fabiochiu/medium-articles huggingface dataset:
He didn’t count on the institutional interests of the Supreme Court, and he probably has no…
By: Norm Young
Tags: Supreme Court, Donald Trump, Internet

He didn’t count on the institutional interests of the Supreme Court, and he probably has no experience in dealing with such an organization in his entire life. He’s probably felt that most organizations are entirely susceptible to bending to his will. SCOTUS has no interest in destroying its brand, and with it it’s power, even if three of its members were appointed by Donald Trump.

A lot of people say that Trump has made us weaker. I’m not sure that’s the case. It’s like a network that’s just gotten attacked by a hacker. (Even more appropriate in that Donald Trump is the first Internet presidency.) It illustrates the gaping security holes in the network and the network administrators go quickly to work closing those holes. I believe that Trump has identified some security problems in our democratic system. There is a significant interest in repairing those, and incorporating the elephant in the room, the Internet into our politics further.
The Discourse Report: December 11, 2020
By: Berny Belvedere
Tags: Racism, Young Adult Fiction, Supreme Court, Covid, Economics

Rundown

A brief comment on a notable idea, issue, or policy

A couple of weeks ago, Jessica Cluess, an author in the young adult fiction genre, was unceremoniously dropped by her literary agent and viciously mobbed online over the perceived racism in the barrage of aggressive tweets she directed at Lorena Germán, a fellow writer and person of color.

I thought the racism charge was entirely without merit. The tweets were harsh, yes — but not racist.

Here’s the tweet that set Cluess off.

Germán is suggesting we “switch it up” from “the classics” because many of them were written “before the ’50s,” which I think is supposed to imply that the books thus inevitably reflect the dominant cultural values of that pre-enlightened era.

This is a really stupid argument for not reading the classics.

But it’s a good argument for ensuring that we teach the classics well, which would involve interrogating the cultural backdrops of the works in question, asking what are the values, perceptible or imperceptible to the authors themselves, that foreground the dynamics of power in these stories. It would involve elucidating the ways in which those prior contexts enabled injustices to occur.

In short, there is a lot we can do to teach precisely the things that “antiracist educators” want us to teach without abolishing our classics canon altogether.

I took a look at some of the resources provided by #DisruptTexts, which Germán hashtags in the tweet, and that’s precisely the approach they take. So it’s strange that her tweet is more dismissive of the classics, more alarmist about them, more insistent that we need to make a clean break from them, than the Disrupt Texts initiative itself appears to be.

Here’s a sampling of how Cluess replied to the tweet:

There were a few more tweets. All of them like this.

I actually YAS QUEENED at much of this because I found the originating argument against the classics fanatically anti-intellectual. But I can’t stress enough that it is just not constructive at all to respond to a simple tweet the way Cluess did.

The outcry was predictable and it was brutal. This is YA fiction. There was just no way Cluess was going to avoid getting snowed. I won’t link to them here, but there are now countless tweets characterizing Cluess as a super vile racist.

The worst part is that the actual debate over the worthiness of the classics completely receded into the background.

As far as finding racism in all this, I actually thought Germán’s response to Cluess was racist. She wrote: “Sounds like I struck a Confederate nerve.”

Passionately defending classical literature from philistinish attack is a function of Confederate thinking? Wow, who knew?
When the Supreme Court rejects a case, that is the final word on the matter.
By: Jennifer Geer
Tags: News, Supreme Court, Trump, Election 2020, Politics

When the Supreme Court rejects a case, that is the final word on the matter. Like they decisively did for the case coming from the Texas attorney general along with a bunch of other Republicans, asking the court to overthrow the election.

It’s a conservative court. The one Trump wanted. What he didn’t count on was conservative judges tend to uphold the constitution. Not throw it in a fiery dump truck and drive it off a cliff.

Giuliani announced he’ll keep the fight going, moving it back to the lower courts. After all, Giuliani needs to keep collecting his big, fat paycheck, and Trump needs to continue living in fantasy la-la land.

Leading me to wonder how will it all end?
U.S. Supreme Court Unanimous on Religious Freedom and monetary damages: Citizens may seek monetary…
By: Joseph Serwach
Tags: Supreme Court, Christianity, Religion, Law, Constitution

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimous on Religious Freedom and monetary damages: Citizens may seek monetary damages from individual government officials violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the full court today, said the 1993 act “prohibits the federal government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise absent a compelling interest pursued through the least restrictive means.’’

