Tag Archives: Court: U.S. Supreme

LifeNews: “Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean, is an ardent abortion advocate who, at 50, would leave a pro-abortion legacy for Obama on the Supreme Court for decades to come . . . LifeNews.com spoke with Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America, before the nomination. Kagan was credited by the ACLU with ‘shaping Clinton’s policy on hate crimes,’ Wright noted . . . ”

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality: “According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds: ‘If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.’”

The NY Times provides this review of Kagan’s life.

NOW: “Encouragingly, Kagan has expressed clear opposition to the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that has forced out thousands of lesbian and gay service members from the military. However, having never served as a judge herself, it is unclear where Kagan stands on most of NOW’s key issues . . . ”

The Heritage Foundation, The Foundry Blog observes that Kagan has been critical of the confirmation process in the past. The Blog also carries a statement by Former AG Ed Meese.

“President Obama plans to nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the 112th justice of the Supreme Court, a source said late Sunday night.”

LifeSiteNews: “Kagan is known for strongly favoring taxpayer funded abortion, and is a critic of the 1991 Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld federal regulations prohibiting Title X family planning fund recipients from counseling on or referring for abortion. Americans United for Life also reports that Kagan once suggested that faith-based groups operating pregnancy care centers should not counsel pregnant youths, for fear that they would include their religious beliefs in the counseling process . . . CBS News, declared that Kagan would be the “first openly gay justice” on the U.S. Supreme Court . . . ”

Ilya Somin writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “Conservative blogger Paul Mirengoff and liberal law professor Paul Campos argue that Elena Kagan is poorly qualified for the Supreme Court because of what they argue is a weak record of scholarship. Mirengoff expresses incredulity that ‘you could publish so little and still become the dean of a major law school.’ I have a much higher opinion of Kagan’s scholarship than Campos and Mirengo.”

CNSNews: “‘One seems to have compiled a pretty solid record as a D.C. circuit judge,’ Whelan said. ‘I’m speaking of Merrick Garland, who’s nowhere like the sort of jurist that would be on my short list, and there’s no question that he would be on the wrong side of a lot of issues, but he does seem to be at least a much more modest judge than some of the others who are on President Obama’s list . . . ‘Look, what we need are nine justices who are faithful to the Constitution. There is no reason why any seat should stay bad simply because it has been bad,’ he said . . . ”

Politico: “Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isn’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if it’s otherwise.”

Here are summaries of the four people believed to be finalists for the Stevens seat, and a list of arguments for and against their nominations . . . ”

Sen. Jeff Sessions writes at the Washington Post: “The breathtaking expansion of government — highlighted by record federal spending and a dramatic new federal role in the health-care system — is a source of deep concern across the political spectrum. People are increasingly worried that Washington is exceeding the limits set by the Constitution, asserting too large a role in American life . . . ”

“Senator Orrin Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be ‘a consensus nominee. . . . I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them,’ added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman.”

Peter Baker writes at the NY Times: “The modern war over the Supreme Court arguably began in 1987, when the selection of Robert H. Bork touched off a clash that continues to this day. Ever since his nomination collapsed in an angry ideological confrontation, conservatives and liberals have mobilized forces with regularity to advance or tear down would-be justices . . . ”

ADF Attorney Joe Infranco appeared on Common Sense with Shea Daily to discuss the Mojave Desert cross ruling.

The mp3 runs approximately 20 minutes.

Daily Report: “For the second year in a row, an opening on the U.S. Supreme Court has generated talk about whether Leah Ward Sears, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, would be tapped for the job. The Daily Report has covered her career since she was a judge on the Fulton County Superior Court and was appointed to the state high court in 1992. We have followed her in elections during which opponents focused on her writings about hot-button social issues such as statutory rape, sodomy and gay marriage. In 2004, Sears gave us a list of what she found to be her 10 most important decisions. In 2009, we analyzed her impact on the court she was about to depart, finding she was helpful to criminal defendants in cases that split the court but was a hard-to-predict vote in close civil cases . . . ”

