Supreme Court to soon rule on 13 important cases

[donttread]

Supreme Court to soon rule on 13 important cases


An article that provides a short outline of 13 important cases that will be decided this term.

See more at the link.

I am against what can be called "rasin socialism" If the court upholds the feds "right" to simply steal the farmers property then they should also uphold the farmer's right to shoot the thief when caught in the ct

[Common]

If it had to guess, they will votes yes on Gay Marriage, no on obama care

[CreepyOldDude]

If it had to guess, they will votes yes on Gay Marriage, no on obama care

I think they'll go Yes on Obamacare. The word "state" can be, and often is, used to denote the federal government.

[TrueBlue]

Hobby Lobby should be a very narrow case: it is a family owned non-publicly traded business. That is the only reason their religious views should have trumped in that case.

A&F is a publicly traded company with an established and well known business model- attractive and anorexic young people selling the latest fashions. SCTOUS has ruled in a similar case about Hooters and its practice of not hiring guys to be Hooter's girls (wait staff). In that case SCOTUS cited the business model. (The next interesting Hooters case will be an ugly and or flat chested girl suing Hooters- I don't think SCOTUS will use the business model logic with that one ).

Well move over Hooters 'cause Here Comes TALLYWACKERS!! The answer to Hooters! Thanks to Towleroad for this report.

Tallywackers, Dallas' All-Male Version of Hooters, Opens for Business: VIDEO
By Andy Towle

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/05/tally.html

[PolWatch]

I don't think they will repeal Obamacare. The administration doesn't want that to happen. The republs don't want that to happen. SCOTUS is subject to political pressures...imo

You don't think the repubs want the ACA repealed do you? What would happen if it is repealed now? Lots of people will be inconvenienced. Lots of people won't have any insurance. Who will be blamed for this? How would they get even with those who caused this? 2016 ring a bell?

[TrueBlue]

I don't think they will repeal Obamacare. The administration doesn't want that to happen. The republs don't want that to happen. SCOTUS is subject to political pressures...imo

You don't think the repubs want the ACA repealed do you? What would happen if it is repealed now? Lots of people will be inconvenienced. Lots of people won't have any insurance. Who will be blamed for this? How would they get even with those who caused this? 2016 ring a bell?

BINGO!! Target 2016 and ANY Republican who received the nomination would be fair game!

[Peter1469]

Well move over Hooters 'cause Here Comes TALLYWACKERS!! The answer to Hooters! Thanks to Towleroad for this report.

Tallywackers, Dallas' All-Male Version of Hooters, Opens for Business: VIDEO
By Andy Towle

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/05/tally.html

Buy some stock.

[waltky]

Should have been unanimous...

Gun Ban for Domestic Assault Convicts Upheld
June 27, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting people convicted of domestic violence assault from owning or possessing firearms, even if the conviction is for a misdemeanor.

The decision came in a case involving two Maine men who both pleaded guilty to domestic violence assault on their partners but were found in later, unrelated law enforcement investigations to be in possession of firearms. The men were contesting a provision of one of the key federal gun control statutes, which bars felons, fugitives and other narrowly defined groups from owning guns, including anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes.

The men appealed, and argued that because each of their convictions were for assaults against their partners that resulted from reckless, and not intentional conduct, they should retain the right to own a firearm.

In the 6-2 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court made no such distinction between reckless and intentional conduct, choosing a plain reading of the federal law. "Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another," the court wrote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority.

http://www.officer.com/news/12225691...sault-convicts