Skip to main content

Home/ TOK Friends/ Group items tagged court

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
katieb0305

Benefits of an Evenly Split Court Will Become Apparent - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...lit-court-will-become-apparent

shared by katieb0305 on 26 May 16 - No Cached
  • On Monday, the court punted the recent religious challenge to the contraception regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act back to the lower courts probably because the justices were equally divided, and a similar result may well happen again with important abortion and immigration cases still to be decided this term. Although many court watchers are lamenting its deadlocked status, there are actually significant benefits to an equally divided court and few disadvantages.
  • On Monday, the court punted the recent religious challenge to the contraception regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act back to the lower courts probably because the justices were equally divided, and a similar result may well happen again with important abortion and immigration cases still to be decided this term. Although many court watchers are lamenting its deadlocked status, there are actually significant benefits to an equally divided court and few disadvantages.
  • he American people may find that they don’t need a single nine-member court to solve the country’s most disputed legal questions. If the justices are unable to reach a consensus, court of appeals judges around the country would have the final say on divisive issues.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • A five-member conservative or liberal majority on the Supreme Court can impose a partisan political agenda on the country without too much difficulty, often with one key justice dictating the results. With eight justices equally divided among conservative and liberals, the court can only act decisively when at least one justice switches sides. This is a state of affairs to be celebrated, not lamented, and may be appreciated when the court is fully staffed again.
katherineharron

Police accountability and immunity could get a closer look by the Supreme Court - CNNPo... - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by katherineharron on 03 Jun 20 - No Cached
  • Law enforcement accountability is missing in the justice system.
  • The Supreme Court could decide soon whether it will take a closer look at a legal doctrine it created nearly 40 years ago that critics say is shielding law enforcement and government officials from accountability. Defenders argue that it protects an officer's ability to make a snap decision during potentially dangerous situations.
  • "When the Supreme Court grants qualified immunity ... it sends a message to law enforcement that there are not consequences for violating the law and it sends the message to the people that their rights don't matter,"
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • That requires a high bar and makes it difficult to win unless the situation is similar to a prior case with nearly identical facts. In some cases with unique fact patterns, of which there are many, officers have been granted immunity even if they have been found to have acted in violation of the Constitution.
  • "Everyone has the potential for adverse encounters with state actors, whether it's members of law enforcement, public school officials, city council members, or other municipal employees," said Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "So long as the Supreme Court continues to permit this unlawful shield for government agents, no citizen will have any assurance that their rights will be respected."
  • "Until we shift the focus of our inquiry to whether immunity existed at common law, we will continue to substitute our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress," the conservative Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. "In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence."
  • In its 1982 decision, the court found that the aides were entitled to qualified immunity. "Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known," the court ruled.
  • "The principle that government officials should be accountable for their violations of the Constitution is not a partisan issue. It's an American one," Boston University law professor Jack Beermann said in an interview with CNN. "Conservatives are just as concerned with abuse of government power as liberals are. And you combine that with what seems to be a rash of police misconduct in recent years and you can get a pretty strong coalition."
  • "There's an incredible urgency as communities across the country seek accountability for police violence against individuals of color in particularly, to open up the courts, claim a constitutional violation and make sure officers aren't provided a get-out-of-court-free card when they violate people's rights,"
  • "We are in the midst of a crisis of accountability in law enforcement,
  • As George Floyd's death tragically illustrates, for many people in this country, our culture of near-zero accountability for law enforcement is not an abstract public-policy concern, but a matter of life and death.
  • "At its heart, qualified immunity protects police officers' split second decisions ... courts must afford them a measure of deference in their on-the-scene assessments about the application of force to subdue a fleeing or resisting suspect,"
  • "Abandoning qualified immunity ... would leave hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers exposed to potential liability, likely second guessing themselves in situations where a hesitation to act could mean the difference between life and death," the lawyers said in court papers.
  • Our case presents some of the problems with qualified immunity very starkly," said Michelman, lead counsel representing Baxter in the case. "Everyone should know, and everyone does know, that putting your hands up is a universal symbol of surrender and it is completely out of bounds to attack somebody who has surrendered."
  • "These cases very frequently arrive from police use of force in particular circumstances," Hughes said. "When an individual or his or her estate alleges that a police officer used excessive force the officer will invariably raise a qualified immunity defense."
proudsa

