Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Dead People Do Not Have a Right to Vote

old paramus reformed church

June 13,2018
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC , The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of Ohio Monday upholding its practice of purging people from registration rolls if they fail to vote. In a 5-4 decision, in a case know as Husted v. A. Philip Randolph the court ruled Ohio could continue to remove individuals from voter rolls if they had not voted in two federal elections and have not responded to a confirmation notice or updated their registration.

The plaintiffs in the case, Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute, argued the Ohio law violated the National Voter Registration Act – that “just as you have a right to vote, you have a right not to vote” – claiming the state’s purges risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

Voter rolls have been a point of contention for years .Many critics claim inactive voter rolls create opportunity for voter fraud .

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Unions vs Free Speech Case


February 23,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC, The Supreme Court is scheduled to return to Washington next week after nearly a month off. The justices will hear a number of important oral arguments, including a case involving free speech, and public employee unions.

Next Monday February 26th , the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the year, the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.

This case could have an enormous impact on big union states like New Jersey and may impact many unions political influence like the NJEA.

The case focuses on Mark Janus who is not a public sector union member but has to pay fees ie inion dues anyway. Janus argues these fees “violate his free speech and free association rights.”

This case involves forcing public employees who opt out of union membership to pay a fee for the “fair share” of costs associated with collective bargaining. Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, argues that forcing him to subsidize the union he has declined to join violates his free speech and free association rights.

The court will look at whether to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that public employees could be forced to pay an agency fee.

This very issue was before the court in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died. The court deadlocked 4-4 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, thereby upholding the lower court ruling in favor of the California Teachers Association.

Posted on




State already answers to higher legal standard, but federal ruling should re-emphasize that minimum progress is not enough for special-needs students

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 last week in favor of raising standards for special education nationwide, the decision was widely applauded by parent and children advocates.

But when it comes to how much the ruling will directly impact New Jersey, the answer is a bit more complicated.

In a decisive victory for special-needs children, the court ruled in a case that originated in Colorado that schools are compelled to teach students with disabilities at a level comparable to other students and above the standard of minimum progress.

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court sides with ex-N.J. cop who claims demotion was political payback

vote for me

April 27,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Put up a campaign sign, win a bundle when they screw you.
Some Village employees are reportedly fearful of retribution and have therefore chosen not to put up lawn signs supporting a candidate, or candidates, in the upcoming municipal election.
Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court recently sided with a City of Paterson, NJ employee who did receive the short end of the stick for his involvement in a local Paterson election.
It’s a shame that a good number of Village employees are fearful of exercising their respective constitutional rights, but it’s good to know they can successfully bring personal lawsuits against any bastards who elicit political payback.
Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule


U.S. Supreme Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule

WASHINGTON   — A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law. (Sherman/The Bergen Record)

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Booker v. Bell


U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Booker v. Bell
TRENTON – In two separate but similarly controversial decisions released earlier today, the U.S. Supreme voted definitively on issues of religious rights for corporations and union dues requirements for part-time state workers. Both rulings, unsurprisingly, have legislators and political onlookers in New Jersey and across the country riled. (Brush/PolitickerNJ)