By now you have formed your opinion on the latest ruling by our bought and paid for supreme court…..but while you were listening to Bill or Joe or Wolf they quietly refused other rulings that could have been landmark…..really? What would those be?
Thank you for asking….let me throw the stuff the cowards would not touch……
The Supreme Court quietly made a bunch of headlines today, mainly by rejecting potentially explosive cases. Here’s a roundup of the day’s (in)action:
- Gay rights: The court announced that it would not take up the highly charged case that began when a New Mexico wedding photographer refused to do the honors for a same-sex commitment ceremony, Politico reports. New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that this amounted to illegal discrimination. That ruling will now stand in New Mexico, but only in New Mexico.
- NSA: The justices declined a conservative lawyer’s unusual request that it bypass the usual appeals process and immediately take up a case arguing that the NSA’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ telephone records violated the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, the AP reports. A lower court had agreed with the lawyer that the program was “almost certainly” unconstitutional.
- Campaign finance: After last week’s ruling, reform advocates are likely happy that the court decided not to take up a challenge to the 100-year-old rules banning direct contributions from corporations to candidates. Iowa Right to Life had asked the court to rule that corporations had the same free speech rights as individuals, the AP explains.
As is customary, the Court offered no commentary on any of the decisions.
Apparently there is NO money in ruling on these issues…..with the exception of the campaign finance….they avoided that one because of the fuss they raised with the one ruling last week……..they will most likely see it again under the guise of another precedent…….watch for it!
“.they avoided that one because of the fuss they raised with the one ruling last week……..they will most likely see it again under the guise of another precedent”
Oh, they will. The plutocrats have been steadily marching toward their over throw of democracy since Lewis Powell issued his manifesto in 1971. Time seems to be on their side.
It does seem so….I will be watching in June…..they could change a lot with that ruling…..
I honestly don’t see how they can and save face Chuq based on their first two rulings. When you say corporations are people, money is speech and limits on campaign spending is unconstitutional, how can you now say that corporations can’t contribute directly to a candidate?
You are most likely correct….this is a political system on its downward spiral……we may thank un-compassionate conservatism……Burke would be proud.
Not sure I understand the gay one. SCOTUS is saying it is illegal to discriminate by sexual preference?
Basically, the punted the ball let the New Mexico ruling stand so they do not have to rule on it……of course it is New Mexico only……I think they are hoping to get out of having to rule on this for the country….cowards, comes to mind….
Thanks. I would have thought they’d be compelled to hear the case, given it’s root in basic human rights.
It is a conserv majority and in as such it is cowardly….afraid of the big questions of human liberties….only concern with corporate rights…..