Hillary Clinton Says A Republican President Would 'Break' The Supreme Court - 0 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...court_568fbb2fe4b0a2b6fb6f9ec5

shared by proudsa on 09 Jan 16 - No Cached
  • "The stakes are clear," Clinton wrote of the slate of cases now pending before the court. "In a single term, conservative justices could undermine virtually every pillar of the progressive movement."
    • proudsa
      proudsa on 09 Jan 16
       
      How one small group can undermine an entire larger one
  • "Those who care about the fairness of elections, the future of unions, racial disparities in universities, the rights of women, or the future of our planet, should care about who appoints the next justices," Clinton wrote.
  • The current demographics of the Supreme Court are what make the coming election such a relevant issue.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • In debates and on the trail, various GOP candidates have spent time discussing the merits and demerits of specific justices. 
  • He has vowed to pick "rock-ribbed conservatives" to the court, and has also said that Chief Justice John Roberts -- whom Cruz himself once supported -- is actually a bad choice to lead the court because he lacks a "true conservative record."
  • Clinton's op-ed is also notable in that she argues how Republicans see this election as their chance to "pack the courts with jurists who will turn back the clock" on progress -- apparently an acknowledgement that some of the more controversial cases to go before the justices got their start in lower courts that were willing to hear them.   
  • "After years of accusing liberals of judicial activism, conservatives are wholeheartedly relying on Republican-appointed judges to undo progressive achievements," Clinton wrote. "They’re using radical legal strategies to accomplish through the courts what they’ve failed to do through legislation, like dismembering the Voting Rights Act or attacking unions."
  • they're voting for many things at once.
Javier E

The Disgust Election - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...the-disgust-election.html

election financing rich corruption supreme court oligarchy campaign politics

shared by Javier E on 25 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • I would like for the most influential swing voter on the Supreme Court to step away from his legal aerie, and wade through some of the muck that he and four fellow justices have given us with the 2014 campaign.
  • How did we lose our democracy? Slowly at first, and then all at once. This fall, voters are more disgusted, more bored and more cynical about the midterm elections than at any time in at least two decades.
  • beyond disdain for this singular crop of do-nothings, the revulsion is generated by a sense that average people have lost control of one of the last things that citizens should be able to control — the election itself.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • You can trace the Great Breach to Justice Kennedy’s words in the 2010 Citizens United case, which gave wealthy, secret donors unlimited power to manipulate American elections. The decision legalized large-scale bribery — O.K., influence buying — and ensured that we would never know exactly who was purchasing certain politicians.
  • Kennedy famously predicted the opposite. He wrote that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That’s the money quote — one of the great wish-projections in court history. But Kennedy also envisioned a new day, whereby there would be real-time disclosure of the big financial forces he unleashed across the land.In his make-believe, post-Citizens United world, voters “can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”
  • just the opposite has happened. The big money headed for the shadows. As my colleague Nicholas Confessore documented earlier this month, more than half the ads aired by outside groups during this campaign have come from secret donors. Oligarchs hiding behind front groups — Citizens for Fluffy Pillows — are pulling the levers of the 2014 campaign, and overwhelmingly aiding Republicans.
  • you can’t argue with the corrosive and dispiriting effect, on the rest of us, of campaigns controlled by the rich, the secret, the few.
  • This year, the Koch brothers and their extensions — just to name one lonely voice in the public realm — have operations in at least 35 states, and will spend somewhere north of $120 million to ensure a Congress that will do their bidding. Spending by outside groups has gone to $1 billion in 2012 from $52 million in 2000.
  • At the same time that this court has handed over elections to people who already have enormous power, they’ve given approval to efforts to keep the powerless from voting. In Texas, Republicans have passed a selective voter ID bill that could keep upward of 600,000 citizens — students, Native Americans in federally recognized tribes, the elderly — from having a say in this election.
  • What’s the big deal? Well, you can vote in Texas with a concealed handgun ID, but not one from a four-year college. The new voter suppression measure, allowed to go ahead in an unsigned order by the court last Saturday, “is a purposefully discriminating law,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, “one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hun
  • With the 2010 case, the court handed control of elections over to dark money interests who answer to nobody. And in the Texas case, the court has ensured that it will be more difficult for voters without money or influence to use the one tool they have.
peterconnelly

