The U.S. Supreme Court’s immigration decision puts 200,000 New Jersey residents and their families in limbo, advocates said Thursday. Jonathan D. Salant, NJ.comRead more
Supreme Court immigration decision puts 200K N.J. residents in limbo
Tag: Supreme Court
GOP invokes Biden Rule No election-season Supreme Court nominees
Biden in ’92: No election-season Supreme Court nominees
By Sarah Wheaton
02/22/16 04:36 PM EST
Updated 02/22/16 07:19 PM EST
Republicans are delighted that a recently unearthed Joe Biden speech appears to be a strong endorsement of the GOP’s current Supreme Court strategy.
“Politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming that a justice was announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down,” Biden said on the Senate floor in June 1992, not long after Bill Clinton won the Democratic nomination to challenge then-President George H.W. Bush.
“A process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all,” Biden continued. “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, the nominee or to the Senate itself.”
Nearly 24 years later, after C-Span posted the old video, Republicans are offering Biden a hearty second — at least to the part of the 90-minute speech where he calls on the Senate to “seriously consider” not scheduling confirmation hearings and dismissing the potential impact of a short-handed court.
“The precedent of not confirming SCOTUS justices nominated in election years was established by both parties,” the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) tweeted on Monday, with a link to a 2-minute clip of the old footage.
In the aftermath of Antonin Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was quick to say that any nominee to fill the vacancy should wait until after the coming election.
The clips and quotes Republicans seized on, however, ignored a passage buried deep in the transcript where Biden called for a “compromise” pick, much as he’s done in the past week.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635#ixzz410xD3RQl
Supreme Court may limit ability of public unions to forcibly take money from ‘members’
By Nick Sorrentino on January 12, 2016
This would be a positive for the country. (Though some will of course wail.) Unions shouldn’t be able to just take money out of people’s paychecks just because a particular union says that it represents a particular worker. That’s crazy.
I am of the opinion that in theory private sector unions can actually be valid tools within the marketplace. They help to set expectations for employees and management alike while also creating some degree of employment stability for workers. So long as such a private union is based upon free association and not a tool of cronyism (this is of course the rub), and doesn’t coerce fees from its members, I can see how a private union, again in theory, can be a perfectly good thing. However, in a government situation, where the taxpayers are the employers, unions shouldn’t be allowed. Governments are nearly always hijacked by public sector unions which “negotiate” with politicians who are elected with money from the public unions. Even FDR thought public unions were a bad idea.
Court reverses N.J. child-abuse law; kids left alone in car not necessarily a crime
AUGUST 20, 2015, 1:18 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2015, 11:08 PM
BY SALVADOR RIZZO
STATE HOUSE BUREAU |
THE RECORD
On a cloudy day in 2009, a mother of four left her youngest child, a 19-month-old girl, sleeping in a locked car and went into a Dollar Tree store in South Plainfield.
By the time she returned to her vehicle, security guards had called the police. The mother was arrested. And what started as a five- to 10-minute stop to buy party supplies on a 55-degree day turned into a legal battle that has not yet ended six years later.
The state Supreme Court took the mother’s side in a unanimous decision issued Thursday. Leaving a young child unattended in a car is legal in some cases if the parent or caretaker takes precautionary measures, the court indicated.
As a result, the mother will get a chance to clear her record at a fact-finding hearing she has sought for years. The decision extends to other parents and guardians as well, ending the state’s ability to enroll them automatically in its registry of child abusers for leaving children in unattended vehicles. If those children are unharmed, the state must let their guardians plead their case at a hearing, the court said.
The mother has been granted anonymity by the courts, and is referenced only by her initials, E.D.-O.
Supreme Court’s Gay-Marriage Ruling Allows Something Else: Gay Divorce
Some same-sex couples have been waiting years to divorce. June’s decision means they can.
By
LINDSAY ELLIS
Aug. 14, 2015 4:24 p.m. ET
ATLANTA—June’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage is sending some couples to court for a very different reason: same-sex divorce.
