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:
13-628 Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky v. John Kerry, Secretary of State
Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?
Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?
- Brief for David Boyle in Support of Respondent
- Brief for True Torah Jews Inc. in Support of Respondent
13-894 Department of Homeland Security v. Robert J. MacLean
Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.
Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.
- Brief for the Blacks in Government (BIG), the Emerald Society of the Federal Law Enforcement Associations (ESFLEA), and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Flyersrights.org in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Project on Government Oversight in Support of Affirmance
13-983 Elonis v. United States
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
- Brief for the Anti-Defamation League in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project and Professor Margaret Drew in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Wisconsin and Seventeen Other States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the National District Attorneys Association in Support of Respondent
13-9026 Whitfield v. United States
Whether § 2113(e)'s forced-accompaniment offense requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.
Whether § 2113(e)'s forced-accompaniment offense requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.
Maybe they can rewrite history ... like republicans always do.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/conservatives-reinvent-christopher-columbus-as-anti-muslim-crusader-to-excuse-atrocities/
Nothing legit about "Rawstory" yet you use this piece of yellow journalism on a daily basis.
DeleteThoughts about the Rawstory article you referenced; First, "conservatives" is a broad-brush term used to indict all non-Marxists, making it a false premise, on its face. Secondly, what the Left calls "atrocities" as applied to Columbus, included practices about race and competing cultures that were not original with nor exclusive to Columbus; these "atrocities" were part of the world that existed 500 years ago, including the African world and the native/nomad populations of the Americas. Third, the Muslims of that day, were barbarians and the Ottoman Empire, ruled the Mediterranean border nations (North Africa, what we call the Middle East, Asia Minion, and part of the Italian peninsula. More than this, the Muslim empire threatened Europe. It is certainly not a stretch to believe that Columbus was an anti-Muslim. In fact, I would be surprised if he was anything but.
Columbus believed the earth was pear shaped, not flat. The earlier discovery of the "new world" by the Vikings, was hardly common knowledge in spite of the fact that the Scandinavians settled in Greenland and maintained a colony there, for more than 400 years (900 – 1300 AD). Columbus, and the European population he represented, were not as violent as the warrior nations of Scandinavia nor as merciless as Islam and the expanding Ottoman Empire. Between the 21st century and Columbus was a period of time called "the Enlightenment" (1600-1700 AD) and a society that was newly exposed to the printed word. Civilized man began to make major steps forward, at this time. It is out of context and stupidly uneducated to single out Columbus and judge him by today's Americanized standards and values.