Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 20th, 2013

Posted on 06/20/2013 5:14:09 AM PDT by Perdogg

Big cases left

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action

Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act

Hollingsworth v. Perry - California's definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause

United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; doma; homosexualaenda; lawsuit; prop8; ruling; scotus; vanity

1 posted on 06/20/2013 5:14:09 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; maggief; thouworm; penelopesire; SE Mom; Nachum; MestaMachine; kingu

ping


2 posted on 06/20/2013 5:15:49 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

those are some biggies


3 posted on 06/20/2013 5:31:45 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thank you.


4 posted on 06/20/2013 5:34:32 AM PDT by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

My predictions;

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action
Decision: Race based entry quotas and standards are OK, when promoting minorities. There is no issue if whites are treated unfairly in the process.
Result: Status quo unchanged

Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act
Decision: It stays, because the south has not proven that it has made sufficient progress in race relations and equality, and it it the federal governments responsibility to ensure progress on this front.
Result: Status quo, unchanged

Hollingsworth v. Perry - California’s definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause
Decision: California can decide what it wants, because in this case the 10th Amendment is supreme. The wording will essentially be, “change it if you want”.
Result: Another big push to redefine marriage in Cali.

United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act
Decision: DOMA will be tossed.
Result: This will open a flood gates for a federal definition on “marriage”


5 posted on 06/20/2013 5:48:53 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

Well if that’s your expectation then you at least aren’t setting yourself up for disappointment.
My head tells me that the change from SDO to Alito means we flip the affirmative action case 5-4 our way, but my experienced and troubled heart tells me Kennedy or Roberts won’t want to get called a racist and we could end up with a narrow victory (by way of a concurring opinion) leaving some affirmative action jurisprudence undisturbed.
I’m just glad that the part of DIMA that says states don’t have to give Full Faith and Credit to gay marriages from other states isn’t up for review (that I know of).
But overall, I’d say any faith in SCOTUS is misguided since we commonly get screwed.


6 posted on 06/20/2013 6:00:40 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action

Affirmative Action upheld 5-4. Majority opinion written by Roberts defines it as a tax.


7 posted on 06/20/2013 6:31:07 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

:) Bump.


8 posted on 06/20/2013 6:34:40 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fatima; hoosiermama; maggief; thouworm; penelopesire; SE Mom; Nachum; MestaMachine; kingu

Here we go.....


9 posted on 06/20/2013 7:00:48 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

First decision 8-1 11-9540, Descamps. Per Kagan. The modified categorical approach does not apply to statutes that contain a single indivisible set of elements.


10 posted on 06/20/2013 7:02:46 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

In Plain English, it is now harder for the government to use the facts of a prior conviction to enhance a federal criminal sentence.


11 posted on 06/20/2013 7:03:18 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The dissenter was Justice Alito. The decision of the court of appeals against the defendant is reversed.


12 posted on 06/20/2013 7:04:29 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

waiting...


13 posted on 06/20/2013 7:08:16 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks for the ping on this!! Will be watching the thread closely.

Prayers up!


14 posted on 06/20/2013 7:09:41 AM PDT by penelopesire (TIME FOR OBAMA TO ANSWER FOR BENGHAZI UNDER OATH!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The Federal Arbitration Act enforces a class action arbitration waiver; cannot defeat the waiver on the ground that individual arbitration is too expensive.


15 posted on 06/20/2013 7:10:20 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

5-3. Per Scalia.


16 posted on 06/20/2013 7:10:53 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

In Plain English, this means that if you have a contract with a business in which you agree to arbitrate a dispute but it says you can’t get together with other plaintiffs in a “class action,” that contract will be enforced, even if it may be too expensive for you to pursue your own claim given what you might win.


17 posted on 06/20/2013 7:14:03 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Next AID. The Court holds that the policy violates the First Amendment by compelling affirmation of a belief outside the scope of the program.


18 posted on 06/20/2013 7:15:38 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...
The vote is 6-2. Chief Justice writes the opinion. Scalia and Thomas dissent. That's all folks....


19 posted on 06/20/2013 7:19:44 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

It looks like we will get the major decisions next Thursday, maybe one on Monday


20 posted on 06/20/2013 7:23:39 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
http://www.scotusblog.com/
21 posted on 06/20/2013 7:26:41 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

They’re really stretching it out.


22 posted on 06/20/2013 7:30:21 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

It is not usually long. Ending on the last Thursday in June is not unprecedented.


23 posted on 06/20/2013 7:33:01 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Ooh, that AID decision could have some far-reaching effects. No wonder the blog is taking its time on its analysis.


24 posted on 06/20/2013 7:34:05 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

The third ruling: AID - The gov’t can’t require groups to affirm their opposition to sex trafficking and prostitution. Violates 1st A.


25 posted on 06/20/2013 7:36:06 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

If the govt cannot force groups to renounce prostitution and sex trafficking, it cannot require, let’s say, a church to fund abortions if it doesn’t want to.


26 posted on 06/20/2013 7:37:57 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yes, placing a limit on what strings Congress can attach to grant money. I’m thinking about Planned Parenthood and its ilk. I suppose the difference is having a restriction about what you can say/believe/promote vs restrictions on how the money can be used. The problem is that money is fungible and using the grant to do x which the grant intends frees up money to do y, which is against the intent of Congress. Solution, no more grants!


27 posted on 06/20/2013 7:39:22 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act

I want to see SCOTUS slap little Barry down on this one - Barry the Constitutional "Professor" - NOT.
28 posted on 06/20/2013 7:39:33 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thank You for this ping. Watching to see how much blackmail has been done on certain sc members and is it to be ... Game, Set, Match.


29 posted on 06/20/2013 7:39:47 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Ok, you’re thinking positive, I negative. Now I see the upside. thanks.,


30 posted on 06/20/2013 7:40:16 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

This is good because it means some funding will not pass since there is no guarantee who would actually get the money.


31 posted on 06/20/2013 7:56:15 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks for the ping.:)


32 posted on 06/20/2013 8:14:08 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fatima

you are welcome - the biggies next week.


33 posted on 06/20/2013 8:15:06 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

There will be at least 2 #scotus days next week, but very likely 3. Best bets: Mon, Wed, Thurs.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 20, 2013


34 posted on 06/20/2013 8:24:23 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

So which one’s are the big one’s.?


35 posted on 06/20/2013 8:25:24 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fatima

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Affirmative action

Shelby County v. Holder - Constitutionality of Section 5 of Voting Rights Act

Hollingsworth v. Perry - California’s definition of marriage and the Equal Protection Clause

United States v. Windsor - Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act


36 posted on 06/20/2013 8:30:49 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks again ((((Hugs))))


37 posted on 06/20/2013 8:37:15 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

**DOMA will be tossed.
Result: This will open a flood gates for a federal definition on “marriage”**

I don’t think so, but maybe I’m just too Catholic and know the Bible too well.

What is in it that would make it get tossed out?


38 posted on 06/20/2013 6:12:38 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson