Tag Archives: supreme court of the united states

Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Moore v Harper May See Democracy On the Line

In Moore v. Harper—scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, Dec. 7—the Supreme Court will decide whether to resurrect the previously dead “Independent State Legislature Theory”–in a way that some commentators believe may pose “an existential threat to our democracy” and could enable “the Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election.”

Proponents of the “ISLT”–Independent State Legislature Theory–believe that the U.S. Constitution bestows unreviewable power upon state legislatures to determine how congressional elections–and by extension Presidential elections–are conducted.

The case is so controversial that more than 70 amicus briefs–“friends of the court”–have been submitted, including everyone from former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to the ACLU, with 48 of them being opposed to the legitimacy of the ISLT.

Just what is the ISLT? Its proponents claim that the “Elections Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which states that state legislatures shall prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” means no court can review any actions taken by a state legislatures with regards to voting in the state.

The specific case before the U.S. Supreme Court is about gerrymandering–the practice of redrawing Congressional districts to favor one party-and arises from the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to strike down its Republican state legislature plan to grossly manipulate the state’s congressional districts in favor of Republicans as being unconstitutional under the North Carolina state constitution.

The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the Republican plan was an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander” that would give a “greater voice” to Republican voters over “any others.”

After a state court appointed a special master to design a fair map, two Republican legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and rule that no North Carolina court can review the state legislature’s decision because the ISLT would make such review a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

SCOTUS’ decision to accept Moore v. Harper’s arguments is alarming because the ISLT interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has been repeatedly rejected by the highest court in the land, dating back to 1916 with numerous decisions recognizing that state legislatures must still adhere to their own constitutions. And those state constitutions regularly create the sharing of legislative power with courts and governors (veto power) even when it comes to election laws.

So given the demonstrated capacity of the new SCOTUS conservative supermajority to ignore and overturn precedent—most notably in the Dobbs decision which struck down the protections for a woman’s right to abortion that had stood for decades–the decision to hear the case raises the likelihood that the conservatives may again be looking to overturn precedent.

Indeed, interest on the part of conservative SCOTUS justices in using ISLT to help Republican outcomes was seen in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, where then Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurring opinion referenced ISLT in saying that another reason to stop the Florida Supreme Court from ordering a state-wide manual recount–which might have given the Presidency to Al Gore–was because the Florida Supreme Court was violating the Elections Clause. More recently, Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas have all expressed interest in supporting ISLT.

If these four conservatives were joined by either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Amy Coney Barrett then SCOTUS might make ISLT the law of the land. So what could this mean?

For starters, gerrymandering would be completely uncontrollable, meaning whichever party controlled the legislature could redraw Congressional districts at their whim whether or not such maps violated the state’s constitution. And just in case you are wondering if federal courts could step in: the answer is no, as to gerrymandering, because a conservative majority of SCOTUS-Chief Justice Roberts, as well as justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh–ruled in the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause that gerrymandering was a purely political issue that federal courts could not review.

The veto power of governors over any state election laws could also be nullified making the legislature the only branch of state government in the area of election law.

At the Presidential election level, ISLT could be used to “take power away from voters when picking electors for the Electoral College or to make state lawmakers, not courts, the judges in disputes after the election”–similar to the theory behind the fake electors scheme that Trump supporters tried to use to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Indeed, John Eastman, the creator of the idea that new slates of electors could be submitted and/or that Vice-President Pence could overturn the election has submitted an amicus brief in Moore specifically calling for SCOTUS to overturn any precedents that have previously rejected ISLT.

A conservative majority of SCOTUS decisions to embrace ISLT would also create a flood of election cases that would enormously burden a federal court system already seeing a record high of such cases by “invent[ing] an entirely new constitutional cause of action.”

In a recent panel discussion hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice and the New York City Bar, Professor Carolyn Shapiro noted that the ISLT would instantly transform every election case into one with federal question jurisdiction, thus throwing all of these cases into the federal courts.

As the court of last resort, SCOTUS would become the sole decision-maker for all election disputes which arguably would make it a super judiciary holding far greater power than either the Executive or Legislative branches of government.

If this should come to pass, the SCOTUS conservatives will no doubt rely upon the so-called “originalist” doctrine as a fig-leaf to hide their real motivation. That real motivation is simply the exercising of their new-found power. They will do it because they can.

In Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, Frankenstein, a young scientist, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, discovers a method by which he can resurrect life from the dead and creates his own monster. As we all know, the monster becomes uncontrollable and ultimately turns upon its creator. Dr. Frankenstein’s motivation is never made explicit by the author, but he appears to do it because he can.

