View Full Version : Supreme Court Petitions to Watch
jillian
06-14-2013, 01:52 PM
The Supreme Court will decide whether it will grant certiorari to these two cases next week:
The first, National Labor Relations Board v Canning asks:
Issue: (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate, and (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/
Another:
Pruitt v Nova Health Systems asks:
Issue:(1) Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in declaring the Oklahoma Ultrasound Act, which requires the performance, display, and explanation of a pre-abortion ultrasound, to be facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Planned_Parenthood_of_Southeastern_Pennsylvania_v_ Casey_505_US_83/3) in light of this Court’s ruling that informational requirements further "the State’s legitimate interest of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed;" (2) whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in interpreting Casey as prohibiting informed consent laws requiring the performance, display and explanation of pre-abortion ultrasounds – an interpretation that directly conflicts with that of the Fifth Circuit in Texas Medical Providers Providing Abortion Services v. Lakey (http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Texas_Medical_Providers_Performing_Abortion_Servs_ v_Lakey_667_F3d) and the interpretation of Casey in the Eighth Circuit’s recent decisions reviewing other informed consent requirements; and (3) whether Casey requires state courts to presume all state regulations of abortion are unconstitutional under federal law, absent controlling authority from this Court.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pruitt-v-nova-health-systems/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pruitt-v-nova-health-systems/)
Interestingly, Mitch McConnell has filed an amicus brief in the NLRB matter. It has always been my understanding that anyone who is an interested party (in the outcome of a particular litigation -- not the issue itself) can't file an amicus, so I was wondering about that.
This is a great brief that lays out all of the issues before the Court in Canning.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/144184697-NLRB-v-Noel-Canning-CAC-CertStage-Amicus-Brief.pdf
with regard to Pruitt,
there is no question in my mind that requirement of an invasive vaginal ultrasound, which is medically unnecessary and is a nonconsensual penetration (e.g., rape) is facially unconstitutional. let's see if the "small government conservatives" on the Court agree.
This brief opposing cert pretty much says it all.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Response-by-Respondents.pdf
waltky
04-18-2016, 01:28 AM
Supreme Court to take up Obama immigration policy...
:cool2:
Supreme Court takes up Obama immigration policy
April 17, 2016 -- An evenly split Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday challenging the Obama administration's program that allows undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States without fear of deportation.
Lawyers for the Republican leadership in Congress and the states will challenge President Barack Obama's actions on the immigration matter, just as they have over healthcare and same-sex marriage. The president's legal team will have to win over at least one of the high court's more conservative justices, the Los AngelesTimes reported. If the vote splits - possible with the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia - it would keep in place a Texas judge's order to block Obama's deportation relief plan from taking effect.
The president, in November 2014, unveiled the centerpiece for his second term: executive actions to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to come out of the legal shadows in this country, WGNO ABC reported. The Texas court put the brakes on the plan, sending it to the Supreme Court. The eight justices will hear from 26 states and the House of Representatives that are challenging the president's action. At issue is whether the president has the power to extend such "temporary relief" from deportation and offer work permits to immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents. Immigration experts say about a quarter of those who stand to benefit live in California.
In a written brief, Republicans said Obama's order is a threat to the constitutional system because if he can defy Congress and change the law himself, the nation has abandoned its "bedrock of constitutional principal." States call the executive actions "an extraordinary assertion of executive power." Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller, acting as lead lawyer in the case, argues in court papers the administration "has unilaterally crafted an enormous program—one of the largest changes ever to our Nation's approach to immigration" and in doing so, the president dispensed with immigration statutes by declaring unlawful conduct to be lawful."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/04/17/Supreme-Court-takes-up-Obama-immigration-policy/5191460912897/?spt=mps&or=2&sn=tn_int
See also:
Supreme Court Considers Fate of Millions of Undocumented Immigrants
April 17, 2016 | WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court will consider the fate of as many as 4 million undocumented immigrants Monday, when Supreme Court justices hear opening arguments in a landmark case debating the legality of President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
The justices’ decision will have far-reaching implications on executive actions by future presidential administrations and comes at a time when the nation’s flawed immigration system is a constant focus of election-year debate. The lawsuit in U.S. v. Texas asks the court to consider whether the president’s 2014 executive actions deferring deportations for some undocumented immigrants are within the government’s authority to direct immigration policy, or whether the president exceeded his constitutional authority by making new immigration laws.
