SCOTUS Strikes Down RIDICULOUS Abortion Law

SCOTUS stands with women's rights today! They just snatched a tough restriction on abortion.

Here's more

Passed in 2013, the law said clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. And it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.

The Center for Reproductive Rights called the law "an absolute sham," arguing that abortion patients rarely require hospitalization and that many patients simply take two pills.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer in writing the majority opinion said "neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution."

Breyer was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Anthony M. Kennedy. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

source

SCOTUS Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas

Justice was served!

SCOTUS dumped the challenge to the affirmative action piece in admissions at the University of Texas at Austin.

The vote was 4-3 and only seven justices voted due to Justice Elena Kagan stepping aside and Antonin Scalia... Well, dead.

Here's more

The case challenged a second part of the admissions program. Under it, remaining students from Texas and elsewhere are considered under standards that take into account academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity. Many colleges and universities base all of their admissions decisions on such holistic grounds.

In Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the Supreme Court endorsed free-standing admissions programs, saying it was permissible to consider race as one factor among many to achieve educational diversity. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she expected that “25 years from now,” the “use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who said the university had denied her admission based on her race. She has since graduated from Louisiana State University.

When the court last considered Ms. Fisher’s case in 2013, supporters of affirmative action were nervous. But the court deferred conclusive action in what appeared to be a compromise decision.

Abigail must be mad.

source

SCOTUS kills challenge to ‘One Person, One Vote’

SCOTUS came through this morning. A couple of folks from Texas tried to create legislative boundaries around specific districts in order stop the power of the Latino vote. SCOTUS basically shot that shit down.

Here's more

Two residents of Texas urged the court to rule that in drawing legislative boundaries to create districts with roughly equal populations, states should count the voting population, not the total population.

Using the total population figures, the challengers said, dilutes the voting power of residents in districts with large numbers of people who are not eligible to vote, violating the one-person, one-vote requirement.

But not a single justice ruled for the challengers.

“Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the court.”

Ginsburg’s opinion was joined by Justices John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each wrote separate concurring opinions.

Relying instead on voting population could result in fewer districts in areas that elect Hispanic representatives. Opponents of the idea said it would shift political power away from urban areas with large minority populations, which tend to vote for Democrats, and toward rural areas, where Republicans do better at the polls.

source 

SCOTUS Overturns Alabama Ruling against Gay Adoption

SCOTUS was on it this morning.

They just overturned an Alabama Supreme Court decision that denied a lesbian mother parental rights for her adopted children. At the time, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that adoption wasn't valid. SCOTUS stepped in and said that the Alabama Supreme Court overstepped its authority by not recognizing the adoption.

To give you a gist of the news, it's starts with a lesbian mother known as V.L. V. L. sought visitation rights after her divorce with her lesbian partner, E.L.

E.L. gave birth to three children between 2002 and 2004, and S.L. sought the legal action to adopt the children. The couple were together for 14 years and then they broke up. V.L. asked an Alabama court to grant joint custody, and the court agreed to do so.

But then the Alabama Supreme Court got involved and threw out the original court order, stating that the Georgia court misinterpreted Georgia law. Weird, but that's what they did. Later the case reached SCOTUS and they full restored the rights to V.L. as an adoptive parent.

I hope this ruling sends a message to other state courts who oversteps their authority. And to Alabama in general.

source

Is the White House looking at Brian Sandoval for SCOTUS?

Rumors in the street says Brian Sandoval is being considered for SCOTUS. Brian is a Republican governor of Nevada. He's a kind of a centralist who is pretty fair on most issues. And he's loved by Republicans.

He could be the ideal choice, because what can the GOP say about him? He's too cute? Well, he is kinda cute, but in all he's rumored to be one of the nominees.

DNC launches #FillTheSeat Campaign - VIDEO

The Democratic National Committee's new media campaign, #FillTheSeat, will address the importance of getting a new Supreme Court justice. This campaign will touch on different reasons and topics.

Today's focus is LGBT

Ted Cruz: I will ‘absolutely’ filibuster anyone Obama attempts to appoint to the Supreme Court

100 Scholars submit Anti-Gay Marriage Brief to SCOTUS

For awhile now, crackheads are filing briefs to SCOTUS , hoping to stop the gay marriage ruling. A lot of these briefs are garbage and ashes, just like this one here.

100 Scholars filed the latest brief. This document of mess cites Mark Regnerus, who's been discredited several times and the writer is from the Heritage Foundation. Then, if you look into the 'Scholars', most of them come from religious schools and have no real educational accreditation to save their lives. Basically, these scholars are nobodies in the academic world, so why would SCOTUS pay them any attention?

Plus, the info they're using is pointless and holds no legal weight at all. In fact, why even submit this garbage in the first place. Chile, if you're trying fight in a war, you're not going to win with paper guns and jello bullets. It's so ridic they're using this mess to justify their position. How dumb do they think we are?  

Read the brief here

100 Scholars of Marriage Stupid Brief by Viktor T. Kerney

NOM files Brief to SCOTUS, claiming Public Support for Marriage isn't Strong Enough

NOM is still trying...

These fools, along with their political director, Frank Schubert, have filed a joint amicus brief with the US Supreme Court trying stop marriage equality. They state that the nation wants nothing but traditional marriage, and changing the status quo will galvanize opposition to same-sex marriage, just like the Roe vs wade galvanized opposition to abortion.

From NOM's blog

"The notion advanced in some corridors that the American people have significantly altered their views on same-sex marriage in recent years to the point that large majorities now support a redefinition of marriage and therefore would readily accept a mandate from this Court imposing same-sex marriage on the nation is simply not true," said Frank Schubert, NOM's national political director.

Schubert examined more than one dozen recent public opinion surveys and found that they fell into one of four categories:

Those showing majority support for traditional marriage;
Those showing support for same-sex marriage dropping;
Those showing plurality support for one side or another, but not majority support; and
Those showing majority support for same-sex marriage.

Read the brief

SCOTUS Marriage Brief by NOM and FS by Viktor T. Kerney

Bobby Jindal: If SCOTUS Strikes Down Gay Marriage Bans, We Should Amend Constitution

SCOTUS takes no action on Gay Marriage Case in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee... Rejects Louisiana's case

SCOTUS decided not to act on the challenge to Louisiana's state ban, or look at the four other gay marriage ban cases in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. However, they may act upon these cases later this week.

Here's more:

The decision not to hear the Louisiana case was not unexpected as gay rights advocates had sought to skip the regular judicial process by seeking Supreme Court review before the case had been decided by an appeals court. Gay rights advocates representing the Louisiana plaintiffs said in court papers there is a "pressing need" to resolve the issue once and for all.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which has jurisdiction over the state of Louisiana, heard arguments in the case on Friday and has not yet ruled. The same court is also weighing challenges to bans in Texas and Mississippi.

In the Louisiana case, a federal district court judge upheld the state ban in September 2014.

If the court were to take up one or more of the gay marriage cases, it would then issue a ruling that would determine whether 14 remaining state bans will be struck down. Gay marriage is currently legal in 36 states. 

The court in October decided not to take up the issue, but a November ruling by a regional federal appeals court based in Cincinnati upheld gay marriage bans in four states.

Hopefully, something happens this week.

source

Pam Bondi DENIED! Supreme Court refuses to Halt Same Sex Marriages in Florida

from Buzzfeed

This is so good!

When AG Pam Bondi heard that SCOTUS would look at her request to halt marriage equality in Florida, I bet she was patting herself on the back. Well, too bad it was all in vain. SCOTUS refused her messy request and now, gay marriages can proceed after Jan. 5.

The decision means, absent some unexpected development, that same-sex couples will be able to marry beginning January 6. 

Under the trial court’s order striking down the ban as unconstitutional, the injunction was stayed — or put on hold — until the end of the day January 5. State officials have appealed the ruling striking down the ban, but also asked higher courts to keep the trial court’s order on hold during that appeal. 

The 11th Circuit had rejected Florida’s request and, on Friday evening, the Supreme Court did as well. Justice Clarence Thomas, who hears such applications from the 11th Circuit, referred the matter to the full court, which then denied the request.
Both Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, the brief order noted, would have granted the request. The two previously have noted that they would grant such stay requests during appeals of other marriage ban cases.

I hope she's crushed! I would pay to see it!

source

The ACLU Files a Response to Pam Bondi's Silly Stay Extension

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a response to Florida AG Pan Bondi's stupid and desperate attempt to stop marriage equality to SCOTUS.

The ACLU's response states that the Court should reject Florida’s request for further extension of the stay placed on a federal court’s decision that struck down the marriage ban.

“Governor Scott, his appointees, and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s efforts to delay the implementation of the order striking down the marriage ban are as senseless as they are incredibly harmful,” stated ACLU of Florida LGBT rights staff attorney Daniel Tilley. “Every day that the couples we represent and the thousands of families across Florida who are also denied the protections of marriage go without those protections, they are suffering real harm, as Judge Hinkle’s order made plainly clear. We are glad to have had the opportunity to explain to our nation’s highest court why it is time to let love win in Florida, and we are hopeful that the Court will reject Governor Scott and Attorney General Bondi’s increasingly-desperate efforts, just as it has refused all requests to stay rulings striking down discriminatory marriage bans since this October.”

Go here for more from the ACLU.

Haters Whine over SCOTUS's Gay Marriage Decision

Haters are going to hate, and yesterday the haters came out in droves.

After SCOTUS denied the gay marriage appeals in five states, conservatives lost their ever-loving minds.

Below, are just some of the statements from haters and their fans.

Mat Staver - The responsibility for the undermining of marriage rests solely at the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year ’s decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case that started this fire, and today’ s decision to watch marriage burn to ashes is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The actions of the Supreme Court in particular, and of the judiciary in general, undermine the rule of law and erode the confidence of the people in the judicial branch of government. When the people lose confidence in the rule of law, the judiciar will lose is legitimacy.

Ted Cruz - The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing. This is judicial activism at its worst.

Tony Perkins - Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage. Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same sex 'marriage' on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.

Brian Brown - Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; it has been this throughout the history of civilization and will remain this no matter what unelected judges say.

Ralph Reed - Today’s decision further insures that the marriage issue will motivate and mobilize voters of faith who are concerned about marriage and deeply resent having the institution redefined contrary to the clearly expressed will of the people by federal judges who legislate from the bench.

And the list keeps growing and growing... So good to see them falter