Tag Archives: SCOTUS

How to force Senator Susan Collins to do the right thing

I find it astonishing that Senator Susan Collins isn’t going to do the right thing on her own, and that we have to force her, in this case, to vote against Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But, I suppose I should not be surprised. Susan Collins is one of those Republicans people often look to do “do the right thing” but I can’t remember the last time she actually did the right thing.

One way or another, we’ve got to throw her out of office and replace her with a Democrat. But, in the meantime, there is an interesting project going on at Crown Pac.

Promise to donate money, at leat $20.20, if she votes Yes on Kavanaugh. The money will be used to fund the endorsed Democrat who ends up running against Collins in the next election.

A typical Maine Senate seat costs, I think, about $6 million to run for, if you are a well established incumbent like Collins. If this program raises about 3 million or so, that’s enough to knock her off her game if the Democrats can find a well liked candidate that knows how to run a campaign. There must be somebody in Maine like that.

The goal of the campaign is to raise $1.5 million. Obviously I think they should double that goal. So far, just under 50,000 people have pledged just over $1.3 million.

A good amount of that $6 or so million you need to run a campaign in Maine, may be one million bucks worth, maybe more comes from corporations, and probably, some of those corporations are boycottable. They include General Dynamics, DLA Piper, Elliot Management, the Cohen Group (different Cohen, I hope), and Lion’s Gate Entertainment.

Here’s what the good people of Maine are saying to Susan Collins:

CLICK HERE TO GET RID OF COLLINS

Cory Booker May Be Thrown Out of the US Senate For Standing Up to Republicans.

Holy moly. Every day you can make a list of which is the most important news story of the day, but if you do, put it on 3×5 Index Cards so you can keep re-arranging it.

Booker released a chunk of the secreted Kavanaugh documents, possibly breaking a Senate rule. Breaking that rule, if he did break it, can result in his expulsion from the Senate.

When confronted with that prospect by Republican leaders, with Kavanaugh looking on and making funny faces, Booker said, “Bring it!”

Does this qualify as a constitutional crisis? It probably would if Booker is thrown out of the Senate and a few thousand citizen show up to put him back in the Senate.

Politicking At The Polling Place: Minnesota at SCOTUS

There is a case being decided right now by the Supreme Court of the United States, about whether or not people can wear clothing or adornments that express political messages at the polling places.

Minnesota has, it appears, a fairly strict rule, and it is being challenged. The Supreme Court seems poised to decide against the Minnesota law, at least in part. You can read about it here, and it is all very interesting.

But in fact, the whole thing is BS, in a way that I doubt anyone is telling the Supreme Court. Here’s why. Continue reading Politicking At The Polling Place: Minnesota at SCOTUS

The US Chamber of Commerce and the SCOTUS: You'll want to see this.

The Constitutional Accountability Center has released it’s annual report The Corporate Court.

…Let’s begin with the numbers. This Term, the Chamber was involved in 17 cases overall—directly representing one of its member companies in Canning, litigating as a party in UARG, and filing amicus briefs in 15 other cases. The Chamber’s 17 cases represent just under a quarter of the total cases set down for argument this Term.

All told, the Chamber racked up a record of 11 wins and 5 losses—or a 69% winning percentage. (One of its cases—Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action—settled before oral argument.) That means that, since Samuel Alito succeeded Sandra Day O’Connor on the Court in January 2006, the Chamber has won 70% of its cases (85 wins and 36 losses), compared with only 43% in the late Burger Court (15 of 35 from 1981-1986) and 56% in the stable Rehnquist Court (45 of 80 from 1994-2005). …

Californial Prop 8 Struck Down by Scotus

From Mercury News:

In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge’s 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional.

It was a 5-4 decision, usual suspects.

Reminder: Who is on the Supreme Court matters.

Reminder: Who is in the White House matters to who is on the Supreme Court.

Reminder: Which party controls the Senate matters to the ability of whomever is in the White House to determine who is on the Supreme Court.

Reminder: The Senate has boneheaded rules so the above reminder isn’t just about a majority, but about a “supermajority” of 60/100.

Reminder: The Republicans want to restrict marriage, what you do in your bedroom, and reproductive rights of women. The Democrats don’t.

Reminder: Party politics is important, ignore that at your peril.

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons”

The Supreme Court of the United States has truck down the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” as unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision. A ruling on California Prop 8 is expected soon.

From NPR:

Section 3 of the law defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” That provision had been struck down by eight lower courts before the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor.

This decision means that legally married same-sex couples are now entitled to the same federal benefits as married opposite sex couples.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.

Reminder: Who is on the Supreme Court matters.

Reminder: Who is in the White House matters to who is on the Supreme Court.

Reminder: Which party controls the Senate matters to the ability of whomever is in the White House to determine who is on the Supreme Court.

Reminder: The Senate has boneheaded rules so the above reminder isn’t just about a majority, but about a “supermajority” of 60/100.

Reminder: The Republicans want to restrict marriage, what you do in your bedroom, and reproductive rights of women. The Democrats don’t.

Reminder: Party politics is important, ignore that at your peril.

SCOTUS will review Arizona’s Immigration Law

Moments ago, the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review a highly controversial Arizona law. This promises to be one of the more significant things they’ve done in a while.

The deck is stacked for a more conservative ruling because Justice Kagan will recuse as she worked on the law while in the Obama administration.

Continue reading SCOTUS will review Arizona’s Immigration Law

Church-State Separation Case Impending

Mark your calendars. October 5th is the scheduled oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States for Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

The long and the short of it: The EEOC has rules about hiring and firing designed to avoid discrimination. Churches claim that they need to be able to discriminate (or at least not be held accountable for discrimination) because it is their religious thang to hire and fire who they want because they are churches. More specifically, from one perspective, pastors and such are “called” not really hired, and from another perspective (leading to the same outcome) church communities, they say, need to be able to chose their own religions.

Like if they wanted to fire Jesus, back in the old days, the Roman version of the EEOC would have no case if it claimed that the church was being, say, antisemitic.

There is a law that has been on the books for decades that seems to provide this exception for churches, but that is being challenged.

Continue reading Church-State Separation Case Impending