Under this headline:
Supreme Court will take on redistricting case
I found this story:
Sept. 11 detainees can’t sue US officials, Supreme Court rules
(Who is that guy in the middle of that photo?)
In this print:
"Justices to hear major challenge to partisan gerrymandering" by Adam Liptak New York Times June 19, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that several high-ranking Bush administration officials may not be sued for policies adopted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The officials include John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, and Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who is now investigating possible links between the Trump administration and Russia.
The case began in 2002 as a class action filed by mostly Muslim immigrants over policies and practices that swept hundreds into the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on immigration violations shortly after the attacks. The plaintiffs said they had been subjected to beatings, humiliating searches and other abuses.
The roundups drew criticism from the inspector general of the department, who in 2003 issued reports saying that the government had made little to no effort to distinguish between genuine suspects and Muslim immigrants with minor visa violations.
Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 4-to-2 decision, acknowledged that the way the detainees said they had been treated was appalling. But he said lawsuits seeking money from high-ranking officials were not the right way to address asserted misconduct in the midst of a national security crisis.
What about war crimes trials (not that I think we will see any)?
“If the facts alleged in the complaint are true, then what happened to respondents in the days following September 11 was tragic,” Kennedy wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be read to condone the treatment to which they contend they were subjected.”
“The question before the court, however,” he wrote, “is not whether petitioners’ alleged conduct was proper, nor whether it gave decent respect to respondents’ dignity and well-being, nor whether it was in keeping with the idea of the rule of law that must inspire us even in times of crisis.”
Who's law?
The legal question for the court, he said, was whether a 1971 Supreme Court decision allowed suits for money against the officials said to have created the policy. The answer to that question, Kennedy wrote, was no.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined all of the majority opinion in Monday’s decision, and Justice Clarence Thomas joined most of it.
Three members of the court did not participate in the decision: Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had not yet joined the court when the case was argued and Sotomayor and Kagan, who recused themselves.
Sotomayor used to be a judge on the appeals court that heard the case, and Kagan formerly served as US solicitor general.
In a separate case Monday, when Republicans gained complete control of Wisconsin’s government in 2010 for the first time in more than 40 years, it was a redistricting year and lawmakers promptly drew a map for the state Assembly that helped Republicans convert very close statewide vote totals into lopsided legislative majorities.....
All elections are rigged and it doesn't matter who you vote for, so why care about redistricting?
--more--"
Well, Trump should be feeling pretty good going forward, and Globe is of the opinion that..... ???
Related:
"The US Supreme Court gave companies a new tool to defeat some legal claims, siding with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in a bid to limit a consumer lawsuit in California over its Plavix blood thinner. The justices, voting 8-1, said the California Supreme Court was wrong to let almost 600 non-Californians join 86 state residents in claiming Bristol-Myers misrepresented the risk of heart attacks and strokes."
It is a Corporate Court, there is no que$tion about that.
"The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal in a long-running copyright dispute over a YouTube video that shows a baby dancing to Prince’s song ‘‘Let’s Go Crazy.’’ The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that cleared the way for a trial in a lawsuit filed by the baby’s mother against Universal Music. Universal had sent a notice demanding that YouTube take the video down. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that copyright holders can’t demand that videos be taken down without determining whether they constitute ‘‘fair use.’’ But the court said the mother must show Universal had actual knowledge it was misrepresenting the law when it ordered the video removed. She said that standard allows copyright holders that abuse the law off the hook."
Also see:
Supreme Court says government can’t refuse offensive trademarks
Who would want to.... oh, yeah, that. (Blog editor harrumphs in empathetic perplexity; maybe the red man, excuse me, has a real a point there. And it all flies underneath the cultural approbation)
Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban
My first thought was how many of them are looking, and is that how they got Roberts to flip on Obummercare? I suppose Clarence would also be a candidate if you believe Anita.
