Sarah Pulliam Bailey / Washington Post:
Christian conservatives rattled after Supreme Court rules against LGBT discrimination
If the conservative church is "rattled" by the High Court decision defending LGBT, it is because it does not understand the issue of "grace" as presented in the writings of Paul or as it was/is exemplified in the reason/result of the death of Christ. To make the case, briefly, you should know the meaning of the word "grace" has to do with non-meritorious works. In other words , we do not merit or earn the salvation that is ours.
If you don't belleve a praticing gay can be saved, you must also believe that such is true for practicing gluttons, tax cheats, for those who argue with their parents, or in some way are guilty of the comprehensive sin of omission. A simple reading of the closing versues of Romans One and the opening verses of Romans Two will give you a list of sins that vary from serious to mundane.
Does the Court's decision materially affect the mission of the Church? For what it is worth, I certianly do not think so, and, I beleive such because I cannot get past my own personal failings (or yours).
On a personal level, I must admit my bias against gays. Touch the inside of my leg and you will get hurt. Certainly a hug would not be in order. Having said that, I cannot allow my bias to define "grace" to any degree whatsoever. And if the result of the death of Christ does not define me or you, there is no hope for unity.
No grace, no national unity. No grace, no possibility of a happy relationship or marriage.
'nuff said.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Supreme Court Update - August 11, 2014
59 share
40 is our goal
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:
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
13-433 Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk
Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act.
13-485 Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
- Brief for Petitioner, Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury
- Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioner
13-517 Warger v. Shauers
Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
13-534 North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC
Whether, for purposes of the state-action exemption from federal antitrust law, an official state regulatory board created by state law may properly be treated as a "private" actor simply because, pursuant to state law, a majority of the board's members are also market participants who are elected to their official positions by other market participants.
Whether, for purposes of the state-action exemption from federal antitrust law, an official state regulatory board created by state law may properly be treated as a "private" actor simply because, pursuant to state law, a majority of the board's members are also market participants who are elected to their official positions by other market participants.
- Brief for the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, American Nurses Association, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American College of Nurse Midwives, National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists, and the Citizen Advocacy Center in Support of Respondent
- Brief for LegalZoom.Com, Inc., Responsive Law, Fileright llc, JustAnswer llc, Justia Company, Shake, Inc., and Law Professors in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Respondent, Federal Trade Commission
- Brief for Scholars of Public Choice Economics in Support of Respondent
- Brief for We All Help Patients, Inc. in Support of Respondent
13-604 Heien v. North Carolina
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
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"?
13-719 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC v. Brandon W. Owens
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
13-6827 Holt v. Hobbs
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
I. Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Whether a ½ inch beard would satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Whether the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
IV. That the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided that the no beard grooming policy does not violate the RLUIPA, but this Court should decide the matter since it has not done so and should rule whether grooming policies of any Department of Correction that do not allow for a religious exception exemption are constitutional.
Supreme Court docket: Weekly update
43 share
40 share is excellent
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:
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
May a police officer's mistake of law provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop?
- Brief for the State of Wisconsin, Eighteen Other States, and the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent
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 the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (R.A.) in Support of Petitioner and Reversal
- Brief for the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Professors of Foreign Relations and Constitutional Law in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Public Citizen, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Zionist Organization of America in Support of Petitioner
Does the filing of a putative class action serve, under the American Pipe rule, to suspend the three-year time limitation in § 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members?
Does a borrower exercise his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of Section 1635 by "notifying the creditor" in writing within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or must a borrower file a lawsuit within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?
- Brief for AARP, National Consumer Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Center for Responsible Lending in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the States of New York, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, in Support of Petitioners
Must a defendant seeking removal to federal court include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is including the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
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.
1. When construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, may courts presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should courts require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold?
2. Do, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans.
2. Do, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans.
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Business Roundtable in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the Council on Labor Law Equality and the Society for Human Resource Management in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Erisa Industry Committee and the American Benefits Council in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Goldstein & Russell, P.C., in Support of Neither Party
- Brief for National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for Whirlpool Corporation in Support of Petitioners
I. Does the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no beard grooming policy violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
II. Does a ½ inch beard satisfy the security goals sought by the policy.
III. Does the no beard grooming policy violates Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice Islam as he believes it is supposed to be practiced by the wearing of the beard.
What's happening in the Supreme Court:
17 share
moderate interest
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:
Was Mr. Yates deprived of fair notice that destruction of fish would fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, where the term "tangible object" is ambiguous and undefined in the statute, and unlike the nouns accompanying "tangible object" in section 1519, possesses no record-keeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose?