“The question here is whether ‘appropriate relief’ includes claims for money damages against government officials in their individual capacities,’’ Thomas wrote in the 9–0 decision. “We hold that it does.’’
How a bill is passed and becomes law in India?
By: India Legal
Tags: Constitution Of India, Supreme Court, Law In India

The laws of India are made by the union government or by state governments for their considerable states, districts and local municipal councils. As per the Constitution of India, the procedure of any bill proposed by the Government needs to be passed by the two legislative houses of the Parliament of India, i.e. the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Similarly, any bill proposed by any state at least needs to be passed in the state’s Vidhan Sabha. It is not mandatory for the bill proposed by the state government for a corresponding state to be passed by Vidhan Parishad.

Constituent power of Parliament

The procedure of adding, change or revocation of any segment of the constitution comes into the power areas of the Parliament.

What is called amendment in Constitution?

Article 368 has the procedure for the Amendment of Constitution of India. It is the process to make some necessary changes to the supreme or fundamental law of the country. Any amendment bill proposed by the Government must be passed by both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha with at least two-third majority of the members.

Role of Supreme Court in the passing of the amendment bills

Parliament has no power to alter or destroy the basic structure of the Indian Constitution without undergoing the judicial review by the Supreme Court.

How a bill becomes an act?

To become an act, the bill needs to be passed through both of the houses of the parliament followed by the President’s acceptance. Let’s have a look at the entire process:

First house first reading

A minister or a private member who introduces the bill moves a motion for leave to introduce it. The bill is introduced when leave is granted. The introduced bill is then published in the Gazette of India.

First house second reading

The second reading is done in two stages. In the first stage, the bill is discussed by the house, a joint committee for both houses can also be chosen.

In the second stage of bill reading, the selected committee completely examines the bill and reports the house. Then, the house discusses bill clause-by-clause. This is the stage, where bills can be sent back for amendments. When the majority of people accept the amendments, they become a part of the bill.

First house, third reading

After the debate on rejection or support of the bill, it is put for a vote by members of the house. Only verbal, formal or consequential amendments are allowed by the parliament at this point. If the majority rejects, it is understood rejected. If the majority of members accept the bill, it is understood that accepted by the house and forwarded to the second house for approval.

Second House

In the second house, the bill goes through three readings. It is put ahead of the President of India when it is passed. President has three options–Withhold assent, return for reconsideration or give the assent.

Hope, you understood how a bill is passed and becomes a part of the Constitution of India. For daily legal news, and updates keep visiting India legal live website.
The Discourse Report: December 9, 2020
By: Berny Belvedere
Tags: Military, Supreme Court, Covid, Climate, Elections

Rundown

A brief comment on a notable idea, issue, or policy

Eighteen states are hoping the Supreme Court will take up their case, repudiate democracy, and grant Trump reelection. All 18 are red. All but three have Republican governors.

They won’t succeed.

The fact that they’re even trying, though, is scandalous in its own right. The fact that they’ve gotten this far, the fact that elected representatives to our highest offices have signed on to these efforts and materially boosted their reach despite the obvious damage they’re doing to our social fabric is something worse than a scandal. It is seditious debasement.

The 18 states — Texas + 17 others that hopped onto the suit — are not offering an elaborate argument about hacked voting systems or election interference. Their ask is distressingly simple: that the Court invalidate the votes of four states — by pure coincidence, they are states crucial to Biden’s election victory — because these states expanded mail-in voting.

That’s seriously it. In the Year of Covid, Trump wants to steal an election by problematizing the only form of socially distanced voting we had.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case (which seems unlikely), the only acceptable result is 9–0. It doesn’t matter that this is his Court. It doesn’t matter that, in nearly any other case, the numbers favor the president. If there is a single justice that looks at this clownshow and grants it legal legitimacy it will be grounds for impeachment.
Regulated Competition in the United States during the Interwar Period
By: Frédéric Marty
Tags: Supreme Court, Herbert Hoover, Brandeis, Antitrust

Regulated Competition in the United States during the Interwar Period

From the First World War to the National Recovery Administration (1917–1935) — The Case for Regulated Competition in the United States during the Interwar Period Frédéric Marty Dec 10, 2020·2 min read

A CIRANO Montréal Cahier Scientifique co-authored with Thierry Kirat (presented last Tuesday in the Centre Cournot conference on the history of US Antitrust.

The experience of the war economy during the First World War in the United States reinforced the influence of arguments in favour of managed competition. By extending the principles of scientific management to the economy as a whole, this approach aimed to coordinate firms through the exchange of information, which was seen as a necessity both in terms of economic efficiency and response to cyclical fluctuations. Such a stance greatly reduced the application of competition rules. Nevertheless, the proposals that emerged during the 1929 crisis — leading to the reproduction of the war-economy experience in peacetime at the risk of steering the US economy towards the formation of cartels under the supervision of the federal government — were rejected by President Herbert Hoover, despite his defence of a model for regulated competition in the 1920s. The paradox was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s resumption of these projects within the framework of the First New Deal. This paper deals with the arguments that were put forward to evade competition rules and explains why the Democratic administration ultimately decided to return to a resolute enforcement of the Sherman Act.
The Night the Republican Party “learned nasty”
By: Rodney Clough
Tags: Republicans, Supreme Court, Politically Speaking, Joe Biden, Politics

The Night the Republican Party learned nasty.

Senator Joe Biden played a role.

Archibald Cox, courtesy of Wikipedia

“Saturday night massacre,” October 20, 1973: Solicitor General Robert Bork fires Watergate Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox after Elliot Richardson and William Rucklehaus, previously ordered to fire Cox, quit.

In October 1987 President Reagan appointed Robert Bork to fill the seat vacated by Lewis Powell, Jr. who announced his retirement. Biden then 45, and a three term senator, voted along with 57 other Senators against Bork’s appointment. Republicans were furious about the humiliation Bork suffered during the committee hearings and the grilling for his role in the “Saturday Night Massacre.” He failed to get enough committee votes for recommendation for a full Senate vote. Despite the lack of a committee recommendation, Republicans insisted on a full Senate confirmation vote and Bork, the originalist darling of the conservatives and Reagan’s first Supreme Court appointment failed Senate approval a SECOND TIME. (42 for, 58 against).

Republicans vowed revenge on the Democrats for Bork’s dismissal despite the party leaders’ ineptitude at reading the political tea leaves. Reward the man who helped abort the Watergate investigation with a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court? Really?

Four years later upon the retirement of Thurgood Marshall, July 1, 1991, Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George W. Bush. Sen. Biden’s questioning and dismissal of Anita Hill who came forward with personal testimony of sexual harassment by Thomas helped mitigate misgivings about Thomas’ character thereby securing Thomas’ appointment.

In 2018 Justice Kennedy, whom Reagan appointed in 1987 after Douglas H. Ginsburg and Bork failed to be confirmed by the Senate, is replaced by Brett Kavanaugh. The so-called “Kennedy Court” due to Kennedy’s pivotal role in many landmark decisions also retired, yielding a 5–4 split between Republican leaning justices and Democrats on the Supreme Court.

For the first time in nearly 32 years, the Republicans felt vindicated for Bork’s public drubbing by Democrats. The Supreme Court technically speaking was now firmly in the conservative’s pocket. Amy Coney Barrett’s successful nomination in 2020 brought the conservative’s margin on the court to 6–3. Two iconic liberal-progressive justices — Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — had been replaced by two staunch conservative originalists, Thomas and Coney Barrett.
If our Supreme Court . . .
By: Carey Rowland
Tags: Supreme Court, Mail In Voting, Pennsylvania Voters, Samuel Alito, Kelly V Pennsylvania

When in the course of American events, a Pennsylvania Lawyer petitions our Supreme Court to deny millions of Citizens their right to vote, simply because they voted by US Mail . . . and

When in the course of Electoral events, that Lawyer petitions our Supreme Court to prevent the tabulation, computation, canvassing and certification and finalization of Pennsylvania votes . . . and

When in the course of Political events, Representative Kelly accuses the State Legislature of violating the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when they Legislated an Act to permit Mail-in Voting . . . and

When in the course of Judicial events, — — Kelly and his band of tRumpian lawyers accuse the Governor and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of conducting an illegal election because they enabled Mail-in Voting . . .

A decent respect to the Health of our Citizens requires that we should defend the Rights of all Pennsylvanians and correspondingly the Rights of all Americans to vote safely while social distancing through Mail-in Voting during a time of Voter suppression and deadly pandemic.

And when in the course of Petitions to our Supreme Court, one Justice Alito and his peer Justices of the Highest Court do consider the question of whether Mail-in Voting in Pennsylvania is Constitutional, or Not . . .

Then We the People do insist that, in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the Mail-in votes of millions of Pennsylvanians, then We solemnly petition the court to . . .

Require the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to Summon all those Mail-in Voters and solicit their individual votes in a manner that satisfies their supreme Judicial requirements, to be conducted in a timely manner so as to permit their votes to be tabulated, computated, canvassed, certified and finalized by December 14, 2020, before our Electoral College meets on December 16.

And furthermore, if the Supreme Court finds such revised process to be for any purpose impractical or unworkable, that the Justices should allow the already tabulated, computated, canvassed votes to be submitted as Certified votes, to their Electors, so that We the People will not be denied our right to choose our President, Vice President et al and etc, instead of the Lawyers rejecting the decision of We the People on the basis of a strict-constructionist technicality prompted by the manipulations and smoke and mirrors etc etc etc of a self-obsessed president and an Electoral College institution born in the nascent 18th-century Age of our dawning Democracy by Founders who could not find it within themselves to go the extra mile and actually institute an Election of the the people, by the people and for the people. So don’t forget, Samuel, that God, in Whom We Trust, is still watching, even after all this time and 21st-century legal obfuscation.

Glass half-Full
An Open Letter to Allies
By: Chelsey Gold
Tags: Marriage Equality, Rights Issue, Supreme Court, Obergefell, LGBTQ

Let’s take a turn to the hypothetical scenario that Obergefell v. Hodges were to be overturned. Not only would the LGBTQ+ community be affected, the entire country would be because same-sex marriage actually has positive impacts on the country.

First, according to Murray Lipp with the Huffington Post, marriage equality promotes non-discriminatory values because we are not putting one group of people above another. Imagine all of the people who are just figuring out who they are, trying to find their true selves, being told that their love is wrong. They then go into depression and lose hope because they now have to hide what they are feeling. Because of this, marriage equality also fosters psychological, physical, and social wellbeing.

Second, there would be a HUGE economic his to the marriage industry because they’d lose a portion of their income. This includes wedding planners, venue owners, bakers, and many many more.

Third, Lipp explains, and this one is a lot for some people to take in, it promotes TRUE religious freedom. I mean think about it, the constitution specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Also, America is a melting pot of religions. So, how can we follow certain religions and deny rights based on what they say? Isn’t this going against everything that the first amendment stands for?

Fourth, if Obergefell v. Hodges were to be overturned, we risk our international reputation with the FIFTEEN countries who made same-sex marriage legal before the United States of America.

Fifth, and the most compelling for me, the adoption industry would take the biggest hit. According to Lifelong Adoptions, couples have to be in a legally recognized relationship to adopt a child, meaning that if Oberfefell v. Hodges was overturned, same-sex couples would not be able to adopt. This is scary because same-sex couples are FOUR TIMES more likely to adopt a child than different-sex couples. Actually, there are sixteen thousand adopted children living with same-sex couples in California alone. An estimated two million LGBTQ+ members are interested in adoption. How many children go unadopted if those people are not allowed to adopt a child?

These are only five benefits of marriage equality, but I guarantee if you search for more, you will find a plethora. So my question is when you look at these five examples of how same-sex marriage benefits our country, why would anyone question overturning Obergefell v. Hodges? Especially over bogus claims that it restricts religious freedom. I mean look at how it effects the adoption agency alone. Are we really going to allow our government to deny possibly millions of children a loving family?
Purging Eligible Voters
By: Joey Dotta
Tags: Supreme Court, Voting Rights, Legislation, Elections, Voter Suppression

Purging Eligible Voters

State election officials attempt to keep the registration process as neat and up-to-date as possible.

In order to do that they routinely delete ineligible names in voter rolls. This practice refers to voter purges and it can often disenfranchise thousands of legally registered voters.

The practice is meant to ensure accuracy and ensure the number of residents. For example, a purge would remove someone who had recently passed away or moved out of the county. Most commonly, those who are inaccurately taken off rolls are individuals who are inactive voters.

The process to remove names can sometimes be inherently flawed. In 2013, Virginia relied on a database to manage the purge and experienced nearly 39,000 wrongfully deleted voters.

The problem of wrongful removals is much more widespread, totaling around 16 million voters across the country.

The recent increase of voter purging can likely be attributed to the decision of Shelby County v Holder to end the federal preclearance of election changes.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “jurisdictions no longer subject to federal preclearance had purge rates significantly higher than jurisdictions that did not have it in 2013.”

The relaxation of various laws for elections has led to the purging of millions of voters unintentionally and intentionally being removed from rolls. Four states in the past five years have enacted some sort of illegal purge.

Last year in Arizona a Republican-backed bill removed individuals who failed to vote consecutively from the mail-in ballot list.

In 2018 the Supreme Court decided that inactive voters can be removed from voter polls as long as officials send re-registration reminders.

The room for error is slim during such contested and partisan times so accuracy should be treated as an absolute priority.

The Brennan Center argues that passing automatic voter registration would help alleviate issues with updating voter information.
The Indian Supreme Court and the art of Gradual Saffronization
By: The Justice Mirror
Tags: Supreme Court, Saffronization, Justice, Constitution, India

Indian Supreme Court and it's Public Legitimacy | The Justice Mirror

This article is an academic critique of the eroding public legitimacy of the Indian Supreme Court over the past few…
The Judicial Fallout of the Trump Administration
By: Kylie Rhoton
Tags: Supreme Court, Trump, Justice, Politics, Law

Brett Kavanaugh & Amy Coney Barrett: The Disgraceful Supreme Court Justices

Brett Kavanaugh’s road to becoming a Supreme Court Justice started under shady pretenses. Justice Kavanaugh replaced former Justice Anthony Kennedy who very abruptly retired. Anthony Kennedy’s son, Justin, is a former employee of Deutsche Bank which was indicated on Russian money laundering scheme charges in the European Union and had previously loaned President Trump $1 billion. The whole situation becomes even more head-scratching when you consider Brett Kavanaugh’s substantial $60,000 — $200,000 credit card debt that was mysteriously paid off around the time of his nomination.

Then Christine Blasely Ford bravely came forward and shared her story with the world. She was subjected to a male-dominated hearing to be questioned about her assault on national television. Ford’s gutting testimony and notable believability was heavily contrasted by Kavanaugh’s hazy memory and emotional backlash.

Brett Kavanaugh during his testimony. Source: The Guardian

But yet he was confirmed. The man who could not keep his composure while a victim recounting her assault could was given a lifetime seat on the highest court in the United States.

Then Ruth Bader Ginsburg sadly passed and another seat was vacant just a little over six weeks before the Presidential election. The hypocrisy of the GOP when it came to passing a nomination this close to an election was astounding. What was even more astounding is the nominee they chose to advance: Amy Coney Barrett. Asides from this woman’s appalling views — like being a member of a Christian group that used to refer to women as “handmaidens” — she is also vastly underqualified. Barrett spent most of her career in academia until three years ago when she was appointed to a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals by Trump. During her confirmation hearing Barret could not name all five protection under the 1st amendment nor could she give details on more than three cases she had worked on during her short time in private practice.

Despite all the damning reasons not to, Barret was confirmed and the GOP gained a 6–3 majority in S.C.O.T.U.S.

The new Trump appointees have recently showed their power with their decision regrading COVID-19. In a 5–4 decision, they ruled against Governor Cuomo’s restrictions on religious institutions that are in areas with a high COVID-19 positivity rate. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissenting opinion:

“It is a significant matter to override the determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic.”

The decisions of this court are already proving dangerous to the public health. What else will their future decisions endanger?
A New Supreme Court
By: Jimmy Cerone
Tags: Experiment, Government, Supreme Court, Politics, Ideas

When I was in high school gov class, I was taught that the beauty of the American system was it’s balance of powers. That these 3 unrelated impartial branches of government acted as a gravitational pull, keeping the US spinning through the earth on its blessed course.

Recently, I’ve become worried that this story is increasingly out of touch with reality (if it was ever true at all). Whatever side of the aisle you are on, you can agree that our political world is more polarized than ever. Unfortunately, this polarization is bleeding into even the theoretically neutral judicial branch, most especially in the Supreme Court.

Nowadays, it’s commonplace for both sides to consider candidates for the highest court in the land by party, regardless of qualifications. The result is a bitter battle for control of the Supreme Court that mirrors the battle for Congress and the Presidency. What was meant to be a place full of justice and free from politics is increasingly under threat.

Before reading Why We’re Polarized by Ezra Klein, all I’d heard were policy recommendations that only fed the polarization. Democrats spoke of expanding the court while Republicans raced to pack it further. Neither of these responses address the underlying issue: the rapidly disappearing neutrality of the court.

In his book Klein summarized an interesting alternative that could satisfy both parties, and restore some of the neutrality of the past to the Court. The proposal comes from law professors Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman and Klein summarizes it well:

Epps and Sitaraman suggest rebuilding the Supreme Court so it has fifteen justices: each party gets to appoint five, and then the ten partisan justices must unanimously appoint the remaining five. Until all fifteen are agreed upon, the Court wouldn’t be able to hear cases. — Klein, Ezra. Why We’re Polarized (p. 260). Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

While I don’t think this is a perfect solution, it is an interesting one. I especially like the stipulations of unanimous appointment and requirement of agreement before trying cases, clauses which would force collaboration in an increasingly divided political world.

So far, my biggest concern with the proposal is lack of participation of other parties in the process (Libertarians, the Green Party & more are left out). However, the larger concern is that I think it’s unlikely to pass given it would require the party in power at the time to curtail their own power (a rare occurrence). But, it does give me hope that there is a solution to our current dilemma.

What do you think of it?
Could the Supreme Court Steal Another Election?
By: Lon Shapiro
Tags: Supreme Court, Fascism, Donald Trump, Politics, 2020 Presidential Race

When the Supreme Court ordered the state of Florida to stop counting their ballots, awarding the election to George W. Bush, attorney Vincent Bugliosi wrote:

“…the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen–pure and simple, the theft of the presidency…

“No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election…

“That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country.”
“RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN”:- will it work?
By: Abha Negi
Tags: Orissa, Supreme Court, Articles, Law, Judgement

Recently a 27 year old man from Orissa after being spurned by his girlfriend posted obscene photos of her x on social media and do shared them with her relatives too.

At this the state high court has recently promulgated the view to bring right to forgotten into legislation’s concern so as to prevent mental and social assassination of the victim. It’s seen as a facet of right to privacy, life, property etc. As per the provisions , right to forgotten implements revoking someone’s personal stuff or data so as to safeguard individuals interest. But will it suffice the fight of menace of “ revenge porn”, the most promoted weapon or medium to seek revenge by spurned lovers. So HC made a call that the victim can move SC to disable offensive post.

But will it be enough..!!! because in an era where just a click (that takes milliseconds) can change life , can also ruin someone’s life. even if the host removes a content in a day or say in an hour …in that period of 60 min the stuff gets delivered to 60 thousands, lakhs, millions. and then it keeps going on. Which law would then supreme court or a high court frame so to curb mental stress, social stress, relational stress.

Now the question is incase if the law/ act/ amendment is made or enshrined to the constitution then who’s guarantees the impactful implementation of it? Enough examples will suffice the question. it’s a bitter truth to accept but it’s true, things will take to change till then the most preferred changes can be made.

To deal with menace of such kind stringent policies are required, with strong cyber security web and activists who could ensure reliable punishment to the accused or say ‘alleged’. Because for a point of time we can assume that a murderer will be punished claiming any tentative year ,say, by 10–12 years( with strong evidences) but cases of cyber crime are majorly ignored, because our cyber security system ain’t well developed yet and conducive. Authorities need to work on system that initiates proper implementation, adjudication, arbitration, negotiation rather then just being sentence oriented.
United We Stand
By: Corbin Hicks
Tags: Supreme Court, Pro Life, Poland, Womens Rights, Pro Choice

If you are enjoying this newsletter, please pass it on to a friend (or three) and tell them to sign up here.

So,

When I wrote Monday’s newsletter, I ended it by saying that I hoped this was all going to end on Tuesday. That was funny. It looks like there won’t be any resolution anytime soon as states are still counting mail-in votes. I feel like in this country we’ve all put all of our eggs into the election basket, but I wanted to highlight a different approach to change and reform happening right now in Poland.

A few weeks ago, Poland’s government declared that all abortions were illegal, except in the case of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s health and life. This was not decided by a vote of the people and was instead simply a declaration made by the country’s Constitutional Tribunal, or their version of the Supreme Court. This was met predictably with a ton of backlash by pro-choice supporters, who decided to take matters into their own hands.

Last Wednesday, Poland had a “women’s strike” where over 400,000 women across 400 cities and towns began protesting this ruling. They stopped going to work, stopped going to school and stopped literally every other activity other than filling the streets while chanting “I think, I feel, I decide”. A further 100,000 gathered on Friday as well to continue to voice their unified displeasure with the ruling passed down from the courts. And guess what? It’s working.

The government has announced that the abortion ban is being delayed and reviewed as they come up with a better solution for the people. It hasn’t been signed into law so it hasn’t taken affect yet because of the continuous protests, which show the power of unified people for a common goal. It’s also in stark contrast to our country’s political climate, where identity politics has divided us further than ever before. Imagine the type of change or reform that could be accomplished if we stopped bickering with each other and instead focused our angst towards career politicians who are thriving while the rest of us suffer. The people of Poland were essentially able to reverse a Supreme Court decision simply by uniting around the cause.

United we stand. Divided we fall.
Worried About The Future Of The Affordable Care Act? Here Are 3 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t
By: Claire Mendoza
Tags: Supreme Court, Lawyers, Law, Affordable Care Act

There has been much debate over the future of the Affordable Care Act recently. For the past four years, Donald Trump’s administration has been lobbying for it to be done away with, and a battle has ensued ever since.

The act, more widely known as Obama Care and ACA, has provided affordable health insurance for Americans that earn the minimum wage and has also afforded their children to receive free health care as well.

Alternatively, the act has made health services that the middle class had previously enjoyed more expensive and, as such, there are large numbers of supporters for and against the existence of the ACA.

Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

The future of the act is now being heard in the highest court in the land. The first hearing was on the 10th of November — seven days after the polls were closed. As such, the issue with the ACA has been scrutinized by many as part of a political agenda.

With all that said and the health insurance of millions of people hanging in the balance, here are three reasons why you shouldn’t worry about the ACA too much.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is not the enemy

Many believed that the admittance of Judge Amy Coney Barett to the panel of judges that serve the Supreme court was going to tip the scales in favor of removing the ACA. This belief is due to her public statements in the past about the act. And they have questioned its validity.

However, in the recent hearing, she was amongst the judges that were skeptical about the challenge. What this means is that she will try the case based on its merit, and unless evidence against the act can be produced — it will remain as is.

Many judges are still in support of the ACA

The ACA has remained intact largely due to the favor of many judges. They do not see any legal grounds on which the ACA should be done away with and will always rule with that in mind.

The last time the act was challenged, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tipped the scales in favor of keeping the ACA. Justice Ginsburg has since passed on but rest assured — many like-minded judges like her are still serving in the Supreme Court.

The supreme court is likely to throw the case out

The chief justice, along with several judges on the Supreme Court’s panel sees the challenge of the act as a way to avoid the standing precedents that the court values. As such, it appears to be something the court may not be encouraged to keep hearing a case on unless evidence of concrete injury is presented to them.

Amidst all of the debate, Americans should not be worried about the ACA. What they can do is stay informed as the court tries the case.

If you reside in Arlington, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Virginia, and Florida, I4D is the best way to stay informed about the trial. They also provide the health insurance that you need!
What a great way to look at ACB. There’s a good lesson for men here also. Love your writing.
By: William J Spirdione
Tags: Race, Government, Supreme Court, Women, Womens Rights

I will not be told what to think. It can be explained to me.
Whatsoever Ye Sow . . .
By: Patrick Henry
Tags: Supreme Court, Biden, Trump, Election 2020, Politics

All is fair in love and war

The rest of that archaic biblical exhortation is “so shall ye reap”. The Democrats, and their mighty chorus of media acolytes, are outraged that Mr. Trump won’t deliver a humble resignation statement and fade away. They are doubly outraged that he and Mitch jammed through a Supreme Court confirmation with weeks remaining before the election. Instead of fulminating, they might want to look in the mirror for part of the explanation. Both actions can properly be characterized as perfectly logical escalations in the political war we are currently waging.

I won’t go through the whole bloody history of the politicization of our judiciary, just some of the last few chapters. In 2010, Republicans took the House in a red wave election. Obama could not get any of the legislation he wanted through the House. He decided to try to govern via Executive Orders. The DC Circuit court found a number of those Orders unconstitutional. Harry Reid, then Senate Majority Leader, decided that he needed to fill vacancies on that court with judges who would look more favorably upon the President’s actions. In order to do that, he ended the filibuster for judicial appointments (except the Supreme Court). When the Republicans became the Senate majority, they retaliated by refusing to consider Obama’s last nominee for the Court and later ended the filibuster for that Court’s appointments. Both of those moves were the utterly predictable harvest of Reid/Obama’s seeding.

Moments after the 2016 election, demonstrators were in the street, egged on by Democratic politicians and their media allies, shouting “not my President” and the social media campaign (#RESIST) got underway. Some honeymoon! The drumbeat has gone on daily ever since. Every day and in every way, efforts to throw Trump out of the White House have been ongoing. And we expect this guy to bow out gracefully? If you start a war, you don’t get to end it because you say so. The enemy gets a vote.

The left wing of the Democratic party is calling for adding two states in order to get four new Democratic Senators, ending the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, etc. The underlying assumption is that the other team will never regain power; that harvest day will never come. Anyone conducting a war needs to remember that every escalation holds out the promise of an escalation from the other side. Be careful what you sow.

Democracy succeeds by means of laws and norms, some unwritten. If the laws are ignored and the norms trampled, the institution is in danger. We are in danger of turning the American Revolution into the French Revolution, to be followed by the guillotine and a dictator.
Looking For A Fight
By: Jeffrey Radhaus
Tags: Supreme Court, Religion, LGBTQ, Justice, Constitution

Looking For A Fight

Kavanaugh’s most Trumpian moment came when “questioning” Neal Katyal, counsel for the City of Philadelphia. In fact, Kavanaugh did not even pretend to put his statement in the form of a question, but instead declared that he had a “bigger picture thought to express.” That bigger picture thought was that Philadelphia had no right to defend its nondiscrimination policy.

“It seems like Philadelphia created a clash, it seems, and was looking for a fight and has brought that serious, controversial fight all the way to the Supreme Court,” Kavanaugh asserted, “even though no same-sex couple had gone to CSS, even though 30 agencies are available for same-sex couples, and even though CSS would refer any same-sex couple to one of those other agencies.”

To hear Kavanaugh describe this case, one would think that it was Philadelphia that had sued CSS; that it was Philadelphia, not CSS, that refused to accept its loss after a trial; that it was Philadelphia, not CSS, that after losing again in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided it would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and directly challenge clear Supreme Court precedent holding that religious belief is no excuse for disobeying a generally-applicable law. It also strains credulity to suggest that the elected officials of Philadelphia wanted to engage in a high-profile legal fight with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Despite the galling nature of Kavanaugh’s “question,” Katyal did not take the bait. Instead, Katyal began by responding to Kavanaugh’s “what’s the big deal?” view of the case that he had pitched to CSS counsel Windham.