Rees Lloyd writing at NewsWithViews.com: “The decision is a great victory for veterans, and a great defeat for the ACLU, which by its secular-cleansing fanaticism has become the Taliban of American liberal secularism . . . the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of The American Legion Department and the Alliance Defense Fund was co-founded by ADF Vice President Joseph Infranco and me. For the first time, the American Legion entered the litigation in the Mojave Desert and Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial cases, appearing as amicus curiae in briefs in the California Court of Appeal, the U.S. District Courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.” | ADF Veteran’s Memorials Project

Christopher Brooks writes at the National Law Journal: “The retired chief justice of Georgia would be a politically savvy choice for Obama for several reasons, including some conservative leanings.”

Stanley Fish writing at the New York Times | The Opinionator: “It has become a formula: if you want to secure a role for religious symbols in the public sphere, you must de-religionize them, either by claiming for them a non-religious meaning as Kennedy does here, or, in the case of multiple symbols in a park or in front of a courthouse, by declaring that the fact of many of them means that no one of them is to be taken seriously; they don’t stand for anything sectarian; they stand for diversity. So you save the symbols by leeching the life out of them. The operation is successful, but the patient is dead.”

SCOTUS Blog: “At the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones writes that the “short list” has been further narrowed to four: Kagan, Wood, Garland, and the Ninth Circuit’s Sidney Thomas.”

Tom Goldstein writes at SCOTUS Blog: “But the Doe v. Reed argument identified an extremely strong fifth vote: Justice Scalia. In that argument, Justice Scalia expressed the strong view that disclosure requirements do not implicate significant First Amendment concerns. To the concern that disclosure could deter expression, Justice Scalia responded, ‘[T]he fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.’”

Blog of the Legal Times: “After sending out signals late last week that President Barack Obama was still some distance away from making a decision, the White House today indicated that an announcement of a new Supreme Court nominee may come this week . . . ”

Reuters: “Starting Tuesday, visitors will no longer be able to enter the building through the front doors at the top of 44 marble steps on the plaza directly across from the U.S. Capitol.”

ADF Attorney Tim Chandler writing at speakupmovement.org/university: “[A]bove all else, [Stevens] will be remembered as the intellectual leader of the Court’s liberal wing. And in that role, he was consistently a staunch advocate for erecting a ‘high and impregnable wall between church and state’ and has issued numerous opinions that have diminished our religious freedoms.”

Portland Church & State Examiner: “Conservative Christian groups are claiming a broad-spectrum victory in this case. Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel [Joseph Infranco] comments: ‘A passive monument acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion. To make that accusation, one must harbor both a hostility to the nation’s history and a deep misunderstanding of the First Amendment.’” | ADF News Release

WorldNetDaily: “The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could allow the names and addresses of opponents of a measure granting benefits of marriage to same-sex partners to be posted on the Internet, where radical homosexuals could target them with verbal assault – or much worse . . . Other groups [besides CWA] that [filed briefs] included Liberty Counsel, Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, Alliance Defense Fund, American Center for Law and Justice, and the Justice and Freedom Fund.”

AP: “The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from Delaware to expand its sports betting lottery beyond professional football.”

Charles D. Kelso and Randall R. Kelso, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy on Liberty (April 1, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1598406

“In this article, we describe how the concept of constitutionally protected liberty has been developed and applied in Justice Kennedy’s opinions. As we discuss, Justice Kennedy’s vision of liberty embodied in the Constitution seems to derive from an understanding of 18th-century Enlightenment philosophy, based on writers such as John Locke and Adam Smith, as developed in the 19th century by writers such as John Stuart Mill. In pursuit of this understanding, Part II of this article discusses the Enlightenment concept of liberty. Part III then shows how that doctrine is reflected in the reasoning of opinions written by Justice Kennedy, with specific reference to cases involving freedom of speech, individual autonomy, individual liberty versus government liberty, and international views on liberty. Part IV addresses other aspects of a natural law theory of interpretation – text, context, history, legislative and executive practice, precedent, and prudential considerations – that limit full elaboration of this concept of liberty in specific cases. Part V provides a brief conclusion.”

