In Thursday’s case, Chief Justice John Roberts said the 2007 Arizona law penalizing companies that hire illegal immigrants meets a “licensing” exception to the general federal rule dictating that states not set their own civil or criminal penalties in the immigration area.
WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that revokes the business licenses of companies hiring illegal immigrants, in a closely watched case testing state efforts to stop people from crossing the border.
By a 5-3 vote, the court rejected arguments from a coalition of business and civil rights groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and ACLU, that the Arizona law conflicts with overriding federal immigration policy and could lead to race discrimination.
PHOENIX –A man set to be the last person put to death in Arizona using a controversial three-drug lethal injection method has won a reprieve while the U.S. Supreme Court considers an unrelated issue in his case.
The high court on Monday granted a stay of execution for Daniel Wayne Cook, 49, less than 24 hours before he was scheduled to die for killing a man and a teenage boy in 1987 after torturing and raping them for hours.
The execution is now on hold until the Supreme Court makes a decision on an argument by Cook’s lawyers that he received ineffective counsel during his post-conviction proceedings.
Cook’s attorneys also are fighting the use of the knockout drug sodium thiopental. Similar arguments, however, failed to stop or delay the execution of another Arizona death-row inmate, Eric John King, last week.
The high court’s ruling prompted the Arizona Department of Corrections to cancel Cook’s execution, which was set for 10 a.m. Tuesday, exactly one week after King lay strapped down in the same room, minutes from taking his last breath.
ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
“There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court.”
This article refers to the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007. Not SB-1070.
(December 8 )
WASHINGTON — The justices of the nation’s high court took a shot today at contentions by the Obama administration and the business community that Arizona cannot punish companies for violating a state immigration law.
Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that a 1986 federal law taking total control of immigration matters and punishment of errant employers has a specific exemption to allow states to have their own “licensing and similar laws.”
He said the sole penalty that can be imposed by Legal Arizona Workers Act, adopted in 2007, is for a judge to suspend or revoke any and all state licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Scalia said that would appear to fit within what Congress intended.
But Carter Phillips, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that misinterprets the federal law.
What is it about the Supreme Court and unwelcome phone calls?
At 1 a.m. Monday, phones rang in thousands of Nevada households to deliver a message from retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.
The O’Connor calls came just weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, left a voicemail for Anita Hill, seeking an apology for testifying in 1991 that Justice Thomas had sexually harassed her when she worked under him in the Reagan administration. (Ms. Hill called the message “inappropriate” and reaffirmed her testimony.)
Justice O’Connor’s call didn’t involve anything so intimate, however. Her recorded message urged voters to approve Question 1, which would change the way state judges are selected.
Justice O’Connor didn’t assume the issue was keeping Nevadans up all night. Rather, the Yes on 1 campaign said, the calls were supposed to hit at 1 p.m. The robocall contractor blew it, and was fired, the campaign said.
Currently, the state’s district judges and Supreme Court justices run for office like other politicians. Under Question 1, the governor would fill judicial vacancies by choosing from a list the state Commission on Judicial Selection compiled, based on “qualifications and experience.” Voters would weigh in at the next election; newly appointed judges would approval from 55% of voters to keep the job.
Issue: Whether Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 — which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warning” — preempts all vaccine design defect claims, regardless whether the vaccine’s side effects were unavoidable.
Plain English Issue: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects vaccine manufacturers from liability for certain injuries caused by their vaccines (giving injured patients compensation from the government instead). Does that immunity apply when the victim claims that the design of the drug created an avoidable and unnecessary risk to patients? (Kagan, J., recused).
UPDATED TO 11:58 a.m. The Supreme Court, stepping into a new controversy over child sex abuse, agreed on Tuesday to decide whether the Constitution puts limits on the authority to interview children at school about claims of sexual assault. The specific issue is whether police and social workers must obtain a warrant before conducting such interviews. The Court granted that issue among six new cases it accepted for review. It also sought the federal government’s views on states’ immunity to court orders requiring them to raise revenue to pay for prior official actions that turned out to be illegal. Continue reading “Court to rule on child interviews” »
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).
Thirty-five percent (35%) say the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job.
