Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Is it appropriate for the Legislator to "punish" the Judicial, or even the Executive, branch because of a disagreement in what is right or wrong? Is it appropriate to target only specific justices instead of applying the salary cut to all of the justices? I wonder if some of the legislators are holding on to this issue for longer than needed? The Varnum v. Brien decision was over four years ago, yet legislators are still trying to "punish" the justices for that decision.

Citizens United, the conservative group that successfully sued to enable wealthy corporations to buy elections, also has it in for same-sex couples.

It's interesting to note that all of the people who wrote the brief and submitted it are men.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in a case called Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, and their final decision could help shape the future of "first sale," a legal doctrine that underpins the right to sell, lend, or give away the things you buy, even if those things contain copyrighted elements.

I actually read another article about this somewhere (wish I had saved it now.) In the article I read a law professor or a lawyer or someone like that said that it isn't things manufactured overseas but things originally bought overseas. The example used in the article I read was if you bought an iPod in China because it was cheaper then tried to sell it here for a profit then the "first sale" doctrine doesn't protect you. However, if you buy the iPod here in the United States, even if it was made in China, then you'd be protected. Not sure how accurate/unbiased the article I read was as I don't remember who it was by but I do think that this article sounds a little biased and like they are trying to push two sperate issues together ("first sale" and the controversial digital licences issue). Just my take though.

President Barack Obama is suddenly searching for a new Supreme Court justice after the death of conservative icon Antonin Scalia left a rare vacancy at the pinnacle of U.S. jurisprudence.

Conservative justices questioned Obama's authority to use executive actions to shield some 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito seemed particularly concerned with language in the administration's guidance that said the program's recipients would be "lawfully present," which they suggested would contradict immigration law.

"In the weeks since President Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, debate over him has split along predictably partisan lines, with praise from the right and anxious condemnation from the left."

"Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court faces a dramatic week as senators prepare to cast key votes that could splinter the chamber and lead to a divisive rule change imposed by Republicans to ensure they can confirm the judge by Friday."

I don't believe filibustering will really do any good. They can't just filibuster until another justice dies or for years. It's really childish in a manner to just be doing it in order to have revenge over the Republicans.

What is so bad about having a filibuster? Just let Democrats speak their mind and see what happens, they already waited a year and a half they can wait a little longer for a decision.

I'm glad that an organization like the Iowa Bar Association is standing up for Justice Wiggins and trying to inform people what a retention vote really should be about. It makes me wonder if the US Supreme Court would have made any of their unpopular decisions if they were to be put up for a retention election. I also commend Justice Wiggins and the other three Justices who where voted out last time for choosing not to campaign and keeping politics out of the judicial system as much as they can. I plan on voting to retain Justice Wiggins because I don't believe that he has done anything to lose his position as a Supreme Court Justice.

"A divided Iowa Supreme Court has thrown out the sexual exploitation conviction of a former Bloomfield High School basketball coach who had sex with a 16-year-old girl claiming he doesn't fit the definition of a school employee under state law."

I'm surprised he made such a narrow dodge of the charges. But we should find a way to get rid of this loop-hole, even then he is over 4 years of age difference with her. And the state law does say ages 13-18 can be with any lover as long as they're within four years of their age. So he should receive some punishment.

"The stars of the reality television show "Sister Wives" used the U.S. Supreme Court's recent same-sex marriage ruling to support their case against Utah's polygamy ban, court records show."

"U.S. Supreme Court, in a high-stakes encore to the health care reform law known as Obamacare. The justices will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a dispute involving contraception coverage and religious liberty."

"Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person's permission. "

I understand why people would want to ban allowing police to record someone's private conversation. Although it has helped with a lot of cases involving drugs there should be a limit on how far police can go. They shouldn't be able to listen to innocent people's conversations. It wrong and they wouldn't be able to unhear anything.

I understand why people would want to ban allowing police to record someone's private conversation. Although it has helped with a lot of cases involving drugs there should be a limit on how far police can go. They shouldn't be able to listen to innocent people's conversations. It wrong and they wouldn't be able to unhear anything.

"Attorney General Jon Bruning was joined by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a declaration that Colorado's legalization of marijuana is unconstitutional."

"Brown was 9 years old in 1951 when her father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her at Sumner Elementary School, then an all-white school near her Topeka home. When the school blocked her enrollment her father sued the Topeka Board of Education. Four similar cases were combined with Brown's complaint and presented to the Supreme Court as Oliver L. Brown et al v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al."

I remember growing up in the 50's in Phoenix and all you could see were signs of segregation, especially in the service areas. Restaurants, service stations and the like had various signs reading "no service to coloreds" or "whites only" and this was the accepted norm. No one thought other-wise. Glad these days are over or are they really?

"Supporters of the law are likely to ask the Iowa Supreme Court to hear an appeal of Huppert's ruling."