Washington Post: “A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that judicial experience is the most valued quality among a list of professional and personal characteristics. Seven in 10 say service as a judge is a positive quality for a Supreme Court nominee, while only 5 percent see it as a negative. In contrast, 35 percent view experience outside the legal world as a positive . . . In the Post-ABC poll, the question of a gay nominee is more divisive. While only 4 percent consider it a positive, 22 percent say it would be a strongly negative factor.”

LA Times: “The Supreme Court sends the message the government can treat a Christian symbol as a national emblem and display it on public property . . . ”

SCOTUS Blog has published it most recent “Stat Pack” containing facts and statistics about the current session of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wall Street Journal | Law Blog: “The reason she’s viewed by many as a riskier pick than the others: she’s been relatively outspoken in her support of abortion rights. Koppel writes that Judge Wood has expressed approval for the philosophy behind the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman’s right to abortion, which was written by her former boss, Justice Harry Blackmun.”

Cleveland Jewish News: “A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that an eight-foot Christian cross on government parkland in California did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. The decision comes on the heels of a Wisconsin federal judge’s ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it endorses prayer for its own sake, not to further a secular purpose . . . Two other cases involving crosses are currently in federal courts. One is a 29-foot cross and war memorial on Mt. Soledad in San Diego. The other involves 12-foot crosses that Utah erects on roadside memorials to fallen highway patrol troopers.”

The American Legion: “‘To remove the Mojave Cross, or to conceal it inside a plywood box as it has been for several months, is a violation of free expression in itself,’ American Legion National Commander Clarence Hill said . . . ‘This is a great victory, and a testimony to the commitment and influence of The American Legion,’ said [Joe Infranco], senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘I honestly believe the interest generated by your involvement grabbed the Court’s attention and contributed in a significant way to this victory.’” | ADF News Release

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney [Joe Infranco] tells OneNewsNow the initial lawsuit was filed by one of the usual groups. ‘Essentially what you have here is a case brought by the ACLU — America’s number-one religious censor — that was based upon the wounded sensibilities of a lone atheist who was “offended” by the fact that there was a cross on this property,’ Infranco illustrates.” | ADF News Release

California Catholic Daily: “‘The ACLU and its allies should not be able to demolish war memorials based on the objection of one person who can’t seriously claim to have suffered harm from it,” said ADF Senior Counsel [Jordan Lorence]. ‘Americans want memorials to our nations’ fallen heroes protected. Congress was doing just that when it transferred the land under this memorial to the veterans’ group that cares for it.’ ‘A passive monument acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion,’ added ADF Senior Counsel [Joseph Infranco].” | ADF News Release

San Diego Union-Tribune: “‘The majority decision recognizes we have a strong religious tradition in this country and (that) the display of religious symbols in certain circumstances doesn’t violate the Constitution,’ said [Joseph Infranco], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which was involved in the Mojave and Mount Soledad cases.” | ADF News Release

Redlands Daily Facts: “Joseph Infranco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the Supreme Court’s decision sends a strong message to the 9th Circuit court. ‘If they do not straighten this out and get it right and allow the land transfer to stand, I’d be surprised if the Supreme Court does not overturn them again and slap their hand a little harder,’ Infranco said.” | ADF News Release

Christian Singles & Spirituality Examiner: “‘The ACLU and its allies should not be able to demolish war memorials based on the objection of one person who can’t seriously claim to have suffered harm from it,’ said ADF Senior Counsel [Jordan Lorence]. ‘Americans want memorials to our nations’ fallen heroes protected. Congress was doing just that when it transferred the land under this memorial to the veterans’ group that cares for it.’” | ADF News Release

Christian Examiner: “‘The ACLU and its allies should not be able to demolish war memorials based on the objection of one person who can’t seriously claim to have suffered harm from it,’ said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. ‘Americans want memorials to our nation’s fallen heroes protected. Congress was doing just that when it transferred the land under this memorial to the veterans’ group that cares for it.’” | ADF News Release

Metro Weekly: “Scalia was – unsurprisingly – the most pointed in his questions but, more surprisingly to some, found himself on the same side of the argument as those LGBT groups and opposing the briefs filed by the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage.”

