Members:
Please post all news and commentary regarding the Supreme Court, the Justices, Supreme Court Decisions, Confirmation process etc. in this forum. Thank you.
Snuffysmith
Full Version: All News and Commentary on Supreme Court
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Judicial System > Judicial System Issues Archive
One Hand Tied Behind Your Back John Kerry
HERE'S THEIR PLAN:
Protect the Supreme Court's independence.
Visit johnkerry.com right now.
We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections. And we will never accept a double standard that says, on a decision vital to America's future, President Bush's most extreme supporters can campaign all-out while you and I are urged to be silent.
From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate.
But President Bush's most extreme supporters are demanding a nominee who doesn't think or act anything like Justice O'Connor. They want a rigid ideologue who will reverse what President Bush has called the "settled law" of Roe v. Wade, one who will support their efforts to use the Supreme Court as a battering ram to undo decades of progress on civil rights, Roe v. Wade, and privacy.
They want something else as well.
They want you and me to participate in this momentous debate about fundamental freedoms with one hand tied behind our back. They actually expect us to step aside while they roll over our rights. Let's prove that we will never let that happen. View the newspaper ad that will run across the country
HERE'S THEIR PLAN:
- 1. Nominate an opponent of Roe v. Wade and civil right.
- 2. Silence all opposition.
- 3. Control the Supreme Court for decades.
Protect the Supreme Court's independence.
Visit johnkerry.com right now.
QUOTE(" One Hand Tied Behind Your Back")
Dear Friend,
Let's make our principles crystal clear right out of the box. We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections. And we will never accept a double standard that says, on a decision vital to America's future, President Bush's most extreme supporters can campaign all-out while you and I are urged to be silent. I am asking you to endorse and help pay for a powerful message that will appear in the days ahead in newspapers across the country. Show the President and the Senate just how strongly you feel about protecting our fundamental freedoms:
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate. But President Bush's most extreme supporters are demanding a nominee who doesn't think or act anything like Justice O'Connor. They want a rigid ideologue who will reverse what President Bush has called the "settled law" of Roe v. Wade, one who will support their efforts to use the Supreme Court as a battering ram to undo decades of progress on civil rights, Roe v. Wade, and privacy.
They want something else as well.
They want you and me to participate in this momentous debate about fundamental freedoms with one hand tied behind our back. They actually expect us to step aside while they roll over our rights. Let's prove that we will never let that happen.
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
While they unleash a multi-million dollar advertising campaign on behalf of President Bush's choice in close coordination with the White House, you and I are supposed to remain silent -- lest we be charged with "rushing to judgment." While they conduct a no-holds-barred effort to brush aside any and all questions about the nominee's record and his or her commitment to protecting individual freedom, you and I are supposed to be silenced for fear of being called "obstructionists" and cowered by their threat to revive the "nuclear option." That's worse than unacceptable. It's un-American, and it's not how we carry on public debate in the greatest democracy on earth. Show them that, with the future of the Supreme Court on the line, we won't stand on the sidelines:
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
I know I can count on your support in making the following commitment: I will insist on a complete and full examination of the record of President Bush's nominee. And, if that nominee is intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and essential Supreme Court protections for civil rights, I will use every option I have as a United States Senator to keep that nominee off the Court.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
P.S. Don't let them silence our voices. Go out in your community and spread the word along to everyone you know by passing on this message. We must all commit ourselves to standing up for Roe V. Wade and our civil rights.
Let's make our principles crystal clear right out of the box.Let's make our principles crystal clear right out of the box. We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections. And we will never accept a double standard that says, on a decision vital to America's future, President Bush's most extreme supporters can campaign all-out while you and I are urged to be silent. I am asking you to endorse and help pay for a powerful message that will appear in the days ahead in newspapers across the country. Show the President and the Senate just how strongly you feel about protecting our fundamental freedoms:
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate. But President Bush's most extreme supporters are demanding a nominee who doesn't think or act anything like Justice O'Connor. They want a rigid ideologue who will reverse what President Bush has called the "settled law" of Roe v. Wade, one who will support their efforts to use the Supreme Court as a battering ram to undo decades of progress on civil rights, Roe v. Wade, and privacy.
They want something else as well.
They want you and me to participate in this momentous debate about fundamental freedoms with one hand tied behind our back. They actually expect us to step aside while they roll over our rights. Let's prove that we will never let that happen.
