It may be the last Monday for this blog.
"Appeals rejected, way cleared for wider same-sex marriage; Court action likely to affect 11 more states" by Jessica Meyers | Globe Staff October 06, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday unexpectedly dismissed appeals in five states seeking to keep same-sex marriage bans, a move that effectively expanded the right of gay couples to marry to 30 states.
The announcement, which came a decade after Massachusetts became the first state to approve same-sex marriage, meant that a much-awaited showdown over the legality of same-sex marriage nationwide may not get settled this Supreme Court term. But the immediate impact of the court’s action still proved dramatic.
It set off a flurry of ceremonies and social-media celebrations in five states where gay marriage was suddenly legal, and anticipation in six more that are likely to be affected by the decision....
“It’s huge news, it’s fantastic news, it’s absolutely game-changing news,” said Joshua Block, the staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Gay Lesbian Transgender Bisexual Project. “It sends an extremely strong signal to other courts that if they don’t strike down gay marriage bans, then it’s very likely the Supreme Court will do it for them.”
Opponents vowed to continue the fight...
--more--"
Related:
Foes of same-sex marriage vow to pursue legal battles
Three states wage fight to keep same-sex marriage ban
Also see: Supreme Court inaction leaves gay couples in limbo
Gay rights activists look beyond legalizing marriage
I knew there was larger agenda of perversion in play.
Mass. advocates hail Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage
Supreme Court’s non-decision opens clearer path to marriage equality
Gay marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada struck down
Arizona drops fight against gay marriage
Wyoming legalizes gay marriage
Judge strikes down N.C. gay marriage ban
This is why they spend 3 million dollars trying to discover why 3/4th of Lesbians are obese?
The answer is obvious: who would want to fuck them?
Even the Methodists are getting in on the act.
"High court begins term with case on police actions" by Sam Hananel | Associated Press October 07, 2014
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices, opening their new term Monday, pondered whether a police officer’s misunderstanding of the law can justify a traffic stop that led to the seizure of illegal drugs.
Several of the justices questioned whether it was reasonable for the North Carolina officer to pull over a car because one of its two brake lights was burned out, even though a quirky state law requires only one light to be functional.
The stop led to a search and the discovery of cocaine in the trunk, but the high court’s ultimate decision could lead to that evidence being excluded. A ruling is expected by late spring.
Arguments in the case took place shortly after the court announced its surprising decision to turn away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages.
This group of justices began its fifth year together, and Chief Justice John Roberts is at the start of his 10th year at the head of the high court.
On tap for the term is an array of cases involving religious, employment, and housing discrimination and the drawing of political districts in Alabama and Arizona....
--more--"
Related:
"The high court rejected an appeal from 11 Louisiana parishes that wanted to revive their lawsuits over wildlife damage from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The justices left in place lower court rulings that dismissed the lawsuits against BP and other companies involved in the worst US offshore oil spill."
It's the $upreme Court, after all.
High court buys time for action on voter ID laws
Study: Voter ID laws cut turnout by blacks, young
Voter ID laws suppress turnout? Of course they do
Arkansas high court strikes down voter ID law
Appeals court reinstates Texas voter ID law
Supreme Court OKs Texas voter ID law
High court blocks Texas abortion law
Texas abortion clinics reopen after court reprieve
I choose not to read those stories anymore. Sorry.
Court hears dispute over pay for security checks
Can dentists bar competition over teeth-whitening?
This is stupid.
NEXT DAY UPDATE:
"NSA surveillance limits: The focus turns to courts" Associated Press October 28, 2014
WASHINGTON — While Congress mulls how to curtail the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ telephone records, impatient civil liberties groups are looking to legal challenges already underway in the courts to limit government surveillance powers.
Three appeals courts are hearing lawsuits against the bulk phone records program, creating the potential for an eventual Supreme Court review. Judges in lower courts are grappling with the admissibility of evidence gained through the NSA’s warrantless surveillance.
Advocates say the flurry of activity, which follows revelations last year by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden of once-secret intelligence programs, shows how a post-9/11 surveillance debate once primarily hashed out among lawmakers in secret is being increasingly aired in open court, not only in New York and Washington but in places like Idaho and Colorado.
‘‘The thing that is different about the debate right now is that the courts are much more of a factor in it,’’ said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Before the Snowden disclosures, he said, courts were generally relegated to the sidelines of the discussion. Now, judges are poised to make major decisions on at least some of the matters.
Revelations that the government was collecting phone records of millions of Americans who were not suspected of crimes forced a rethinking of the practice.
Any court opinion before Congress takes action could influence the lawmakers’ debate. Congress could also act first, but even if it clears up questions about the government’s statutory authority to collect phone records, courts might still confront constitutional questions.
--more--"
Also see:
Pastor who performed gay marriage keeps ordination
Idaho ministers shouldn’t be forced to officiate gay marriages