The most recent edition of SCOTUS Blog Petitions to watch appears here.

ADF attorney Daniel Blomberg appeared on the Michael Medved Show to discuss the Mojave cross ruling. | MP3 33:25 mins. | ADF: U.S. Supreme Court says Mojave Cross veterans’ memorial can stay | Veteran’s Memorial Project | Salazar ADF Media Information Page | SCOTUS Wiki | ADF: Military chaplains announce opposition to overturning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law

Baptist Press: “Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), told reporters outside the court building, ‘The decision is favorable as far as it goes, but the Supreme Court didn’t go far enough. The box needs to come off that cross…. [T]he ACLU and its allies should not be allowed to eradicate and demolish religious symbols that acknowledge our religious heritage, acknowledge the sacrifice of our military heroes, based on the fact that one person is offended by what he sees there.’”

Evangelical Examiner: “Today, in a 5 – 4 majority opinion filed today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the continued display of a lone cross in the Mojave Desert memorializing veterans of World War I. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, and the American Legion Department of California filed a friend-of-the-court brief in June 2009 that argued for the lifting of a court order which required the memorial to be covered up.”

Tom Goldstein writing at the SCOTUS Blog: “I happened to be in the courtroom today for the argument in Doe v. Reed, which was Justice Stevens’ last argued case. Early reporting and commentary on the decision – with which I agree entirely – has been that the Court will affirm by a wide margin the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to grant the particular injunction now before the Court. But it does not follow, as some have thought, that the courts will in fact allow the lists of petition signatories to be released. In fact, I think there is a significant chance they will not . . . ”

Washington Post: “Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday about keeping secret the names of people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state’s gay rights law, suggesting citizens cannot always hide behind anonymity if they want to be heard . . . ”

WorldNetDaily: “The U.S. Supreme Court today raised the bar for those who express an ‘offense’ because of the Christian faith, determining that the Mojave cross in California can remain on the knoll of rock where it has been for more than seven decades. ‘The ACLU and its allies should not be able to demolish war memorials based on the objection of one person who can’t seriously claim to have suffered harm from it,’ said ADF Senior Counsel [Jordan Lorence]. ‘Americans want memorials to our nation’s fallen heroes protected. Congress was doing just that when it transferred the land under this memorial to the veterans’ group that cares for it.’” | ADF News Release

Tony Mauro writes at the National Law Journal: “It was quite a morning for the First Amendment at the Supreme Court, as the justices handed down a major church-state decision and heard oral arguments in a case testing issues of free speech, the right to petition and the right of privacy. It was a historic morning for another reason: barring the unforeseen, it was Justice John Paul Stevens’ final day of hearing oral argument as a justice . . . ”

In a 5–4 decision, the court determined that an act of Congress transferring the land under the memorial to a veterans’ group was constitutional and additionally noted that “the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.

Dick Carpenter writes at the Wall Street Journal: “Today the Supreme Court hears arguments in Doe v. Reed. The case is about ‘mandatory disclosure’—that is, whether the state of Washington may publicly release the names and addresses of citizens who signed a petition to place a referendum on domestic partnership legislation on the ballot . . . In short, my research reveals that forcing people to comply with disclosure rules in order to exercise their First Amendment rights means many will stay silent or uninvolved—with little or no benefit to the public. Mandatory disclosure laws don’t inform voters; they squelch speech.”

“‘Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten,’ Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.”

ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence writing at speakupmovement.org/university: “Is Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the decision in Salazar v. Buono, the case concerning an Establishment Clause challenge to the cross built on federal land in the Mojave Desert? How will this case impact the First Amendment rights of students on university campuses, and the ability of the universities to acknowledge our nation’s religious heritage?”

ADF Attorney Casey Mattox writing at speakupmovement.org: “It is simply absurd to tell groups that they can require people to act like they share the group’s views but not to limit its leadership to those who do actually share its views.”