Marie Griffin, who lives in Savannah, Ga., moved out of the home she shared with her wife in late May. But the couple, who married in 2014 in Washington, D.C., couldn’t legally end their marriage, because Georgia didn’t permit either same-sex marriage or divorce.
On the day of the June 26 Supreme Court ruling that all states must recognize same-sex marriages, she said that she recalled thinking, “We have to, and we can, get a divorce now.” She contacted a lawyer and is pursuing a divorce.
Her wife, Sandy Rogers, didn’t return requests for comment. Ms. Rogers’ attorney, Martin G. Hilliard, said his client and Ms. Griffin were in a “legal hinterland” when they separated before the ruling. The ability to divorce lifts a “huge burden.”
Couples in states like Georgia are lining up both to wed and divorce in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, according to attorneys, some of whom are reaching out to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities for business.
Supreme Court changes DUI protocol
file photo by Boyd Loving
New Jersey lawyers might have some new defenses against drunk driving cases. Courts may see a growing number of issues involving the rules of evidence as a result of a recent ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court – but there was no choice. In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the State of Missouri’s argument that exigent circumstances necessarily exist when an officer has probable cause to believe a person has been driving under the influence. This is because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. Instead, the justices suggested that obtaining a warrant should be the default protocol. (Donald Scarinci, Politickernj.com) https://politickernj.com/2015/
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS NATIONWIDE HEALTH CARE LAW SUBSIDIES
BY MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement.
Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.
Stop Press Item: If Court Ruling Goes Against Obamacare, Dems Will Blame GOP
And so will “Republican strategists.”
by Michael Walsh
June 21, 2015 – 11:54 am
Of course they will. Even though not a single Republican voted for this monstrosity as it was shoved down the throats of the American people. Because, subsidies:
The pressing problem for the 2016 Republican field falls into the “dog catches car” category: It’s one thing to call for the Affordable Care Act to be repealed or to promise an Oval Office signing ceremony for its repeal. It’s another to endorse pulling insurance subsidies used by more than 6 million people in 34 states, including at least 1.3 million Florida residents.
A ruling that subsidies provided to consumers to help them purchase health insurance are not legal could spark chaos in the insurance marketplace and help shape the electoral landscape in several key swing states. Beyond those voters directly affected, many more could see their premiums increase if the law unravels, driving up the number of uninsured.
Tensions build as Supreme Court readies blockbuster rulings
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Tensions are building inside and outside the white marble facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building as the nine justices prepare to issue major rulings on gay marriage and President Barack Obama’s healthcare law by the end of the month.
Of the 11 cases left to decide, the biggest are a challenge by gay couples to state laws banning same-sex marriage and a conservative challenge to subsidies provided under the Obamacare law to help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance that could lead to millions of people losing medical coverage.
Many legal experts predict the court will legalize gay marriage nationwide by finding that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law and due process prohibit states from banning same-sex nuptials.
The four liberal justices are expected to support same-sex marriage, and conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, the expected swing vote, has a history of backing gay rights.
In three key decisions since 1996, Kennedy has broadened the court’s view of equality for gays. The most recent was a 2013 case in which the court struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples.
During oral arguments in the gay marriage case on April 28, Kennedy posed tough questions to lawyers from both sides but stressed the nobility and dignity of same-sex couples.
The healthcare decision is tougher to call. Chief Justice John Roberts, the swing vote when the court upheld Obamacare in 2012, said little during the March 4 oral argument to indicate how he will vote.
The court will issue some rulings on Monday, with more likely later in the week.
For the justices, the pressure is on to have the rulings ready. That can be difficult as the cases in which they are closely divided are generally the ones left until the end.
Outside the court, those with a stake in the outcome of the rulings are left anxiously waiting.
James Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the gay marriage case, said he will be at the court for all the remaining decision days.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tensions-build-supreme-court-readies-blockbuster-rulings-131311924.html
Supreme Court Rules Government Can’t Pick and Choose What Speech Is Free
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / June 18, 2015
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down a town’s sign ordinance as an unconstitutional, content-based regulation of speech. This ruling for free speech means the government can’t pick and choose what speech deserves more protection based on the content of the speech.
