Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

African-American Walter Williams says Obama’s criteria on race should be no different than that of an NFL referee: race should not matter

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

Mark Perry:

I’m betting that most people would agree that football justice requires that referees apply the rules blindly and independent of the records or any other characteristic of the two teams. Moreover, I believe that most people would agree that referees should evenly apply the rules of the games even if they personally disagreed with some of the rules.

The relationship between Supreme Court justices and the U.S. Constitution should be identical to that of referees and football rules. The status of a person appearing before the court should have absolutely nothing to do with the rendering of decisions. That’s why Lady Justice, often appearing on court buildings, is shown wearing a blindfold. It is to indicate that justice should be meted out impartially, regardless of identity, power or weakness.

~Walter Williams

KC Star wants you to feel guilty about appointing a white male to Supreme Court

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Prime Buzz ran this headline for an AP story:  “U.S. Supreme Court: 106 white males out of 110 justices”

Will: It’s Court’s Job To Halt Gov’t Taking Sprees

Saturday, April 18th, 2009

George Will:

What is to prevent legislators from taking revenue from Wal-Mart and giving it to local retailers? Or from chain drugstores to local pharmacies? Not the tattered remnant of the Constitution’s takings clause.

The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not “be taken for public use without just compensation” (emphasis added).

Fifty state constitutions also stipulate taking only for public uses. But the Illinois Supreme Court ignored the public use question. Instead, it said it is “well settled” that the takings clause applies only to government’s exercise of its eminent domain power regarding land, buildings and other tangible or intellectual property – but not money.

Conflicting rulings by state courts demonstrate that that question is chaotically unsettled. That is one reason the U.S. Supreme Court should take the Illinois case and reject the preposterous idea that money is not property within the scope of the takings clause – an idea that licenses legislative confiscations. Another and related reason why the court should take the case is to reconsider its 2005 ruling that rendered the “public purpose” requirement empty.

The Ninth Circuit Outdoes Itself: NRO

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

Bench Memos:

Once again, the Supreme Court has unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit.  Once again, it has done so in a case in which the Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief.  But what may be unique (and must surely be rare) about today’s ruling in Knowles v. Mirzayance is that the Supreme Court had already previously vacated the Ninth Circuit’s earlier grant of habeas relief and that the Ninth Circuit panel nonetheless issued an unpublished opinion reaching the same result.  It’s also worth noting that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that habeas relief was improper even under a de novo standard of review (that is, even apart from the very deferential review of state-court decisions that a federal statute-AEDPA-ordinarily commands).

The judicial culprits this time are Carter appointee Procter Hug and Clinton appointee Kim McLane Wardlaw.  (Wardlaw is sometimes mentioned as a Supreme Court candidate, primarily because she is half Mexican-American.)  The third member of the panel-a district judge sitting by designation-dissented.

AP: Obama pick for HHS faces questions about state aid

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

AP:

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s choice to head the Health and Human Services Department, is facing questions about increased state payments to a social services group whose board includes the chairman of the state Democratic Party.

Last fall, Sebelius’ secretary of social and rehabilitation services, Don Jordan, approved an increased rate for Community Living Opportunities, a nonprofit group that provides services to the developmentally disabled, that amounted to $713,000.

The group’s board of directors included Larry Gates, a Sebelius friend who has served as state Democratic chairman for six years; Dan Biles, a Gates law partner recently appointed by Sebelius to the Kansas Supreme Court, and Lew Perkins, athletic director at the University of Kansas. Biles left the board at the end of 2008.