Pending lawsuits
A decision in the Texas lawsuit will affect pending lawsuits in 25 other states opposing the president’s immigration actions. Government lawyers are expected to argue that the federal government has the authority to direct immigration policy and can exercise its discretion in deciding priorities for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. “It is exclusively the domain of the federal government to decide who gets to stay and who gets to go,” said Angela Kelley, the executive vice president at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
President Obama’s November 2014 executive actions expanded and created programs deferring deportation for the undocumented parents of legal U.S. citizens and residents, and for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children. The programs open up the opportunity for legal work permits but do not give applicants a path to permanent residency or citizenship.
Kelley said Obama’s executive actions build on decisions from past Democratic and Republican administrations to prioritize the deportation of undocumented immigrants with criminal histories rather than deporting undocumented children and immigrants with ties to the U.S. Opponents say the Obama administration has not made a convincing constitutional argument for its actions.
'Without historical precedent' (http://www.voanews.com/content/suprme-court-immigration-case-texas-obama/3289356.html)
waltky
04-30-2016, 12:54 AM
SCOTUS allows remote search...
:huh:
Court expands FBI hacking powers
Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - The US Supreme Court approves a rule change that could allow law enforcement to remotely search computers located anywhere in the US, and beyond.
Previously, magistrate judges could order searches only within the jurisdiction of their court, often limited to a few counties. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) said the change was necessary to modernise the law for the digital age. But digital rights groups say the move expands the FBI's hacking authority. The DoJ wants judges to be able to issue remote search warrants for computers located anywhere that the United States claims jurisdiction, which could include other countries. A remote search typically involves trying to access a suspect's computer over the internet to explore the data contained on it. It has pushed for a change in the rules since 2013, arguing that criminals can mask their location and identity online making it difficult to determine which jurisdiction a computer is located in.
'Only mechanism available'
"Criminals now have ready access to sophisticated anonymising technologies to conceal their identity while they engage in crime over the internet," said DoJ spokesman Peter Carr. "The use of remote searches is often the only mechanism available to law enforcement to identify and apprehend them. "The amendment makes explicit that it does not change the traditional rules governing probable cause and notice." It said the change would not give law enforcement any new authority not already permitted by law. However, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have warned that the change could expand the FBI's ability to conduct mass hacks on computer networks.
'Thousands of millions of computers'
"Such a monumental change in the law should not be snuck by Congress under the guise of a procedural rule," said Neema Singh Guliani of the ACLU. In 2015, search giant Google also opposed the change, which, it said, "threatens to undermine the privacy rights and computer security of internet users". Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said the change had "significant consequences for Americans' privacy", and said he would seek to reverse the decision.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/180E2/production/_89503589_thinkstockphotos-520224316.jpg
Snooping on a tablet computer
"Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once; and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime," he said in a statement. Congress can still opt to reject or modify the changes to the federal rules of criminal procedure - but if it does not act by 1 December the change will take effect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36169019
Peter1469
04-30-2016, 06:11 AM
I was a military magistrate for a time. I had world-wide jurisdiction.
waltky
05-02-2016, 09:30 PM
Seattle business lose challenge to minimum wage law...
:cool2:
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Seattle minimum wage law
Mon May 2, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by business groups to Seattle's law raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move echoed by other locales, in a case focusing on how the ordinance affected local franchises like McDonald's.
The Seattle law's supporters hailed the court's action, which left intact a lower court ruling backing the measure, as a defeat for "the big business lobby" that has taken aim at minimum wage hikes. The International Franchise Association and the businesses that challenged the measure did not target the actual wage hike. Instead, they argued that it was unfair for Seattle to exclude local franchises of big companies like McDonald's (MCD.N) and Burger King (QSR.TO) from the small companies that the law gives three extra years to pay employees at least $15 per hour.
Seattle was the first major U.S. city to commit to such a high basic wage amid pressure from unions and workers' rights groups. The move has since been followed to varying degrees by cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as by state lawmakers in California and New York. Seattle's law, which took effect in April 2015, requires businesses with more than 500 employees nationwide to raise their minimum wage to $15 by 2018. Smaller companies have until 2021 to do so. The high court's move means that cities and states that pass similar wage laws must treat franchises as offshoots of brand parents rather than independent small businesses.
The franchise association said its 2014 lawsuit sought "to level the playing field" for the 600 franchise businesses that employ 19,000 people in Seattle, and it was disappointed with the court's action. "Seattle's ordinance is blatantly discriminatory and affirmatively harms hard-working franchise small business owners every day since it has gone into effect," said the group's president, Robert Cresanti. A federal judge in Seattle in March 2015 sided with the city, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year agreed.
Working Washington, a coalition of labor and nonprofit groups that spearheaded the campaign to pass Seattle's wage law, called the Supreme Court's move not to hear the case a victory for workers. "The big business lobby has thrown everything they got at Seattle workers," the group said, "but they keep on losing, and the economy continues to boom."