“I don’t think you can look at this and just say — ‘oh, this is a small, tiny accommodation, what’s the harm in it?’ — because any individual accommodation will look reasonable,” Katyal explained. “The problem is . . . once you do it for one objector, the Court’s going to be stuck doing it for all.” This is, after all, the rationale of Smith: if you start making exceptions based on religious belief, then everyone has the option of disobeying the law in the name of their religion.

Only at the end of his response did Katyal address the preposterous notion that the respondent City of Philadelphia was appearing in the Supreme Court — not because it was dragged there by CSS — but because it “was looking for a fight.”

“And then, lastly, when you say the City was looking for a fight or something, we couldn’t profoundly disagree more.” Katyal stated. “We certainly didn’t rush this case to the Supreme Court. Indeed, we won it in both courts below and the first one, after a three-day hearing looking at live testimony, looking at precisely the allegations you said about religious hostility, and all of those dissolved.”

While Katyal was responding to Justice Kavanaugh, it was clear that he was speaking to the justices who actually might go his way. Perhaps Justice Barrett? Kavanaugh was way beyond reach.
live supreme court final order , Arnab Goswami supreme court latest news
By: Sudeep B. Makwana
Tags: Supreme Court, Republic, Arnab Goswami

I strongly believe that we can change our country's fate we r the future of our country. working as Full-stack developer. #vuejs #weex wegotjob.in.
Amy Coney Barret: Qualified or Not?
By: Charlie Heller
Tags: Supreme Court, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Politics, United States

What Are the Qualifications of A Supreme Court Judge?

According to the Constitution: there are no qualifications. However, not just anyone reaches this office. Being the highest court in the country, only the best of the best lawyers and judges are ever considered for the position of a Supreme Court Justice.

Traditionally, there are several factors that come into play when it comes to Supreme Court Justices experience in the field of law. All judges ever appointed and confirmed have had previous law experience on their resumé (Carp, et al,2020). According to the Judicial Process in America, “An inordinate number [of SCOTUS Justices] had served as corporation attorneys… about a quarter had state or federal judicial experience… more than half had served on the bench at some time before their nomination.”

The American Bar Association also plays a significant role in the selection process of Federal judges (Carp, et al., 2020). The ABA assembles of committee of experts to analyze and declare nominees fit or unfit for the job of a SCOTUS Justice (Carp, et al., 2020). There are three levels of qualification: “well qualified,” “qualified,” and “not qualified.” The ABA’s input can have an impact on the likelihood of a nominee being approved by the Senate (Carp, et al. 2020).

The Senate Judiciary Committee is the “gatekeeper” to the Senate, and they must approve of nominees initially in order for the whole Senate to vote (Carp, et al., 2020).
Senator Lindsey Graham Speaks After Winning
By: Floyd Mori
Tags: Supreme Court, Vote, Politics, Elections, Congress

Senator Lindsey Graham Speaks After Winning

He was vulnerable but won reelection

United States Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pulled out a victory in the election. After he had appeared as a hypocrite with pushing through the speedy approval of a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he still won reelection. He made comments immediately after his victory.

In an article in The Hill by Dominick Mastrangelo, Graham is said to have ripped into pollsters who predicted that he would lose his seat. He also blasted Democratic donors. Graham is quoted as saying:

I’ve had two calls already — one from President Trump. He’s going to win. He’s going to win. To all the pollsters out there, you have no idea what you’re doing. And to all the liberals in California and New York, you’re wasting a whole lot of money.”

Graham called donations to his Democratic challenger, Jamie Harrison, “the worst return on investment in the history of American politics.”

Harrison had reportedly raised more than $100 million for his campaign. Graham needed money and was appearing on conservative news programs pleading with viewers to donate to his campaign. Graham had once said something to the effect that there wasn’t enough money in the world to defeat him. Maybe he was correct. The vote was decidedly in his favor.

“I’m being killed financially,” Graham said on television. “This money is because they hate my guts.”

Reportedly, wealthy Republicans and the National Rifle Association plowed money into Graham’s campaign to help him win.

Pollsters had said that Graham was one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelction. Apparently, Graham had said that Democrats had a chance to flip his seat to blue.

Graham, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman for the recent Supreme Court nomination, said:

“Democrats generally look at people of a disposition like [Supreme Court] Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan. Now, y’all have a good chance of winning the White House. I don’t know where the polls are going to be.”

Graham has become a fierce supporter of Trump. The voters of South Carolina did not care that he showed himself to be a liar and a hypocrite. They did not vote to drain the swamp as Trump had promised to do.

[Source: The Hill]