Data from the Rasmussen Employment Index shows that 20% of workers report that their firms are hiring while 23% say their firms are laying people off.
State tuition tax credit program defended before nation’s highest court
WASHINGTON — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed an opening brief (PDF) Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of school choice in Arizona. The brief asks that the suit be dismissed because the opponents have not proven that they have suffered any legal injury that would give them standing to sue over the state’s tuition tax credit program. Arizona’s program, like many others across the country, merely allows state residents to claim a tax credit for donations to private organizations that provide scholarships to private schools.
ADF represents Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, a party in the case, which is one of about 53 non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations organized to distribute private donations in the form of scholarships to over 27,000 students attending hundreds of private schools throughout the state. Continue reading “ADF files opening brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Ariz. school choice suit” »
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan picked up more GOP backing Wednesday in her drive toward near-certain confirmation next week, even as a top Republican lashed out at her as “dangerous.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, warned senators in unusually dire terms against voting for President Barack Obama’s choice, saying, “Be careful about it, because I’m afraid that we have a dangerous, progressive, political-type nominee.”
Sessions’ words of caution — he said they were primarily directed toward Democrats — came just hours after Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine became the fourth Republican to say she would break with her party to vote for Kagan, who’s in line to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens. Continue reading “Key Republican calls Kagan a ‘dangerous’ nominee” »
With a majority in the U.S. Senate, Elena Kagan appears to be headed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court despite her overt liberal bent.
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., voted against her nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“By her own words, Elena Kagan will violate her oath as soon as she’s sworn in,” Coburn said. “Kagan believes wrongly-decided Supreme Court precedents trump the original intent of our founders. With Kagan on the Court, Congress and the executive branch may succeed at sweeping away whatever limitations remain on its power to micromanage the decisions of states and individuals.” Continue reading “Coburn opposed to Kagan nomination to court” »
The NAACP is trying to downplay calling the Tea Party movement the “R” word. According to the Kansas City Star reported:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson told reporters in Kansas City that the focus on the tea party was a “diversion” from more important issues, while NAACP President Ben Jealous said the resolution was just a small part of a bigger agenda and blamed the media for focusing too much on the tea party.
“I give a 42-page speech. Half a page is focused on the tea party,” Jealous said. “We need the media to pay attention to the issues that are most important to this country” such as jobs, education and crime.
Conservatives reacted angrily after learning of the resolution, approved by delegates at the NAACP’s national convention this week in Kansas City.
Yes. John Marshall was revered as “the great chief justice,” but before joining the Supreme Court he had never served a day in a judicial robe; he even lost the one case he argued before the high court. Earl Warren worked for 18 years as a prosecutor, with no prior judicial experience. The list of distinguished judges without prior judicial experience goes on to include: William Rehnquist, William O. Douglas, Robert Jackson and Roger Taney — all listed among the greatest jurists to sit on the high court.
Like Elena Kagan, none of them ever served as a judge prior to becoming a justice on the Supreme Court. However, many on current court did serve as federal appeals judges, immediately prior to their appointment to the high court. Continue reading “Opposing Views: Would Kagan be a good justice?” »
With committee and floor votes beginning this week on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan, skeptical lawmakers could not resist the opportunity to search for a weak point that might provoke last-minute controversy.
Six Republican senators submitted questions that produced 74 pages of written responses from Kagan. In ritual form, her answers — released Friday — were finely sanded to avoid any clamor.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan might be shocked if she knew a bit more about Aharon Barak, the former president of the Israeli Supreme Court, and the man whom she strongly and warmly praised during her confirmation hearings this week.
Kagan described Barak as the “John Marshall of the state of Israel because he was central in creating an independent judiciary for Israel, a young nation threatened from its very beginning in existential ways and a nation without a written constitution.” She admired Barak for ensuring that Israel would become a “very strong rule of law nation.” Continue reading “What Elena Kagan Ought to Know About Her ‘Hero’ Aharon Barak” »
February 5, 2012 1906 John Carradine 1920 Frank Muir CBE 1946 Charlotte Rampling 1948 Barbara Hershey 1948 Lord Haden Guest 1948 Sven-Goran Eriksson 1952 Russell Grant 1962 Jennifer Jason Leigh 1966 Jose Maria Olazabal
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
