In August, 2008, they started pouring-in. The “they” were “birther” cases arguing that Barack Obama was disqualified from being President of the United States on the allegation that he is not a “natural born” United States Citizen. As late as November 2010, the SCOTUS was still dismissing such cases. If anyone is interested in the majority of cases, there is a good list on Wikipedia.
The other day, Twitter was buzzing about the Attorney General for the State of Texas petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn election results in four states. In response to one such tweet, I tweeted the following;
Trump culture has made things unpredictable. After the death of Justice RBG, Trump’s brazenness to quickly appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court on the basis that he needed nine Justices to decide election controversies, made many voters nervous. I hoped that judges and Justices would adhere to the basic requirements before they hear a case.
Regardless of their arguments, Plaintiffs have to meet a requirement in order for any court to hear their claims. That requirement is “standing”. Read the rest of this entry
I’ve never been one to vote based on issues that are not relevant to my life or the betterment of this country, such as climate change. For at least two decades, I’ve personally heard Republicans say they were voting for a politician because they are anti-abortion and/or anti-gay rights. I always asked if they planned to have an abortion and if they are gay? To that, they wanted to quote from the Bible, in which I had to remind them that the United States does not have a theocratic government.
Frankly, I’m tired of hearing Republicans say that they don’t understand how Christians can be Democrat when Democrats made abortion legal in the United States. That is simply not true. At the time of Roe v. Wade, six (6) of the Justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents.
Voting because of wanting laws that control the lives of others is a bit like wanting to be a control freak. Many of these same folks do not comply with the Executive Orders of Governors to wear a mask when out in public to prevent the spread of a virus that can be deadly. They want to exercise their freedom of choice. Hypocrites!
I remember when abortion became legal in New York State. It was in 1970. I remember Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade was a case filed in 1971 and was decided in 1973. Roe was a woman who resided in the state of Texas. At that time, Texas only allowed legal abortion if the life of the mother was at risk. Among Roe’s arguments was that she could not afford to go out of Texas to obtain a safe, legalized abortion.
At the time that Roe v. Wade made itself through the judicial system, Richard Nixon (R) was president of the United States.
The nine Justices on the Court and the president who appointed them were; Read the rest of this entry
Juries, not judges, must decide whether ultimate penalty is justified. I am opposed to the killing of humans, and that includes the government sanctioned death penalty. Yesterday, Richard Wolf of USA Today reported that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that judges deciding on the death penalty rather than juries, is unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Florida’s system of letting judges, not juries, decide whether convicted criminals deserve the death penalty.
The 8-1 ruling is significant because Florida has about 400 prisoners on death row, second only to California — and unlike California, it conducts executions regularly. However, most of the state’s prisoners are not likely to be affected because their appeals have run out or their convictions were based on indisputable aggravating circumstances.
In Florida, judges can impose the death penalty even if the jury has not ruled unanimously or agreed on any aggravating circumstance. If the jury has issued a recommendation, the judge doesn’t have to follow it. No other state gives judges such discretion.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the decision for the nearly unanimous court, with Justice Samuel Alito dissenting.
“We hold this sentencing scheme unconstitutional,” Sotomayor said. “The 6th Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough.”
Alito disagreed, contending that past Supreme Court rulings allow judges to establish the facts leading to a death sentence. Even so, he said, “under the Florida system, the jury plays a critically important role.”
The case was brought before SCOTUS by Timothy Hurst, a death row prisoner in Florida. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, must determine whether the necessary facts exist to justify a death sentence. In Hurst’s case, the jury voted 7 – 5, and it was not clear what the majority voted.
Fantastic resources! I am reblogging in case my readers are interested in international issues, politics, justice, the Hobby Lobby case, and other interesting subjects you have on the digest.
There are a lot of really important stories in Truthout today. The concept of history repeating as David Wilcock discussed in his last book is eerily apparent here tho the time spans involved are much shorter.
From the distraction tactics being used to cement oil oligarchs ability to exterminate life on Earth, to the racist removal of indigenous children nothing we are seeing in the news of late is actually “new”.
It is time for the collective of Earth to say no more from the depths of our inherent spiritual power of creation. All that is not of love must end.
We must withdraw our consent and call forth the transformation of this power-over based society into something rooted in love, compassion and caring before it truly is too late for our species and so many others.
View original post 873 more words