Skip to main content

Home/ Dr. Friedman's AP Government/ Group items tagged judge

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
natedurrett

This Alabama Judge Has Figured Out How to Dismantle Roe v. Wade - ProPublica - 2 views

www.propublica.org/...ut-how-to-dismantle-roe-v-wade

alabama judge how to roe wade supreme court

shared by natedurrett on 11 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Before his election to Alabama’s highest court, Parker had been an aide-de-camp to Chief Justice Roy Moore, whose installation of a granite Ten Commandments monument in the state judiciary building had touched off what became for Alabama both a considerable embarrassment and a genuine constitutional crisis.
  • A DVD of the session shows him gripping the lectern, dressed in a gray suit and blue tie, as he railed against the perceived sins of jurists at every level. “It’s the judges who have legalized abortion and homosexuality … They are shaking the very foundation of our society.”
  • Parker has been the most creative in his relentless campaign to undermine legal abortion.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Again and again, he has taken cases that do not directly concern reproductive rights, or even reproductive issues, and found ways to use them to argue for full legal status for the unborn.
  • Those efforts have made Parker a pivotal figure in the so-called personhood movement, which has its roots in a loophole in Roe v. Wade.
  • During oral arguments, the justices had asked Roe’s lawyer what would happen if a fetus were held to be a person under the Constitution.
  • “If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed.”
  • natedurrett on 11 Oct 14
     
    Alabama Judge challenges pro-choice by stating that fetuses should have full rights as citizens of the US
kyrranielson

Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right | The Center for Public Justice - 3 views

www.cpjustice.org/...storyReader$1178

shared by kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment.
  • civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration.
  • A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
  • ...9 more annotations...
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      I do not believe that this is true. Marriage isn't defined by your ability to reproduce.
  • A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      There is no difference between a straight or homosexual relationship. You can't compare it to brothers and sisters living together or an eight year old wanting to get married. This is a civil rights issue because it is infringing on people's personal rights to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
  • The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.
  • Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      Judges are not being called upon to accept the idea of marriage between any individual that claims that. The only relationship that is asking to be recognizing is between two people of the same gender, nobody is asking them to allow brother and sister marriage or marriage between a 12 year old and a 20 year old. This is just a matter of mature relationships being recognized to the next level.
  • In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
  • the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion."
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      marriage is not a matter of religion, then why is it a standard of moralistic values that a man and a woman can be married but not homosexuals?
  • sebasgm on 10 Oct 14
     
    I agree with you Kyrra, it shouldn't be defined by your ability to reproduce. I also agree with the statement that marriage is a "civil matter, not a church affair." There is really no argument against the restrictions put on same-sex marriage being discriminatory and unconstitutional, hopefully society will soon come to understand this.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Joanne Kim on 11 Oct 14
     
    I also agree with Kyrra and Sebastian and think this article is using ridiculous reasons to oppose same sex marriage. I think same sex marriage is not different from any other types of marriage, and therefore should be allowed.
  • paigedeleeuw on 11 Oct 14
     
    I completely agree with the statement that marriage is a civil matter rather than a church affair. I do not, however, believe that just because same-sex marriage cannot physically create pregnancy, it does not count as marriage. You are all right to say that this article is using absolutely ridiculous reasons to support their ideas on same-sex marriage. As Sebastian said, hopefully society will lessen their biased minds on the subject matter.
  • danielajallath on 18 Oct 16
     
    First, I was not very familiar with the legalities of this issue until I read this. To my surprise I realized how many factors went into the process of legalizing same-sex marriages. I agree with Kyrra's comments, which I think are on point. This issue is an example of how religion does tie into law at times. The Constitution does not point at any religion in specific. However, if in law marriage did not tie up to religion... What said that only a man and woman could be married and not same sex people? There was no one definition for this. At the end of the day, same-sex marriage was passed at a federal level. There cannot be any discrimination towards these individuals, or if there is then they are protected by the law. Going back to "Civil Rights", this law was passed in response to civil rights. How the law should not discriminate. Many of the excuses that this article uses of why same sex marriage is different are ridiculous in my opinion. Just like my older fellow classmates said marriage should not be based on wether a couple can procreate. In conclusion, its is 2016 and same sex marriages are legal, respected and protected against the law. So, justice was served!
paigedeleeuw

