Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Supreme Court--on Political Messaging

Supreme Court Gives Corporations, Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political Messaging

Corporations, trade associations, unions and nonprofit groups still aren't allowed to make direct contributions to federal politicians, but today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against politicians.

In doing do, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, tossed out the distinction between individuals and corporations and their ilk when it comes to independent expenditures.

"This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."

Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined Kennedy today in overturning Supreme Court precedent that relates to these restrictions. They were not persuaded by the rational for distinguishing between the wealth of individuals and corporations. Nor were they sympathetic to the anti-corruption argument.

The court's more liberal bloc -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- disagreed.

 

American Jury Institute

In response to the Gazette article titled “Jury tampering delays Bruce trespassing trial,” (Nov. 14), I offer some thoughts.
Most Americans believe that their liberties are safe in courtrooms; that courts will uphold and support their rights. Sadly, in Colorado Springs the opposite is true. This isn’t about jury tampering — it’s about something far worse. It’s about a government bent on suppressing the rights of the people instead of protecting them.
Here are the relevant facts: A man was peacefully handing out leaflets on the sidewalk outside the Colorado Springs Municipal Court building on Kiowa Street. Anyone who received a flyer had it forcefully confiscated, and then the entire jury pool was dismissed for fear of being “tainted.” The judge responsible for the court’s harsh response is The Hon. Spencer Gresham, who then went on to order that no one be allowed to hand out leaflets within 100 yards of the courthouse.
So, what was in the flyers that brought forth such an extreme response by the court? They were “True or False” flyers, designed by the American Jury Institute. They explained that when you sit on a jury, you may use your conscience in determining a verdict. They are not specific to any one case, but apply to all criminal trials anywhere in America.
The flyers discuss “jury nullification,” also known as “jury veto power,” which has been the traditional right of jurors since our nation was founded. Here are some relevant quotes:
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson
“Jurors should acquit even against the judges’ instruction… if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.” — Alexander Hamilton
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” — John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States.
“It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though indirect opposition to the direction of the court.” — John Adams, second U.S. President
Jury nullification is an old and vitally important right for all Americans. It is our last peaceful line of defense against a corrupt and power-hungry government. It enables us to defend our fellow citizens from unconstitutional and unjust laws, by exonerating people who stand accused of violating them.
Sadly, many judges in the Colorado Springs Municipal Court hate this right, and Judge Gresham is abusing his power to suppress our rights. This isn’t just about jury nullification. It’s also about our First Amendment right to inform our fellow Coloradans about their power as jurors. Judge Gresham knows that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UNITED STATES v. GRACE, 461 U.S. 171 (1983), protects our right to hand out flyers on sidewalks outside government buildings. Grace held that: “ …they [sidewalks] …are public forums for First Amendment purposes,” and “…the public sidewalks surrounding the Court grounds are no different than other public sidewalks in the city.”
In spite of this, Gresham is denying this right to the people of Colorado Springs. It should serve as grounds for his removal from the bench.
During a recent motions hearing, Doug Bruce asked for some water. Judge Gresham said he had no water, and he offered Bruce an empty cup. How perfectly symbolic: A cup devoid of water in a courtroom devoid of liberty.
If you are disgusted by Gresham’s lawless actions, write to: Mayor & City Council, PO Box 1575, CS CO 80901, or submit an online complaint at https://secure.springsgov.com/crm/crm.asp, or call a City Council member and lodge a complaint against Judge Spencer Gresham.
 —
Alexander Daube is an Area Coordinator for the American Jury Institute, www.FIJA.org. Readers may contact him by e-mailing: patriot1701@yahoo.com

Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

My opinion is that since she has had a few decisions overturned by the Supremes. As a matter of fact, all of her decisions that have been heard by the Supremes, have been overturned. It makes me wonder really how qualified she is.

These opinions are brought to you by The Supreme Court of the United States official BLOG at: Scotusblog

CIVIL LITIGATION

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter.

Freakin' Franken

I really gotta wonder about the people of Minnesota. I mean come on. first that WW wrestler guy and now this funny man freakin' Franken. Or like they said in the paper this morning "former comedian" yeah right". Minnesota's supreme Court made a wrong decision.

Hatch: Obama Using ‘Code’ for Activist Supreme Court Nominee

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) tells George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s ‘This Week” that President Obama is suggesting, by use of code words, that he’ll name an activist judge that legislates from the bench.