Image 01 Image 03

US Supreme Court Tag

Donald Trump recently said that he would announce his Supreme Court pick on Thursday. But there are multiple reports today that the announcement may come as early as Monday. Moving up the pick would be viewed as a conversation changer after a media frenzy over the weekend regarding the visa and refugee Executive Order. The AP reports:

We have covered many times how Democrats laid the foundation for Republicans to use the Nuclear Option for a Trump Supreme Court nominee. That Nuclear Option would construe Senate Rules to only require 51 votes for cloture, effectively eliminating the filibuster, the 60-vote requirement to close debate. The foundation was laid in 2013, when Democrats, who then controlled the Senate and presidency, used the Nuclear Option to eliminate the filibuster for almost all Obama nominees. Harry Reid was gloating about going nuclear. Republicans warned that Democrats would regret the day.

As discussed many times recently, Democrats have a yuge problem stopping Trump from naming just about anyone he wants to the Supreme Court, Will Republicans press SCOTUS Nuclear Option button? In 2013, Democrats pulled the Nuclear Option, eliminating filibusters on all judicial nominees short of the Supreme Court. That was an imaginary line in the sand Democrats thought they could rely on to defend themselves in the future as to Republican nominees to the Supreme Court. Though Republican's sometimes threatened to go nuclear, only Harry Reid and the Democrats did it. Republicans warned Democrats that they would come to regret it, maybe sooner than Democrats expected:

The Nuclear Option was used for the first time by Harry Reid in 2013 to allow Obama to stuff the lower federal courts with Obama nominees despite Democrats not having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate at the time. It was a clear possibility at the time that Democrats were about to lose control of the Senate in the 2014 cycle, so the court-stuffing Nuclear Option was a desperate last-minute tactic. Democrats said that rule change would not apply to the Supreme Court. Holding back on using the Nuclear Option for the Supreme Court was a meaningless gesture at the time, because there were no Supreme Court vacancies.

The Supreme Court has made it official that next year, for the first time in its history, it will hear a case involving a transgender person's right to use a bathroom that corresponds with his "gender identity" while at school. To briefly summarize, Gavin Grimm (or GG as he is referred to in court documents) is a transgender male. This means that the sex  at birth was female, but he identifies as male. According to court documents, Grimm “lives all aspects of his life as a boy” but has not had sex reassignment surgery. Prior to the start of his sophomore year of high school, Grimm and his mother informed the Gloucester County School Board that he was a transgender boy. By all accounts the Board was exceedingly accommodating. For about seven weeks (and with his school’s permission), Grimm utilized the boys’ room without incident. Eventually, however, students took note of the fact that Grimm was a transgender boy, and some were less than comfortable with the arrangement.

We followed the Washington Redskins name controversy rather closely, including legal action taken against them.  Now the Supreme Court is taking up a case that, while not directly related to the Redskins, may impact the team and its name. The Washington Post reports:
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that bars the registration of disparaging trademarks violates free speech, a case with direct implications for the Washington Redskins in their fight to defend their famous team name. The justices on Thursday announced that they will consider whether part of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act that prohibits registration of a trademark that “may disparage” persons violates the First Amendment, as an appeals court has ruled.
The Court didn't take the Redskin case, but instead took another with similar implications that was further along in the legal process.

The Supreme Court refused to consider Michigan's emergency appeal that would eliminate its 125 year-old straight-ticket voting option. The justices gave no reason:
“The application for stay presented to Justice (Elena) Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied. Justice (Clarence) Thomas and Justice (Samuel) Alito would grant the application.”
In 2015, the state leadership decided to remove the straight ticket option so, "that a voter would not overlook nonpartisan issues on the ballot and also make a 'more informed vote by examining the credentials and values of each candidate.'"

North Carolina wanted to reinstate its voter ID law in time for the elections, but a deadlocked Supreme Court denied them this opportunity. From The Wall Street Journal:
The high court, in a brief written order, declined to stay an appeals court ruling from July that struck down North Carolina’s Republican-backed voting rules. The appeals court found state lawmakers enacted the rules with the intent to discriminate against black voters.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affectionately named by liberals "Notorious RBG" for her sharply worded judicial opinions lacerating conservative principles, is a liberal intellectual hero and giant. She is adored and worshipped as incorporating intellectual finesse and dignity in comparison to conservative Justices, Republicans, the Tea Party, and most of all, the person liberals regularly compare to Hitler, Mr. Donald J. Trump. So how to describe what liberals must be going through today, as Notorious RBG is forced by public opinion and editorial Boards at places such as The NY Times and USA Today to recant and retract her attacks on Mr. Donald J. Trump. The NY Times reports:

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's bribery conviction. They do not think the prosecutors proved "he took significant official actions in exchange for the $175,000 in gifts and loans he received from a wealthy businessman."

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down two challenged provisions of Texas' abortion law, HB 2, the law that launched former Texas State Senator Wendy Davis to fame (or infamy, depending on your political leanings) for her pink-sneakered filibuster. Previous court decisions had upheld HB 2's ban on late term abortions. At issue here were two other provisions: 1) that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital and 2) that abortion clinics have facilities comparable to outpatient surgical centers.