The Supreme Court vs. Social Media - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...upreme-court-social-media.html

new york times supreme court social media

shared by peterconnelly on 01 Jun 22 - No Cached
  • The Supreme Court handed social media companies a win on Tuesday by blocking, for now, a Texas law that would have banned large apps including Facebook and Twitter from weeding out messages based on the views they expressed.
  • Do sites like Facebook have a First Amendment right to allow some material and not others, or an obligation to distribute almost anything?
  • The First Amendment restricts government censorship, but it doesn’t apply to decisions made by businesses.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Conservative politicians have long complained that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media companies unfairly remove or demote some conservative viewpoints.
  • Associations of internet companies and some constitutional rights groups said that the Texas law violated the First Amendment because it allowed the state to tell private businesses what kinds of speech they could or could not distribute.
  • Texas countered that Facebook, Twitter and the like don’t have such First Amendment protections because they are more like old telegraphs, telephone companies and home internet providers.
  • A federal appeals court recently deemed unconstitutional a Florida law passed last year that similarly tried to restrict social media companies’ discretion over speech.
  • written by Justice Samuel Alito that said: “It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”
  • These cases force us to wrestle with a fundamental question about what kind of world we want to live in: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube so influential in our world that the government should restrain their decisions, or are they private companies that should have the freedom to set their own rules?
Javier E

Why Didn't the Government Stop the Crypto Scam? - 0 views

mattstoller.substack.com/...-didnt-the-government-stop-the

crypto government regulation capture agency history crisis corruption

shared by Javier E on 22 Nov 22 - No Cached
  • By 1935, the New Dealers had set up a new agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and cleaned out the FTC. Yet there was still immense concern that Roosevelt had not been able to tame Wall Street. The Supreme Court didn’t really ratify the SEC as a constitutional body until 1938, and nearly struck it down in 1935 when a conservative Supreme Court made it harder for the SEC to investigate cases.
  • It took a few years, but New Dealers finally implemented a workable set of securities rules, with the courts agreeing on basic definitions of what was a security. By the 1950s, SEC investigators could raise an eyebrow and change market behavior, and the amount of cheating in finance had dropped dramatically.
  • Institutional change, in other words, takes time.
  • ...22 more annotations...
  • It’s a lesson to remember as we watch the crypto space melt down, with ex-billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried
  • It’s not like perfidy in crypto was some hidden secret. At the top of the market, back in December 2021, I wrote a piece very explicitly saying that crypto was a set of Ponzi schemes. It went viral, and I got a huge amount of hate mail from crypto types
  • one of the more bizarre aspects of the crypto meltdown is the deep anger not just at those who perpetrated it, but at those who were trying to stop the scam from going on. For instance, here’s crypto exchange Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who just a year ago was fighting regulators vehemently, blaming the cops for allowing gambling in the casino he helps run.
  • FTX.com was an offshore exchange not regulated by the SEC. The problem is that the SEC failed to create regulatory clarity here in the US, so many American investors (and 95% of trading activity) went offshore. Punishing US companies for this makes no sense.
  • many crypto ‘enthusiasts’ watching Gensler discuss regulation with his predecessor “called for their incarceration or worse.”
  • Cryptocurrencies are securities, and should fit under securities law, which would have imposed rules that would foster a de facto ban of the entire space. But since regulators had not actually treated them as securities for the last ten years, a whole new gray area of fake law had emerged
  • Almost as soon as he took office, Gensler sought to fix this situation, and treat them as securities. He began investigating important players
  • But the legal wrangling to just get the courts to treat crypto as a set of speculative instruments regulated under securities law made the law moot
  • In May of 2022, a year after Gensler began trying to do something about Terra/Luna, Kwon’s scheme blew up. In a comically-too-late-to-matter gesture, an appeals court then said that the SEC had the right to compel information from Kwon’s now-bankrupt scheme. It is absolute lunacy that well-settled law, like the ability for the SEC to investigate those in the securities business, is now being re-litigated.
  • Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler, who took office in April of 2021 with a deep background in Wall Street, regulatory policy, and crypto, which he had taught at MIT years before joining the SEC. Gensler came in with the goal of implementing the rule of law in the crypto space, which he knew was full of scams and based on unproven technology. Yesterday, on CNBC, he was again confronted with Andrew Ross Sorkin essentially asking, “Why were you going after minor players when this Ponzi scheme was so flagrant?”
  • it wasn’t just the courts who were an impediment. Gensler wasn’t the only cop on the beat. Other regulators, like those at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve, or the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, not only refused to take action, but actively defended their regulatory turf against an attempt from the SEC to stop the scams.
  • Behind this was the fist of political power. Everyone saw the incentives the Senate laid down when every single Republican, plus a smattering of Democrats, defeated the nomination of crypto-skeptic Saule Omarova in becoming the powerful bank regulator at the Comptroller of the Currency
  • Instead of strong figures like Omarova, we had a weakling acting Comptroller Michael Hsu at the OCC, put there by the excessively cautious Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Hsu refused to stop bank interactions with crypto or fintech because, as he told Congress in 2021, “These trends cannot be stopped.”
  • It’s not just these regulators; everyone wanted a piece of the bureaucratic pie. In March of 2022, before it all unraveled, the Biden administration issued an executive order on crypto. In it, Biden said that virtually every single government agency would have a hand in the space.
  • That’s… insane. If everyone’s in charge, no one is.
  • And behind all of these fights was the money and political prestige of some most powerful people in Silicon Valley, who were funding a large political fight to write the rules for crypto, with everyone from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to former SEC Chair Mary Jo White on the payroll.
  • (Even now, even after it was all revealed as a Ponzi scheme, Congress is still trying to write rules favorable to the industry. It’s like, guys, stop it. There’s no more bribe money!)
  • Moreover, the institution Gensler took over was deeply weakened. Since the Reagan administration, wave after wave of political leader at the SEC has gutted the place and dumbed down the enforcers. Courts have tied up the commission in knots, and Congress has defanged it
  • Under Trump crypto exploded, because his SEC chair Jay Clayton had no real policy on crypto (and then immediately went into the industry after leaving.) The SEC was so dormant that when Gensler came into office, some senior lawyers actually revolted over his attempt to make them do work.
  • In other words, the regulators were tied up in the courts, they were against an immensely powerful set of venture capitalists who have poured money into Congress and D.C., they had feeble legal levers, and they had to deal with ‘crypto enthusiasts' who thought they should be jailed or harmed for trying to impose basic rules around market manipulation.
  • The bottom line is, Gensler is just one regulator, up against a lot of massed power, money, and bad institutional habits. And we as a society simply made the choice through our elected leaders to have little meaningful law enforcement in financial markets, which first became blindingly obvious in 2008 during the financial crisis, and then became comical ten years later when a sector whose only real use cases were money laundering
  • , Ponzi scheming or buying drugs on the internet, managed to rack up enough political power to bring Tony Blair and Bill Clinton to a conference held in a tax haven billed as ‘the future.’
sandrine_h