- Brief for Cato Institute in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Cause of Action, Southeastern Legal Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America & National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Eighteen Criminal Law Professors in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Honorable Michael Oxley in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation, Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen’s Association, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Garden State Seafood Association, Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, California Abalone Association, and California Sea Urchin Commission in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
May a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but providing no reasons whatsoever for the denial, satisfy this statutory "in writing" requirement?
A surprise decision by the High Court. What does it mean? For starters, fairer elections.
190 share
<<< Add these names to the list within this post, and you will agree, that the Supreme Court did the right thing . . . . period. Editor's notes: as you can see from looking at "Discussion," (scroll down and see our "subject article" below "Editor's notes") the interest level for this news lede was/is very high. What does it mean?
Well, for starters, it means that Big Money will be an equal partner for the GOP just as it has been for the Democrats. No more will the Dems have an advantage over the GOP in collecting and reporting contributions to its cause.
In 2008, H Obama "bundled" nearly half a billion dollars in $200/$250 contributions, much of it from unnamed sources outside this country, and refused to give a listing of who made these donations. While McCain played the "good guy," in losing the election for us Conservatives, and named ALL of his donors, even the smaller gifts, Obama used the law to hide those contributions, leaving open the probability that the half billion dollars were laundered to appear as $200 donations. In that campaign, McCain raised $500 million, a record total, but Obama took in more than $860 million and has never stopped his campaign for political offerings. In fact, he actually sees this as more his job, than all the duties he has a "president."
Before Citizens United (Jan 25 of 2010), the first High Court decision allowing corporations to be treated as free men within the American political system . . . before Citizens United and the McCutcheon v FEC ruling, today, the Socialist run unions of America, including teacher and industrial unions, coupled with millions of dollars in free media advertisements, supplied by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and mega organizations such as Yahoo, Google and Facebook, owned the world on laundered, campaign money and excessive/unlimited donations. The Dems are only crying because the High Court has balanced the power of big money. In terms of money, the world belongs to both parties, now, and for the first time in decades.
Politics have not favored the "little guy" for as long as I can remember. When the Dems cry, "The rich now rule," they are only upset because "the rich" they are talking about, are not Democrats. The national elections belong to the national parties. The midterms, influenced by big money, still belong to the "common man." This decision, by the Supremes', does not change that political reality, but balances the books with concern to the previous and historically unfair "status quo" that favored the Socialist Dems.
Understand this, they hate a fair fight.
In a parting note, you should know that this Administration of Lies, has lost a record 60% of its High Court appearances, THAT is how out of touch this Administration is with regard to the US Constitution. Other Executive appearances, Democrat as well as Republican, have seen a 70% win record in the High Court; Obama is closer to a 40% victory rate.
Subject article:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate
Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions — WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major
campaign finance decision, striking down limits on federal campaign
contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a
campaign season …
Discussion: Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Watchdog.org, Salon, The Mischiefs of Faction,SCOTUSblog, Washington Times, Talking Points Memo, Bloomberg View, American Prospect, The Other McCain, The Moderate Voice, The Daily Banter, Firedoglake, USA Today, neo-neocon, his vorpal sword,Republic 3.0, Philly.com, Towleroad News #gay, Mashable, Hit & Run, Althouse, Washington Monthly,Corrente, TomDispatch.com, Hinterland Gazette and Balloon Juice
_________________
Related:
_________________
Related:
Update (4/3/2014): Fox News reports that the Center for Responsive Politics estimates
that 97 percent of political contributions from the
nation’s leader trial lawyers went to Democrats. Rather than advocating for
individuals, as the ambulance chaser ads
suggest, trial lawyers have taken on the
role of “protector” of corporations and insurance companies against any
significant tort reform.
In 2010, the American Association for Justice, one of several trial lawyer combines, donated 2.48 million to various Democrat candidates. Add this group ("trial lawyers") to the under-reported totals donated into Democrat coffers.
The First Amendment is upheld by the Supreme Court in Fox v FCC
The High Court announced this morning, that government
cannot tell news services such as Fox News, what they can and cannot say.
Interestingly, the decision was an 8 to 0 decision with one
justice abstaining.
The Obama Administration and its Marxist hordes, have hoped
to redefine the First Amendment as protecting "accurate"
speech. Conservative political speech and the claims of the global
warmests are targets of the New Left. Nancy Pelosi has made public statement
to the fact of reworking this amendment and Obama, himself, has spoken of
the burden to free speech represented in blatant inaccuracies and outright
lies.
Problem: of course, when we move to limit free speech,
we put government in charge of what is permissible and no country is
truly free, when its speech is defined by those who rule over the people.
