Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

District Judge Strikes Down ObamaCare’s Contraceptive Mandate

Tuesday, December 17th, 2013

U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan struck down the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate. If you read the actual decision, it’s a smackdown of both the mandate itself and the Obama Administration’s position on same;

As for the self-certification requirement, the Court rejects the Government’s position that plaintiffs may be compelled to perform affirmative acts precluded by their religion if a court deems those acts merely “de minimis.” This argument – which essentially reduces to the claim that completing the self-certification places no burden on plaintiffs’ religion because “it’s just a form” – finds no support in the case law. As discussed, where a law places substantial pressure on a plaintiff to perform affirmative acts contrary to his religion, the Supreme Court has found a substantial burden without analyzing whether those acts are de minimis.”

Cogan ruled against some of the plantiff’s arguments on other technical issues, but on the central issues of the case he ruled “the Mandate burdens plaintiffs’ religion by coercing them into authorizing third parties to provide this coverage through the self-certification requirement, an act forbidden by plaintiffs’ religion.”

On his Facebook page, Ted Cruz hailed the ruling as a “Major victory for religious liberty.”

Gabriel Malor of Ace of Spades has analyzed the ruling in more detail.

Cogan’s ruling deals specifically with religious non-profits covered by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and as such does not directly affect the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court will be taking up (“none of these cases bear directly on the issue at hand”). However, his overall reasoning, if applied to that case, could very well lead to ruling that the contraceptive mandate is an unconstitutional burden on freedom of religious conscious as well.

Remember, the fervor with which Nancy Pelosi refused to remove the contraceptive mandate and taxpayer-funded abortion from ObamaCare, even when it cost most of Bart Stupak ostensibly “pro-life” Democrats their seats, indicated that liberals regarded those sections as one of act’s most important features. If Cogan’s ruling is upheld, this is not only a major victory for religious liberty, but also a huge blow to ongoing Democratic attempts to marginalize religion in American life.

Also remember that ObamaCare has no severability clause. If Judge Cogan’s ruling is upheld, there’s still a chance (though by no means a guarantee) that the rest of the act can be found unconstitutional as well.

Blogroll Addition: Legal Insurrection

Thursday, August 29th, 2013

I’ll be wearing my science fiction hat a lot this week, so expect light posting through Labor Day (and maybe a little beyond).

So instead of Actual Content, I’m going to highlight some new additions to the Blogroll.

First up: Legal Insurrection (or Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, to use the full, “Hell no I’m not going to type that every time” name), which I’ve linked the occasional tidbit from forever, but only just added to the blogroll. Run by Cornell Law Professor William A. Jacobson, Legal Insurrection covers a wide variety of political topics, legal and otherwise. And he was kind enough to add a link to my post on the #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen tag to his own post.

He posts frequently on interesting topics, so go over and take a look when you get a chance.

Today’s Super-Genius Liberal Tweet

Thursday, July 25th, 2013

Today’s super-genius liberal tweet comes to you from a Kate White-Hancock, AKA @lsalander13, who asks:

“@TPM Question: Where Was FOX News When Clarence Thomas Said FILTHY Perverse PORNOGRAPHIC Unwanted Things To Anita Hill AT WORK??”

Ignoring the red herring nature of trying to change the subject from Anthony Weiner, and the fact that none of Anita Hill’s allegations were ever proven, I think one reason Fox News may not have covered that was that Thomas’ confirmation hearings occurred 1991, and Fox News Channel wasn’t founded until 1996

Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision Texas Fallout

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

We’re already seeing some fallout from the Supreme Court’s Shelby County vs. Holder decision (the complete text of which is now online).

According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Voter ID law will take effect immediately.

“With today’s decision, the State’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

What remains unclear is whether the State of Texas can declare the 2011 redistricting maps valid without further court challenge. There’s currently a bill before Gov. Perry to confirm the 2012 interim maps as the official maps. However, that passed the Texas House and Senate before the Supreme Court ruling. Perry may well decide to veto the measure in order to go with the 2011 maps, which would be more favorable to Republicans.

Supreme Court Limits Preclearance Provision of Voting Rights Act

Tuesday, June 25th, 2013

The Supreme Court today limited use of the “preclearence” requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Hopefully I’ll have more details when the actual text of the decision is up later today.

I also wonder if Texas might re-institute the 2011 redistricting map, which was struck down by the San Antonio district court largely on the ground the Supreme Court just invalidated.

SCOTUSblog has more.

LinkSwarm for June 18, 2013

Tuesday, June 18th, 2013

Too much going on, so here’s a LinkSwarm to start your day:

  • Why the IRS scandal is worse than the others.
  • Snowden: Obama made all NSA abuses worse. Well, making things worse is Obama’s magic touch…
  • The NSA confirms it can listen to domestic phone calls without a court order. Or so Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said a few days ago, but now he’s trying to walk his statement back.
  • Even Al Gore is shocked at the NSA’s sweeping domestic surveillance. Hey Al: That’s just what happens when you have no controlling legal authority.
  • Don’t tell the liberals, but conservatives actually won the Arizona voting rights case.
  • Erdogan cracks down in Turkey. (Hat tip: Claire Berlinski’s Twitter feed.)
  • Q: What do Democrats call illegal aliens who have beaten women and children? A: Evidently future Democratic voters, since they refuse to amend the Gang of 8 illegal alien amnesty bill to exclude them.
  • A rundown on Texas gun laws signed into law from the most recent session. (Previously.)
  • Democratic Rep. John Larson (D–Con) whines that it’s so very, very unfair that ObamaCare applies to congress. Hold on, Rep. Larson. When I can get some time on a scanning-tunneling microscope, I’ll see if I can find an appropriately sized violin.
  • Maureen Dowd slams Obama some more: “When the man who polled where to take his summer vacation and whether to tell the truth about his affair with Monica Lewinsky tells you you’re a captive of polls, you’d better listen up.” Bonus: Description of the NSA program as “No Call Left Behind.”
  • A new crime control initiative in Houston: arm the law-abiding. More on the Armed Citizen Project here.
  • Second Amendment activists gather twice the necessary number for signatures to force a recall election for Colorado Senate President John Morse.
  • Animal Rights activists get Obama Administration to end testing on chimps. So much for liberals being part of the “science-based community.”
  • SooperMexican makes brutal fun of the SNAP Challenge. (If you’ve never heard of the SNAP challenge, it’s another variant on the “Any time conservatives cut a dime of government funding, 10 million children starve!” argument.)
  • Scientists invent a robotic cat. Evidently it has the “massive indifference to your presence” and “not coming when you call it” parts of a cat’s personality down pat…
  • Ted Cruz Sides with the Dissent in Maryland vs. King

    Tuesday, June 4th, 2013

    Ted Cruz sides with the dissent in the recently decided Maryland vs. King DNA gathering case:

    All of us should be alarmed by this significant step towards government as Big Brother. The excessive concentration of power in government is always inimical to liberty, and a national database of our DNA cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment.

    Accumulating DNA from arrestees—without warrant or probable cause to seize the DNA—is not designed to solve the crime for which the person has (rightly or wrongly) been arrested. Rather, it’s to test the DNA against a national database to potentially implicate them in other unsolved crimes. But the Constitution requires particularized suspicion of a specific crime; indeed, the Fourth Amendment was adopted to prohibit the British practice of “general warrants” targeting individuals absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.

    The Actual Text of the Maryland vs. King Decision

    Tuesday, June 4th, 2013

    Actual text of the Supreme Court’s Maryland vs. King “police can take DNA samples” decision can be found here in PDF form. Still haven’t read it yet.

    Supreme Court: All Your DNA Are Belong To Us

    Monday, June 3rd, 2013

    In a 5-4 decision on Maryland vs. King, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can indeed take your DNA sample upon arrest. It was also a decision that split across the court’s usual ideological lines: “Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.” Any time Thomas and Scalia split on a decision it’s worth taking a look at the underlying issues involved, and I hope to take a closer (albeit of the IANAL variety) look at the actually decision when it’s online and I have time. I suspect the decision may hinge on the definition of “reasonable” search and seizure.

    Setting aside (for now) the niceties of constitutional interpretation, I think this is a bad decision for both privacy and limited government, with some truly Orwellian (not to mention Huxleyion) implications. As a science fiction writer, I can think of three or four dozen ways this might be abused, and a National ID card is just the tip of the iceberg. In light of the IRS scandals, having your DNA stored in a federal database is tantamount to handing it over not only to Wikileaks and Anonymous, but any left-wing interest group with a grudge and a sympathetic bureaucrat on the inside (which is essentially all of them). And I can think of a lot darker possibilities…

    It’s All the Same Fight

    Tuesday, March 12th, 2013

    Rand Paul has won some liberal plaudits for his filibuster against extra-judicial drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil. Fine and dandy. But what liberal don’t realize is that debate, the debate over government spending, the debate over gun control, and the debate over ObamaCare are not separate fights, they’re the same fight over the central issue: what is the proper size and scope of the federal government in a constitutional republic with limited, enumerated powers?

    The founders were deeply and rightly suspicious of centralized government power. They set up a system in which the federal government’s power was not only limited, but balanced against competing power. Not only were the executive, legislative and judicial branches balanced against each other, all were balanced against state governments, and against the power in the people themselves, which is why the Bill of Rights is an enumeration of what the federal government could not do to its citizens. The state exists not to do things for people, it exists to keep things from being done to them.

    Those right have been eroded by the excessive expansion of the federal government, and those checks and balances thrown off by the creation of a permanent parasite class in Washington D.C. that benefits from raking its percentage off the top of an ever-expanding redistributionist state.

    Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc. all know, understand, and believe this. To them, the Constitution is a constant, a vessel of liberty to hand down from generation to generation to keep America strong and free. To liberals, the Constitution is an obstacle to be nullified by left-wing federal judges who ignore provisions like the 2nd and 10th Amendments because the limit how much power Democrats can take from the people and give to government.

    The larger government’s sphere, the smaller that of the American people. Drone strikes on U.S. soil are a big, bright line even liberals can understand. But gun control, outrageous deficits, and ObamaCare are all chipping away at the constitutional republic left to us by the founding fathers, day by day. Barry Goldwater once said that “A government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take away everything you have.” Rand Paul and Ted Cruz understand that. Liberals either don’t, or actively want to participate in the taking.