SCOTUS, an institution which has now managed to lose the trust of the majority of Americans might do well to remember this tale about what destruction can be wrought by the unchecked use of power.

Read original article here

Chelsea Handler Ends Kimmel Run by Going Off on Joe Rogan and Clarence Thomas

Chelsea Handler kicked off her week of shows guest-hosting for Jimmy Kimmel by going after “pro-life” Republicans and joking that her own three abortions are all the proof Americans need that Roe v. Wade should never have been overturned.

“I have thoroughly enjoyed my time guest-hosting,” the comedian said on Thursday night. “But just like women’s rights, all good things must come to an end.” If “nothing else,” she took solace in the fact that she “got one viewer to change his stance,” highlighting a tweet that began, “Knowing she isn’t raising kids is almost justification for abortion.”

In her final monologue of the week, Handler delivered a history lesson of sorts about the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1919. Just over a hundred years later, she proposed a 28th Amendment to “end male suffrage.”

But if that’s not a realistic option, she issued a challenge to the men of America: “Guys, if you don’t want us going after your rights, then you better get up off your hairy asses and join the fight to defend ours.”

Instead of “mansplaining” to women about how to win back their rights, she said, “Shut up, OK? How about you do the work for once and don’t open your mouth unless you’re chanting, ‘Her body, her choice.’” She implored men to, “Talk to your sons. Tell them why this is so important before they get radicalized by Joe Rogan.”

“You have the power to make a difference,” Handler added. “If every man donated just one dollar to Planned Parenthood after they masturbated, this organization would have enough resources to help every woman on planet Earth.”

“And all of you have got to take some goddamn responsibility,” she said. “Abortion is a men’s issue. Because if there were no men, there would be no abortions. In fact, if there were no men, we’d all be going down on each other in space right now.”

Handler ended her rant with “one small piece of encouraging news,” the swearing-in of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “For the first time ever, there are now four women on the Supreme Court,” she said to cheers. “And five if you include that bitch Clarence Thomas.”

For more, listen to Chelsea Handler on The Last Laugh podcast.

Read original article here

Leaked draft opinion suggests Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade

Washington — The Supreme Court appears ready to overturn its landmark decisions establishing the right to an abortion, according to a draft opinion obtained and published by Politico, a decision that — if finalized — would dismantle 50 years of precedent and pave the way for states to severely curtail abortion rights in the United States.

The leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court is breathtaking and unprecedented in modern times, and has already sent shockwaves through Washington and the nation. 

In a statement Tuesday morning, the court confirmed the document was authentic. Chief Justice John Roberts denounced the leak as a “betrayal” and “a singular and egregious betrayal of trust” that would be fully investigated. 

Late Monday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the court after Politico published the report suggesting the conservative majority is preparing to fully overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing the right to an abortion. 

Democrats and Republicans alike issued statements reacting to the reported draft and the implications it would have if such a ruling was ultimately handed down. Planned Parenthood tweeted, “Let’s be clear: This is a draft opinion. It’s outrageous, it’s unprecedented, but it is not final. Abortion is your right — and it is STILL LEGAL.”

The draft published by Politico indicates it was written by Justice Samuel Alito and circulated on February 10. It did not say which other justices joined in the opinion, but Politico noted that a person familiar with the court’s deliberations said four other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, voted with Alito to strike down Roe during closed-door discussions after oral arguments and have not changed their positions. It’s unclear whether Chief Justice John Roberts will join the conservative majority, according to Politico.

A crowd of people gather outside the Supreme Court on Monday night, May 2, 2022, after Politico published a draft opinion suggesting a majority of justices intended to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide.

Anna Johnson / AP


The justices could change their votes in the days or weeks leading up to the decision’s release. The Supreme Court’s opinion in the case, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, involves a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks and is expected to be handed down before the justices conclude their term by the end of June or early July. 

Politico said it received a copy of the draft opinion “from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.”

Roberts is calling for a full-scale investigation by the marshal of the court into the leak of the draft opinion to determine who was the source.  

The justices heard oral arguments in the blockbuster dispute involving the Mississippi law in December, and at the end of the session, a majority of the court appeared poised to allow the state’s measure to stand. It was less clear, though, whether five justices would vote to overturn Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case that reaffirmed Roe’s core holding that states cannot outlaw abortion before fetal viability, generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks into a pregnancy. 

