14 thoughts on “What’s the big deal about SCOTUS?

  1. Cassandra says:

    “Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg’s Seat on the Supreme Court” (New York Times Sept. 25, 2020 6:57 p.m. ET) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html
    “How Charismatic Catholic Groups Like Amy Coney Barrett’s People of Praise Inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293 (Newsweek 9/21/20) https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-people-praise-group-inspired-handmaids-tale-1533293
    People of Praise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

  2. Niemöller says:

    The first reproductive rights test for the U.S. Supreme Court since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death will likely be the court battle over whether people should be able to access the medication mifepristone for abortion through telehealth. https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/09/28/first-supreme-court-reproductive-battle-without-ginsburg-likely-over-mifepristone/?mc_cid=b17e9de783&mc_eid=4b85ca587f
    The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) requested the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a lower court’s decision to enable women to receive mifepristone through telehealth during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, people had to travel—in some cases hundreds of miles—to a clinic to receive the medication.
    But, patients do not have to take the medication at the clinic. They can return home to take it in the privacy of their homes.
    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other partners sought—and received—a preliminary injunction this summer from a Maryland judge barring the FDA from enforcing its in-person requirement to receive mifepristone. Mifepristone is one of the two drugs patients can take for an abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation. https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/preliminary-injunction-granted (scroll down to document)

  3. Establishment Clause says:

    Amy Coney Barrett signed newspaper ad that called Roe v Wade ‘barbaric’ : Ad from 2006 called for abortion rights ruling to be overturned https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade
    Barrett supported St Joseph County Right to Life, an extreme anti-choice group that said life begins at fertilization https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/amy-coney-barrett-supported-group-fertilization The group has also said that the discarding of unused or frozen embryos created in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process ought to be criminalized, a view that is considered to be extreme even within the anti-abortion movement. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-abortion-ivf-frozen-embryos-naperville-20191008-sw2dpa4cozey7fquf6fq4nxx3i-story.html
    The White House deputy press secretary, Judd Deere, said in a statement to the Guardian: “As Judge Barrett said on the day she was nominated, ‘A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.’”
    The White House also pointed out that in her role as an appellate court judge in the seventh circuit Barrett had declined in July to stay the execution of Daniel Lewis Lee, a white supremacist convicted killer. Barrett’s decision in that case apparently showed a willingness to contradict her personal stated support for all life from “fertilization to natural death”. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/amy-coney-barrett-supported-group-fertilization

  4. Reckless endangerment says:

    “The Deranged, Dangerous Push to Still Seat Amy Coney Barrett : For the GOP, entrenching minority rule is more important than human life.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/coney-barrett-nomination-covid-19-gop.html
    “The coroniavirus reached further into Republican ranks on Saturday, forcing the Senate to call off lawmaking as a third GOP senator tested positive for COVID-19. Even so, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared he would push President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee toward confirmation in the shadow of the November election.” https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-donald-trump-confirmation-hearings-mitch-mcconnell-amy-coney-barrett-895466e80b67302a83e2abadafe585df

  5. WTFU says:

    “…Just how far right the court will move could become apparent quickly in a case to be argued a week after the election. It is the third challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which in the past was upheld by votes of 5-4 and 6-3.
    This time, the Trump administration and a coalition of red states are arguing that because the Republican Congress three years ago zeroed out the monetary penalty for those not covered by insurance (the so-called mandate), the whole law is now void.
    If the administration were to prevail, there would no longer be protections for those with preexisting conditions; health insurance for some 22 million people under Obamacare would likewise be gone, and so too would be many other protections that people have gotten used to.” https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/919704165/the-election-and-a-fresh-obamacare-challenge-loom-over-new-supreme-court-term
    “Could COVID-19 become a preexisting condition if the Supreme Court scuttles Obamacare?” https://fortune.com/2020/06/26/trump-supreme-court-obamacare-coronavirus-preexisting-condition-aca-scotus-briefing-covid-19/

  6. Steamroller says:

    The Supreme Court, siding with Republicans, on Monday restored a South Carolina requirement that absentee ballots be signed by a witness. A lower court in South Carolina had ruled that the state legislature was wrong to retain the witness signature requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic. A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the requirement, and then the full appeals court put it on hold again.
    While the case proceeds, the Supreme Court has granted a temporary stay of the District Court’s ruling. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-south-carolina-absentee-ballot-witness-requirement/
    The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two consolidated cases that could eviscerate the right to be free from racial discrimination in voting. And the Court agreed to hear these cases just weeks before the Senate is likely to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, giving a Republican Party that is often hostile to voting rights a 6-3 majority on the nation’s highest court. https://www.vox.com/2020/10/2/21498587/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-amy-coney-barrett

      • Mike says:

        Elena Kagan Has Had Enough of Brett Kavanaugh’s Judicial “Scorekeeping”
        The Supreme Court’s savviest liberal justice is done pulling punches. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/edwards-vannoy-kagan-kavanaugh-scorekeeping.html
        “Last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, prohibiting nonunanimous convictions of criminal defendants. Under the Constitution, the court declared, a split jury verdict is “no verdict at all.” On Monday, however, the court walked back this declaration. In Edwards v. Vannoy, the conservative majority held that Ramos does not apply retroactively—that is, to defendants who have already been convicted by split juries. The court then took the extraordinary step of overturning precedent that had allowed retroactive application of new decisions. No party asked the Supreme Court to reverse this precedent; the question was not briefed or argued. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion reached out and grabbed it anyway, slamming the courthouse door on convicted defendants seeking the benefit of a new Supreme Court decision.”

        • p/s says:

          “The Supreme Court took two actions on Monday that hint that many Democrats’ worst fears about the Court’s 6-3 Republican majority might come true.
          The first was the Court’s announcement that it will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to a Mississippi law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Dobbs is potentially an existential threat to the constitutional right to an abortion, and it tees up the question of whether this Court is willing to overrule venerable decisions like Roe v. Wade, which are beloved by liberals and loathed by conservatives.
          The second action involved a more obscure case. Last year, in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that no one could be convicted of a “serious crime” unless a jury voted unanimously to convict them. On Monday, the Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Vannoy that Ramos is not retroactive — meaning that nearly all people convicted by non-unanimous jury verdicts before Ramos was decided will not benefit from the Ramos decision.” https://www.vox.com/2021/5/18/22440256/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-edwards-vannoy-abortion-criminal-justice-constitution-stare-decisis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.