U.S. Supreme Court
19 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Federal court mulling delay of Texas abortion law

Federal court mulling delay of Texas abortion law | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — After a summer filibuster only managed to temporarily delay passage of tough new Texas abortion restrictions, advocacy groups (Federal judge hears arguments on attempt to block parts of Texas' hotly contested abortion law:
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court Rules: States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in U.S. Elections

Supreme Court Rules: States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in U.S. Elections | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
Let's cut through the Washington doublespeak. (Supreme Court Rules: States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in U.S.
more...
Chelsie DeBus's curator insight, May 18, 2014 4:38 PM

This article talks about that the Supreme Court of the United States can't prevent an illegal alien from voting of anything in the U.S. If an illegal alien wants to vote for something in the U.S. that is fine. This article relates to government and law because it is our own United States Supreme Court that came up with this ruling. 

Sam Burich's curator insight, May 20, 2014 2:15 PM

This article is about a current Supreme Court decision.

Katie Gilbertson's comment, May 24, 2014 9:29 PM
It seems strange to me that the Supreme Court doesn't want citizenship proof, however the only state that seems to have attempted it was Arizona. Perhaps they didn't want other states following suite since it's our right to vote and the proof would make things more tedious for everyone.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

A federal appeals court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle.

A federal appeals court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle. | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
A federal appeals court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect's vehicle, in the first case to squarely confront the issue since the Supreme Court's fractured opinion last year on the use of such devices...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Sentence debate in case of transgender Troy murderer reaches US Supreme ... - The Macomb Daily

Sentence debate in case of transgender Troy murderer reaches US Supreme ... - The Macomb Daily | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
Sentence debate in case of transgender Troy murderer reaches US Supreme ...
more...
Sam Burich's curator insight, May 20, 2014 2:16 PM

This story is about a murder case that has reached the Supreme Court.

Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

U.S. Supreme Court to decide on retrial of Kansas death penalty case - Kansas.com

U.S. Supreme Court to decide on retrial of Kansas death penalty case - Kansas.com | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
U.S. Supreme Court to decide on retrial of Kansas death penalty case
Kansas.com
When the U.S.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by smorningwhs from #USFCA
Scoop.it!

High court strikes down federal marriage provision

High court strikes down federal marriage provision | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it

The court invalidated a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that has prevented married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to married people. [via sfgate]


Via University of San Francisco
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by smorningwhs from Health Supreme
Scoop.it!

U.S. Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits for generic drugs

U.S. Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits for generic drugs | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body.

 

The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.

 

Justices cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs.

 

In short, the Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedence over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.


Via Sepp Hasslberger
more...
Haley Abrams's comment, May 23, 2014 2:17 PM
I thought that this was a interesting choice on the Supreme Courts half. while
Haley Abrams's comment, May 23, 2014 2:20 PM
I thought that this was an interesting choice on the Supreme Courts half. While I do think that the FDA is in charge of regulating this process I think that the companies should be held liable. Mislabeling is a huge deal and should not be tolerated it has caused many horrible problems. These companies should be held liable for mislabeling.
Magdalena Ferran's curator insight, September 2, 2015 11:29 AM

This article details the Supreme Court case which ruled that generic drugs and their manufacturers may not be sued for side effects or mislabeling as long as the chemical makeup of their drug and its label is identical to that of the name brand drug. In the court case, a woman was suing the manufacturer of a generic drug due to a negative side effect she experienced while taking the drug, that was not printed on its label. This article argues against the courts ruling in a logical manner due to the fact that 80% of drug consumed in the US were generic, thus one might conclude this ruling will result in a large number of unprotected citizens. This relates to all US citizens personally as most of us have and will take medication and for 80% of us it will be generic. I am unsure of how I feel on the ruling because I can understand both sides of the argument, however it is concerning how little protection I receive from my government when it comes to the medication I am taking. This article was extremely biased though expressing their complete disagreement with the views of the court.

 

"Supreme Court Rules Drug Companies Exempt from Lawsuits." - La Leva Di Archimede (ENG). La Leva, 07 July 2013. Web. 02 Sept. 2015.

Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

NY district judge rules unpaid interns aren't protected from sexual harassment

NY district judge rules unpaid interns aren't protected from sexual harassment | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
A New York district judge ruled that unpaid interns are not protected from sexual harassment by the New York Human Rights Law because they are not 'real' employees. (Who are "real" employees?
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by smorningwhs from Criminal Justice in America
Scoop.it!

Federal Court Charges Obama

Federal Court Charges Obama | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office. The charges presented are detailed & damning. The indictments assert that President Obama “acted as...

Via Randy L. Dixon Rivera
more...
Randy L. Dixon Rivera's curator insight, October 21, 2013 11:30 AM

Craig Bowden ‏@CraigBowden2020 21s Federal Court Charges Obama http://wp.me/p26iwd-eZvia @CraigBowden2020 #tcot #tlot #ccot #ctot #resist44 #lnyhbt #pjnet

Rescooped by smorningwhs from Digital Evidence and Discovery (DEAD)
Scoop.it!

Taking Over Former Employee's LinkedIn Account Not a Violation of Federal Law, According to Pennsylvania District Court : E-Discovery Law Alert

A Pennsylvania Federal District Court has decided that an employer did not violate the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( (Taking Over Former Employee's LinkedIn Account Not a Violation of Federal Law #eDiscovery

Via Daniel A. Libby, CFC
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Who Owns Your Body?

Check out: http://www.aclu.org/genepatents The U.S. Supreme Court is about to decide whether a private company can own a piece of our bodies. Right now, a co...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Hobby Lobby asks US Supreme Court to take up case over federal birth-control ... - Fox News

Hobby Lobby asks US Supreme Court to take up case over federal birth-control ... - Fox News | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
Christian Post
Hobby Lobby asks US Supreme Court to take up case over federal birth-control ...
Fox News
OKLAHOMA CITY – Lawyers for Hobby Lobby asked the U.S.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Roe v. Wade: U.S. Supreme Court - Lawyers Present Oral Arguments (1971)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion... (Tension in #SCOTUS is palpable! #Roe v.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

7 Things You Might Not Know About the U.S. Supreme Court — HISTORY Lists

7 Things You Might Not Know About the U.S. Supreme Court — HISTORY Lists | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
Find out seven surprising facts about how the nation’s highest court works and how it’s changed over the years. (RT @USSupremeCourt1: 7 Things You Might Not Know About the U.S.
more...
Chelsie DeBus's curator insight, May 18, 2014 4:41 PM

This article is about seven things you might not know about our United States Supreme Court. Some of the seven different items they talk about I didn't know about our Supreme Court. This article relates to government and law because it is our own Supreme Court.

Sam Burich's curator insight, May 20, 2014 2:16 PM

This is a sort list of facts most people don't know about the Supreme Court.

Katie Gilbertson's comment, May 24, 2014 9:27 PM
I really enjoyed this article and the cool things it shared about the us Supreme Court. My favorite piece of info was that they are asked to review about 10,000 cases but only hear around 80! That is a crazy percentage!
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court term touches on prayer, religious liberty :: Catholic ...

Supreme Court term touches on prayer, religious liberty :: Catholic ... | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
Supreme Court term touches on prayer, religious liberty. By Adelaide Mena. U.S. Supreme Court. Washington D.C., Oct 15, 2013 / 04:55 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The 2013-2014 Supreme Court term, which began Oct.
more...
Magdalena Ferran's curator insight, September 2, 2015 11:27 AM

This article details upcoming Supreme Court cases, particularly those dealing with the first amendment. Many abortion protesters are upset with the fact that some clinics have set boundaries as to how close in area protesters and anti-abortion counselors may be to the clinic. From this one can conclude that many will argue this conflicts with their freedom of speech and right to protest. This is a logical statement due to the restrictions placed upon protesters, especially those with this particular anti-abortion viewpoint. This relates to me personally in a strong way, because I have been one of these protesters. In conclusion, I agree completely with the arguement that these boundaries may be restricting to the rights of protesters. The article may contain some bias due to the fact its published by a Catholic news site, however it still remains fairly objective by stating purely the facts.

 

Mena, Adelaide. "Supreme Court Term Touches on Prayer, Religious Liberty." Catholic News Agency. Catholic News Agency, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2015.

Rescooped by smorningwhs from Surfing the Broadband Bit Stream
Scoop.it!