But according to the draft opinion leaked to and published by Politico, Alito wrote that Roe was “egregiously wrong from the start” and its reasoning “exceptionally weak.”

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Alito wrote, according to Politico. 

Alito, appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, concluded: “Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Case arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The document notes the decision is a “1st Draft,” and Alito’s opinion runs 67 pages and is accompanied by a 31-page appendix containing various state statutes criminalizing abortion.

If the Supreme Court overrules Roe and Casey, as the reported draft opinion suggests, it would mark a long-awaited victory for anti-abortion advocates who for decades have called on the high court to reconsider its abortion precedents.

The appointment of three conservative justices by former President Donald Trump — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — widened the court’s conservative majority to 6-3, and Mississippi officials then called for the Supreme Court to use their legal battle as the vehicle to overturn Roe and Casey.

The Guttmacher Institute, an organization that supports abortion rights, estimated that 26 states are either certain or likely to ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturns or dismantles Roe.  Some already have laws in place that would do so if Roe was struck down, and governors in Oklahoma and Florida each signed new abortion restrictions into law last month.

A CBS News poll from November indicated that a majority of Americans supported leaving Roe in place. According to the November poll, if Roe is overturned and the matter is left up to the states, a majority would want abortion in their own state to be legal in all or most cases: more than six in 10 say so. Only 14% would want their state to make it illegal in all cases.


Lawmakers react to reported SCOTUS leaked draft opinion

01:51

The draft opinion, as reported by Politico, prompted outrage from congressional Democrats.

“If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years — not just on women but on all Americans,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a blistering joint statement. “The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”

Pelosi and Schumer accused the conservative justices of having “lied to the U.S. Senate” and “ripped up the U.S. Constitution.” Such a ruling, they said, would strip millions of women of their “bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century.”

Reaction from Republicans, meanwhile, focused on criticizing the leak as damaging to the Supreme Court as an institution. 

In a statement Tuesday morning, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, Whip Steve Scalise, and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik said the leak was a “clearly coordinated campaign to intimidate and obstruct the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and its independence in our political system, from upholding the Constitution must be immediately investigated by the court.” They added, “House Republicans are committed to upholding the sanctity of life.” 

Several GOP Senators commented on the ruling Monday night. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted, “The next time you hear the far left preaching about how they are fighting to preserve our Republic’s institutions & norms remember how they leaked a Supreme Court opinion in an attempt to intimidate the justices on abortion.” 

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas tweeted that the Supreme Court and Justice Department should use “every investigative tool necessary” to get to the bottom of the leak, but added that he prays “the court follows the Constitution and allows the state to once again protect unborn life.”

Jan Crawford contributed reporting.



Read original article here

Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

An initial draft opinion obtained by Politico shows that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is moving toward striking down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that created a right to abortion.

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito writes in the 98-page draft labeled “Opinion of the Court.”

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito continues. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

While Politico is careful to note this is simply a draft decision—the Supreme Court isn’t expected to decide abortion rights for another couple of months—the decision as currently written is a full repudiation of abortion rights. It would rule that Mississippi has the right to ban abortion after 15 weeks, and grant other states the right to restrict abortion even further.

The draft decision itself goes far beyond just upholding the Mississippi law; it would completely overturn the most essential abortion rights established in Roe and later affirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The draft decision says “the right to abortion” does not fall within the rights to liberty. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to to the people’s elected representatives,” the decision continues.

The leaking of the decision—itself a newsworthy and unprecedented action for the notoriously secretive Supreme Court—is sure to have an immediate effect in Washington. Democrats have long argued for national laws protecting abortion rights. Republicans have long argued that states should be free to make their own laws.

The Supreme Court has instantly thrown what was once reflexively referred to as “settled law” into an open question.

Among the five justices who appear to have signed on to the draft decision—Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—all five were appointed by Republicans. Three were appointed by Donald Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Republican George W. Bush, had not signed on to the initial draft decision, but as Politico notes, he may ultimately side with the majority.

A number of GOP lawmakers who claim to support abortion rights voted for Trump’s Supreme Court picks seemingly under the assumption that those justices would not strike down abortion.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) famously said she would not support a nominee who demonstrated “hostility” toward Roe, let alone outright opposition.

But Collins voted for Gorsuch (who got his seat after Republicans went “nuclear” in the Senate to allow Supreme Court nominees to only garner a simple majority), Kavanaugh (who faced allegations of sexual assault), and Barrett (who only got her seat after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died late in the election season when the Senate typically waits for results).

