Home » Posts tagged "Supreme"

Fleming Says President’s Supreme Court Nomination Surrender to Extremists

Fleming Says President’s Supreme Court Nomination Surrender to Extremists










Clinton, MS (PRWEB) November 2, 2005

State Representative Erik R. Fleming, D-Clinton, an announced Democratic candidate for the US Senate in 2006, offered a response today to President Bush’s nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

Fleming said: “It is with deep regret to hear that the President has nominated Federal District Judge Samuel Alito to be his nominee for the United States Supreme Court in an apparent surrender to the extremist faction of his party.

“Alito has been referred to as ‘Scalia-like’ in his position on the federal bench, which cannot bode well for the majority of American citizens, whose human rights and constitutional rights hang in the balance.

“It is important that the Supreme Court be a bastion of protection against those who seek to abandon the fundamental concept that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document. Those strict constructionists would have opposed the very decisions that Rosa Parks and others fought so valiantly for. Any attempt to appease this constituency is, in my opinion, a detrimental mistake for the sake of political gain.

“Whereas the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Court was filled with concerns about her judicial and constitutional competency, at least the thought process of seeking a moderate jurist to replace a moderate jurist was commendable. I am disappointed that the President has decided at this time in American political history to abandon that strategy in order to mend political fences.

“It was my hope that the President would have stayed above the partisan fray, as he did with the Roberts nomination. However, it is obvious that he has chosen not to do so, and that is indeed disappointing.”

###


















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Find More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on August 22, 2011 by , Reply

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling











Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009

California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:

The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.

In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.

This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.

This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com

Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

Posted on July 20, 2011 by , Reply

Tea Party Movement Happier With the Supreme Court than Other Branches of Government, Survey Finds

Tea Party Movement Happier With the Supreme Court than Other Branches of Government, Survey Finds











Columbia Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily

New York (Vocus) July 19, 2010

Despite a general distrust of government, most Tea Party supporters believe the Supreme Court will correctly decide difficult issues, even if they are unpopular and go against the will of the president or Congress, a new survey finds.

The survey, co-authored by Nathaniel Persily, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Political Science at Columbia Law School, also found a majority of Tea Party supporters approve of the Supreme Court’s performance.

The results were taken from an online survey by Knowledge Networks on a wide range of issues that probed attitudes toward constitutional issues, including gun control, abortion rights, and the death penalty.

Some 1,027 people answered questions, including 456 who identified themselves as supporting the Tea Party movement. Harvard University political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere co-wrote the survey with Persily.

Some 80 percent of Tea Party backers either have a great deal or some confidence in the Supreme Court, compared to just 37 percent for Congress and 39 percent for President Obama. Overall, 56 percent approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, compared to 63 percent of those surveyed who do not support the Tea Party.

On issues before the court, the survey found:


Eighty percent of Tea Party supporters agree the Supreme Court should recognize a right to privacy even if it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Some 48 percent believe the Constitution should be viewed as a general set of principles that can change over time, compared to 74 percent of respondents who do not back the Tea Party.
Asked whether the Supreme Court should focus less on the Constitution’s original intent and more on the effect its decisions will have today, just 38 percent of Tea Party backers support that notion, compared to 69 percent not in the Tea Party.
While 72 percent of those who do not support the Tea Party approve of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, just 33 percent of movement supporters back her. Persily said that number was likely held down by President Obama’s low numbers from Tea Party supporters. They gave him just a 26 percent approval rating.

The survey is a follow-up to a similar poll done in 2009. Both have a margin of error of 4 percent.

The full Tea Party survey can be read here. The results from all respondents can be read here.

Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School joins its traditional strengths in international and comparative law, constitutional law, administrative law, business law and human rights law with pioneering work in the areas of intellectual property, digital technology, sexuality and gender, criminal, national security, and environmental law.

Visit us at http://law.columbia.edu

Follow us on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/columbialaw

###






















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Posted on June 23, 2011 by , Reply

Atheist Community Denounces Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Use of “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

(PRWEB) June 15, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Atheist Community Denounces Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Use of “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

San Diego, CA – June 14, 2004 – The online secular community Secularity.com has denounced today’s ruling by the Supreme Court that retains references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. “Today’s 8-0 decision was moral cowardice.” said a spokesman for Secularity.com. “The Supreme Court made a political decision to avoid controversy, completely ignoring an unconstitutional favoring of religion.” Many legal experts have stated that, however controversial, “Under God” is a statement that God exists, and thus an endorsement of religion.

Secularity.com, an online community of atheists, agnostics, and humanists, holds the position that in a society based on freedom of religion, no religion should be favored or discriminated against, including the lack of religion – and that including “under God” in a daily oath recited and/or listened to by all schoolchildren is plainly in violation of freedom of religion. They argue that to favor the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is to favor changing our form of government from a free Democracy to a Theocracy. One member of Secularity.com, who asked to remain anonymous due to religious discrimination, stated “To believe in a God is to believe in a false code of ethics. Faith in a false belief system is the primary cause of war, and the primary cause of our social problems. …forcing millions of schoolchildren to hear or recite “there is a God” every day is indoctrination.”

Secularity.com states that in America, freedom of religion does not apply to those who choose no religion, and the religious majority frequently imposes their beliefs on the secular minority. Secularity.com asserts that those with secular beliefs are more lawful, and have stronger moral base, than the religious. They point to studies showing that while 14% of Americans do not worship a deity, less than half of one percent of the prison population is Atheist. Adam Pedersen, president of Secularity.com, states, “The basis of true morality is secularity.”