Top court says evidence from hypnosis not reliable - Canada - CBC News - 0 views

www.cbc.ca/...hypnosis-not-reliable-1.642024

brain science

shared by sandrine_h on 30 Oct 16 - No Cached
  • The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that evidence obtained through hypnosis should not be used in criminal cases because testimony based on such evidence is not "sufficiently reliable" in a court of law.
  • evidence obtained through hypnosis has been used byCanadian courtsfor nearly 30 years.
  • the technique of hypnosis and its impact on human memory are not understood well enough for post-hypnosis testimony to be sufficiently reliable in a court of law
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • hypnosis can, in certain circumstances, result in the distortion of memory.
  • Initially, the neighbour told police she saw Trochym on the afternoon of Thursday, Oct. 15, 1992,but after she underwent hypnosis at the request of police, she remembered she sawthe accusedleave on Wednesday afternoon.
  • In its ruling, the court said the dangers posed by problems with the evidence could deprive an accused of a fair trial.
  • But dissenting judges, in their reasons, expressed concern about the majority ruling in which hypnosis is described as a "novel science" and "hypnotically refreshed memories" are now consideredinadmissible as evidence. "This ignores the fact that the technique has been used in Canada for almost 30 years, and has been employed in Canadian criminal investigations to assist in memory retrieval of both Crown and defence witnesses for a similar amount of time," they wrote. "Hypnosis is not new science, nor is its use in forensic investigation new."
Javier E