If the draft decision becomes real in the coming months, Republicans will have to answer to voters who believed the right to an abortion was, in fact, settled. And while some Republicans may want to join Democrats in passing legislation to protect the right to an abortion, any such bill would face stiff opposition in the Senate where there is still a 60-vote threshold for passage.

Read original article here

After losing his job for praying on the field, ex-high school football coach brings case to Supreme Court

Washington — It was after watching the sports film “Facing the Giants” that Joseph Kennedy, then a new coach for the Bremerton High School football team in Washington state, was inspired to pray.

And so, after coaching his first game for the Bremerton Knights in August 2008, Kennedy walked to the 50-yard-line, “on the battlefield,” the retired U.S. Marine says, and took a knee to offer a prayer of gratitude. 

It began with the coach, alone, briefly thanking God after the final whistle for keeping the players safe, for fair play and for spirited competition. But soon enough, the number of players gathering alongside Kennedy after games grew to include a majority of the team, though participation varied. At least one parent said his son felt “compelled to participate” out of fear he would lose out on playing time.

And soon enough, the prayers by Kennedy, himself a graduate of Bremerton High School, evolved into motivational speeches with religious references.

Joe Kennedy, a former assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington, poses for a photo March 9, 2022, at the school’s football field. 

Ted S. Warren / AP


For seven years, Kennedy continued his practice of praying on the field with no issues. But in September 2015, the Bremerton School District learned what he was doing when an opposing team’s coach told Bremerton High School’s principal that Kennedy asked his players to join him for the post-game prayer, saying he “thought it was pretty cool” the district would allow such activity, according to court records.

That observation by the opposing coach served as the catalyst for a yearslong battle between Kennedy and the school district, the venue for which shifted from the gridiron to the courts when the coach lost his job after defying directives to end his practice of praying on the field.

Kennedy argued he was engaging in constitutionally protected religious expression, and on Monday, the United States Supreme Court will weigh his bid to get his coaching job back and be allowed to pray at midfield after games.

“It seems so simple to me: It’s a guy taking a knee by himself on the 50-yard-line, which to me doesn’t seem like it needs a rocket scientist or a Supreme Court justice to figure out,” he told CBS News. “I didn’t want to cause any waves, and the thing I wanted to do was coach football and thank God after the game.”

But for defenders of the school district, Kennedy was acting as an agent of the state who, as a public school employee, violated the religious freedom of students who felt pressure to pray-to-play.

“When a coach uses the power of his job to be in a place and have access to students at a time when they’re expected to encircle him and come to him, that’s an abuse of that power and a violation of the Constitution,” Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CBS News’ Jan Crawford. “Religious freedom is not the right to impose your religion on others. We all need to have it, so that’s why the free exercise and establishment clause work together to protect religious freedom for all of us.”

“Giving up is not something that’s in my blood”

After the Bremerton School District learned of Kennedy’s post-game practice of praying at midfield in September 2015, it launched an investigation into whether he was complying with the school board’s policy on religious-related activities and practices. 

While acknowledging that Kennedy had “not actively encouraged, or required, participation” in either a pre-game prayer in the locker room or his “inspirational talk at midfield” after games,” the district said in a letter dated September 17, 2015, that the activities likely would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and expose the district to “significant risk of liability.”

“Bremerton High School legally risks endorsing or favoring one set of religious views over others and that’s not what the Constitution promises,” Laser said. “Religious freedom, those 16 words of our First Amendment of our Constitution are a shield that protects religious freedom for all of us, not just religious freedom for some of us.”

The district told Kennedy that his talks with students must remain entirely secular, and future religious activity he engages in, including prayer, must not interfere with his job duties, must be separate from any student activity and may not have participation from the students. 

In compliance with the district’s request, Kennedy temporarily stopped praying on the field after games. But one month later, in mid-October 2015, he informed the district through an attorney that he would resume saying a post-game prayer at the 50-yard-line after requesting a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.

“No reasonable observer could conclude that a football coach who waits until the game is over and the players have left the field and then walks to mid-field to say a short, private, personal prayer is speaking on behalf of the state,” his lawyer said in a letter to the Bremerton School District. “Quite the opposite, Coach Kennedy is engaged in private religious expression upon which the state may not infringe.”

And so, after the final whistle at Bremerton’s homecoming game on October 16, 2015, Kennedy shook hands with the opposing team, waited until players were singing their fight song, and then knelt at the 50-yard-line, bowed his head, and, joined by players from both teams, members of the media and the public, prayed.