This decision is a huge defeat for this Administration and
the Leftist Wacko's now incharge of the Democrat Party.
SEIU loses its fight to forced increases in dues - Supreme Court decision: 7 - 2 against .
Update #2 - report from the AP: WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that
unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee
increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in
closed-shop situations.
Origianl Text:
By a 7 - 2 margin, the Supreme Count has just announced its decision to refuse to confirm SEIU's practice of collecting more dues during an election year than it collects in non election years. For years and years, the SEIU, the nation's largest public union, has forced the collection of higher dues during a national election cycle.
The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the
Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and
opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California
public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union
did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said
the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed
in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.
"When a public-sector union imposes a special
assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may
not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent,"
Alito said.
Editor's notes: forced collection of dues, even from those who are not members is as unAmerican as a Marxist/Socialist can get. But even worse, is the forced collection of dues for political purposes. That day has ended. In Wisconsin, nearly 10,000 folks quite their union in the wake of labor reforms that made the payment of dues a voluntary matter. -- J David Smithson
Origianl Text:
By a 7 - 2 margin, the Supreme Count has just announced its decision to refuse to confirm SEIU's practice of collecting more dues during an election year than it collects in non election years. For years and years, the SEIU, the nation's largest public union, has forced the collection of higher dues during a national election cycle.
Public unions should not be allowed to collect dues used in
campaign donations. Having said that, at least, this bunch of
self-serving taxpayer financed workers, must take their donations out of
existing funds.
Knox v SEIU is the case name. The complaint originated
in California.
Breyer and Kagen were the two dissenting justices.
Ginsberg and Sotomayor voted against the union along with five of the
remaining justices.
Update #1: this decision has a special effect on
non-union workers in the public square. They can no longer be forced to a
collection of dues for the purpose of supporting a political campaign without
their expressed permission.
Agree with the High Court or not, the Supreme Count is freedom's last stand for the grand American "experiment."
Approval Rating for Justices Hits Just 44% in New Poll/ By ADAM LIPTAK and ALLISON KOPICKI/Published: June 7, 2012
WASHINGTON — Just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and three-quarters say the justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal or political views, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News.
Those findings are a fresh indication that the court’s standing with the public has slipped significantly in the past quarter-century, according to surveys conducted by several polling organizations. Approval was as high as 66 percent in the late 1980s, and by 2000 approached 50 percent. . . . . .
Editor's notes: there are two
influences working against Supreme Court approval. One is the extremely
hopeless feelings we, as a people, share for Congress and the disgust
felt for the Executive Branch; the other is the increasing drum beat of
negative comments coming from the Democrat side of the aisle. While
Establishment Republican have openly criticized the High Court in the
past, such has never risen to an orchestrated "talking
point" nor has it included a complicit media.
Understand that the Far Left (as opposed to
normal Liberals) has no regard for the Constitution and every intention
of simply leaving that bit of Americana in the dust. Rather than hold a
Constitutional Convention and work to change that document via prescribed
methodology, the Far Left intends on simply ignoring the document and its
restrictions alal B. Obama's past four year strategy (in his circumvention of Congress, his misuse of Executive Order and his abuse of the regulatory process).
The single most important force preventing this
strategy from being a success, is the High Court. Understand that
this court, with its two Obama appointees, has voted against Obama
in two unanimous decisions, since the first of the year. In Hosanna Tabor Lutheran versus the
EEOC, the High Court voted 9 to Zero against Obama's misuse
of fairness in hiring laws to force Hosanna Tabor Lutheran Church
to hire unbelievers into their ministry program. No president in our
history has been more hostile to people of [Christian] faith than this
secularist we have acting as "president." This particular court
battle is absolute proof of what I am saying. Because of this case,
Obama's decision to go after the Catholic Church and Evangelicals who
oppose abortion was no surprise to this editor.
The second court battle thrown back in the face
of this Administration was Sackett
versus the EPA, another 9 - Zero decision against Obama's radicals
within the EPA, in which that regulatory board had taken the position that it
was above legal review. In the case of the Sacketts, the EPA came
in and declared their lot in Idaho, a "wetlands," ordering the
owners to restore this two acre lot "back to wetland status" when it was never "wetlands" from the beginning and stands in the middle of a larger and existing housing tract !!!
From these two examples, we
learn that (a.) Obama is far to the Left of those he appointed to the High
Court and (b.) , while "we" will never agree with all that the
Court decides, it does function out of concern for Constitutional
principles.
It would be a shame if we, as
a people, decided the High Court was no partisan that it should be
ignored.
This will surprise most: PEW Research polling shows a declining favorability for the High Court, but, still, the Court has the highest ratings of any branch of government.