The Threat of Motivated Reasoning In-and To-The Legal System - 1 views

scienceprogressaction.org/...ing-in-and-to-the-legal-system

neutrality bias postmodernism justice system motivated reasoning

shared by Javier E on 03 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • It does three things—1) explains what motivated reasoning is; 2) explains how it’s threatening to the legal system (because motivated/biased interpretations of court findings and opinions by opposed groups of citizens threaten the very idea of court neutrality); and 3) takes a look at the Supreme Court’s 2010 term (and one bizarre Scalia dissent in particular) in this context.
  • There is thus an inherent risk that citizens will perceive decisions that threaten their group commitments to be a product of judicial bias. The outcomes might strike them as so patently inconsistent with the facts, or with controlling legal principles, that they are impelled to infer bad faith.
  • Kahan suggests it undermines the justice system if battling groups of advocates (say, the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society) are constantly blasting court opinions from diametrically opposed perspectives, and using motivated reasoning to do so. At some point, as this continues, you wind up legitimating the claim that really, courts don’t know anything special or have any particular expertise—it’s all just opinion, and biased opinion at that. This precipitates a “neutrality crisis” over whether courts can really judge fairly.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Scalia’s opinion thus makes the neutrality problem even worse—because it suggests it’s all bias, all the way down, even for the most professional of us. Is that true? And how do you preserve neutral courts–or, to switch to another sector, trust in the findings of the scientific community–if that is indeed the case?
ilanaprincilus06

Supreme Court Mulls Whether Police Can Enter Home Without Warrant To Save A Life : NPR - 0 views

www.npr.org/...without-warrant-to-save-a-life

Supreme Court police warrants

shared by ilanaprincilus06 on 27 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Just what sort of emergency allows police to enter your home without a warrant? That was the question before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday.
  • Later that day, doctors concluded he was not a threat to himself or others and released him. In the meantime, police had confiscated his guns and ammunition. So he sued, alleging an illegal seizure and search of his home.
  • she isn't answering her phone, and her back door is open, so the neighbors call the police. "Would that be enough" for the police to enter the house without a warrant to check up on the missing neighbor?"No" answered Dvoretzky, "I think that alone would not be enough."
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • The lower courts ruled that police could enter the home and under the so-called the community care-taking exception to the Constitution's warrant requirement.
  • "No," replied lawyer Dvoretzky. Police can only enter if there were a genuine emergency going on at that very moment.
  • Dvoretzky contended that a warrantless entry could only occur in a true emergency, but his definition was so narrow it didn't seem to satisfy many of the justices.
  • "Every single day, on average, there are 65 suicides by gunshot in the United States," he said, noting that "police officers are critical...as in this instance" to suicide prevention.
  • The Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized that police may enter the home without a warrant as part of their "community care-taking" duties.
  • There are some long-standing exceptions to the warrant requirement in "exigent circumstances, " such as hot pursuit of a suspect.
  • Can the police enter their locked fence around the yard to get the the cat down. "Is that community care-taking?" Roberts asked.Yes, replied DeSisto. "To me, climbing a tree and getting a cat doesn't interfere with the privacy rights."
  • "the key principle is if someone is at risk of serious harm and it's reasonable for officials to intervene now, that is enough. The officials don't need to show that the harm is mere moments away."
cvanderloo

What public school students are allowed to say on social media may be about to change - 0 views

theconversation.com/-may-be-about-to-change-154894

school speech education bias psychology research technology social media

shared by cvanderloo on 23 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • schools are increasingly faced with the question of whether they can discipline students for remarks made online about school or school officials.
  • In general, student speech in public schools has less protection than speech by adults in the community at large.
  • Tinker v. Des Moines School District decision
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • As a result, speech that may be protected for adults outside of the school environment – like offensive or vulgar language – can be restricted for students inside of the school environment.
  • as long as other requirements are met – the speech is lewd, school-sponsored or involves illegal drug use.
  • Some courts have considered other factors to determine whether there was a sufficient connection between the speech and the school before applying Tinker to off-campus speech.
  • They’ve considered whether the speech threatens the school’s obligation to provide a safe learning environment – for example, online bullying – or whether the speech is “reasonably likely” to reach the school or affect the school environment - for example by being directed at the school, school officials or other students.
  • A few courts have ruled that Tinker does not apply to the off-campus speech at issue in their cases because it did not occur in the school environment
  • That the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case does not provide any indication of how the court may decide the case.
  • Whatever decision the court makes, it will likely provide some guidance to students, parents and school officials about what students can and cannot say on social media.
katherineharron

Tech-averse Supreme Court could be forced into modern era - CNNPolitics - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by katherineharron on 28 Mar 20 - No Cached
  • The coronavirus pandemic is forcing all courts to alter their procedures, but the US Supreme Court, imbued with an archaic, insular air and a majority of justices over age 65, will face a distinct challenge to keep operating and provide public access to proceedings.
  • The virus is bound to force Supreme Court justices into new territory. They may open their operations in more modern ways. Or, if they move in the opposite direction and shun any high-tech alternative, they might postpone all previously scheduled March and April oral argument sessions, a total 20 disputes, until next summer or fall.
  • This very practical dilemma comes as the justices already have one of the most substantively difficult slate of cases in years, testing abortion rights, anti-bias protections for LGBTQ workers, and the Trump administration's plan for deportation of certain undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children. (Those cases have already been argued, and the justices are drafting opinions to be released later this spring.)
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • If they are weighing a more sophisticated audio or visual connection -- to each other, and to the public -- the justices have the support of an on-site technology team and young law clerks, four per chamber. At the other end of the spectrum, they might weigh canceling the remaining argument sessions and resolve the cases based only on the written briefs filed. Those lengthy filings are more comprehensive than lawyers' presentations in hour-long oral sessions.
Emily Horwitz

Supreme Court Takes Up Question of Gene Research - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...-patents-in-gene-research.html

genetics patents DNA ethics nytimes science supreme court

shared by Emily Horwitz on 01 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether human genes may be patented.
  • The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said that their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated.
  • ained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • prevent patients from examining their own genetic information” and “made it impossible to obtain second opinions.”
  • he legal question for the justices is whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection.
  • “The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature,” wrote Judge Alan D. Lourie, who was in the majority. “They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity.”
tongoscar

Air Pollution Levels Were 'Off The Charts' In New Delhi | Time - 0 views

time.com/...new-delhi-pollution-2019

shared by tongoscar on 10 Nov 19 - No Cached
  • ir pollution levels in India’s capital have soared to hazardous levels this week, leaving a toxic grey haze hanging over the city and causing poor visibility.
  • Delhi was already considered one of the world’s most polluted cities, and it’s only gotten worse this month.
  • “We’re exceeding the measurement capabilities” of some of these pollution particle sensors, Limaye says, explaining that the pollution levels were “effectively off the charts.”
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • As many Delhi residents stayed cooped up indoors, India’s government and courts ordered short-term measures aimed at curbing pollution and keeping the public healthy. At least five million masks were distributed, according to Kejriwal. The Supreme Court weighed in on Monday, accusing state authorities of “passing the buck” on dealing with the crisis.
  • The Supreme Court also ordered a ban on farmers burning crop stubble to clear their fields in nearby states.
  • The peak levels of pollution in Delhi early November far surpass the WHO’s standards for PM 2.5 levels.
katherineharron

Supreme Court says states can bar insanity defenses - CNNPolitics - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by katherineharron on 28 Mar 20 - No Cached
  • The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kansas man who argued his constitutional rights were violated when the state refused to allow him to bring an insanity defense.
  • Under the law in Kansas, a defendant can argue mental illness only to prove that he did not intend to commit the crime. Otherwise, mental illness cannot be used as a defense. Four other states have also abolished an insanity defense.
  • "Today's decision leaves much, if not most, of the scope of insanity defenses to individual states," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • "Kansas is one of only five states that has all-but abolished the defense -- a step that the majority upheld today. But the most important implication of the decision may be in opening the door to additional states that want to follow suit," he said.
  • Kagan stressed that Kansas law allows a defendant to "present psychiatric and other evidence of mental illness" through testimony to prove that "he had no intent to kill" to defend himself against a criminal charge."The defendant can use that evidence to show that his illness left him without cognitive capacity to form the requisite intent," she said. And, she said, Kansas permits a defendant to offer whatever mental health evidence he "deems relevant at sentencing."
grayton downing