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
While they unleash a multi-million dollar advertising campaign on behalf of President Bush's choice in close coordination with the White House, you and I are supposed to remain silent -- lest we be charged with "rushing to judgment." While they conduct a no-holds-barred effort to brush aside any and all questions about the nominee's record and his or her commitment to protecting individual freedom, you and I are supposed to be silenced for fear of being called "obstructionists" and cowered by their threat to revive the "nuclear option." That's worse than unacceptable. It's un-American, and it's not how we carry on public debate in the greatest democracy on earth. Show them that, with the future of the Supreme Court on the line, we won't stand on the sidelines:
http://contribute.johnkerry.com/
I know I can count on your support in making the following commitment: I will insist on a complete and full examination of the record of President Bush's nominee. And, if that nominee is intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and essential Supreme Court protections for civil rights, I will use every option I have as a United States Senator to keep that nominee off the Court.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
P.S. Don't let them silence our voices. Go out in your community and spread the word along to everyone you know by passing on this message. We must all commit ourselves to standing up for Roe V. Wade and our civil rights.
We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections. And we will never accept a double standard that says, on a decision vital to America's future, President Bush's most extreme supporters can campaign all-out while you and I are urged to be silent.
From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate.
But President Bush's most extreme supporters are demanding a nominee who doesn't think or act anything like Justice O'Connor. They want a rigid ideologue who will reverse what President Bush has called the "settled law" of Roe v. Wade, one who will support their efforts to use the Supreme Court as a battering ram to undo decades of progress on civil rights, Roe v. Wade, and privacy.
They want something else as well.
They want you and me to participate in this momentous debate about fundamental freedoms with one hand tied behind our back. They actually expect us to step aside while they roll over our rights. Let's prove that we will never let that happen. View the newspaper ad that will run across the country
High Court to Hear Campaign Finance Cases
Updated 9:38 AM ET September 27, 2005
By PETE YOST
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cskn1o0&src=ap
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review a campaign finance law in Vermont, where reformers are trying to limit donations and spending in state political races.
The Vermont case has been watched closely by campaign finance reform advocates around the country, and by those who argue that limiting political contributions or expenditures would violate the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee.
The high court does not begin its term until next week, but justices released a list Tuesday of about a dozen cases that they will review beginning next year.
In addition to the Vermont case, the court said it would hear an appeal from a Wisconsin anti-abortion group over political advertising restrictions in a 2002 campaign finance law. The high court upheld the law in 2003, but Wisconsin Right to Life brought a new challenge claiming that restrictions violated its free-speech rights.
The court's vote in the last campaign finance case was 5-4. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's departure could leave the court split 4-4 on that issue.
In 1976, the Supreme Court came down squarely on the free-speech side of the argument when it decided Buckley vs. Valeo, which is the law of the land on efforts to limit campaign spending. That decision struck down campaign spending limits imposed by Congress.
The Vermont Republican State Committee, Vermont Right-to-Life and other groups asked the Supreme Court in May to overturn a ruling from a federal appeals court that largely upheld the 1998 Vermont campaign finance law.
It limits individual contributions to a candidate to $200 or $400 in a two-year period, depending on the office being sought, says no one running for governor can spend more than $300,000 and sets smaller spending caps for lower-tier candidates.
Vermont's law has been tied up in court and never has gone fully into effect. Gov. James Douglas spent nearly $682,000 to get re-elected last year, and other candidates spent well over the law's caps.
The Vermont law also limits political parties' contributions to candidates to $2,000 per election cycle. With the law tied up in the courts, Douglas and Democrat Peter Clavelle got six-figure contributions from their national parties last year.
Races for the U.S. House and Senate would not be affected, since they are governed by federal, rather than state, campaign finance laws.
Where core First Amendment principles are at stake, courts must bring a healthy skepticism to claims that candidates and non-candidates spend too much time and money on the political process, justices were told in court papers by lawyers for the Vermont Right to Life Committee, the Vermont Republican State Committee and others.
"By setting its limits so low and applying them so broadly, Vermont makes it difficult for many candidates to raise necessary finances," the groups said in asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
Supporters of limits on contributions and expenditures also asked the court to take the case, saying that justices must resolve once and for all whether spending limits are permissible.
"This never-ending desire for campaign money has forced candidates to become beholden to large groups of contributors and special interests that control access to such funds," said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
The cases are Randall v. Sorrell, 04-1528, and Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, 04-1530.
Updated 9:38 AM ET September 27, 2005
By PETE YOST
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cskn1o0&src=ap
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review a campaign finance law in Vermont, where reformers are trying to limit donations and spending in state political races.
