Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
When Animal Porn is A-OK: “3 Cats, 1 Steak”
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a law banning video depictions of animal cruelty. The law was party inspired by the sensationalized “crush porn” craze. In crush porn, women stomp on small animals, in bare feet or in heels, in order for crush porn fetishists to get off.
Supreme Court Poised to Lose Only Lady
Via SCOTUSblog comes news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ” had surgery for an apparently early-stage pancreatic cancer today.” She checked into the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City to have a “small tumor, approximately 1 cm across,” removed from the center of her pancreas. Ginsburg will remain in the hospital for a week or so.
Scientific American chimes in on a bummer note to say that pancreatic cancer “is one of the most deadly forms of cancer.” President Obama has offered his “thoughts and prayers.” I don’t envy the guy who’d have to replace her. Ginsburg, who is 75 years old, was appointed to the court 16 years ago by President Clinton; after Sandra Day O’Connor’s exit, she’s the only lady we’ve got left on the high court.
I had the pleasure to wait on her at a Kennedy Center function a couple years ago. She’s a tiny lady, but she finished her plate. I think she asked for red. When she left I totally stole her place setting.
Fitzgerald V. Barnstable School Committee: The Procedings
Fitzgerald, et al., v. Barnstable School Committee, et al.
Supreme Court Hears Title IX Challenge Today
At 11 a.m. today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the implementation of Title IX in the courts. According to the SCOTUS Blog, the case, Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee, et al, will decide “whether the passage of Title IX barred future constitutionally based gender discrimination claims against federally funded schools.”
The case hinges on an apparent conflict between Title XI, which ensures equal opportunity in schools based on gender, and Section 1983 of United States Code, which states:
Every person who . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Some background on Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, from On the Docket:
During the 2000-2001 school year, Jacqueline Fitzgerald, a kindergartener in Hyannis, Mass., told her parents that an older student on the school bus had bullied her into lifting up her skirt. Her parents contacted school administrators, and Jacqueline then identified the boy who she alleged had been harassing her. The school did not have a written policy to address peer-on-peer sexual harassment.
Man Madness: Supreme Court Vs. U.S. Postal Service
Welcome back to the Manliest Workplace in D.C. Tournament. With the Culture bracket languishing in a statistical dead heat between the Washington Redskins and the Smithsonian Institution, it’s time to turn our attentions to the granddaddy of all granddaddy employers: The Federal Government! (See the full 64-workplace bracket here).
Today, one-seed the Supreme Court takes on the eight-seed U.S. Postal Service. Will a collection of robed-swathed old men fall to a legion of boys in short pants? Let’s find out!
THE SUPREME COURT: This high-talkin’ decidey-branch hashes it out on issues manly (District of Columbia v. Heller) and non (Roe v. Wade). But in the court of Man, will these Justices be served? Let’s go to the line-up:
Read More “Man Madness: Supreme Court Vs. U.S. Postal Service” »
Howard Stalker Case Could Go To Supreme Court
Howard University law professor Dawn Martin filed a suit against her former employer after her complaints of being stalked on campus fell on deaf ears—and resulted in her firing, she says. Later this month, the Supreme Court will decide whether it will hear the case. (In March of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided in Howard’s favor). Martin’s press release details the fantastic case:
Gay Marriage Ban Overturned in Connecticut
In a 4-3 ruling today, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the gay marriage ban, expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The ruling marks the end of a four-year lawsuit waged by eight same-sex couples who sued the state after being denied marriage licenses.
From the Associated Press:
The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut’s civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Importantly, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling, but urged conservative activists not to fight it.
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said in a statement. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success.”
Connecticut joins Massachusetts and California in allowing same-sex marriage. Speaking as a heterosexual woman—admittedly, one with no current interest in marriage—I think heterosexual couples would do well to take this into account when planning to get hitched. A man and a woman who marry in one of the 47 states (and District of Columbia) that don’t allow gay marriage do so knowing that their relatives, neighbors, and friends are not afforded that same privilege. Same-sex couples shouldn’t be the only ones traveling to Connecticut to make it official.
Palin v. Biden on Roe v. Wade
It’s been rumored for a few days now that CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin included a clip of the Governor being unable to name a single Supreme Court case. Technically, Palin fails to name a specific case that she disagrees with—let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she’s heard of many, many Supreme Court cases with which she does agree. (Just like the many, many newspapers she can’t specify but that she totally reads).
In an interview released today, Couric asks Palin and Joe Biden essentially the same questions: “Why do you think Roe v. Wade was a good/bad decision?” and “Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?” Biden answers them; Palin leaves me with a rage that I fear can only be satiated by gunning down a wild Alaskan wolf from an aircraft.
Just in case you missed it:
Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
Palin: Well, let’s see. There’s, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
Seriously, could Sarah Palin pass the Q-and-A portion of the Miss America pageant? Maybe this is why Palin couldn’t clinch the Miss Alaska title—it sure wasn’t the swimsuit portion.
