Skip to comments.Major Supreme Court cases for the new term
Posted on 10/06/2009 2:55:50 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
Highlights of some high-profile cases that the Supreme Court will take up in its term that begins Monday (10/5/09):
_Guns: The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms has never been held to apply to state and local laws restricting guns. The court is taking up a challenge to a handgun ban in Chicago to decide whether this right, like many others in the Bill of Rights, acts to restrict state and local laws or only federal statutes. If the court sides with gun rights supporters, lawsuits to overturn all manner of gun control laws are likely.
_Animal cruelty videos: A 1999 federal law bars depictions of acts of animal cruelty, including pit bull fights. A federal appeals court overturned a Virginia man's conviction and struck down the law because it impermissibly restricted his First Amendment rights. The Obama administration says courts should treat this issue the same as child pornography and rule that pictures and videos deserve no constitutional protection.
_Mojave cross: For most of the past 75 years, a cross on public land in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve has stood as a memorial to World War I soldiers. The court takes up a long-running legal fight over whether the cross, which Congress declared a national memorial, violates First Amendment religious protections despite Congress' decision to transfer the land to private ownership.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Thanks for posting! I’m sorry but when the SCOTUS says abortion is OK and Porn is art, covered by free speech, I just can’t get worked up over dog fight videos....I love animals but I’ll get worked up over the doggie fights when the unborn are recognized as Americans with all rights of those living outside the womb.
The First says "shall make no law..." What law are they talking about? Can't these people read?
What about a promised review of McCain-Feingold?
The Heller case determined the 2A to be an individual right, not a collective one, but was directed to the feds thru the city of DC. This current challenge will determine whether the 2A RIGHT prohibits states/locals from infringement.
Once it is recognized that the 2A is protected from fed/state and local laws, we can then move forward and define exactly what it means to “not infringe” this right.
Every case that gets to the SCOTUS is major.As few as 5 out of 9 unelected people get to make THE LAW OF THE LAND!
Where’s the lawyers in order for the Justices to issue CERT?
That's not true at all. Of course it does so apply. That was the Founder's intent. Obscured for a while as the States for all practical purposes reneged judicially on that assent they gave in ratifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
That cowardly reneging was resolved in Civil War, and patched up (not so well, but patched anyway) with the post Civil War amendments, specifically the 14th. The 14th causes problems because it was trying to fix something that was broken in the original charter, but something that broke because of some States and the Judiciary dishonored it.
Nevertheless the stated purpose of the 14th was do allow the freed to defend themselves not just in process of law, but by means of all the rights of freemen including the right to bearing arms in self-defense.
Animal cruelty videos may be ruled unconstitutional? Then the PETAmaniacs can sue any ad that depicts meat, and might win. Brave new world.
typo fix: The 14th causes problems because it was trying to fix something that was NOT broken in the original charter, but something that broke because of some States and the Judiciary dishonored it.
Seems to me the 10th Amendment answers that quite clearly.
But what do I know, I take words for their actual meaning and I missed all of my nuance classes.
All Legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
So how can religious exercise anywhere, anytime be unconstitutional as scotus thinks?
Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof... I don’t see what a cross on a hill has to do with this ...
Abortion is wrong.
Pornography is wrong.
Animal abuse is wrong.
There, that wasn't so difficult was it?
It’s a conundrum imo. Does your State have the right to ban free speech?
No and I'm not sure why you would ask??
That’s right. How can a cross on a hill be unconstitutional?
I believe the constitutional issue involved in the case is that the legislation is ridiculously overbroad and could be used to ban all sorts of things including videos depicting hunting, dressing of hunt, meat packing, anything that someone could interpret as “the poor animals” etc. (ie what a “reasonable” person would think doesn’t apply)
I certainly understand that context, but my point was about the “acceptability” of dog fighting video’s under the guise of free speech and in relation to so-called “abortion rights” and other issues previously decided by the SC.
You did it way better than me! Good show! :-)