public university in favor of minority applicants with lesser credentials. Fisher contends that the university’s admission policy cannot survive strict scrutiny as required by Grutter v. Bollinger. The university argues that its admissions policy is essentially identical to the policy upheld in Grutter. It asserts that its use of a holistic admissions process, considering race as one factor for admission, creates a diverse student body that benefits the entire university. This case allows the Supreme Court to reexamine Grutter, and it will have far-reaching implications for university admissions policies and racial demographics in schools throughout the United States.
Voting Rights Act: Shelby County v. Holder
n 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”) for 25 years. Section 5 of the VRA requires certain “covered” jurisdictions to obtain federal preclearance before making any alterations to their election laws. Section 4(b) sets forth a formula for determining if a jurisdiction is covered. Petitioner Shelby County, Alabama, a covered jurisdiction, asserts that the preclearance regime exceeds Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV. Other covered jurisdictions, amicihere, complain that the VRA’s restrictions subject them to a double standard and infringe on their state sovereignty rights. Attorney General Holder, the Respondent, contends that these restrictions are necessary to fight regression among states with a history of voting rights abuses. Shelby County argues that current conditions no longer justify preclearance at all, and that the coverage formula is antiquated in any case. Holder argues that preclearance remains a valid exercise of congressional power and that the formula, in combination with the VRA’s “bailout” provision, creates a coverage regime that meets the requirements of the Constitution.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
Decisions in argued cases will be issued at 10:00 AM
BOHICA
We all have watched SCOTUS work hard
to estroy America by ignoring
that to which they swore Allegience.
And in every case they will come down on the side of the left. The fix is in, folks. It’s a kangaroo court.
Which is really strange since it is the most conservative court (I think) in history. 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and a middle of the road. How crazy. The four conservatives on the court need to talk to Kennedy about freedom. If the Supreme Court stays the same the next 3 years, we are in great shape to change the court even more conservative after we win 2016 (if we pick a Santorum of course).
With a rogue Chief Justice, God help us all.
I’m sure Roberts will let us down again.
Reuters Header...
BREAKING NEWS:
U.S. justices agree to hear case on president’s power to make appointments without senate approval
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the scope of a president's constitutional authority to make recess appointments, a power that Democratic and Republican administrations have used for decades to install nominees without Senate confirmation.
The justices agreed to consider an appeal by the Obama administration, which is seeking to overturn a lower-court ruling that invalidated President Barack Obama's use of recess appointments to fill vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board. That ruling threatened the legitimacy of hundreds of actions the labor board has taken since the president used the recess power to install three new board members on Jan. 4, 2012.
It still kills me.. Republicans have dominated the Supreme Court in terms of number of nominees over the past few decades, and yet we still can’t get a reliable working constitutional majority there? Meanwhile, every nominee that the Dems put-up is solidly in their corner.
And, worse yet, if the Hildebeast or some other rat wins in ‘16, my fears about Scalia and Thomas lasting another four or eight years begin to ramp-up seriously.
This is just something that will forever bother me. For all the talk that the country is all but dead, I’ll truly believe it when/if we officially lose the high court.
Then again, Roberts could confirm that the country is already lost with his rulings this week. My blood pressure is shot.
See it is posted here. Thanks to you both.
Next term.
10-4
Fingers crossed and prayers up. I’m actually nervous this morning. I hope we get some wins.
We’re going to find a whole bunch of brand new socons around these parts after this week.
For example if Hillary had died while the Senate was in recess Zippo could have made anyone SOS at that time. It is not to fill positions created ie labor board.
I’ve been thinking about that fact. The conclusion to which I’ve come is that the liberal justices are reliable for the Left because they rule along ideological lines. Whereas Kennedy and the conservatives at least try to interpret the law. (Obviously, that doesn’t explain Roberts’ decision in Obamacare.) So their decisions aren’t always to our liking.
Revolt is coming.
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.