Like most other towns in America, Gilbert, Ariz., regulates when, where and how signs may be displayed around town. Temporary non-commercial signs are classified by their content, and each category has its own set of regulations.
Real estate signs, for example, may be up to 80 square feet, and political signs may be up to 32 square feet; political signs may be displayed for four and a half months before an election, including in the public right of way; and homeowners’ association event signs may be displayed for 30 days.
The Good News Community Church, which holds services at different facilities such as local schools because it doesn’t have a permanent church, uses signs to invite people to services. Because the signs include directional information (i.e., an arrow pointing to the location of the service), they may not be bigger than 6 square feet and can go up only 12 hours before their Sunday services start, meaning the signs are posted late on Saturday night when they are hard to see in the dark.
The church challenged the town’s sign code in 2007 as an impermissible content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The district court in Arizona upheld the sign code, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, finding that there was no evidence that the town adopted its sign code for a discriminatory purpose.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Good News Community Church, concluding that these sign restrictions are content-based regulation because they define the categories of temporary, political and ideological signs on the basis of their messages and subject each category to different restrictions. As Justice Clarence Thomas points out,
If a sign informs its reader of the time and place a book club will discuss John Locke’s ‘Two Treatises of Government,’ that sign will be treated differently from a sign expressing the view that one should vote for one of Locke’s followers in an upcoming election, and both signs will be treated differently from a sign expressing an ideological view rooted in Locke’s theory of government.
The court found that these restrictions are subject to, and do not survive, strict scrutiny because the town did not demonstrate that the differentiation furthers a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn. Assuming the town has a compelling interest in preserving its aesthetic appeal and traffic safety, the code’s distinctions are highly underinclusive.
Thus, the town cannot claim that placing strict limits on temporary directional signs is necessary to beautify the town when other types of signs create the same problem, and it did not show that temporary directions signs pose a greater threat to public safety than ideological or political signs.
The Supreme Court also pointed that the 9th Circuit made a basic error in its analysis that the town’s regulation was not based on a disagreement with the message conveyed. As Thomas explains, “an innocuous justification cannot transform a facially content-based law into one that is content-neutral.” Thomas continued:
Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute, as future government officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech … [O]ne could easily imagine a Sign Code compliance manager who disliked the Church’s sustentative teachings deploying the Sign Code to make it more difficult for the Church to inform the public of the location of its services.
This decision will not prevent governments from enacting effective sign laws since there are ample content-neutral options available to resolve problems with safety and aesthetics, including regulating size, building materials, lighting, moving parts and portability of signs.
In fact, in a concurring opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor, Alito provides a long list of possible rules that municipalities could enact regulating signs that would not be content based and thus prohibited. They range from rules based on size and location, to rules imposing time limits or distinguishing between lighted and unlighted signs.
As Alito says, local governments retain the power to “enact and enforce reasonable sign regulations.” It is just that the rules that stopped Pastor Clyde Reed from encouraging the public to attend his church were neither reasonable nor justified by concerns for public safety or the beautification of the town of Gilbert.
https://dailysignal.com/2015/06/18/supreme-court-rules-government-cant-pick-and-choose-what-speech-is-free/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook
Supreme Court races the clock on gay marriage, Obamacare and more
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY4:44 p.m. EDT June 14, 2015
WASHINGTON — The future of same-sex marriage and President Obama’s health care law hang in the balance as the Supreme Court’s 2014 term draws rapidly to a close this month. But those aren’t the only big issues on the justices’ plate.
Free speech and fair elections. Religious liberty and racial discrimination. Clean air and capital punishment. All await rulings over the next three weeks as the court completes action on 20 cases remaining this term. The next decisions will come Monday morning.
Here’s a look at the Elite Eight:
• Same-sex marriage. In a decision likely to come on the term’s last day — possibly June 29 or 30 — the court will decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry or whether state bans against same-sex marriage can remain in place.