Seattle officials and the Service Employees International Union, which backed the city in the case, said franchises are not typical small businesses because franchising offers inherent advantages such as access to loans, brand recognition and bulk purchasing. But the franchise association countered that those perks come at a cost, namely royalties, fees and rent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-minimumwage-idUSKCN0XT18Z
MisterVeritis
05-02-2016, 09:53 PM
SCOTUS allows remote search...
:huh:
Court expands FBI hacking powers
Fri, 29 Apr 2016 - The US Supreme Court approves a rule change that could allow law enforcement to remotely search computers located anywhere in the US, and beyond.
All data at rest must be encrypted with at least AES 512. Make your passwords into passphrases that are very long. For example: C0ngress sh@11 m@ke no law abridging the fr33dom of spe@ch!
MisterVeritis
05-02-2016, 09:55 PM
Seattle business lose challenge to minimum wage law...
:cool2:
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Seattle minimum wage law
Mon May 2, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by business groups to Seattle's law raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move echoed by other locales, in a case focusing on how the ordinance affected local franchises like McDonald's.
Only fascist governments set wages for private businesses.
Common
05-02-2016, 10:50 PM
The Supreme Court will decide whether it will grant certiorari to these two cases next week:
The first, National Labor Relations Board v Canning asks:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/
Another:
Pruitt v Nova Health Systems asks:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pruitt-v-nova-health-systems/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pruitt-v-nova-health-systems/)
Interestingly, Mitch McConnell has filed an amicus brief in the NLRB matter. It has always been my understanding that anyone who is an interested party (in the outcome of a particular litigation -- not the issue itself) can't file an amicus, so I was wondering about that.
This is a great brief that lays out all of the issues before the Court in Canning.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/144184697-NLRB-v-Noel-Canning-CAC-CertStage-Amicus-Brief.pdf
with regard to Pruitt,
there is no question in my mind that requirement of an invasive vaginal ultrasound, which is medically unnecessary and is a nonconsensual penetration (e.g., rape) is facially unconstitutional. let's see if the "small government conservatives" on the Court agree.
This brief opposing cert pretty much says it all.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Response-by-Respondents.pdf
JILLIAN!!!!!!!!!, how have you been :) nice to see you lady. Wheres ravi
waltky
05-02-2016, 11:10 PM
The first, National Labor Relations Board v Canning asks:
Is this gonna be a The Good Wife episode...
... where Alicia goes up against Michael J. Fox?
Crepitus
05-02-2016, 11:15 PM
JILLIAN!!!!!!!!!, how have you been :) nice to see you lady. Wheres ravi
Waltky has been reviving threads from years ago. The OP is 2013.
Tahuyaman
05-03-2016, 08:47 AM
Supreme Court to take up Obama immigration policy...
:cool2:
Supreme Court takes up Obama immigration policy
April 17, 2016 -- An evenly split Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday challenging the Obama administration's program that allows undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States without fear of deportation.
See also:
Supreme Court Considers Fate of Millions of Undocumented Immigrants
April 17, 2016 | WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court will consider the fate of as many as 4 million undocumented immigrants Monday, when Supreme Court justices hear opening arguments in a landmark case debating the legality of President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Lets hope for a 4-4 decision on each so we can watch liberals set their pants.
waltky
05-23-2016, 02:31 PM
No more stackin' the jury against black defendants...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/oldicons/icon17.gif
Supreme Court upends all-white jury verdict, death sentence
May 23,`16 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upended the conviction and death sentence of a black Georgia man Monday because prosecutors violated the Constitution by excluding African-Americans from the all-white jury that determined his fate.
The 7-1 ruling in favor of death row inmate Timothy Tyrone Foster came in a case in which defense lawyers obtained strikingly frank notes from prosecutors detailing efforts to keep African-Americans off of Foster's jury. The decision broke no new ground in efforts to fight racial discrimination in jury selection, but underscored the importance of a 30-year-old high court ruling that took aim at the exclusion of minorities from juries. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that "prosecutors were motivated in substantial part by race" when they struck African-Americans from the jury pool, focusing on the decision to exclude two black jurors. Two such jury strikes "on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution allows," Roberts wrote. The high court returned Foster's case to state court, but Stephen Bright, Foster's Atlanta-based lawyer, said "there is no doubt" that the decision Monday means Foster is entitled to a new trial, 29 years after he was sentenced to death for killing a white woman.
