The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Texas that would seek to allow legislative and congressional districts apportioned based on equal numbers of registered voters instead of equal population. As tempting as that might be to some politicians, it doesn’t seem to comply with the Constitution. Ken Jost explains why.
To be true to the Framers, however, the court perhaps should settle the issue by insisting that states must count all people, not just those eligible to vote under rules subject to political manipulation. “One person, one vote” means just that.
Read the whole thing.
BTW, Ken and I are friends from high school. Our class just celebrated its 50th reunion.
While I was researching cases to cite as authorities in a motion to dismiss that I’ve been writing this weekend, I found a useful case that lists Eric Holder as one of the parties. It turns out be a case where he came out ahead.
The Attorney General has taken a real drubbing in the Supreme Court. In a piece in the NY Post John Fund and Hans A. von Spakovsky point out that if Holder were a baseball player, he’d have been benched or cut from the team a long time ago. Holder not only loses cases in the Supreme Court, but he’s lost many 9-0.
Holder and Obama have argued that we as Americans don’t have the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to due process or the freedom of religion.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court has become the last defense for those who still believe in those rights.
Read the whole thing.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that recess appointments made by the President when Congress is not actually in recess are unconstitutional. That seems obvious enough, so one wonders where the President was getting his legal advice.
The Supreme Court delivered its 12th and 13th unanimous rebukes of former Constitutional Law professor Barack Obama’s administration.
One decision explains the meaning of the recess appointment clause of Article II, Section 2 to Prof. Obama.
The other explained that the First Amendments protections of free speech and free assembly trump laws such as the Massachusetts statute which banned peaceful protests around abortion clinics. The Administration agued in support of the law.
[I]n the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law … One may sympathize with the petitioners’ impatient commitment to their cause. But respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law, which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom.
—Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)
The Supremes have refused to hear an appeal of a case challenging a federal statute concerning threats, in this case a threat made in a YouTube video.
Attorneys for the appellant maintained that the federal threats law—a 1932 statute making extortion illegal—was unconstitutional. Of eight circuit courts of appeal to decide the issue, only the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has chosen to view the law in line with the appellant’s interpretation. The 9th Circuit is the court whose rulings are most often reversed by the Supreme Court.
The decision not to decide based on the appellants’ lack of standing means that same-sex “marriage” will remain legal in California. The decision is 5-4. Justice Kennedy dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.
UPDATE—The decision of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.
UPDATE 2—The full ruling can be found here.
UPDATE 3—The decision of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and remanded should be a macro on the Supreme Court’s word processors.