JURIST: “Brad Tuipi [Allied attorney, Alliance Defense Fund]: ‘Christian Legal Society v. Martinez is another example of the conflict between secular morality and religious morality. In secular morality, homosexuality is a wholesome lifestyle choice and should not be the subject of criticism or discrimination. In religious morality, homosexuality is sinful conduct. Where institutions include “sexual orientation” in their diversity and non-discrimination policies, people of faith sometimes find themselves under pressure to surrender their religious beliefs.’”

OneNewsNow: “[Casey Mattox], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, attended the Supreme Court proceedings. ‘It certainly takes a particularly ridiculous policy like that of UC Hastings to have justices willing to say from the bench that these policies just make no sense at all,’ he observes.”

Tom Goldstein writes at SCOTUS Blog: “In 1995, President Clinton nominated Garland for an opening on the D.C. Circuit, and he received a hearing in December of that year. During that confirmation hearing, Garland was asked about ‘judicial activism.’ He answered that ‘[f]ederal judges do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems. The role of the court is to apply law to the facts of the case before it – not to legislate, not to arrogate to itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinion on the issues of the day.’ . . . Judge Garland is also the ‘short list’ candidate to replace Justice Stevens who is least likely to prompt a polarizing confirmation fight. He has broad support on both sides of the aisle, and he has few ideologically controversial rulings.”

Religion Clause Blog: “Last Friday, Rasmussen Reports released a new poll of American adults on issues of religion in public life and the performance of the courts. Among the results: 64% believe judges’ rulings have been more anti-religious than intended by the country’s founders. 46% say the Supreme Court has been too hostile toward religion . . . ”

David Lat writes at Above the Law: “That idea: make judicial opinions anonymous or unsigned — i.e., turn every opinion into a “per curiam” — and maybe eliminate or greatly reduce separate opinions, too . . . This approach would, of course, reduce judicial accountability even further (which is pretty hard to do, considering that federal judges already enjoy life tenure). It would make the workings of the judiciary, already the most opaque of the three branches, even less transparent. And, on a personal note, it would make us sad, since fiery dissents by Nino are so much fun to read.”

Metropolis (WSJ Blog): “In remarks at a NARAL luncheon Monday at Columbus Circle, Mayor Mike Bloomberg called on President Obama to select a pro-choice justice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.”

Law.com: “This is the final week of argument for the U.S. Supreme Court with four cases left on the docket and dozens more still to be decided. The week also marks the last time Justice John Paul Stevens is expected to hear arguments with his fellow justices . . . On the last day of arguments, two important policies clash in John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, said media law scholar Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Levin College of Law . . . [The petition signers] are supported by a large number of conservative social and legal organizations, such as the Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund.”

ABC: “When President Obama picks his nominee to become the nation’s 112th Supreme Court justice, he’ll bestow one of the highest honors a U.S. lawyer or judge can receive. But appointment to a seat on the country’s highest court can be both a blessing and a curse, court insiders say . . . ”

Seattle Times: “The case could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is private or whether the names of signers can be made public.”

SCOTUS Wiki: Doe v. Reed

“The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on the constitutionality of a state law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.”

ADF Attorney [David French] writing at Phi Beta Cons: “Smearing good and decent conservatives as racists or accusing them of making racially inflammatory remarks is something of a cottage industry in certain sectors of the Left these days. Yesterday it happened to Stanford professor Michael McConnell, former judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the chief counsel for the Christian Legal Society in CLS v. Martinez.” | Powerline picks up the story and links to French’s commentary.

Wall Street Journal full access via Google: “The touchstone of the Democratic strategy is the court’s January ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down restrictions on corporate spending on election campaigns. Democrats cite polls showing broad public disapproval of the ruling as evidence of growing anxiety about the court’s direction . . . ”

Hat tip: How Appealing

Washington Post: "Unlike several other possible candidates to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick B. Garland probably won't face conservative opposition. Instead, it could be liberals lining up against him."