Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

Sotomayor Evades “Landscaping” Query

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Washington – High court nominee doesn’t chafe, even when the heat is on.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor dodged volleys of trimming and waxing questions from senators Wednesday, keeping her demeanor cool and not revealing too much about her personal grooming habits as she neared the end of a marathon grilling on her hot coal walk to confirmation.

After more than 10 hours of questioning by Judiciary Committee senators over two days, Sotomayor had yet to slip up, but supporters feared that Wednesday’s pointed questions, some delicately asked, and some blazingly straightforward, would offer the opportunity for Republicans to derail her nomination.

Republican senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was the most prominent of the Judiciary panel’s accostors. Take this example from the hearing’s transcript:

SESSIONS: Yesterday, you spoke about your objection to Brazilian waxing, and you said, quote, “I accept the proposition that some women may choose vastly different applications of pubic styling, but my decision-making will not take into account my personal Earth Mama muff preference.” First, Judge, I’d like to know, do you think there’s any circumstance in which a judge should allow their personal “down there” trimming preferences to impact their decision-making?

SOTOMAYOR: Never those preferences. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences in hedging, but continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.

SESSIONS: Isn’t it true that your very own “gardener,” a fellow Puerto Rican named Hector Gonzalez, has made a statement that your such preferences are due to excessive… volume?

SOTOMAYOR: My friend, Mr. Gonzalez, is here this afternoon, and I believe that we both approach gardening in the same way.

LEAHY: Okay, Mr. Sessions, your time has expired, and, just like Mr. Gonzalez, we have a lot of territory to cover.

Many Democratic senators also questioned with pointed rebuttals of their Republican colleagues.

“If there’s a test for pubic temperament, you pass it with an A plus plus,” California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said in one such exchange. Feinstein praised Sotomayor for steadily enduring the questions, saying, “I don’t envy you, Judge, but I praise your patience. I don’t think I could have sat there so quietly and responded to questions about my landing strip.”

The hearing continues today, and Sotomayor is expected to snatch up the appointment without difficulty.

Supreme Court Review 20090429

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

Can’t say “fuck” on TV
Even accidentally.
Mother Fucking FCC,
Speech is meant to be Free.

Even SCOTUS bleeps it out.
“Sex is what it’s all about!”,
Scalia and his cronies shout,
While Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg pout.

Of course we all know “Sex is Bad!”
I wish these purists’ parents had
Followed their own cultish fad
And decided not to have a shag.

Soon again Scalia will
Judge the slippage of nipple.
His legacy he will fulfill
A fine for bits wont to spill.

See the full analysis at SCOTUS Blog
Read the syllabus at LII

Supreme Court Review 20090421

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

All 50 states have laws banning animal cruelty and dogfighting. In 1999, the federal government passed a controversial law banning the sale of images of animal cruelty, such as video of dogfighting or “crush” videos depicting women crushing to death small animals. The law acts as an exception to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Although a federal appeals court in Philadelphia indicated that preventing animal cruelty is a worthy goal, the court held that banning the sale of videos showing animal cruelty illegally restricts speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The case is U.S. v. Stevens (08-769). For more information, see Supreme Court to consider whether ban on pit bull videos violates free-speech rights.

The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to the constitutionality of a jury verdict in a death penalty case. The jury had consulted a Bible during deliberations to help decide on a sentence. The case was Oliver v. Quarterman (08-833). More information about this and other cases regarding a jury’s use of a bible can be found at the following links: Ninth Circuit OKs jury’s use of the Bible in death penalty deliberations; Jurors consulting the Bible; Supreme Court won’t disturb death sentence in case of Texas jurors who had Bible with them.

Also see the Supreme Court Blog for more details about those and other cases.

[Ed's Note: I'll be doing regular Supreme Court Review posts, but they'll be limited to the topics that interest me (which are generally those regarding free speech, privacy rights, religion, etc.). I'll also be on the lookout for prominent federal and state cases.]