He did so again for the next two games, after which the district placed Kennedy on paid administrative leave from his position as an assistant coach for violating its directives. During a subsequent evaluation of Kennedy’s performance, Bremerton’s athletic director recommended he not be rehired for the next season, citing a failure to follow district policy and failure to supervise student-athletes after games. 

Kennedy chose not to reapply for his coaching position at Bremerton High School, and, in August 2016, filed suit against the Bremerton School District in federal district court in Tacoma, Washington, arguing it violated his constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise.

Former Bermerton High School football coach Joseph Kennedy (First Liberty Institute)

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled against Kennedy, finding that “while public schools do not have unfettered discretion to restrict an employee’s religious speech, they do have the ability to prevent a coach from praying at the center of the football field immediately after games.” 

Kennedy appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s ruling. He then turned to the Supreme Court, and in 2019, the high court declined to hear his case.

In a statement from Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the four justices said it was premature for the Supreme Court to hear Kennedy’s case at that time, but warned the 9th Circuit’s “understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.”

“What is perhaps most troubling about the 9th Circuit’s opinion is language that can be understood to mean that a coach’s duty to serve as a good role model requires the coach to refrain from any manifestation of religious faith — even when the coach is plainly not on duty,” Alito wrote.

After additional proceedings, Kennedy again suffered losses in the lower courts. A three-judge panel of judges on the 9th Circuit ruled in March 2021 that the school district’s efforts to prevent Kennedy from praying did not violate his constitutional rights, and his postgame speech on the field was speech as a government employee.

“At issue in this case is not, as Kennedy attempts to gloss it, a personal and private exercise of faith,” Judge Milan Smith Jr. wrote for the unanimous panel. “At issue was — in every sense of the word — a demonstration, and, because Kennedy demanded that it take place immediately after the final whistle, it was a demonstration necessarily directed at students and the attending public.”

The full 9th Circuit declined to re-hear the case, and Kennedy again appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in September. The high court agreed in January to take up the dispute.

“I was a Marine for 20 years. Supporting and defending the Constitution means a lot to me. Giving up is not something that’s in my blood, it’s not in my nature,” Kennedy said of his lengthy legal fight to get his job back. ” I can look at myself in the mirror, look at my team over the years, and hold my head up high and look them in the eyes and say hey, I fought the good fight, I didn’t give up.”

Kennedy’s court battle with the school district will come before a Supreme Court that has shifted further rightward since 2019, when the justices first spurned his request to hear his case. Now with a 6-3 conservative majority, the high court has in recent terms been more sympathetic to religious rights.

“The state does not own every ounce of your free expression. They can’t censor you from everything you do,” Jeremy Dys, special counsel for First Liberty, which is representing Kennedy, told CBS News. “The Establishment Clause does not mean you must censor and stamp out any religious demonstration.”

Cherry blossoms near the Supreme Court on Monday, March 28, 2022.

Bloomberg


“Courageous to some and offensive to others”

In filings with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the district argue it acted within its authority to regulate Kennedy’s “very public speech” and claim he “tells a breathless tale of authoritarian government forbidding private religious expression, insisting that unless the court applies his preferred legal test, religious practice will be quashed across the country.”

Under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, the school district’s interest in shielding students from religious coercion and preventing employees from “commandeering government events” outweighs Kennedy’s interest in praying with students, the district argued.

Laser noted that Kennedy was not precluded from praying on his own, even if he was considered “on duty.” But it was the place and time at which he chose to engage in the practice that left students feeling pressured to join.

“If this coach were in fact doing what he says he was doing, which is praying in a private and solitary manner, we wouldn’t be here, because that’s fine. You don’t have to leave that behind when you become a public official,” she said. “But religious freedom is not the right to use the power of the state to favor one set of religious beliefs over others, to impose one set of religious beliefs on public school students.”

The dispute between Kennedy and the Bremerton School District has attracted a slew of friend-of-the-court briefs, including from current and former National Football League players, and former collegiate athletes and coaches.

In one brief filed in support of Kennedy on behalf of Minnesota Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins, Chicago Bears quarterback Nick Foles and former NFL quarterback Drew Stanton, among others, the current and former players invoked Colin Kaepernick — though at first not by name — kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice.

“That practice, like Kennedy’s prayers, is controversial — courageous to some and offensive to others,” they argued. “But if Joe Kennedy had taken a knee to protest racial injustice, the district almost certainly would not have argued that his speech was somehow the state’s. Rather, there would have been no question that it was protected private speech.”

