Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
With Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring, USDemocrazy is taking nominations for his replacement. Suggest a name (we’ll add our favorites) and cast your vote here! …read more.
Courtesy of Wiki Commons
We here at USDemocrazy can smell a good story a mile away. And it smells good. Right now… we’ve picked up a real strong scent…
A little while ago, oh say about a month, we reported on the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. We felt the tremors in the force then, and we can feel them again now. Washington is once again buzzing over Justice Stevens. We’ve got your rundown…
We here at USDemocrazy know that all good things must come to an end.
When a big wig like a Supreme Court justice knows it’s the end… it is a big deal.
The word around Washington is that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will be deciding very soon whether to retire from his position on the Court.
All Court-Nerds stand with bated breath, as a retired justice means the nomination of a NEW justice. And oh boy, you don’t want to get Court-Nerds fired up. Let’s get the rundown…
There’s a rule of thumb that says the most volatile subjects for any discussion are politics and religion. We’ like to add two more: Leonard Nimoy (don’t mess with Trekkies), and… military funerals.
Military funerals are sad enough affairs as is… A loved one, serving the nation, lost in the line of duty.
Imagine then, uninvited guests to the same funeral, picketing, protesting shouting “God hates you” and “You’re going to hell” displaying signs “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Blew Up the Troops.” …read more.
Tee Shirt Available at BustedTees.com
Why would you want “bear arms.” Their hairy and in short supply! It just seems like a big waste of time to us…Oh, not “bear” arms. Ah, we get it. …read more.
It’s a wacky day for news… Probably due to all the cabin fever Mid-Atlantic residents are suffering from… (Snowpocalpyse 2.0!)
We’ve all heard the Sarah Palin 2012 rumors, so now see how they might be materializing!
More rumors coming out of New York state, where Governor Paterson is under fire due to claims in a New York Times article that hasn’t come out yet!
The only way I’m not going to be governor next year is at the ballot box, and the only way I’m leaving before that is in a box,” Paterson said.
Could we see a Justice Clinton on the Supreme Court? The Daily Beast thinks stranger things have happened…
Bing.com
Aren’t puzzles puzzling?
Out of the box their pieces are tiny, oddly shaped and maddeningly indistinguishable (like a pea, a marble and our editor’s brain). But when you look at the cover of the box, the pieces are mysteriously assembled to paint a clear picture.
A clear picture is being painted right now in Washington DC. As these pieces come together, this political picture is not looking good… for the Democrats.
Here are some of the pieces…
Fund Raising: A new Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, frees corporations to write unlimited blank checks to political campaigns (Open the Floodgates!).
Web Surfing: The Republicans are getting more savvy as to how to use The Internet for political gain. The recent election of Massachusetts Senator Senator Scott Brown has been attributed to a rigorous use of the internet. Elsewhere, California conservative Carly Fiorina have taken to running attack adds through the web. Seen below is the “Demon Sheep” add run against her primary challenger Tom Campbell.
flickr.com
We here at USDemocrazy are constantly surprised by how little actions can have big results (like leaving a whoopee cushion on the boss’s chair).
Earlier this week we highlighted a controversial Supreme Court ruling that says corporations (or anybody) can spend ALL THE MONEY THEY WANT on political campaigns. (And spend they will!)
What’s the big deal?
Conservatives are cheering because they claim this is a victory for freedom of expression.
The Left argues that spending money isn’t free speech, and that individuals have constitutional rights, not corporations.
As is the norm in politics today, this is a very polarizing issue. But there is a larger consequence.
With the Court’s ruling, foreign corporations will now be entitled to join the orgy of US political spending. …read more.
Courtesy SCOTUS website.
Unsurprisingly, some people (like Democrat Alan Grayson) don’t like the Supreme Court’s recent finance decision. Raise your hand if you can guess why!
Too big to fail? Not the Dems. Another retirement for the party is at hand!
The divisive bill gets, well, more divisive. The House of Representatives doesn’t trust its mates!