Six cases from Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky have been consolidated for the court’s consideration. In them, 32 total plaintiffs are asking for the right to marry or to have marriages licensed elsewhere recognized in their home states. Most legal experts predict the court, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, will rule in favor of the gay and lesbian couples.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/14/supreme-court-marriage-obamacare/71016064/
BREAKING :Supremes side with Christie on pension payments
Posted by Matt Rooney On June 09, 2015 0 Comment
By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog
Did you hear that noise, Save Jerseyans?
It’s thousands of public sector union heads exploding in unison.
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued an 5-2 opinion in the pension payment case (Christopher Burgos v. State of New Jersey) on Tuesday morning, reversing a lower court’s directive to the Christie Administration to make a billion dollar pension payment. Click here to read it. For a little background on the Christie/pension payment controversy, click here.
The majority opinion (which did not include Chief Justice Rabner) relied on the text of the Debt Limitation Clause:
“No matter how worthy the cause to be advanced by Chapter 78, the Debt Limitation Clause speaks directly to this situation and, in pertinent part, commands:
“‘The Legislature shall not, in any manner, create in any fiscal year a debt or debts, liability or liabilities of the State, which together with any previous debts or liabilities shall exceed at any time one per centum of the total amount appropriated by the general appropriation law for that fiscal year, unless the same shall be authorized by a law for some single object or work distinctly specified therein. . . . [N]o such law shall take effect until it shall have been submitted to the people at a general election and approved by a majority of the legally qualified voters of the State voting thereon.’”
“The purpose to be achieved by the Debt Limitation Clause dovetails with the Framers’ intent for a fiscally responsible annual budget process,” the majority continued. “Efforts to dedicate monies through legislative acts other than the annual appropriations act have no binding effect. They are read as impliedly suspended when contradicted by the budgetary judgment of the presently constituted Legislature acting in concert with the Governor in their constitutionally prescribed budget formation roles. Those debt limitation and appropriations-related constitutional clauses conflict with the contractual language of Chapter 78 and thwart plaintiffs’ impairment claims.”
https://savejersey.com/2015/06/supremes-side-with-christie-on-pension-payments/
Obama Can’t Bypass the Supreme Court
Obama Can’t Bypass the Supreme Court
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / March 20, 2015
The IRS, however, extended the tax credits to the federal exchange by interpreting “State” to mean “federal government,” a reading that defies common sense and the normal rules of statutory interpretation.
Putting an imaginative spin on an unfavorable outcome for the administration, Professor Baude claims that the Constitution would allow the administration to apply the judgment only to the four plaintiffs and otherwise ignore the ruling for the rest of the nation. His rationale: “The King litigation is different, because almost everybody who is eligible for the tax credits is more than happy to get them.” Yet whether or not folks are “happy” about a particular regulation has no bearing on whether that rule is authorized by law.
Baude claims that the administration is “free to follow its own honest judgment about what the law requires.” But if the Supreme Court holds that the IRS rule violates federal law, it wipes out the IRS rule in its entirety. Baude raises the fact that President Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling in the infamous decision Dred Scott v. Sandford. Yet this is a red herring. The King case is not about the separation of powers or the relationship between co-equal branches of government—it is simply a matter of statutory interpretation.
Such action by the administration would also potentially violate the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause—recognized by the Supreme Court in Bolling v. Sharpe—because the administration would not be equally applying the rule of law to everyone in the nation.
Baude also makes the odd claim that such behavior by the administration “would not defy a Supreme Court order, since the court has the formal power to order a remedy only for the four people actually before it.” Again, that is simply not the case. If the Supreme Court holds that a particular statute is unconstitutional on its face or that a particular regulation was improperly issued by a federal agency, that ruling applies in all circumstances in which that statute or regulation was or could be applied—not just to the particular plaintiff in front of the Court unless the Court specifically limits its ruling to the plaintiffs before the Court.