House Agrees to Fully Fund DHS Despite Opposition on Immigration - US News - 0 views

www.usnews.com/...pite-opposition-on-immigration

shared by paigedeleeuw on 04 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The vote was a major victory for Democrats
  • funding for DHS through the end of the fiscal year – without making any concessions on immigration.
  • The move would have been the GOP’s last viable avenue for opening negotiations to halt Obama’s actions shielding some immigrants in the U.S. illegally from deportation.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • the House passed a motion to recede from its version of the DHS funding bill and concur with the clean appropriations measure passed in the Senate last week.
  • he House voted 257-167,
  • most Republicans opposing the bill
  • House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told members that pushing for short-term continuing resolutions to avoid a shutdown was no longer a viable path.
  • So it’s not just waiting for the courts, and in fact, if this bill were to pass, I believe it would actually harm the case in the courts.”
  • Republicans supporting passage of the clean funding bill Tuesday made clear they were doing so while maintaining their objections to Obama’s immigration orders, which include protections from deportations for several groups of immigrants, including people who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children and immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens.
  • 5 Republicans ultimately swallowed their opposition and moved to support the full funding bill, saying they preferred to let the courts take up the battle on the immigration actions.
  • federal judge in Texas blocked those immigration actions for procedural reasons, which at the time even some moderate Republicans said was not enough of a reason to give up the fight in Congress.
  • The Obama administration has said it will ask for a stay of the decision to allow immigrants to apply for deportation relief, and conservatives said they feared a vote passing clean DHS funding would send the wrong message to the courts.
  • If I were representing the Department of Justice in front of the Fifth Circuit to try to get this injunction overturned, the first sentence in my brief would be ‘The United States Congress has voted, knowing this program was in existence, to fully fund all operations,’” said Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.,
  • To allow a shutdown of these critical functions would be an abdication of one of our primary duties as members of Congress: It is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the federal government – all of the federal government,” said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho,
  • Republicans who would prefer to hold up DHS funding in order to win their fight on immigration.
  • Naming line items in the appropriations bill, such as a $700 million increase for border security enforcement, a fully funded E-Verify system for employers to confirm the legal status of prospective employees, and money for biometric entry and exit security systems, Dent said a vote on a clean funding bill would still help meet their goals.“If you’re concerned about illegal immigration,” Dent said, “vote for this bill."
  • Republican leadership capitulated Tuesday in a key early congressional showdown, joining with Democrats to pass a bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security without amendments that would undo President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration.
Jason Friedman

Presidential Debates in History - Bill of Rights Institute - 2 views

www.billofrightsinstitute.org/...residential-debates-in-history

potus ap government

shared by Jason Friedman on 03 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Divisive presidential campaigns are not new in American history. Politics has always been a brutal sport in which different factions vie for any advantage on voting day. While the competitive spirit of elections has little changed over the centuries, the modes in which candidates communicate their platforms and tear down their opponents have changed significantly. Now, presidential contenders are tasked with crafting a unique brand, cultivating a positive public image, and must appeal to a broader base of voters with a wider array of backgrounds and interests than ever before. The ways in which voters come to perceive and judge candidates have likewise changed with time. Visual media, especially the Internet, is one of the most important factors in modern elections.
  • Until the end of the nineteenth century, presidential candidates did little personal campaigning, preferring to let their supporters do the heavy lifting of attacking opponents and persuading voters.
    • Jason Friedman
      Jason Friedman on 14 Oct 15
       
      This is an example of how I might write something to the group.
natedurrett

Two sides gearing up for another Supreme Court battle over health care - The Washington... - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...4-9271-610273846239_story.html

health care supreme court judge court battle health

shared by natedurrett on 03 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Washington lawyer Michael A. Carvin will be back at the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second great battle over the Affordable Care Act
  • since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 2012 to uphold the constitutionality of the measure, devastating those who wanted the justices to strike down the nearly 1,000-page law in its entirety.
  • “The thing’s working. And there’s in our view not a plausible legal basis for striking it down,” he said. “But, you know, we’ll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides.”
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Simplified, the case, King v. Burwell, comes down to those four words in the text — “established by the state” — and whether justices must place those words in the context of the entire bill
  • “I do find it interesting that there’s been this conservative-led effort to kill this bill through the courts,” she said. The groups seem to be operating under the theory that “the courts are sort of an untapped resource for pursing the conservative agenda.”
  • Big business was active in opposing the law in the last fight.
  • natedurrett on 03 Mar 15
     
    Liberals are battling conservatives for the second time over Obama's controversial health care plan and his affordable health care act. 
sebasgm