As the players “can attest from their experience at all levels of sports— high school, college, and pro —  audiences understand symbolic acts of speech on the field to reflect the views of the individual athletes and coaches who engage in them, whether they are Colin Kaepernick, Tim Tebow, Shaquille O’Neal, or Joe Kennedy. The analysis does not change because the speech is religious rather than political,” they told the Supreme Court.

Dys, too, said that the First Amendment protects the rights of both Kaepernick and Kennedy to take a knee, whether in an expression of free speech or free exercise.

“One is speech and one is free exercise, but they’re within a few words of each other,” he said. “They are both protected by the First Amendment, and they’re allowed to have that right.”

But a group of former professional football players and collegiate athletes in support of the school district warned the relationship between a coach and athlete in high school athletics is unique, as it is “highly susceptible to being coercive,” and should be considered by the Supreme Court as it weighs the case.

“The record here demonstrates that Mr. Kennedy’s actions had the propensity to, and did, lead players to feel compelled to participate in Mr. Kennedy’s expressions of faith even if they would rather not have done so,” the former athletes, including former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and former NFL running back Obafemi Ayanbadejo.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June.

Read original article here

Man dies after setting himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court, police say

A man has died after setting himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday night, Metropolitan Police said Saturday. The court said to CBS News in a statement Friday there were no other injuries, and there did not appear to be a public safety concern. 

Police identified the man as 50-year-old Wynn Bruce, of Boulder, Colorado, and said he died of his injuries after being airlifted to a hospital following the incident. At approximately 6:30 p.m., he went on to the plaza in front of the court building and set himself on fire, the court said. The court did not offer any specifics on the person or what their motivation may have been. 

Supreme Court Police, U.S. Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department responded to the incident, the court said, and a medical helicopter airlifted the person to a local hospital.

“The area remains closed for further investigation, but this is not a public safety issue,” the court said. 

The incident comes amid a chaotic day in Washington D.C., where earlier Friday, multiple people were shot on a busy street. Police have identified a person of interest in the case, but have not named or apprehended a suspect. 

If you or someone you know is in emotional distress or suicidal crisis, call the National Suicide Prevention Hotline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255). For more information about mental health care resources and support, The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.–6 p.m. ET, at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or email info@nami.org.

Jan Crawford contributed reporting. 

Read original article here

Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed to Supreme Court, making history as first Black female justice

Washington — The Senate voted to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court on Thursday, cementing her place in history as the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.

Jackson’s confirmation as the 116th justice in U.S. history received bipartisan backing, with a final vote of 53 to 47 in the upper chamber. Three Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, joined all 50 Democrats in supporting President Biden’s nominee. Vice President Kamala Harris, the first woman and first woman of color to hold the role, presided over the Senate during the vote.

“On this vote, the yays are 53. The nays are 47 and this nomination is confirmed,” Harris said to rousing applause from senators.

Jackson’s appointment to the high court is likely to be a significant component of Mr. Biden’s legacy, and marked his first opportunity to make his imprint on the Supreme Court. But Jackson will not take the bench immediately, as Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she will fill, is poised to retire at the end of the Supreme Court’s term this summer. 

Mr. Biden watched the vote with Jackson in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. Photographers capture the two embracing as the Senate passed the threshold needed for her confirmation.

President Biden goes to hug Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as they watch the Senate vote on her confirmation from the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, April 7, 2022.

Susan Walsh / AP


“This is a wonderful day, a joyous day, an inspiring day for the Senate, for the Supreme Court and for the United States of America,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said before the vote. “Today is one of the brightest lights, and let us hope it’s a metaphor, an indication of many more bright lights to come.”

Approval of Jackson’s nomination by the evenly divided Senate capped a confirmation process that was marked by Republican attempts to paint her as a soft-on-crime activist judge who would legislate from the bench.

Their criticisms, which were rooted in Jackson’s sentencing record in child pornography cases while she was a federal trial court judge, failed to derail efforts from the White House and Democratic Senate leaders to drum up bipartisan support for Jackson’s nomination, piercing the partisan polarization of recent Supreme Court confirmation. But the accusations did provide Republicans with fodder as they position themselves as the law-and-order party ahead of the November midterm elections.

Senate leaders moved swiftly to begin the confirmation process after Mr. Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced Jackson as his pick for the Supreme Court in late February. With his selection of Jackson, Mr. Biden fulfilled his pledge from the 2020 presidential campaign to nominate the first Black woman to the high court. 

During confirmation hearings that spanned four days in March, Jackson endured nearly 24 hours of questioning from the 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after which the panel deadlocked on approving her nomination along party lines Monday.

