Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Did you know that Jackson pushes back at GOP critics, defends judicial record?

Brown, Ketanji Jackson vehemently defended her record as a judge Tuesday, rebutting Republican charges that she was soft on crime and stating that if confirmed as the first black woman on the Supreme Court, she would rule as an “independent jurist.”

Republicans aggressively questioned Jackson during a marathon hearing that lasted into the night about the sentences she handed down to sex offenders during her nine years as a federal judge, her advocacy on behalf of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, her views on critical race theory, and even her religious beliefs. In February, President Joe Biden appointed Jackson to the Supreme Court, completing a campaign commitment to nominate a black woman to the court for the first time in American history. Cruz pressed Jackson on her sentencing for child pornographers, bringing up a giant poster board and marking passages he believed were heinous. 

The White House has rejected the criticism as “toxic and weakly presented misinformation.” And sentencing expert Douglas Berman, an Ohio State law professor, noted on his blog that although Jackson’s record indicates she is suspicious of the range of prison sentences proposed in child pornography cases, “so were prosecutors in the majority of her cases and district judges nationally.” Jackson said that the notion does not arise in her job as a judge and “would not be anything I would depend on” if approved. Jackson’s answers bypassed a key point: the court weighs whether to overrule those cases that affirm a nationwide right to abortion.

Reference

Jackson pushes back at GOP critics, defends judicial record. https://apnews.com/article/ketanji-brown-jackson-hearing-day-2-live-updates-219ce62acd87ca205163781f5b6623a0?fbclid=IwAR3L5e1TdHHui49NkKb_LwHfhgscFcptsRgqGb9DmXc9Jqr7FA-BPYh1DkQ

United States Supreme Court will hear arguments

Amy and David Carson desired that their daughter Olivia attend Bangor Christian Schools, a private religious elementary through secondary school. Maine has said that it would not subsidize religious education. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the state violated the Carsons’ constitutional rights. Carson v. Makin is the most recent in a series of lawsuits petitioning the Supreme Court for a ruling on religious liberty. If the court decides widely, it might have a profound effect on the ability of religious organizations to receive public financing.

Getty Images (2); TIME


It has the potential to “eviscerate” rules prohibiting public sponsorship of religious education. Maine parents have filed a lawsuit against the state for failing to include their favorite schools in a tuition aid program. Plaintiffs and supporters contend that the state discriminates against religious individuals. The case follows a series of previous judgments on public support for religious organizations. The case sets the free exercise provision of the First Amendment against the establishment clause.
According to some legal experts, Carson v. Makin is likely to become an extension of Espinoza. Officials in Maine assert that religious schools do not give an education “equivalent to a public education.” Carson v. Maine calls into question the relationship between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. Maine contends that Bangor Christian and Temple Academy in Maine discriminate against members of other faiths and instructors and students who identify as LGBTQ. Advocates fear that government money may flow to discriminatory schools if the plaintiffs win.
Maine is just a few states that give this kind of tuition assistance to pupils who live in areas without public school choice. However, experts are concerned that other states may experience similar pressure from religious groups to implement similar schemes. This possibility concerns Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Reference

This Supreme Court Case Could Take a ‘Wrecking Ball’ to Separation of Church and State.https://time.com/6125676/maine-religion-schools-supreme-court-carson-makin/?fbclid=IwAR2y4KzyfGY6NuggKM8mZIgYpKYuhD_YqmKoiKzgnDJ7WUKGTBkFzCmgyW8

March on Washington for Voting Rights

Voting rights are essential for all individuals. The March on Washington for Voting Rights commemorated the 58th anniversary of the March on Washington. Marchers are urging Congress to enact voting-rights legislation to halt the implementation of restrictive voting laws in states around the country. The John Lewis Voting Act would reinstate the 1965 Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions, lower in the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder. The Rev. Al Sharpton, one of the march’s organizers, contended that the filibuster could not obstruct progress. Democrats currently dominate the Senate but have been unable to overcome filibusters on voting-rights legislation.

Washington march voting rights
With the Washington Monument in the background, the Rev. Al Sharpton, center, holds a banner with Martin Luther King, III, and Democratic Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green of Texas, during the march to call for sweeping protections against a further erosion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 28, 2021. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana


To enact voting rights legislation, moderate senators have resisted attempts to weaken or remove the filibuster. The organizers planned to bring attention to problems such as reparations for slave descendants and a $15 minimum wage. The march was led by New York Rep. Mondaire Jones, who has advocated for the filibuster’s removal.

Reference
‘Old battles have become new again’: Thousands march in Washington, DC, and across the US to push for voting-rights legislation. https://www.businessinsider.com/march-voting-rights-legislation-washington-dc-cities-filibuster-2021-8

Supreme Court challenges of partisan gerrymanding

At issue appears to be whenever politicians get too far in drawing lines for partisan gain, plus it may be the most critical cases of the court’s term. The justices could, for the very first time, begin a typical to choose when politicians go too far in drawing lines for partisan gain, or perhaps the court could slam the doorways shut on such claims of extreme gerrymandering.

Chief Justice John Roberts recommended at one point so it will be demanding of the court to police the usage of partisanship in map drawing, once the process is intrinsically governmental. Justice Samuel Alito emerged as the utmost vocal critic of the court’s involvement, frequently picking apart the manageability of tests that were presented to the court and worrying that every single dispute the future would have to be solved because of the judiciary.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh — whose vote may be key — stated he would not “dispute” that extreme partisan gerrymandering has to turn into a problem that has been especially obvious in a map drawn in their house state of Maryland. But he also questioned if courts should remain from the issue because states are reacting using their initiatives. It was a belief provided by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said states have “provided treatments in this certain area.”

Where John Roberts appears to be unlikely to compromise
The liberal justices suggested which they believed that the court could when it comes to the first time, establish a workable standard.

Justice Stephen Breyer, perhaps sensing the reticence of the conservatives, suggested that the court could create a test that could target only those maps that represented exactly what he called “outliers.”

This kind of test, Breyer stated, will be “absolutely simple” and eliminate the most blatant examples of politicians relying too greatly on a party to attract maps. Justice Elena Kagan stated that maps used Maryland had been excessive under “any measure.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an active participant at dental arguments, worried that beneath the current system, the effect of an individual’s vote could be “reduced” according to the voter’s celebration affiliation.

Critics say that if the court chooses to remain out of this issue, it’ll entrench the celebration in charge of drawing the lines.

No standard on partisan gerrymandering
The last term, all eyes had been on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who many thoughts ended up being on the verge — for the very first time — of articulating a legal standard that courts can use moving forward. He was considered the move vote. While the conservatives on the bench suggested the issue should be kept to your branches that are political Kennedy was unwilling to bar all future claims of damage from partisan gerrymander.

But finally, the court sidestepped the merits for the instances and Kennedy retired — dashing the hopes of experts of extreme gerrymandering that is partisan whom thought he might be their final opportunity to stop politicians from illegally attempting to entrench energy for one party over another. Before the court now are a couple of instances arising from new york and Maryland. Democrats challenging Republican-drawn maps bring one, the other appears to be Republicans challenging an accessible route. The lower courts struck the maps and provided the justices with several potential tests grounded in the very first Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause along with other areas for the Constitution to determine a brand new standard.

“These instances are concerning the representation we enter federal, state and local officials all in the united states,” stated Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Law School, that has finalized a brief in support of the challengers.

New York
Rucho v. Common Cause ended up being brought by voting rights groups and Democratic voters, among others, who argue that New York’s 2016 districting that is congressional ended up being unconstitutional. They state the map drawn by Republican legislators amounted to an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that intentionally diluted the electoral energy of individuals who oppose Republicans.

Allison Riggs for the coalition that is southern personal Justice argued in court documents that the map drawers “divided clusters of Democrats that may have anchored congressional districts and submerged the fragments within larger masses of Republicans.”

Riggs points out that Republicans won 53% for the vote in the 2016 election, but they also won 10 of the 13 congressional seats.

Riggs warns the justices that if they do not become part of now, the usage of politics will only worsen as map drawers depend increasingly on redistricting software that is more sophisticated and research has revealed that the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans in Congress appears to be bigger than ever before.

She said that if the Supreme Court rules that the issue must be left of the legislative branches, the 2016 plan will likely to be the revolution for the future.” In the 2020 cycle and beyond, both parties will emulate — or exceed — its abuses, openly entrenching by themselves in power using the array that is full of mapmaking technologies,” she stated.

A lower life expectancy court ruled in support of the challengers on same security grounds, holding that individual districts discriminated against voters, and therefore the master plan also violated the First Amendment, for punishing people considering the way that they had formerly voted.


Maryland One other instance, Lamone v. Benisek, arises from Maryland. A reduced court blocked the map, keeping that individuals within the district had been retaliated against according to how that they had voted, in violation of the initial Amendment.

This instance ended up being brought by seven Republican voters, who argue that Democratic then-Gov. Martin O’Malley, who had been overseeing the redistricting procedure, took specific aim at the state’s 6th Congressional District.

” To that particular end, map compartments methodically dismantled the sixth district, breaking aside large swaths of territory dominated by rural Republicans and changing all of them with smaller, densely populated areas dominated by suburban Democrats,” their attorney, Michael Kimberly, argued in court documents.

The officials targeted some 66,000 Republicans within the district and included some 24,000 Democratic voters, therefore swinging the region, based on court papers. The challengers pointed to O’Malley’s very own statements, as he stated it was “also my intent to produce a region in which the social people would become more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican.”

June the justices should rule on both cases by the end.

Supreme Court takes up the case on the a citizenship question on the 2020 census


The nation’s first Latina justice leveled an impassioned, persistent counterattack from the bench as the Trump administration defended its move to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census at the Supreme Court Tuesday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor interrupted US Solicitor General Noel Francisco before he could finish his second sentence and did not let up on the government’s top lawyer.

Like her colleagues on the left, Sotomayor sharply challenged the Trump administration’s proposition adding the citizenship query towards the decennial effort meant to count everyone irrespective of legal status. But, Sotomayor’s questions were a lot more heated and numerous.

Census Bureau officials have predicted a citizenship question would result in an undercount of Hispanic and non-citizen households.  New York and other state challengers say would lead to less funding that is federal governmental  for primarily Democratic locales. The decennial population count is used to divide members of the United States House of Representatives, draw state governmental districts, and allocate hundreds of billions of bucks  for communities.

Read more about the Census question