Secularity favors the removal of all references to God from all public slogans & assets, include the Pledge of Allegiance, public buildings, and currency.

For additional information, visit Secularity.com: http://www.secularity.com

About Secularity.com

Secularity.com is an online community open to anyone with secular beliefs, including atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and objectivists. The only requirement for membership in Secularity is a lack of belief in god(s). Secularity.com offers secular event planning, free secular homepages, atheist dating services, discussion forums, newswires, and other resources to the secular community.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Adam Pedersen

Secularity.com

831-304-3184

http://www.secularity.com

###



More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Posted on February 2, 2011 by , Reply

Supreme Court Rules RLUIPA Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause: Church-State Experts React to Unanimous High Court Ruling

(PRWEB) June 1, 2005

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that aims to protect the religious freedom of inmates and others held in state and local institutions. The unanimous decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson reverses a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that the 2000 statute unconstitutionally advances religion by giving religious prisoners greater rights than their secular counterparts.

Religious freedom advocates hailed the decision, saying it would have a far-reaching, positive impact. “Cutter is a win for religious exercise in prison, but more importantly, it is a thumping victory for religion-only accommodations nationwide,” said Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Furthermore, Picarello said, the decision confirmed a recent High Court trend toward more religious accommodation. “There’s a strong argument to be made that the anti-accommodation reading of the Establishment Clause has been dead for a long time, but this unanimous decision removes any lingering doubt.”

RLUIPA opponents said that the decision was too open-ended and that it could lead to great disparities in the way the government treats those who are religious and those who are not. “The court fails to provide a theory of when it is impermissible for the state to treat religion better than the secular,” said Richard Schragger, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “It has thus invited Congress to adopt legislation in areas far beyond prison administration that will treat religiously motivated persons more favorably than others.”

On March 17, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life hosted a discussion on the merits of the RLUIPA case, featuring Professor Schragger; Nathan J. Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; and Ira “Chip” Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School. The full transcript of the discussion is available at http://www.pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=70 .

In February, the Forum published an in-depth backgrounder on the case, which provides legal and historical analysis of the issues in Cutter. An addendum to the backgrounder, analyzing Justice Ginsburg’s decision and its possible impact on future cases, will soon be available on the Forum’s Web site, http://www.pewforum.org.

RLUIPA allows a state or locality to limit an inmate’s religious freedom only if it can show that the restriction advances a compelling government interest, such as maintaining prison security. The statute imposes the same standard on zoning laws and other land-use regulations that negatively impact churches and other houses of worship, but that section of the law was not at issue in the case.

The case began when a number of Ohio prisoners who are members of the Satanist religion and other unconventional sects sued the state, alleging that prison officials had not adequately accommodated their religious needs and had therefore violated RLUIPA. Ohio argued that because RLUIPA mandates religious accommodation, it is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and therefore prohibited by the First Amendment.

Writing for the entire court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected Ohio’s contention, arguing that the law “confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect .…” She compared RLUIPA with other constitutionally acceptable accommodations for religion, noting, for example, that a prison is constitutionally free to allow prisoners to assemble for worship even if the prison forbids inmates from holding political rallies.

“In the past, the court has said there is a zone between the government’s obligation to guarantee the free exercise of religion and its obligation not to establish religion, and that within that zone, it can legislate religious accommodation,” said David Masci, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum. “In Cutter, Justice Ginsberg has said that RLUIPA fits comfortably into that zone.”

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information to national opinion leaders on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs; it also serves as a neutral venue for discussions of those matters. The Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.





More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Posted on January 12, 2011 by , Reply

Indian Constitution: the Supreme Law That Governs India

A constitution is the supreme law of a free country. It is the system by which a government of a country functions. Constitution of India was adopted in the in the constituent assembly on 26th November 1949. It is document that contains set of instructions and policies that a government in power of India must follow. Indian constitution came into force on 26th January 1950, the republic day of India, defining India as a republic union of states. Indian constitution also defines the fundamental rights, directive principles and fundamental duties of a citizen of India. Constitution of India declared India as a state to be sovereign, democratic republic but later in the amendment of constitution of 1976 the India was added to be a socialist and secular state.

The constitution of India is the longest written official book than any other of an independent country. Indian constitution is considered the best constitution that an independent country has in the world. It is a well drafted book that is a result of research of years. India is still a young independent country and hence the makes of India constitution have adopted several effective articles and laws from different constitutions of other countries. It has given a permeable that is just a complete crux about it. Preamble of India is again considered the best in the world. It contains 22 sections including 395 articles, 12 schedules and 83 amendments.

The committee that drafted the constitution of India was headed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and other six members as Jahwahar Lal Nehru, C. Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. All these members were great politicians and major scholars of India. Indian constitution is written in the hand writing of Dr. Ambedkar.

Indian constitution is the best official draft one must read to know how a democratic and independent republic nation works. It will provide a deep insight of the laws and principles that Indian government follows to run the union of India.

Sonal Arya is offering advice for quite some time. Having completed her Ph.d in Archaeology from The Jawaharlal Nehru University. She provide useful advice through her articles that have been found very useful. To find Indian constitution,famous in india, cities in india, temples in india, personalities in india visit http://www.famousinindia.com/

Posted on May 21, 2010 by , Reply