Retired Federal Judge: Your Faith In Secret Surveillance Court Is Dramatically Misplaced | ThinkProgress.org

Retired Federal Judge: Your Faith In Secret Surveillance Court Is Dramatically Misplaced | ThinkProgress.org | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it

A retired federal judge warned Friday against blind faith in the secret court deciding the scope of U.S. government surveillance. During a panel discussion on constitutional privacy protection in the wake of a leaked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decision that revealed widespread NSA data collection, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner stood up in the audience to counter the statements of conservative law professor Nathan Sales that secret surveillance requests are subject to meaningful judicial review. She cautioned:


"As a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced.

 

"Two reasons: One … The Fourth Amendment frameworks have been substantially diluted in the ordinary police case. One can only imagine what the dilution is in a national security setting. Two, the people who make it on the FISA court, who are appointed to the FISA court, are not judges like me. Enough said"

 

Gertner, now a professor at Harvard Law School who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure, was a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer before being confirmed to the federal bench in 1993.

 

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Gertner explained that the selection process for the secret national security court formed in 1978 is more “anointment” than appointment, with the Chief Justice of the United States — now John G. Roberts — selecting from a pool of already-conservative federal judges those he thinks are most suited to decide national security cases in secret:


"It’s an anointment process. It’s not a selection process. But you know, it’s not boat rockers. So you have a [federal] bench which is way more conservative than before. This is a subset of that. And it’s a subset of that who are operating under privacy, confidentiality, and national security. To suggest that there is meaningful review it seems to me is an illusion."


Click headline to read more--



Via Chuck Sherwood, Senior Associate, TeleDimensions, Inc
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

US supreme court hears challenge to campaign finance limits ...

US supreme court hears challenge to campaign finance limits ... | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
If appeal against existing caps on aggregate donations is upheld, individuals could funnel $3.6m to a party or $800000 to a candidate.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

WSGR Alert - U.S. Supreme Court Issues Three Decisions Favorable to Employers - Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

WSGR Alert (RT @wilsonsonsini: WSGR Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Three Decisions Favorable to Employers http://t.co/oEqCcmnSth)
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by smorningwhs from SocialAction2014
Scoop.it!

Federal Court Blocks Key Provision Of Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Because It’s ‘Unintelligible’

Federal Court Blocks Key Provision Of Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Because It’s ‘Unintelligible’ | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
"A federal court upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction on a key provision of Arizona’s controversial, anti-immigration SB 1070 law, calling the statute "vague" and "incomprehensible to a person of ordinary intelligence."...

Via Darcy Delaproser
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by smorningwhs
Scoop.it!

Facebook ‘liking’ is protected free speech, federal court says

Facebook ‘liking’ is protected free speech, federal court says | U.S. Supreme Court | Scoop.it
The appeals court in Richmond rejected a lower court ruling that “liking” was not “actual speech.”
more...
naknuts37's curator insight, April 23, 2014 10:03 PM

This article talks about how 'liking' stuff on Facebook is a protected form of free speech. Why it relates to gov and law is because the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. 

khedlu17's curator insight, April 27, 2014 1:40 AM

I was surprised that by "liking" something on Facebook was a form of freedom of speech. Are there any other forms of freedom of speech on Facebook? Are there any other forms of freedom of speech on other social media? 

Magdalena Ferran's curator insight, September 2, 2015 11:39 AM

This article details a federal appeals court case in which the court ruled that liking a page on Facebook constitutes free speech and is protected under the first amendment. The case was brought to light when a young man in the Virginia Police Force was fired from his job for having likes his boss's opponents campaign page. He argued that by firing him, his first amendment right had been violated. From this article one can conclude that our freedom of speech extends to what we do on the internet to express our views and opinions. This is a logical argument, especially considering how much the internet is used as a tool of expression in today's society. This is relative to me because I am active on social media as well and its important to me that my rights are protected while on social media. I definitely agree that Facebook liking is a form of speech or expression and think it is interesting how the law is active in every aspect of our lives, as citizens. This article was not biased and was written in an educated and objective manor by an average citizen.

 

Jouvenal, Justin. "Your Facebook 'like' Is Free Speech, Court Says."Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 02 Sept. 2015.