Males Court Bearded Ladies Less | The Scientist Magazine® - 0 views

www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38186/title/Males-Court-Bearded-Ladies-Less/

males court science research

shared by grayton downing on 13 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • many females also don blue ornamentations like the males, though they are less bright. These so-called “bearded ladies”—masculinized females—suffer reproductive consequences as a result of their markings.
  • We were very excited to find that ornamented females appear to pay costs of reduced reproductive output,
  • Ornamented females seemed less popular in the lab, as well: males spent less time courting them.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • males dislike ornamented females because blue badges indicate a potentially negative quality in females. Although both sexes may develop similar ornaments because they share the genes that underlie the phenotype, expressing the ornament can be beneficial in one sex but detrimental in another.
  • One solution is to have the expression of [ornamentation] regulated by other factors that are already different between sexes,”
  • the causation and persistence of ornamentation in females” as well as “unambiguous information on fitness consequences of female ornamentation,” he continued. Because both sexes produce testosterone, added Cox, “regulation by testosterone is not a perfect mechanism for complete sex-limitation [of blue badge expression].”
  • detrimental ornamentation in females is a paradox that “begs the interesting question of why male-typical ornamentation persists in female fence lizards,” said Langkilde. “We plan to follow this up by examining potential benefits associated with these male-typical ornaments in females.”
carolinewren

Supreme Court boosts workers who claim religious bias - 0 views

www.usatoday.com/...27391343

religion ethics supreme court

shared by carolinewren on 03 Jun 15 - No Cached
  • The Supreme Court ruled Monday that companies cannot discriminate against job applicants or employees for religious reasons, even if an accommodation is not requested.
  • a victory for workers who want to exercise their religion on the job, from their wardrobe to transportation to time off
  • it could have major implications in the future for other job applicants and employees who seek time off for religious observances, as well as those who adhere to strict dress codes.
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightforward," Scalia wrote. "An employer may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions."
  • The ruling continued the high court's practice of providing legal protection for religious beliefs and customs. In recent years, it has allowed employers with religious objections to avoid covering some forms of birth control, upheld the practice of opening local government meetings with a prayer and allowed a Muslim inmate to keep his beard in prison.
  • In his dissent, however, Thomas defended the company, claiming that its "neutral look policy" did not constitute intentional discrimination.
  • The court's decision — hailed by virtually all religious groups, from Baptists to Jews to Sikhs — could have implications for religious minorities' job opportunities as well as companies' hiring practices.
  • Muslim women who cover their heads encounter some of the biggest problems. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which sued Abercrombie on Elauf's behalf — saw a 250% increase in religion-based discrimination charges involving Muslims. In 2012, more than 20% of its 3,800 religious discrimination claims were filed by Muslims
  • American Muslim community is facing increased levels of Islamophobia
  • Businesses, on the other hand, claim that requiring them to cater to all religious minorities' observances is an undue hardship.
  • "Shifting this burden to employers sets an unclear and confusing standard, making business owners extremely vulnerable to inevitable discrimination lawsuits,"
  • "Whether employers ask an applicant about religious needs or not, there is a good chance they will be sued."
  • 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
  • Must the job applicant request a religious accommodation, or should the employer recognize the need for it? During her job interview, Elauf never brought up her religion, and her interviewer never asked.
  • The federal government maintained that Abercrombie discriminated "when it intentionally refused to hire Samantha Elauf because of her hijab, after inferring correctly that Elauf wore the hijab for religious reasons."
Emilio Ergueta

Snowden's leaks forced NSA reform on Congress. The US would still jail him | Trevor Tim... - 0 views

www.theguardian.com/...orm-congress-still-facing-jail

snowden leaks freedom reform

shared by Emilio Ergueta on 05 Jun 15 - No Cached
  • What the influential whistleblower revealed forced substantive changes to the surveillance state. But he may never be able to safely come hom
  • he catalyst for Congress’ historic vote on NSA reform on Tuesday – the same person who led to a federal court to rule that NSA mass surveillance of Americans was illegal – remains exiled from the United States and faces decades in jail.
  • it’s a shame that almost everyone nonetheless ignores the oppressive law under which Snowden was charged or the US government’s outrageous position in his case: that if he were to stand trial, he could not tell the jury what his whistleblowing has accomplished.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • The White House told reporters on Thursday that, despite the imminent passage of NSA reform, they still believe Edward Snowden still belongs in prison (presumably for life, given his potential charges), while at the same time, brazenly taking credit for the USA Freedom Act passing, saying that “historians” would consider it part of Obama’s “legacy.”
  • even those in Congress who were campaigning for stronger NSA reform than the bill that passed the Senate are afraid to directly credit Snowden and, in many cases, still condemn him. Some cling to the erroneous belief that Snowden should come back to the US if he’s really a whistleblower because he could “tell his story to a jury.”
  • Without Edward Snowden, there would be no debate about the mass surveillance of Americans by the NSA. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals would not have ruled such surveillance illegal, tech companies would not encrypt our phone calls and text messages, and Congress certainly would not have passed the USA Freedom Act - no matter how meager its reforms actually are
anonymous