Bills to Strengthen Enforcement, Integrity of Immigration Laws Introduced in House - 0 views

www.hstoday.us/...c4c2fa701ff5c9b07151625f0.html

shared by sebasgm on 03 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • our bills that would strengthen interior enforcement of immigration laws; remove the ability of the President to unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement; ensure jobs are preserved for legal workers; reform the United States’ asylum laws and make sure unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous trek to the United States are safely returned home have been introduced in the House
  • There are many issues plaguing our nation’s immigration system but the biggest problem is that our immigration laws are not enforced,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (
  • Additionally, Obama administration officials consistently exploit weak asylum standards to approve baseless claims.
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • “By refusing to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, President Obama’s immigration policies collectively undermine the integrity of our immigration system and send the message to the world that our laws can be violated with impunity.”
  • “The bills introduced by Representatives Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) -- the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee – Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah),
  • other broken aspects of our immigration system,
  • President can’t shut down immigration enforcement
  • “For decades, Americans have been promised a secure border and an immigration system that works for all Americans,” Gowdy said in a statement, stressing that, “Those promises have not been kept and both political parties bear responsibility for that. This legislation allows state and local governments to assist in the enforcement of our federal immigration laws. By doing so, we remove the ability of this or future Presidents – of either party – to systematically shut down portions of the law to suit their political purposes.”
  • During a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, Smith described The Legal Workforce Act as a tool that “turns off the jobs magnet that attracts so many illegal immigrants to the United States.”
  • “administration’s rubberstamping of fraudulent applications and policies, and effectively ends ‘catch and release,’” he stated.  
  • “Even before the President’s promises of amnesty went into effect, our borders were being inundated with unaccompanied children and teens responding to the incentive of a broken asylum policy,”
  • he Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act not only addresses the immediate concern with unaccompanied children, but closes long-exploited holes in our asylum practices.”
  • “Additional judges, attorneys and other resources will ensure children are processed, reunited with their families and sent home as swiftly as possible,”
  • The Protection of Children Act introduced by Carter would ensure unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous journey to the United States are safely returned home.
    • sebasgm
      sebasgm on 03 Mar 15
       
      This focuses on the opinions on these new bills to reform Immigration reforms that attempt to overturn Obama's immigration policies.
  • sebasgm on 03 Mar 15
     
    Bills are introduced to strengthen interior enforcement of immigration laws. This is slightly in response to Obama's call for immigration reform and his policies to make these changes. However, these bills are made to make immigration enforcement more strict, while Obama's policies attempted to weaken the enforcement of these laws. This is a large political war with democrats siding with Obama and his policies and Republicans siding with these new bills.
sebasgm

Scott Walker recall, Wisconsin (2012) - Ballotpedia - 1 views

ballotpedia.org/alker_recall,_Wisconsin_(2012)

shared by sebasgm on 25 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • An effort to recall Scott Walker, a Republican elected in 2010, from his position as the Governor of Wisconsin was launched in November 2011. Walker defeated Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) and independent candidate Hariprasad "Hari" Trivedi in the recall on June 5, 2012. A primary election took place May 8.[1]
  • Only two governors in history have been recalled - North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier in 1921 and California Governor Gray Davis (D) in 2003.[8]
  • Democrats would have likely have gone after him sooner, but under Wisconsin law incumbents are not eligible for recall until they have been in office for a year.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • David Brandt, a Walker supporter, submitted the first recall petition on November 4, 2011, on behalf of the "Close Friends to Recall Walker" committee. Democrats denounced the move as a Republican tactic - once the petition was filed, Walker could legally begin collecting unlimited campaign donations for the recall.[9]
  • On November 28, organizers said they reached 300,000 signatures - more than half the number necessary.[14]
  • Randy Bryce, treasurer of the Walker Recall PAC, said they were specifically targeting Republicans and Independents and hoped to work with United Wisconsin. "If they don't have enough and they need some more, well, here you go. It's kind of like an insurance policy," he said.[16]
  • On December 15, organizers announced they had collected over 507,000 signatures and had a new goal of 720,277 signatures, a third of the votes cast in the 2010 gubernatorial election.[18]
  • A human operator verified the name, correcting any errors before it was entered into a database. The databases could then be used to check for duplicate signatures.[22]
  • Under state law, Walker had only 10 days to challenge the validity of the petitions starting on January 18. However, as GAB officials were not able to readily provide Walker with the signatures against him, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess extended the period to 30 days from when Walker received the full petitions.
  • Walker asked the GAB to review a challenge of the signatures conducted by two tea party groups, but GAB officials said state law does not allow them to consider challenges by third parties.
  • bennordpaskin on 25 Mar 15
     
    This article from ballotpedia highlights the process for handling a recall. The verification of signatures is particularly interesting in the Wisconsin case as the time frame which is typical when accumulating signatures was breached, and in turn extended by a circuitry court. Had the court reached a different decision, the entire recall process in Wisconsin may have been avoided, and would have in turn saved large amounts of time and money which could have been put to better use serving the people of Wisconsin.
  • sebasgm on 25 Mar 15
     
    A very detailed of the Wisconsin recall election of 2012. It goes over all aspects of the election and the path that is taken to obtain a recall.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page