“Religious group scrubs all references to Amy Coney Barrett from its website : People of Praise, a tiny charismatic Catholic organization, admits removing mentions and photos of Trump’s supreme court pick” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/30/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-website All issues of the organization’s magazine, Vine and Branches, were also removed.
The AP was able to track the deletions and access the missing information through the Internet Archive, a non-profit group that has saved digital versions of more than 330bn web pages since 1996. https://archive.org/
In 2006, Amy Coney Barrett gave a commencement speech at Notre Dame law school in which she told the grads, “Always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and…that end is building the kingdom of God.” https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=commencement_programs
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)
“…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/
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
“Big Win for Corporations: SCOTUS Slaps Down Federal Trade Commission.
Justices ruled unanimously that the FTC does not have the authority to go to court and win redress for unfair and deceptive business conduct. It must first go through a cumbersome administrative process.
Since the 1970s, the FTC has been obtaining court injunctions against rogue companies and compelling them to provide monetary relief to consumers.” https://www.dcreport.org/2021/05/14/big-win-for-corporations-scotus-slaps-down-federal-trade-commission/
Federal Trade Commission Violation Tracker Summary https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?agency_sum=FTC scroll down for Individual Penalty Records – note ‘rogue companies’ and the billions of dollars in penalties they’ve had to pay.
“How Trump and McConnell set the final pieces for the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade” https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/index.html
“…now that the court has decided to reexamine abortion rights, the only question is how far the majority will go to roll back the nearly half-century-old declaration that the constitutional right to privacy covers the decision to end a pregnancy.”
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.”
“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
“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
“The story behind Amy Coney Barrett’s little-known Christian group People of Praise” (Washington Post /28/20) https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/09/28/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett/ “This article was originally published in 2018, when Amy Coney Barrett’s name was first floated as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court. In light of her recent nomination to replace the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an updated version is being published.”
(9/27/20): “Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court nominee, spoke at program founded to inspire a ‘distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law’” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/coney-barrett-christian-law-fellowship-blackstone/2020/09/27/7ae41892-fdc5-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html
“Religious group scrubs all references to Amy Coney Barrett from its website : People of Praise, a tiny charismatic Catholic organization, admits removing mentions and photos of Trump’s supreme court pick” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/30/people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-website All issues of the organization’s magazine, Vine and Branches, were also removed.
The AP was able to track the deletions and access the missing information through the Internet Archive, a non-profit group that has saved digital versions of more than 330bn web pages since 1996. https://archive.org/
In 2006, Amy Coney Barrett gave a commencement speech at Notre Dame law school in which she told the grads, “Always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and…that end is building the kingdom of God.” https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=commencement_programs
“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4
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)
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
“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
“…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/
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
“Kamala Harris’ remarks at the Supreme Court confirmation hearing” (transcript) https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/harris-scotus-hearing-remarks/index.html
“Charles Koch’s Big Bet on Barrett : For almost 50 years, the multibillionaire has been pushing for a court unfriendly to regulation of the market. He may be on the brink of victory.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/opinion/charles-koch-amy-coney-barrett.html
“Big Win for Corporations: SCOTUS Slaps Down Federal Trade Commission.
Justices ruled unanimously that the FTC does not have the authority to go to court and win redress for unfair and deceptive business conduct. It must first go through a cumbersome administrative process.
Since the 1970s, the FTC has been obtaining court injunctions against rogue companies and compelling them to provide monetary relief to consumers.” https://www.dcreport.org/2021/05/14/big-win-for-corporations-scotus-slaps-down-federal-trade-commission/
Federal Trade Commission Violation Tracker Summary https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?agency_sum=FTC scroll down for Individual Penalty Records – note ‘rogue companies’ and the billions of dollars in penalties they’ve had to pay.
“How Trump and McConnell set the final pieces for the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade” https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/abortion-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/index.html
“…now that the court has decided to reexamine abortion rights, the only question is how far the majority will go to roll back the nearly half-century-old declaration that the constitutional right to privacy covers the decision to end a pregnancy.”
7AM MDT, tomorrow morning, 18th
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.”
“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