PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Returns With Gay Marriage



Neal
January 7th, 2013, 21:31
The Supreme Court is poised to take the bench today and begin the second half of a term laced with hot button issues such as affirmative action, gay marriage, voting rights and government secrecy.

The justices will hear two potentially blockbuster cases in March concerning gay marriage. One of the cases - Hollingsworth v. Perry - addresses whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The other - Windsor v. United States - deals with the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

In both cases, the court will hear arguments on potential procedural obstacles that could stop it from getting to the core constitutional questions.

The court will also hear a case challenging a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the law says that certain states with a history of voter discrimination must clear any changes to their election laws with federal officials in Washington. Lawyers for Shelby County, Ala., are challenging the constitutionality of Section 5. The case, called Shelby County v. Holder, will be argued Feb. 27.

The day before, the court will hear arguments in Maryland v. King, a case about whether Maryland officials can collect DNA from someone who has been arrested but not convicted of a crime.

The justices are already working behind the scenes writing and reviewing draft opinions for cases they heard this fall.

Fisher v. University of Texas is a case that could further limit the use of race-conscious admissions policies at public universities. The case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who sued the University in 2008, claiming she had been denied admission based on her race. Justice Elena Kagan is recused from this case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

They are also considering a case closely watched by human rights groups and big business that addresses whether corporations can be held liable for alleged violations of international law under a federal law called the Alien Tort Statute. At oral arguments, a skeptical Justice Samuel Alito questioned why the case was in the U.S. courts in the first place.

"Why does this case belong in the courts of the United States when it has nothing to do with the United States other than the fact that a subsidiary of the defendant has a big operation here?"

Several human rights groups want to challenge the constitutionality of a 2008 federal statute that expanded the authority of federal officials to conduct secret electronic surveillance of foreign citizens who are in other countries. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/sup ... d=17564982 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/supreme-court-hear-electronic-surveillance-case/story?id=17564982), as well as a case that considers whether the sniff of a police dog on the front porch of a person's home constitutes a search and requires a warrant.

Off the bench, all eyes will be on Chief Justice John Roberts when he administers the oath of office to President Obama. The Presidential Inaugural Committee announced last week that the president will be officially sworn in Jan. 20, which falls on a Sunday, and then again on Monday, Jan. 21, for a ceremonial swearing in.

Roberts slightly flubbed the oath in 2009 and had to re-administer it at the White House.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor will swear in Vice President Biden. She becomes the first Hispanic to administer an inaugural oath. In a statement, the vice president said that "one of the greatest pleasures of my career" was to be involved in Sotomayor's selection to the court.

"From the first time I met her, I was impressed by Justice Sotomayor's commitment to justice and opportunity for all Americans, and she continues to exemplify those values today," he said.

In the coming weeks, Sotomayor will also launch a book tour for her memoir, "My Beloved World." The Associated Press, which received an early copy, reported in December that the justice discusses her lifelong battle with diabetes, her upbringing in the South Bronx, as well as a defense of affirmative action.

January 8th, 2013, 21:16
..The day before, the court will hear arguments in Maryland v. King, a case about whether Maryland officials can collect DNA from someone who has been arrested but not convicted of a crime....

QUITE ENLIGHTENED REALLY!

The shocking situation in the UK is not only can DNA be forcibly taken from a suspect who has been arrested or detained - but even if that suspect is never charged or if the charges are subsequently dropped, or even if he is found NOT GUILTY after a trial, the DNA can be retained indefinitely! Same goes for fingerprints, photographs etc.

In my view the term "Police State" doesn't even begin to cover such practices.

:occasion9:

January 15th, 2013, 02:02
Further to the above - I have just learned that Police powers have been taken in England and Wales allowing them to force people convicted up to 40 or more years ago to now provide DNA samples, even in cases where the historic offence no longer exists on the statute book!

Example - from BBC -

....Another gay man from Newcastle, who was fined more than two decades ago for gross indecency at the age of 20, said he was recently told by Northumbria Police that he would be arrested if he refused to provide a DNA sample...

Note: the offence of "gross indecency" only ever applied to activity between gay men and no longer exists.

...The force denied he was targeted because of his sexuality....

Yeah, right! He was arrested and convicted purely because of his sexuality - had he been "misbehaving" with a female the charge could not even have been brought - and is now being targeted because of it.

joe552
January 15th, 2013, 04:21
Sorry, SG, I don't understand this. What is the purported point of convicted people now being asked to provide samples? Is it somehow related to so-called historical enquiries? Your post doesn't make clear why the police would be doing this.

January 16th, 2013, 22:04
Well, I strongly suspect it's simply to build a National DNA database - I mean does anybody seriously doubt that the British State would actually like to take DNA at birth (maybe they do!) and thus eventually build a DNA database covering the entire indigenous population?

Even now, people arrested but not charged, or charged but charges subsequently dropped, or charged + tried + found INNOCENT - all have their DNA retained (see above) - I find that utterly outrageous!
What that means in real terms is that if you get caught pissing in the street because the public toilets are closed then you go on a register - and, god forbid, if any member of the public should see you pissing, you might be on TWO registers as that's potentially a sex offence!!

But, back to your specific point - when these people were convicted (even though some were convicted of crimes which no longer exist) there was no DNA collection - so the Police want it on their database now, 40 years later.

The official line of course will be that the DNA from these historic offenders may assist in solving historic and future crime - and so it may in a tiny fraction of 1% of cases, but the real reason is the Big Brother mentality of Govt agencies.