In fact, the Court rejected Baude’s legal theory in Cooper v. Aaron, when it determined that officials in Arkansas were bound by the holding of Brown v. Board of Education even though only Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina and Virginia were the named parties in Brown. Obviously many students and school administrators were, at the time, unfortunately “happy” with segregation; that doesn’t mean the states that weren’t parties to the case could ignore the Court’s ruling in Brown.
This issue already came up in another Obamacare subsidies case, Halbig v. Burwell, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. As the Halbig plaintiffs pointed out, “[T]his Court has made clear that when it invalidates a regulation under the [Administrative Procedures Act], such a ruling has ‘nationwide’ effect, for ‘plaintiffs and non-parties alike.’”
Baude’s legal theory also ignores the Anti-Deficiency Act, which makes it a crime for a federal employee to spend funds without congressional authorization. Thus, if the Supreme Court rules that Congress did not authorize subsidies for the federal exchanges, and if the Obama administration continues to pay out these subsidies, every federal official involved in making such payments could be fined or even imprisoned.
Baude seems to be urging Obama to copy President Andrew Jackson’s shameful response to Worcester v. Georgia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia violated a federal treaty when it sought to regulate the Cherokees. Jackson allegedly responded, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” leading to the infamous Trail of Tears when the Cherokees were forced out of their ancestral homelands.
Let’s hope Obama doesn’t take this legal advice to channel Old Hickory and taunt Chief Justice John Roberts in such a way. Though the administration has shown contempt for the rule of law, it has not yet stooped to the level of ignoring a decision by the Supreme Court.
GOP wants White House’s O-Care plan B
GOP wants White House’s O-Care plan B
Administration officials are refusing to say whether they have an ObamaCare backup plan if the Supreme Court torpedoes the law.
But Republicans don’t believe them.
GOP lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee repeatedly pressed Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell on the issue. But Burwell on Wednesday did not budge during a tense back-and-forth, with a half-dozen Republicans claiming that the administration must have a “plan B.”
“I’m asking, is there a contingency plan? Not what is the plan, but is there a plan?” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) asked.
The case, which begins oral arguments next month, could make billions of dollars of healthcare subsidies disappear in 37 states. And with such high stakes, two former HHS officials said they are confident the administration is preparing a backup plan.
“Of course, they have one, they should all resign if they don’t,” said Tom Scully, an HHS official under former President George W. Bush. “And they certainly should not discuss it either.”
Former HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, who left office in 2009, agreed. He added that he isn’t surprised that senior officials would rather face a day of bad headlines than signal weakness to the Supreme Court.
“If the court thought they had a plan, they might think, they felt like their case was weak,” Leavitt, who also served as governor of Utah, said in an interview.
Wednesday’s heated exchange was dominated by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), both of whom signed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff earlier this year.
“You’re a highly intelligent, charming person, but you’ve refused to answer our questions, and to me, that doesn’t strike me as trying to work with Congress, but rather contemptuous of Congress’s responsibilities,” Cornyn told Burwell.
Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) added that he believes it is “irresponsible” if the administration is not making plans for the “what-ifs” of the case, which will likely be decided in June.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231826-gop-wants-burwells-plan-b-on-obamacare
Supreme Court challenge sows uncertainty for ObamaCare
Supreme Court challenge sows uncertainty for ObamaCare
By Sarah Ferris – 11/08/14 08:51 AM EST
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to take up another ObamaCare challenge is the latest headache for a healthcare industry that has already struggled for years with complicated legal challenges to the law.
The court’s ruling in King v. Burwell threatens to dismantle a core provision of the healthcare law that provides subsidies for nearly 5 million people. While that decision won’t come until next spring, experts say that waiting period could throw ObamaCare in flux ahead of its second full year of implementation.
“I think it does create a cloud of uncertainty,” Elizabeth Carpenter, director of the healthcare consulting firm Avalere Health, told The Hill. “In some ways, stakeholders and key industry groups were beginning to kind of settle into some of the rhythms of the [Affordable Care Act], and certainly, this adds just another unknown variable.”
The court’s announcement came as a surprise to lawmakers who helped craft the law, many of whom dismissed the GOP-driven legal challenge as a partisan attack.