The tie 11-11 vote in the Judiciary Committee forced a procedural vote in the full Senate to advance Jackson’s nomination. While the upper chamber voted to move Jackson’s nomination out of the committee, with three Republicans joining Democrats in the vote, the effort underscored how bitterly partisan recent confirmation fights have become and the near-unified GOP opposition to her appointment. 

Ahead of the vote, Murkowski said in a statement announcing her support for Jackson that her decision rested in part on her rejection “of the corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees, which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year.”

Jackson will join the Supreme Court after serving for nearly a year on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, considered the nation’s second most powerful court. In her first term on the high court, Jackson will hear a pair of cases involving admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, as well as redistricting and religious liberty disputes. Jackson has pledged to recuse herself from the Harvard legal fight, as she is a member of the school’s Board of Overseers, one of its two governing bodies.

While her appointment will not alter the ideological composition of the Supreme Court, which boasts a 6-3 conservative majority, Jackson will be the second-youngest justice at 51 years old, likely ensuring decades of service. Her appointment also marks the first time two African Americans will sit on the Supreme Court simultaneously and the first time there will be four women on the high court serving together.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, March 23, 2022.

Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images


Jackson also brings professional diversity to the bench, having served as an assistant public defender and on the federal trial court in Washington. There has never been a Supreme Court justice to have worked as a public defender, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only current member of the court to have served on a U.S. district court. She also was a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and worked in private practice after graduating from Harvard and Harvard Law School.

During her confirmation hearings, Jackson demonstrated the arc of the nation’s history through the story of her life and that of her parents — from her mother and father attending segregated schools in Florida to her being poised to become the first Black woman to sit on the nation’s highest court “in one generation.” Remarking on her legal career, she pledged to be an independent jurist who approaches cases from a position of neutrality.

“I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath,” she told senators at her confirmation hearings. “I know that my role as a judge is a limited one, that the Constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented, and I know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.” 

Those assurances, though, did little to persuade most Republican senators.

Many took issue with Jackson’s refusal to label her judicial philosophy, which she described as a multi-step methodology, and unwillingness to take a stance on adding seats to the Supreme Court, even as they acknowledged her legal qualifications. The most frequent criticisms of Jackson, though, centered on her sentencing of offenders in child pornography cases, which GOP senators claimed was repeatedly below federal guidelines.

“What the Senate’s process turned up was disturbing,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor of the review of Jackson’s record. “In Judge Jackson’s courtroom, plain legal text and clear congressional intent were no match for what the judge admits are her personal policy disagreements.”

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in remarks Monday that had Republicans controlled the Senate, Jackson would not have received a confirmation hearing. He also forecasted that if the GOP wins back the majority in the upper chamber, judicial nominees put forth by Democrats would be rejected if they’re deemed too liberal.

“We’re supposed to be like trained seals over here, clapping when you appoint a liberal,” Graham said. “That’s not going to work.”

The South Carolina senator was one of three Republicans, with Collins and Murkowski, to support Jackson’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit, but he intends to vote against confirming her to the Supreme Court.

Democrats, meanwhile, sought throughout the confirmation process to highlight the historic nature of Jackson’s nomination and eventual approval by the Senate.

“With Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to the highest court in the land, we are not only making history, we are carrying on a great American tradition, elevating one of our nation’s best and brightest legal minds to an honored position of service,” Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin said on the Senate floor. “There’s no one more deserving of this high honor. As we learned over this past month, she is the best of us.”

Read original article here

SNL’s Michael Che Earns Groans Mocking Biden’s Vow to Put Black Woman on SCOTUS

After reporting the news that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire from the bench in June, Saturday Night Live’s Michael Che joked, “‘We thank Justice Breyer for years of upholding the rights of every American,’ said liberals who have been tweeting, ‘Retire, bitch’ for the last year.”

“I sympathize with Breyer because I get those same tweets every Saturday around this time,” the “Weekend Update” anchor added. Then he told a joke that demonstrated why.

“President Biden promised to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court,” Che said to cheers from the live audience. Those cheers turned to groans when he delivered the punchline: “But I hope it’s not because he wants to sniff a new type of hair.”

Looking around, he added, “This is why I get those tweets.”

From there, Che moved on to a joke about Senator Mitch McConnell warning Biden not to outsource his Supreme Court pick to the “radical left.” that would likely sit better with viewers. “Coincidentally, a ‘radical left’ is also what McConnell takes to purposely run over stray dogs.”