An Opening for States to Restrict Guns - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...r-states-to-restrict-guns.html

guns psychology bias knowledge

shared by anonymous on 09 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • To listen to the insistent harangues of many gun-rights advocates, one might imagine that the Second Amendment prohibits almost any regulation of firearms.
  • upreme Court disagrees
  • It was the 70th time since 2008 that the Supreme Court has declined to consider a lawsuit challenging a federal, state or local gun regulation
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to keep handguns in their homes for self-defense
  • the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
  • nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms
  • that the Constitution permits ownership of any weapon in “common use”
  • government could not regulate any weapons so long as manufacturers succeeded in selling enough of them to the public
ilanaprincilus06

Female inmate's execution on hold; 2 more halted over COVID - The Washington Post - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...b-acc5-92d2819a1ccb_story.html

shared by ilanaprincilus06 on 13 Jan 21 - No Cached
  • But an appeals court granted a stay of execution Tuesday, shortly after another appeals court lifted an Indiana judge’s ruling that found she was likely mentally ill and couldn’t comprehend she would be put to death.
  • But an appeals court granted a stay of execution Tuesday, shortly after another appeals court lifted an Indiana judge’s ruling that found she was likely mentally ill and couldn’t comprehend she would be put to death.
    • ilanaprincilus06
      ilanaprincilus06 on 13 Jan 21
       
      This event took place over a decade ago, so if they were to get their appeal on mental illness passed, I do not think it would accurately capture her mental state as the brain has had a lot of time to manipulate the defendants recollection of events.
  • “I don’t believe she has any rational comprehension of what’s going on at all,” Henry said.
    • ilanaprincilus06
      ilanaprincilus06 on 13 Jan 21
       
      When the brain is bombarded with a lot of sensory information, it makes it harder to truly understand what is going on around us
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Henry balked at that idea, citing extensive testing and brain scans that supported the diagnosis of mental illness.“You can’t fake brain scans that show the brain damage,” she said.
  • cited defense experts who alleged Montgomery suffered from depression, borderline personality disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
    • ilanaprincilus06
      ilanaprincilus06 on 13 Jan 21
       
      All three of these are able to easily manipulate one's brain
  • pseudocyesis in which a woman’s false belief she is pregnant triggers hormonal and physical changes as if she was actually pregnant.
  • Montgomery also experiences delusions and hallucinations, believing God spoke with her through connect-the-dot puzzles, the judge said, citing defense experts.
  • Ms. Montgomery’s current mental state is so divorced from reality that she cannot rationally understand the government’s rationale for her execution,” the judge said.
  • The government has acknowledged Montgomery’s mental issues but disputes that she can’t comprehend that she is scheduled for execution for killing another person because of them.
tongoscar

Vagueness | The First Amendment Encyclopedia - 0 views

www.mtsu.edu/...vagueness

shared by tongoscar on 03 Nov 19 - No Cached
  • A law that defines a crime in vague terms is likely to raise due-process issues.
  • Vague laws raise problems with due process
  • a law is unconstitutionally vague when people “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.”
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Thus, in overturning a California loitering law that required persons who wander or loiter on the streets to provide “credible and reliable” identification in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), the Supreme Court explained that “the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.”
  • the requirement that every law clearly define and articulate “the right to be observed, and the wrongs to be eschewed. . . .”
  • These examples undoubtedly were known to early American commentators and jurists, who often reiterated the importance of clarity in criminal statutes. James Madison in Federalist No. 62 warns of the “calamitous” results if laws are “so incoherent that they cannot be understood. . . .” In an early federal court case, United States v. Sharp (1815), the Court argued that laws that “create crimes, ought to be so explicit in themselves, or by reference to some other standard, that all men, subject to their penalties, may know what acts it is their duty to avoid.”
  • Court has shown three reasons vague statutes are unconstitutional
  • First, due process requires that a law provide fair warning and provides a “persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.”
  • Second, the law must provide “explicit standards” to law enforcement officials, judges, and juries so as to avoid “arbitrary and discriminatory application.”
  • Third, a vague statute can “inhibit the exercise” of First Amendment freedoms and may cause speakers to “steer far wider of the unlawful zone . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.”
1 - 20 of 152 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page