It appears that Obama's "war against the High Court" may be another ill-advised strategy (there have been so many) in view of the latest in PEW Research polling. The so-called "conservative Court" has an approval rating of 52% and this opinion is consistent across party lines. There is not a partisan divide when it comes to the High Court. But, of course, Obama has not had time to unleash on that institution. Give him a couple of months. I am sure he will try to "get even" if the Court takes down his poorly thought out societal reformation act, or as is popularly known, ObamaCare. Surely, "fundamental transformation" cannot be considered complete if the Supreme Court is left intact.
At any rate, whether Democrat, Republican or Independents, the opinion of the Court is substantially the same . . . . . and that is a good thing. In the minds of so many, the question of "constitutionality" is the same as that of "compliance with existing law." And in that mistaken equation, the Court often gets branded as being either "too liberal" or "too conservative." Understand this: if a matter of compliance to an existing "liberal law" is brought before the Court, its subsequent judgment is more than likely to appear to be "liberal," because the law is borne of a liberal politic. In this instance, only "compliance or consistency" is being judged. Not all "liberal ideas" are perversely "unconstitutional." But, when a law, itself, is brought before the Court, then "constitutionality" is the larger consideration. I think we would all be surprised if we ran research as to those decisions that were actually limited to constitutionality concerns versus the number of issues having to do with compliance to existing [liberal/conservative] law. I would wager that the Court spends far less time as to the actual constitutional issues of law than it does with compliance issues. But, hey, I am a retired carpenter, so what do I really know?
_________________________________________________________________
Public assessments of the Supreme Court have reached a quarter-century low. Unlike evaluations over much of the past decade, there is very little partisan divide. The court receives relatively low favorable ratings from Republicans, Democrats and independents alike.
There are virtually no partisan differences in views of the Supreme Court: 56% of Republicans, and 52% of both Democrats and independents rate the Supreme Court favorably. And the decline in court ratings has occurred across party lines over the past three years. In April 2009, soon after Barack Obama took office, 70% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 64% of independents held a favorable opinion of the court.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/01/supreme-court-favorability-reaches-new-low/?src=prc-headline
At any rate, whether Democrat, Republican or Independents, the opinion of the Court is substantially the same . . . . . and that is a good thing. In the minds of so many, the question of "constitutionality" is the same as that of "compliance with existing law." And in that mistaken equation, the Court often gets branded as being either "too liberal" or "too conservative." Understand this: if a matter of compliance to an existing "liberal law" is brought before the Court, its subsequent judgment is more than likely to appear to be "liberal," because the law is borne of a liberal politic. In this instance, only "compliance or consistency" is being judged. Not all "liberal ideas" are perversely "unconstitutional." But, when a law, itself, is brought before the Court, then "constitutionality" is the larger consideration. I think we would all be surprised if we ran research as to those decisions that were actually limited to constitutionality concerns versus the number of issues having to do with compliance to existing [liberal/conservative] law. I would wager that the Court spends far less time as to the actual constitutional issues of law than it does with compliance issues. But, hey, I am a retired carpenter, so what do I really know?
_________________________________________________________________
Public assessments of the Supreme Court have reached a quarter-century low. Unlike evaluations over much of the past decade, there is very little partisan divide. The court receives relatively low favorable ratings from Republicans, Democrats and independents alike.
The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted April 4-15, 2012 among 1,514 adults nationwide, finds 52% offering a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, down from 58% in 2010 and the previous low of 57%, in 2005 and 2007. About three-in-ten (29%) say they have an unfavorable view, which approaches the high reached in 2005 (30%).
Declining Ratings across Party Lines
There are virtually no partisan differences in views of the Supreme Court: 56% of Republicans, and 52% of both Democrats and independents rate the Supreme Court favorably. And the decline in court ratings has occurred across party lines over the past three years. In April 2009, soon after Barack Obama took office, 70% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 64% of independents held a favorable opinion of the court.
Republican ratings fell steeply between 2009 and 2010, with the appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court. Democratic ratings remained relatively high through 2010, but have fallen steeply since.
The weak ratings for the court across party lines stands in contrast to most previous polls, in which those in the president’s party have viewed the Supreme Court more favorably than those in the opposite party. Most recently, throughout George W. Bush’s administration, Republicans felt much more favorably toward the Supreme Court than did Democrats. In July 2007, 73% of Republicans rated the court favorably, compared with 49% of Democrats. This divide began even before Bush took office, triggered by the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore ruling. In early January 2001, 80% of Republicans viewed the court favorably, compared with 62% of Democrats.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/01/supreme-court-favorability-reaches-new-low/?src=prc-headline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)