Free Republic

IMHO, the most interesting question was #11 - “May the police search, without a warrant, a home when one owner consents to the search and the other objects?”

The case was Georgia v. Randolph. The Court held 5-3 (Souter for the court with Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer joining, and Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissenting) that "a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry renders the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him".

Souter (this test must have been made before the wise Latina) brought up the rear (predictably) 88% of the time.

Yep, it is from 2008. It makes no sense to include Sotomayor in the test since we don't (at least in theory) know her ideology yet. Of course it's predictable that she's going to be another Souter/Stevens/Ginsburg/Breyer, but hey, she deserves at least one term before she's included in a test like this.

Well, I'm least like Ginsburg...

"You scored 17% on Ginsburg, higher than 2% of your peers."

Predictably, I'm Antonin Scalia :-).

Warning - Scrappleface!

Warning - Scrappleface :-)

Warning - Scrappleface

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

The dominance of opinions like Lerle’s were responsible for the death of millions only 60 years ago.

The dominance of opinions like Mao's/Lenin's/Stalin's etc. were responsible for the death of tens of milions only 20-80 years ago. And yet we tolerate communist parties (hell, the communists even took part in some post-WW II french governments) and peple who endorse communism.

We have a specific law for denying or playing down the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes.

How about a specific law for denying Armenian genocide? How about a law for denying commie crimes (GULag, Holodomor, purges, Great Leap Forward etc.)? How about a law for denying or playing down the German crimes during WW II? Where do we draw the line? This is slippery slope. I find the idea of putting anybody to prison for EXPRESSING AN OPINION (even though it may be a stupid opinion, but so what - liberals are also stupid and we don't put them to jail for that now do we?) to be totally incomprehensible in a civilized society.

so in this context an illegal who does not have a permanent domicile and residence and who is not carrying on business and just crossed the border only hours before giving birth is included in this decision?

Yes - in the light of Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202

"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful"

Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

According to the SCOTUS they are. See my post no. 55.

“...subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful

Does anybody know if the Supreme Court has ever done this? Ruled that the 14th include any person born with in our borders is a citizen. If not then the next baby born to an illegal in the U.S. should have its citizenship challenged ... I bet it will go to the SC on a fast track!

Two crucial cases:

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898)

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

And:

AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 256-268.

(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment; and a mature and well-considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 257-261.

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 262-268.

Can't to see how McCain-Fiengold vs everybody fares next Monday.

They are probably going to overrule McConnell v. FCC - Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy strongly dissented in that case and my guess is that Roberts and Alito are going to join them

I think that private businesses should be able to discriminate for race or gender or anything else as long as they are not places of public accommodation, which web sites are not.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 407 U.S. 163 (1972)

Appellee Irvis, a Negro guest of a member of appellant, a private club, was refused service at the club's dining room and bar solely because of his race.(...)

We conclude that Moose Lodge's refusal to serve food and beverages to a guest by reason of the fact that he was a Negro does not, under the circumstances here presented, violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1883, this Court in The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, set forth the essential dichotomy between discriminatory action by the State, which is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, and private conduct, "however discriminatory or wrongful," against which that clause "erects no shield," Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948). That dichotomy has been subsequently reaffirmed in Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, and in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).

Yep but only because of the twisted logic used by the SCOTUS which to quote Justice Frankfurter means that "some rights are in, some are out". Remember that the SCOTUS didn't "incorporate" the entire Bill of Rights. That's why even today many states ignore the Grand Jury Clause (see Hurtado v. California). That's the reason why the Seventh Amendment isn't enforcable against the states (Curtis v. Loether). And if that's the case why do the federal juries have to be unanimous (because the SCOTUS held that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts) and state juries can convict a criminal by a majority vote (Burch v. Louisiana)?

I give up.

Well duh...there are only two REAL conservatives in the Senate - Tom Coburn and Jon Kyl, plain and simple...

"The only thing really bad is that Bush is going to have a hard time with judicial nominees, including a possible Supreme Court one."

True. But to be honest - in order to get a SCOTUS nominee through the Senate Bush is going to need 60 votes anyway.

1. Isn't the Geneva Convention a Treaty?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" (Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) and

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Art. VI, Clause 2)

The decision may be wrong, but the Supremes certainly had jurisdiction to decide whether the Geneva Convention was violated.