The decision did nothing, however, to limit peremptory strikes, lawyers' ability to reject potential jurors without offering any reason. The late Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court, once said that racial discrimination would persist in jury selection unless peremptory strikes were curtailed. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would have respected the decisions of state judges who sided with prosecutors and rejected Foster's claims. Thomas, a Georgia native, recounted Foster's confession to having murdered a 79-year-old retired schoolteacher "after having sexually assaulted her with a bottle of salad dressing." When the case was argued in November, the justices did little to hide their distaste for the tactics employed by prosecutors in north Georgia. Justice Elena Kagan said the case seemed as clear a violation "as a court is ever going to see."
Still, Georgia courts had consistently rejected Foster's claims of discrimination, even after his lawyers obtained prosecutors' notes that revealed their focus on the black people in the jury pool. In one example, a handwritten note headed "Definite No's" listed six people, of whom five were the remaining black prospective jurors. The sixth person on the list was a white woman who made clear she would never impose the death penalty, according to Bright. And yet even that woman ranked behind the black jurors, he said. The court was not persuaded by the state's argument that the notes focused on black people in the jury pool because prosecutors were preparing to defend against discrimination claims.
The Supreme Court's ruling about race discrimination in jury selection was about a year old when Foster's case went to trial, the state said. The 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky set up a system by which trial judges could evaluate claims of discrimination and the explanations by prosecutors that their actions were not based on race. "This argument falls flat," Roberts wrote. He noted that the record shows "a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury." Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens declined to comment on the decision.
MORE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_ALL_WHITE_JURY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-23-13-31-08)
waltky
06-27-2016, 02:11 PM
First they say usin' race is okay in college admissions, then they question it in re-districting...
:rollseyes:
Supreme Court to review NC's use of race in redistricting
June 27, 2016 The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Republican lawmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew North Carolina's congressional districts to give the GOP a powerful advantage in the swing state.
The justices added the case to their fall calendar almost certainly too late to affect 2016's remaining races. But in the years ahead, it could impact partisan efforts to create electoral districts aimed at swaying the balance of power in Congress and in state legislatures. It could be heard in conjunction with a separate case challenging voting districts in Virginia, an election law expert said. North Carolina's GOP leaders deny factoring in race to an illegal extent, saying their 2011 map was designed primarily to give Republicans an edge and to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.
Opponents argue that they unfairly stacked minorities into fewer districts after the 2010 Census in ways that diluted their influence. A federal court ruled in February that race was the predominant factor in drawing two congressional districts, and ordered the state to quickly produce a new map for North Carolina's 13 members of Congress. That map was used in an unusual, separate, June 7 congressional primary. The Supreme Court denied the state GOP's emergency request to intervene ahead of that primary, but key issues remain unresolved.
A ruling by the high court also should influence the outcome of a separate federal case challenging the districts used to elect North Carolina's state legislators. North Carolina's status as a swing state belies the uneven split favoring Republicans in the state's legislature and congressional delegation. Narrowly contested presidential races in 2008 and 2012 show that voter preferences are split fairly evenly statewide. But the GOP used redistricting in 2011 to create veto-proof majorities of more than two-thirds of the seats in the state legislature, and the state's congressional delegation now has 3 Democrats to 10 Republicans. The case is McCrory v. Harris, 15-1262.
MORE (https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-review-ncs-race-redistricting-170324337--election.html?ref=gs)
AZ Jim
06-27-2016, 02:16 PM
All data at rest must be encrypted with at least AES 512. Make your passwords into passphrases that are very long. For example: C0ngress sh@11 m@ke no law abridging the fr33dom of spe@ch!Speech.
waltky
06-27-2016, 03:41 PM
Pro-choicers win case against Texas...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif
Strict Texas abortion law struck down
27 June 2016 - The US Supreme Court has struck down a 2013 Texas abortion law that imposed restrictive regulations on the procedure. The law requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to maintain hospital-like conditions.
Republicans contended the law protects women while advocates argued the measure restricts access to abortions. The key decision is the first major abortion ruling since 2007. Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court's liberals in the 5-3 decision, which marked the first time the High Court has limited state abortion legislation in more than 15 years.
At the scene - By Ashley Gold
Nearly a thousand people gathered in front of the Supreme Court in the hot sun, holding signs and dancing to a Beyonce-heavy playlist. At times, the pro-choice crowd's loud music and shouting drowned out chants of "We are the pro-life generation" from the other side. But when the Court handed down its decision invalidating Texas's abortion laws, calling them unnecessarily restrictive, those who say they fight for life took to the microphones outside the court to say they would not give up. "Women were hurt today," one said. "There are two victims to abortion, and my heart is breaking."
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/11EBB/production/_90130437_mediaitem90130436.jpg
Protesters celebrate after the US Supreme Court strikes down a restrictive 2012 Texas abortion law.
Sierra Lambert, 17, said: "I think abortions should stop altogether, but it's a great step." She was holding a sign that said "Abortion kills! At least make it safe for one of its victims." Celeste Anderson, 19, said: "I think it's really sad there are fewer regulations on abortion than there are on veterinary clinics. Wouldn't you want a clinic that isn't being healthy to be shut down?" A few feet away, women holding "Keep Abortion Legal" and "The Burden is Undue" signs danced, screamed and sang.
Renal Vonwijk, 23, who grew up in El Paso, said if the Texas laws were upheld, the only two abortion clinics there would close. "There would be nowhere to get an abortion. You would have to travel to a city many miles away, or cross the border into Mexico." Marilyn Carlisle, 73, said she had had an illegal abortion in 1968 and never thought women fighting for abortion rights would get this far. "I can hardly believe we actually did it," she said. The ruling gives her hope for her granddaughters' futures, she said.
The last time the top court issued a ruling on a major abortion case was nine years ago in a 5-4 decision to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. The Supreme Court legalised abortion nationwide in its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling. The typically nine-justice court was one member short after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
Analysis - By Rajini Vaidyanathan in Washington (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36641063)
See also:
Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations
Tuesday 28th June, 2016 - The justices voted 5-3 on Monday in favour of Texas clinics that protested the regulations as a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state.
Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion.
Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
Breyer wrote that "the surgical-centre requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so".
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/245334137/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-clinic-regulations
waltky
06-27-2016, 05:19 PM
Granny says, "Dat's right - da fix is in...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_grandma.gif
High court overturns former Virginia governor's conviction
June 27, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday threw out the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in a ruling that could make it tougher to prosecute elected officials accused of corruption.
Chief Justice John Roberts said McDonnell's conduct in accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement may have been "distasteful" or even "tawdry," but didn't necessarily violate federal bribery laws. McDonnell, once a rising star in the Republican Party, was found guilty in 2014 and sentenced to two years in prison, but was allowed to remain free while the justices weighed his appeal. The case now returns to lower courts to decide whether prosecutors have enough evidence to try McDonnell again.
At issue was a law that bars public officials from taking gifts in exchange for "official action." McDonnell said he never took any official action to benefit Star Scientific Inc. CEO Jonnie Williams or pressured other state officials to do so. McDonnell claims he did nothing except set up meetings and make some calls for constituent who asked for help. Prosecutors insisted that McDonnell accepted personal benefits with the understanding that he would use the power of the governor's office to help Williams.
But Roberts agreed with McDonnell that the instructions to his trial jury about what constitutes "official acts" was so broad that it could include virtually any action a public official might take while in office. That could leave politicians across the country subject to the whims of prosecutors, he said. "Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so) without more does not fit that definition of official act," Roberts wrote. "There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," he wrote. "But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns," a reference to some of the expensive gifts McDonnell received. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."
In a statement, McDonnell thanked the justices and said he has not and would not "betray the sacred trust" of the Virginia people. He said he hoped the matter will soon be over so that he and his family can begin to rebuild their lives. McDonnell's attorney Noel Francisco called the decision a "home run" and said it was unlikely a new trial would go forward. The Justice Department declined to comment.
MORE (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/high-court-overturns-former-virginia-governors-conviction)
Peter1469
06-27-2016, 05:19 PM
8-0
Best damn post i've seen all day - damn shame it's three years old .. But thanks @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)!
The Supreme Court will decide whether it will grant certiorari to these two cases next week:
The first, National Labor Relations Board v Canning asks:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/
Another:
Pruitt v Nova Health Systems asks:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pruitt-v-nova-health-systems/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/pruitt-v-nova-health-systems/)
Interestingly, Mitch McConnell has filed an amicus brief in the NLRB matter. It has always been my understanding that anyone who is an interested party (in the outcome of a particular litigation -- not the issue itself) can't file an amicus, so I was wondering about that.
This is a great brief that lays out all of the issues before the Court in Canning.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/144184697-NLRB-v-Noel-Canning-CAC-CertStage-Amicus-Brief.pdf
with regard to Pruitt,
there is no question in my mind that requirement of an invasive vaginal ultrasound, which is medically unnecessary and is a nonconsensual penetration (e.g., rape) is facially unconstitutional. let's see if the "small government conservatives" on the Court agree.
This brief opposing cert pretty much says it all.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Response-by-Respondents.pdf
Seattle business lose challenge to minimum wage law...
waltky loses by changing subject - AGAIN
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.