Millions of undocumented immigrant families fear that America’s highest court will overrule President Obama’s executive order and call for mass deportations.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Texas, a challenge by the state of Texas and 26 other US states, against President Obama’s executive orders granting deferred action to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. Continue reading »
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. Continue reading »
By inserting individual arbitration clauses into a soaring number of consumer and employment contracts, companies like American Express devised a way to circumvent the courts and bar people from joining together in class-action lawsuits, realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.
Thousands of cases brought by single plaintiffs over fraud, wrongful death and rape are now being decided behind closed doors. And the rules of arbitration largely favor companies, which can even steer cases to friendly arbitrators, interviews and records show.
The sharp shift away from the civil justice system has barely registered with Americans. F. Paul Bland Jr., the executive director of Public Justice, a national consumer advocacy group, attributed this to the tangle of bans placed inside clauses added to contracts that no one reads in the first place.
“Corporations are allowed to strip people of their constitutional right to go to court,” Mr. Bland said. “Imagine the reaction if you took away people’s Second Amendment right to own a gun.”
– From yesterday’s New York Times article: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
I’ve followed the dangerous trend of the increased corporate use of arbitration clauses in contracts for several years now, and yesterday’s New York Times investigation into their civil liberties destroying nature, is one of the best pieces I’ve seen on the subject to date. Continue reading »
– 7/01/2015 — Oklahoma Residents can now SUE Fracking companies for damages — Supreme Court Rules (Dutchsinse, July 1, 2015):
Huge victory against oil / gas companies causing damage via fracking/injection earthquakes !
After a series of dark moments for freedom in Oklahoma, and Texas (when state legislators passed laws which PREVENT locals from being able to stop fracking in their own towns) now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has issued a ruling which could be a game changer for the entire fracking industry.
Residents can now sue fracking companies for damages to their property , and personal health caused by fracking earthquakes.
This all stems from a case where a woman had her house chimney collapse in upon her during the large M5.7 2011 fracking earthquake in Oklahoma.
At the time, professionals tried to DENY there was any relation between the huge swarm of earthquakes, and the fracking operations.
Not trusting anything on face value, I actually pulled satellite images to see what was at the location, what I found was shocking. Continue reading »
– Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide In 5:4 Decision – Obama Makes Statement (ZeroHedge, June 26, 2015):
President Obama is due to speak at 11am ET…
* * *
And here’s Mike Huckabee’s different ‘perspective’…
Former Arkansas governor and 2016 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges.
“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.
“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”
“The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.”
* * *
Following yesterday’s historic 6:3 Supreme Court decision enshrining the tax known as Obamacare, there was little surprise moments ago when in one of its last remaining decisions in re: Obergefell v. Hodges, the most liberal Supreme Court since 1960 just declared gay marriage legal nationwide. The decision, supported by all the women on the SCOTUS, came down in a 5:4 vote with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Kenedy voting for, while Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.
As always, the most interesting contents are in the dissent, which today was, ironically, written by Roberts who in the past 48 hours has made many friends and maybe even more enemies. Some of the key remarks:
… this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
As for the president’s immediate response…
Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins
— President Obama (@POTUS) 26. Juni 2015
… it is not to be confused with his pre flip-flop take from several years ago:
… as a candidate for president, Obama told Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church that marriage could only extend to heterosexual couples. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” Obama said at the time. “Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Full decision and dissent (pdf)
– Supreme Court rules cops can search your car and seize evidence even if the stop was unlawful (Natural News, Dec 22, 2014):
Police officers are able to use evidence in court that they seized during a traffic stop even if turns out that the cops pulled a car over initially based on their misunderstanding of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
In an overwhelmingly lopsided 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, justices said that such stops do not violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
As reported by The Associated Press (AP): Continue reading »
– 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 »
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 »
– 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 »
– 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.
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.
– 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.
– 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.
Added: Apr 8, 2014
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.
– 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.
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.
– 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.
– 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.”
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.
– 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.
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.
YouTube Added: Nov 14, 2013
Obamacare Will Be Going Back To Supreme Court!
Obama Unconstitutional Obamacare Fix – Insurance Industry Group: Fix Could Destabilize Market Judge Napolitano
– 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 »
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.)
The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press: Continue reading »
Tags: 1984, Big Brother, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Civil rights, Constitution, Dictatorship, Eighth Amendment, Fascism, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Freedom, George Orwell, Global News, Guns, Indefinite Detention, Japan, Law, NDAA, New World Order, Ninth Amendment, NRA, NSA, Second Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Society, Supreme Court, Surveillance, Tenth Amendment, Terrorism, Third Amendment, U.S.
– 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 »
– Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches (Washington Post, Aug 19, 2013):
If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
– Generic drug companies granted total immunity against all lawsuits from patients harmed by side effects (Natural News, July 10, 2013):
You may want to think twice before taking any more generic copies of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs, thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling that effectively eliminates manufacturer liability in injury cases resulting from negative side effects. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court recently overturned a $21 million judgment awarded to a New Hampshire woman injured by a generic pain drug, declaring in the process that generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued when the drugs they produce injure patients.
Since generic drugs are mere replicas of brand-name drugs that, at one time, were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as “safe,” generic drug manufacturers are exempt from being held liable in the event of injuries caused by harmful side effects. This is the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court anyway, which has now made it that much harder for members of the public to seek remedy for injuries caused by pharmaceutical drugs.
According to Reuters, the ruling affects lawsuits filed under state law, which allegedly conflict with federal regulatory guidelines as they pertain to safety approval for brand-name drugs. When it comes to federal versus state law, federal always tends to win these days, which means the big boys in the drug industry basically get to call all the shots. And if you are injured by a drug, in this case a generic drug, well then tough luck for you.