|
|
|
Ted Cruz's Supreme Court remark draws White House criticism
Court Feed News |
2016/10/28 23:58
|
Sen. Ted Cruz's suggestion of an indefinite Supreme Court vacancy under a President Hillary Clinton raises questions about the credibility and integrity of Republicans who have said the next president should get to the choose who fills the vacancy, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday.
Earnest was asked during Thursday's White House press briefing about the Texas Republican's statement that there is a long historical precedent for a Supreme Court operating with fewer justices.
Earnest replied that the notion of opposing any nomination put forward by a Democratic president would be inconsistent with longstanding Senate tradition. He said historically that the Senate has evaluated candidates based on their merits.
"Republicans this year have deviated from that tradition by refusing to even consider Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court," Earnest said.
Cruz's comment also seemingly contradicts an earlier position he took during the GOP primary when he told CNN, "I think 2016 should be a referendum on the Supreme Court."
Sen. John McCain said earlier this month that Republicans would unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, though an aide later said that McCain would examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
Obama nominated Garland in March to fill the vacancy left by the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declined to hold hearings as they insisted the voters choosing the next president would have the final say on the vacancy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court enters default judgment in Kansas voting rights case
Court Feed News |
2016/10/14 05:23
|
A federal court clerk entered a default judgment Tuesday against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for failing to file a timely response to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law requiring prospective voters to prove they are U.S. citizens.
It remains unclear whether U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson will give Kobach more time to respond. If the judgment stands it would apply to all voters in all federal, state and local elections — effectively ending the state's proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Kobach did not immediately return a cellphone message, but spokeswoman Desiree Taliaferro said he would comment.
Kobach faces four separate lawsuits challenging various aspects of Kansas' voter registration law. The law, which went into effect in January 2013, requires prospective voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport or naturalization papers.
Kobach, a conservative Republican, has championed the proof-of-citizenship requirement as an anti-fraud measure that keeps non-citizens from voting, including immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Critics say such requirements suppress voter turnout, particularly among young and minority voters, and that there have been few cases of fraud in the past.
"Oftentimes judges will give an attorney who has not filed something in a timely manner another chance," said Paul Davis, an attorney for the voter who brought the lawsuit. "We will have to see whether Judge Robinson is willing to do that in this case."
Kobach could ask the judge to set aside the clerk's action, possibly on grounds that include "excusable neglect," said Mark Johnson, another attorney for the voter.
But if the clerk's action stands, it means the proof-of-citizenship requirement can't be enforced, Johnson said.
The lawsuit contends the requirement violates voters' constitutional right to right to due legal process and the right to freely travel from state to state by infringing on people's ability to vote and to sign petitions. It also contends the actions Kobach has taken to verify citizenship status discriminates against people who were born or got married in other states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidates law restricting abortion
Court Feed News |
2016/10/04 19:16
|
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has thrown out another state law that would put new restrictions on abortion providers.
In a unanimous opinion handed down Tuesday, all nine justices agreed that the statute adopted by the Legislature last year "contains different and unrelated purposes" in violation of the Oklahoma constitution's requirement that legislation cover a single subject.
The law encompasses four abortion-related topics: minors and parental consent; tissue preservation; inspection of clinics; and legal liability for abortion providers.
The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law and the state's highest court subsequently blocked it from going into effect. The center sued on behalf of Dr. Larry Burns of Norman, who performs nearly half of Oklahoma's abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court halts construction of another section of pipeline
Court Feed News |
2016/09/18 22:12
|
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a ruling late Friday that it needs more time to consider the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's request for an emergency injunction. It said it will issue another order setting a date for oral arguments on the motion.
The order "should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion," the panel said. The ruling stops construction within 20 miles on either side of Lake Oahe. The federal government on Sept. 9 ordered a halt to construction on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land under and around the lake after a U.S. District Judge James Boasberg rejected the tribe's request for a preliminary injunction to halt construction of the $3.8 billion four-state pipeline. That led the tribe to ask for an emergency injunction.
Vicki Granado, spokeswoman for Dakota Access LLC, said the company does not comment on pending litigation. Craig Stevens, spokesman for the MAIN Coalition, Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now, called the ruling disappointing but said his group respects the panel's decision.
"Judge Boasberg, in his thoughtful and thorough opinion last week, confirmed that the Army Corps of Engineers did their jobs expertly and in accordance with the law," Stevens said in a statement. "We are confident that another fair review of the corps' work will render the same decision."
The corps also issued a ruling on Friday granting the tribes a temporary permit that allows demonstrators to legally protest on federal lands managed by the agency. In turn, the tribe assumes responsibility for maintenance, damage and restoration costs, the security and safety of protesters, and liability insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sotomayor calls job on high court blessing and curse
Court Feed News |
2016/09/12 06:25
|
Serving on the U.S. Supreme Court has been both a blessing and a curse and reaching decisions is harder than she ever expected, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday during a visit to the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The court's first Hispanic justice told a packed campus theater that said she still marvels that she holds her position, noting she sits so close to the president at State of the Union addresses she can almost touch him. But the job comes with a heavy burden because every decision the court makes affects so many people and each ruling creates losers, she said, recalling moments in court where losing litigants have wept.
"I never forget that in every case, someone wins, and there's an opposite. Someone loses. And that burden feels very heavy to me," Sotomayor said. "I have not anticipated how hard decision-making is on the court. Because of that big win and lose on the court and we are affecting lives across the country and sometimes across the world, I'm conscious that what I do will always affect someone."
Sotomayor spoke for about an hour and a half, wandering up and down the theater's aisles and shaking hands with people as she answered questions from a pair of her former law clerks sitting on stage. She warned the audience that she couldn't talk about pending cases and the clerks never asked her about the Senate refusing to hold a hearing or vote on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia as the court's ninth justice. The clerks instead gave her general questions about her experiences and thought processes. She kept her answers just as general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court refuses to reconsider Wisconsin voter ID cases
Court Feed News |
2016/08/28 21:36
|
A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider a pair of rulings affecting Wisconsin's voter ID law, meaning no more changes to the requirement are likely before the November election.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday unanimously declined to have a full panel of judges hear appeals of two recent rulings affecting the voter ID requirement and a host of other election-related laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court would have to intervene for any changes to happen before the Nov. 8 election.
The appeals court's upholding the earlier rulings means that Wisconsin voters will have to show an acceptable ID to vote, but those having trouble getting it can get a temporary ID from the Division of Motor Vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