The Vermont case has been watched closely by campaign finance reform advocates around the country, and by those who argue that limiting political contributions or expenditures would violate the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee.
The high court does not begin its term until next week, but justices released a list Tuesday of about a dozen cases that they will review beginning next year.
In addition to the Vermont case, the court said it would hear an appeal from a Wisconsin anti-abortion group over political advertising restrictions in a 2002 campaign finance law. The high court upheld the law in 2003, but Wisconsin Right to Life brought a new challenge claiming that restrictions violated its free-speech rights.
The court's vote in the last campaign finance case was 5-4. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's departure could leave the court split 4-4 on that issue.
In 1976, the Supreme Court came down squarely on the free-speech side of the argument when it decided Buckley vs. Valeo, which is the law of the land on efforts to limit campaign spending. That decision struck down campaign spending limits imposed by Congress.
The Vermont Republican State Committee, Vermont Right-to-Life and other groups asked the Supreme Court in May to overturn a ruling from a federal appeals court that largely upheld the 1998 Vermont campaign finance law.
It limits individual contributions to a candidate to $200 or $400 in a two-year period, depending on the office being sought, says no one running for governor can spend more than $300,000 and sets smaller spending caps for lower-tier candidates.
Vermont's law has been tied up in court and never has gone fully into effect. Gov. James Douglas spent nearly $682,000 to get re-elected last year, and other candidates spent well over the law's caps.
The Vermont law also limits political parties' contributions to candidates to $2,000 per election cycle. With the law tied up in the courts, Douglas and Democrat Peter Clavelle got six-figure contributions from their national parties last year.
Races for the U.S. House and Senate would not be affected, since they are governed by federal, rather than state, campaign finance laws.
Where core First Amendment principles are at stake, courts must bring a healthy skepticism to claims that candidates and non-candidates spend too much time and money on the political process, justices were told in court papers by lawyers for the Vermont Right to Life Committee, the Vermont Republican State Committee and others.
"By setting its limits so low and applying them so broadly, Vermont makes it difficult for many candidates to raise necessary finances," the groups said in asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
Supporters of limits on contributions and expenditures also asked the court to take the case, saying that justices must resolve once and for all whether spending limits are permissible.
"This never-ending desire for campaign money has forced candidates to become beholden to large groups of contributors and special interests that control access to such funds," said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
The cases are Randall v. Sorrell, 04-1528, and Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, 04-1530.
QUOTE(heritage @ Nov 16 2005, 08:01 PM)
Activist Judges are in the eye of the beholder....
Today, my House representative, Tim Murphy, R-PA 18th district, initiated House resolution 547 that told the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear a case about a California school that sent out a survey to students and didn't advise the parents about the questions (some were about sexual matters). The parents took the school to court.
The 9th district court said the local school district has the authority to educate the students as they see fit. The democrats said in rebuttal that the Supreme Court recently ruled 6-2 in a similar case. The conservative SCOTUS judges were for the local authority and said the parents have the burden of proof to say that the school district is not educating their children properly.
The republicans are complaining because the 9th circuit court is not activist "for" their position. They are shrouding their resolution in the guise of Parental rights.
This is the second time this year that republicans have made resolutions that chastise a court's decisions. The first one was about "imminent domain".
I didn't see if the resolution passed. The vote was delayed until later.
Today, I heard that the WH has asked Congress to split up the 9th Circuit because it is too liberal. The 9th circuit court also heard the "under-God" phrase removal from the pledge of Allegience cases, and ruled the pledge unconstitutional as is.
Today, my House representative, Tim Murphy, R-PA 18th district, initiated House resolution 547 that told the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear a case about a California school that sent out a survey to students and didn't advise the parents about the questions (some were about sexual matters). The parents took the school to court.
The 9th district court said the local school district has the authority to educate the students as they see fit. The democrats said in rebuttal that the Supreme Court recently ruled 6-2 in a similar case. The conservative SCOTUS judges were for the local authority and said the parents have the burden of proof to say that the school district is not educating their children properly.
The republicans are complaining because the 9th circuit court is not activist "for" their position. They are shrouding their resolution in the guise of Parental rights.
This is the second time this year that republicans have made resolutions that chastise a court's decisions. The first one was about "imminent domain".
I didn't see if the resolution passed. The vote was delayed until later.
Today, I heard that the WH has asked Congress to split up the 9th Circuit because it is too liberal. The 9th circuit court also heard the "under-God" phrase removal from the pledge of Allegience cases, and ruled the pledge unconstitutional as is.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.