Nov 08

obamacare-symbol

- Obama’s Week Just Got Worse: Supreme Court To Rule On ObamaCare Subsidies (ZeroHedge, Nov 7, 2014):

Getting ‘shellacked’ in the Midterms, coming 2nd to Putin as the world’s most powerful person, and now, as AP reports, The Supreme Court agrees to rule on insurance subsidies in a new challenge to ObamaCare. Simply put they will judge whether subsidies for middle- and lower-income people are legal…

As AP reports,

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama’s health care law.

The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums. Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Jun 25

- ‘Get a warrant’ – Supreme Court rules against cell phone searches in ‘big win for digital privacy’ (RT, June 25, 2014):

The Supreme Court of the United States said Wednesday that police officers must have a warrant before searching the cell phone contents of an individual under arrest.

In a unanimous ruling announced early Wednesday, the high court settled two cases surrounding instances in which law enforcement officials scoured the mobile phones of suspects in custody and then used information contained therein to pursue further charges.

“The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested,” the Supreme Court ruled.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience,” the court continued. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”

Orin Kerr, a Georgetown University law professor who focuses primarily on computer cases, wrote Wednesday morning on his Washington Post-hosted blog that the court’s decision was “a big win for digital privacy.” Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Jun 23

FYI.



Added: June 18, 2014

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 31

FYI.



Added: May 30, 2014

Description:

High speed motorists can now be shot by police! The Supreme court made this ruling after Arkansas police shot & killed a motorist 15 times.

Tags: , , , , , ,

May 30

Steve-Marsh

- Steve Marsh GM Contamination Case Fails in Australian Supreme Court (Global GMO Free Coalition, May 29, 2014):

Global GMO Free Coalition Media Comment: 28/05/2014

Western Australian farmer Steve Marsh (#IamSteveMarsh) has lost a landmark case which could have protected his organic status, after his property was contaminated by GM canola from a neighbouring farm.

The verdict was handed down Wednesday and can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Judgment%20Summary%20-%20Marsh%20v%20Baxter%20(CIV%201561%20of%202012)%2028%20May%202014.pdf

Marsh, an organic farmer from Kojonup, south of Perth, Western Australia, lost organic certification for most of his farm when GM canola contaminated his crop. He took action by suing his neighbour Michael Baxter in the Supreme Court of WA, in a landmark world’s first trial which started earlier this year. Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

May 03

- Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention (Washington’s Blog, April 30, 2014)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 01

Obama-2012-NDAA-Indefinite-Detention

- Supreme Court refuses to stop indefinite detention of Americans under NDAA (RT, May 1, 2014):

The United States Supreme Court this week effectively ended all efforts to overturn a controversial 2012 law that grants the government the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

On Monday, the high court said it won’t weigh in on challenge filed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and a bevy of co-plaintiffs against US President Barack Obama, ending for now a two-and-a-half-year debate concerning part of an annual Pentagon spending bill that since 2012 has granted the White House the ability to indefinitely detain people “who are part of or substantially support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

The Obama administration has long maintained that the provision — Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 — merely reaffirmed verbiage contained within the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, signed by then-President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Apr 29

Obama-2012-NDAA-Indefinite-Detention

- Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to NDAA Detention Power

Refuses to Hear Hedges v. Obama Case

The US Supreme Court has further enhanced the administration’s ability to detain anyone, at any time, on any pretext today, when it refused to hear the Hedges v. Obama case, meaning an Appeals Court ruling on the matter will stand.

The case stems from a 2012 lawsuit brought by Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and others, and sought to block the enforcement of a 2012 National Defense Authorization Act statute that allows the president to unilaterally impose indefinite detention on anyone, without access to courts, if he personally believes something they did “aided” the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Apr 25

- Feds Beg Supreme Court to Let Them Search Phones Without a Warrant (Wired, April 23, 2014):

American law enforcement has long advocated for universal “kill switches” in cellphones to cut down on mobile device thefts. Now the Department of Justice argues that the same remote locking and data-wiping technology represents a threat to police investigations–one that means they should be free to search phones without a warrant.

In a brief filed to the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in the case of alleged Boston drug dealer Brima Wurie, the Justice Department argues that police should be free to warrantlessly search cellphones taken from suspects immediately at the time of arrest, rather than risk letting the suspect or his associates lock or remotely wipe the phone before it can be searched.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Apr 19

Obama-Lies

- Obama’s First-Amendment Defense of Political Liars (Washington’s Blog, April 18, 2014):

 By Eric Zuesse

President Obama, through his U.S. Solicitor General, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, has now stated that lying in political campaigns isn’t merely protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, but that it is an especially protected form of speech, which must not be hindered by any state government, such as by the state of Ohio. Ohio has outlawed such intentional deception of voters, and has established heavy criminal penalties against it, when it can be proven. The idea behind this law is that any democracy in which lying in political campaigns isn’t penalized by severe penalties, won’t remain a democracy much longer, but will instead descend into a kleptocracy: theft of elections themselves (via lies), so that they become just nominal “elections,” which are controlled by whatever aristocrats can put up the most money, to lie the most effectively, to the biggest number of voters: lying-contests.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Apr 10


Added: Apr 8, 2014

Description:

The Supreme Court declined to take a case challenging the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata. Plaintiff Larry Klayman won his case challenging the NSA in a lower court, but wanted the Supreme Court to hear the government’s appeal of the decision. This would have avoided the normal but more lengthy appeals process in lower courts. The decision by the high court does not mean that they won’t hear the case in the future. RT’s Ameera David examines this decision and other challenges to the NSA working their way through the courts.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Feb 28

constitution-burning-1

- Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant (ZeroHedge, Feb 27, 2014):

If the most disturbing, if underreported, news from yesterday, was Obama’s “modification” of NSA capabilities, which contrary to his earlier promises, was just granted even greater powers as phone recording will now be stored for even longer than previously, then this latest development from the Supreme Court – one which some could argue just voided the Fourth amendment – is even more shocking. RT reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled that police may search a home without obtaining a warrant despite the objection of one occupant if that occupant has been removed from the premises. With its 6 to 3 decision in Fernandez v. California on Tuesday, the Court sided with law enforcement’s ability to conduct warrantless searches after restricting police powers with its 2006 decision on a similar case.

Cop entry_1

From RT:

In 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department sought suspect Walter Fernandez, believed to have stabbed someone in a violent gang robbery. When police first arrived at the suspect’s home, they heard yelling and screaming before Fernandez’s live-in girlfriend Roxanne Rojas answered the door, appearing “freshly bruised and bloody,” and with an infant in hand, according to argument recap by SCOTUSblog.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feb 27

- Supreme Court Makes Big Decision On When Cops Can Enter Your Home (Huffington Post, Feb 25, 2014):

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested.

The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , ,

Feb 24

- Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Change the Second Amendment for Our “safety and wellbeing” (The Daily Sheeple, Feb 23, 2014):

In his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, former (thankfully) Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens outlines the six Constitutional Amendments that he would like to see changed.

According to the book’s description on his website, Stevens outlines “six specific ways in which the Constitution should be amended in order to protect our democracy and the safety and wellbeing of American citizens.”

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Jan 21

U.S. Constitution

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


- Supreme Court To Decide If Warrant Needed To Search Cellphone (NPR, Jan 17, 2014):

The U.S. Supreme Court is delving into the technology-versus-privacy debate, agreeing to hear two cases that test whether police making an arrest may search cellphones without a warrant.

The court’s announcement Friday that it would take the cases came just hours after President Obama outlined his proposals to address government retention of citizen phone data as outlining reforms at the National Security Agency.

The court said it would hear arguments, likely in April, in two cases with conflicting decisions from the lower courts.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan 13

obama-angry

- Supreme Court May Move To Rein In President Obama’s Trampling Of The Constitution (ZeroHedge, Jan 13, 2014):

 It would appear that there is even a limit for the Supreme Court as to what they will allow President Obama to get away with:
  • *OBAMA’S RECESS APPOINTMENTS QUESTIONED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT

As Bloomberg reports, justices across the ideological spectrum questioned whether President Barack Obama complied with the Constitution when he appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board during a Senate break.

Via Bloomberg,

U.S. Supreme Court justices suggested they may curb the president’s power to make temporary appointments without Senate approval, as the court took up a constitutional standoff between the White House and congressional Republicans.

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Nov 15


YouTube Added: Nov 14, 2013

Description:

Obamacare Will Be Going Back To Supreme Court!
Obama Unconstitutional Obamacare Fix – Insurance Industry Group: Fix Could Destabilize Market Judge Napolitano

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oct 19

FYI.


- Same-Sex Marriages in New Jersey Can Begin, Court Rules (New York Times, Oct 18, 2013):

Same-sex couples can start marrying on Monday across New Jersey, after the state’s Supreme Court denied Gov. Chris Christie’s attempt to block the weddings and suggested that he will have a difficult time winning an appeal of a lower-court ruling that allowed them.A state Superior Court judge ruled last month that the state had to allow same-sex marriage to comply with two decisions: the United States Supreme Court ruling in June that same-sex married couples have the same rights to federal benefits as heterosexual married couples, and a 2006 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage. Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , ,

Oct 17


Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

- Americans Have Lost VIRTUALLY ALL of Our Constitutional Rights (ZeroHedge, Oct 17, 2013):

This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.  (This is an updated version of an essay we wrote in February.  Unfortunately, a lot of information has come out since then.)

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press: Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sep 26

- This is What Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Thinks About Your Privacy Rights… (Liberty Blitzkrieg, Sep 26, 2013):

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke yesterday at the Northern Virginia Technology Council’s (NVTC) Titans breakfast gathering in McLean, Virginia. He discussed the fact that prior to a Supreme Court decision in 1967, there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment. He goes on to imply that he thinks it was better before such privacy rights existed. According to the AP:

Scalia said that before the court’s 1967 opinion on wiretapping, the high court held the view that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against Americans against unreasonable search and seizure of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

But he said then the Warren court stepped in and found that “there’s a generalized right of privacy that comes from penumbras and emanations, blah blah blah, garbage.”

Blah, blah, blah garbage is how a Supreme Court Justice describes privacy protections. Protections that may have prevented FBI surveillance against Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon and countless other activists. Remember that: All My Heroes Have FBI Files. Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,