Weekly Supreme Update

It looks like I will be publishing this weekly summary each weekend.  The weekly review is a very important update in view of Obama's blatant disregard for the US Constitution (a document written by "White Supremists" according to Derrick Bell, a favorite Harvard professor of Obama's) and his much announced decision to rule outside of and in contradiction to the Congress of the United States. If you believe that his move toward an imperialist adjudication (as in "full-blown hegemony" ) of the presidency is a righteous one,  you are not a patriot.  Perhaps a book with the phrase "Dialectic Materialism" in its title or "Engels" as its author might be more to your liking.  Certainly this is true for Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Elizabeth Warren, Cass Sunstein and,  I dare say,  Obama, himself.

Please note: I am not accusing any of these of being "communists."  But, I firmly believe that each is more familiar with the general tenets of a global socialism than they are with the US Constitution, the representative democracy implicit within its pages and the regional form of governance that is the United States since it presence in this "new World."   


Conservative Patriots are encouraged to take time to be informed. Ignorance is the death knell of a free society  --  blog editor.

PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.

As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:

10-1491 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

Is the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, a merits question? Are corporations immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide?

• Brief for the National Foreign Trade Council, USA*Engage, the United States Council for International Business, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Organization for International Investment, and the American Insurance Association in Support of Respondents

11-166 Radlax Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank

May a Chapter 11 plan proposing an asset sale provide a secured creditor with the indubitable equivalent of its claim instead of allowing it to credit bid (i.e. bid its debt in lieu of cash)?     

• Brief for Respondent Amalgamated Bank
• Brief for Professors Richard Aaron, Laura Beth Bartell, Jagdeep S. Bhandari, Susan Block-Lieb, Robert D’Agostino, Jessica Dawn Gabel, Kenneth N. Klee, George W. Kuney, C. Scott Pryor, Nancy B. Rapoport, Marie T. Reilly, Lynne F. Riley, Keith Sharfman, and Michael Sousa in Support of Respondent

11-199 Vasquez v. United States

1. Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court's precedent on harmless error in focusing its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error on this jury at all?
2. Did the Seventh Circuit violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that the defendant should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case?

• Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent

11-398 HHS v. Florida (Minimum Coverage Provision)

Does Congress have the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Is a suit to challenge the minimum coverage provision barred by the Anti-Injunction Act?

• Reply Brief for Petitioners Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
• Brief for Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the American Association of People With Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, Breast Cancer Action, Families USA, Friends of Cancer Research, March of Dimes Foundation, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Health Law Program, National Organization for Rare Diseases, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Women’s Health Network, The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance and Voices for America’s Children in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
• Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Petitioners Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
• Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman and Matthew Adler, et al., in Support of Petitioners and Reversal of the Minimum Coverage Provision
• Brief for Project Liberty in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
• Brief for the American Civil Rights Union, the Social Security Institute and the 10th Amendment Foundation, inc. in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
• Brief for the American Life League in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
• Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute in Support of Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision

>>>>

Want to learn more about the health care challenges before the Court? Preview has published a Special Edition on the health care cases now available for purchase in the ABA webstore.

>>>>

11-400 Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (Medicaid)

1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it forces States into accepting conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?
2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia's approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress's power to interfere with state sovereignty?

• Brief for State Petitioners Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Alaska, Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, and Maine, Bill Schuette, Attorney General of Michigan, and Terry Branstad, Governor of Iowa
• Brief for Catholic Sisters in Support of Respondents Regarding the Medicaid Issue

Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
Subscribe http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home.html
Unsubscribe Reply to this message from your e-mail address with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Change of Address Send an e-mail to catherine.hawke@americanbar.org to inform us about new e-mail addresses.
Privacy Policy http://www.americanbar.org/utility/privacy.html

American Bar Association | 321 N Clark | Chicago, IL 60654 | 1-800-285-2221