Courtesy of WikiCommons
It is Wednesday, which is the day we let our Legal correspondent out of his cage to scrounge for morcels of meaty news ( as well as the occaisional pepperoni pizza)..
This week, our legal eagle spotted something with his camera… it’s a story about allowing video cameras in the courtroom. ( No… we are not talking about the Judge Judy TV show…).
Cameras are on everybody’s mind after the Supreme Court said “cut” to a the You Tubing of a high profile Prop 8 trial going on in San Fransisco. We’ve got the rundown…
Courtesy of WikiCommons- James Earle Fraser’s Authority of Law
It’s been legal hullabaloo during the grand year of ‘09. And it looks like we’ve got more on the horizon. We here at USDemocrazy have got a collection of what mattered in ‘09 and what will matter in 2010! Hold on to your gavels!
OUT WITH THE OLD:
we’re enlisting Google Analytics to tell you what was most popular at Above The Law this year. …read more.
Courtesy of WikiCommons
From time to time we here at USDemocrazy let our legal correspondent out of his cage.
When he’s out, you can be sure he will sniff out lawyer-letdowns that might be flying under the public radar (we like to say he has a new nose that knows news).
Well he’s got a catch for ya!
The Supreme Court recently issued a special decision (called a per curiam order) regarding a Korean War Veteran convicted of murder.
In the case Porter v. McCollum, George Porter was convicted in 1987 for the murder of his former girlfriend and her boyfriend, to which he plead guilty.
But here’s the catch… Porter’s Lawyer did not mention his client’s wartime service in Korea during the trial. The Supreme court cried “Foul”!
Why?
Here’s the rundown:
Courtesy of WikiCommons
Okay folks, it’s time for us at USDemocrazy to consult our legal affairs correspondent for some advice (and, no it has nothing to do with that mountain of parking tickets under our carpet).
It just that we’ve heard a new phrase being used by the Supreme Court in recent days. The phrase is “Honest services”. When asked about the phrase, our resident Legal eagle said he would get back to us about it… here’s what he found: …read more.
We here at USDemocrazy are constantly bamboozled by judges, courts and legal stuff like that (BTW isn’t bamboozled a cool word?).
When it comes to being bamboozled, few things can be more head-scratching than our nation’s Supreme Court! …read more.
In our crazy/busy world, we at USDemocrazy know how easy it is to miss interesting stories… (in our case it is because we are crazy/busy sleeping)
We nearly missed this story.Fortunately our eagle eyed (and awake) legal correspondent spotted this rare, rare event.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ordered a new hearing for a death row inmate, Troy Anthony Davis.
Mr. Davis was convicted in 1989 for the murder of an off-duty police officer. However, since that time, the evidence against Davis has been more than a little questionable.
Davis’ case has attracted the attentions of not only the Supreme Court, but the international community as well (including the likes of Pope Benedict XVI, former president Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu).
This is really interesting stuff, for any of you law junkies out there. Here’s a bit of a rundown on Tuesday’s decision.
So, the first question. Why would somebody think that Davis could be innocent after a fair trial. The NYTimes has us covered there:
Seven of the witnesses against Mr. Davis have recanted, and several people have implicated the prosecution’s main witness as the actual killer of the officer, Mark MacPhail.
So, obviously, there is some serious room for doubt in this case. If there is such serious doubt, and a man’s life is on the line, you’d think the Supreme Court would unanimously behind holding a new hearing…
Nope. The Washington Post has us covered on this front:
Justice Antonin Scalia objected to the court’s decision to order a new hearing, an “extraordinary step” he said the court had not taken in nearly 50 years. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, he called the action a “fool’s errand” and a “confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state’s execution of its lawful criminal judgment.”
“How can this be?” you ask? Well, this is legal stuff, so it does come down to a point of law. The WSJ Law Blog poses the question for us:
It’s a fascinating question: does the Constitution require a stay of execution of a convicted defendant who had fair trial but later is able to show that he’s actually innocent?
Crazy stuff, isn’t it? You’re guilty, but you’re not, though you got a fair trial that ended unfairly. Whew, its got us dizzy. Time for a nap.