Colin Jost, meanwhile, focused most of his jokes on the Trump family. “Ukrainian officials are saying the repeated warnings of invasion are just causing panic and that ‘panic is the sister of failure,’ which is exactly what Lorne told us to do this show in a blizzard,” he said. “Also, am I wrong? I thought Ivanka was the sister of failure,” Jost added as Eric and Donald Trump Jr.’s photos appeared on screen.

Later, he noted that “three items put up for auction by Melania Trump failed to reach the opening bid of $250,000,” adding, “but Melania is no stranger to finding out something isn’t worth as much as she thought.”

For more, listen and subscribe to The Last Laugh podcast.

Read original article here

Supreme Court declines to block Texas 6-week abortion ban

Washington — The Supreme Court late Wednesday declined to halt a Texas law banning abortions as early as six weeks of pregnancy, allowing the nation’s most restrictive measure to remain in effect.

The court ruled 5-4 against providing relief to abortion providers, who asked the Supreme Court on Monday to put the law, which outlaws most abortions in the state, on hold. Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices were in dissent. 

The high court failed to act before the law took effect earlier Wednesday, and abortion providers in Texas informed women they would no longer offer the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy in compliance with the law. Then, nearly 24 hours later, the high court rejected the request from abortion rights supporters to block the law.

In its opinion, the majority acknowledged the abortion providers “have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” but said their request to the court presents “complex and novel” procedural questions that prevented them from meeting their burden.

While the high court refused to stop the law while the legal fight continues, the majority said its decision “is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

The decision from the Supreme Court is a significant victory for anti-abortion advocates, who are looking to the high court’s expanded 6-3 conservative majority — with three justices appointed by former President Trump — to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion. The court is poised to hear this fall a case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, and a decision upholding that measure could clear the way for more restrictive abortion laws. 

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court’s order “stunning” and said the law is a “breathtaking act of defiance — of the Constitution, of this court’s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas.”

“Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand,” she wrote.

The Texas law is the most restrictive abortion measure in the country, as it bars the procedure after six weeks into a pregnancy, which is before many women know they’re pregnant. The coalition of abortion clinics and abortion rights supporters that sought the Supreme Court’s intervention argued it defied the high court’s precedents, under which states cannot outlaw abortions before fetal viability, which generally occurs around 24 weeks.

In the final hours Tuesday before the law took effect, Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas and is a plaintiff in the case, reported having full waiting rooms of patients seeking abortions. But as of Wednesday, the clinics would only provide the procedures if ultrasounds do not show cardiac activity in compliance with the law, Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, told reporters. 

In their request to the court, the abortion rights groups estimated at least 85% of women who undergo abortions in Texas are at least six weeks pregnant. They warned the law prohibits nearly all abortions in the state and will drive many abortion clinics to close.

“Patients who can scrape together resources will be forced to attempt to leave the state to obtain an abortion, and many will be delayed until later in pregnancy,” they argued. “The remaining Texans who need an abortion will be forced to remain pregnant against their will or to attempt to end their pregnancies without medical supervision.”

The law, the abortion providers wrote, would “immediately and irreparably decimate abortion access in Texas,” if allowed to remain in effect. It does not provide an exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

Texas has joined 12 other states with laws banning abortions at early stages of pregnancy, known as “heartbeat bills” because they seek to outlaw the procedures after a fetal heartbeat can first be detected. Federal judges have stopped those other state laws from taking effect.

But the Texas law differs from the others with its enforcement scheme: Under the measure, private citizens are allowed to bring civil lawsuits in state courts against abortion providers or anyone who helps women obtain an abortion, including a person who brings a woman to a clinic or provides financial assistance.

If a suit is successful, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 from the violator of the law.

Sotomayor blasted the scheme crafted by the state legislature, writing it has “deputized the state’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures.”

In response to the request to block the law, Texas officials argued the claims raised by the abortion providers and advocacy groups were “hyperbolic” and said they “have not shown that they will be personally harmed by a bill that may never be enforced against them by anyone, much less by the governmental defendants.”

“If any party is facing irreparable injury in this application, it is respondents, along with the state they serve and its people,” they said in a filing with the Supreme Court.

The pro-abortion advocates sought Supreme Court intervention after a federal appeals court canceled a district court hearing scheduled for Monday. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also denied their request to speed up proceedings or halt enforcement of the law pending appeal.

In their upcoming term, which begins in October, the justices will hear a major legal battle over a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks. Republican-led states — including Texas — are urging the court to overrule Roe.

Read original article here