Supreme Court Justice Hospitalized (November)

            

               Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized late last November, after  reporting discomfort during her morning exercise routine on Tuesday the 25^th. Doctors soon discovered a blockage in her left coronary artery, and the next morning, on Wednesday, she underwent a coronary catheterization at MedStar in Washington.

Ginsburg, the oldest Supreme Court Justice at 81, has continued to work at the Supreme Court despite being diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer in 2009.  She has since recovered from both, never missing a day of the court’s public schedule, even going so far as to serve on the bench with broken ribs. Despite her age, she maintains a daily exercise routine, saying that she will continue to serve at the Court “as long as she can do it full-steam.”

Ginsburg returned to the Court the following Monday to hear Oral Arguments, five days after the placement of the stent in her coronary artery.

Milestone Supreme Court Cases (Part 1)

     There have been many extremely important Supreme Court cases over the course America’s history. These cases helped to establish precedents, laws, and ideas that are common place and seemingly obvious in our modern society. Some of them exasperated situations, and led to violence. For better or for worse, these cases had a very important impact on American history, and helped form the country we live in today. Here are some of those cases. 

·      Marbury v. Madison, 1803

The case surrounded a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as a Judge by President John Adams, but whose commission was not delivered. Marbury asked the Court to force James Madison to deliver the documents, but the Court refused. In giving up their right to compel Madison to give the document, the Court established the principle of Judicial Review, giving them the authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

·      Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819

The case arose when the New Hampshire legislature tried to force the private institution of Dartmouth College to become a public institution, in the wake of the College’s President being deposed by its trustees. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects contracts from state encroachments, thereby safeguarding business enterprises from interference by state governments.

·      Worcester v. Georgia, 1831

This case ruled that Samuel Worcester’s conviction to remove the Indian population from Georgia in the wake of the Indian Removal Act was void, because states have no jurisdiction in Indian Territory. While President Jackson refused to recognize the Court’s decision, and went through with the Removal Act anyway, the opinion is famous for laying out the relationship between Indian tribes and the state and federal governments.

·      Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857

The case surrounded an enslaved African American man named Dred Scott who tried to sue for his own freedom when his owner took him to Free states and territories. The Court ruled that African Americans were not citizens and therefore could not petition the Court. Furthermore, slaves could not be taken from their masters, regardless of a territory’s “free” or “slave” status. The Judges also ruled that national legislation could not limit the spread of slavery in the territories, invalidating the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. The decision and its repercussions heightened tensions between the north and the south over the issue of slavery, contributing to the unrest that would ultimately lead to Civil War. President Lincoln and Frederick Douglass made speeches directly addressing the decision, and acts of violence were being committed against free African Americans. The Civil War began only four years later.

            The Fourteenth Amendment invalidated the Dred Scott decision, one of the few times a Supreme Court decision has been entirely invalidated in American History.

·      Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

The case involved a dispute over the legality of segregated railroad cars in Louisiana. It upheld segregation by approving “separate but equal” accommodations for African Americans, in an obviously failed attempt to diffuse tensions between whites and blacks at the time. It sanctioned “separate but equal” public facilities for African Americans. The decision would become the center of much controversy during the mid-twentieth century Civil Rights movement, and would ultimately be reversed by the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Milestone Supreme Court Cases (Part 2)

The post was becoming extremely long, so I decided to split it into two. Here is the rest;

Korematsu v. United States, 1944

The case arose concerning the legality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into Internment Camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the relocation as a wartime necessity in a controversial 6 to 3 vote. Constitutional scholars now view the relocation as a major violation of civil liberties, and in 2011 the Department of Justice filed an official notice, conceding that it was an error, and erasing the case’s precedent for interning citizens.

·      Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954

In 1951, thirteen Topeka parents filed a suit against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas, calling for the school district to reverse its policy of segregation. The Court, in a unanimous decision, declared racially segregated public schools inherently unequal, and a denial of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. The decision was a huge victory for the Civil Rights movement, paving the way for integration and having widespread consequences for the rights of minority groups.

·      Baker v. Carr, 1962

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law that was supposed to apportion the seats for the state’s general assembly was entirely ignored. The case established the principal of “one man, one vote,” requiring the reapportionment of districts for some state legislatures. Apportionment is the determination of the proportional number of members each US state sends to the House of Representatives, based on population figures.

·      Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965

The case centered on a Connecticut law that prohibited people from using any “drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. In a 7-2 vote, the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, seeing as it violates the right to marital privacy. This decision was a victory for proponents of both privacy and women’s rights, and would serve as the legal basis or the future defense of a women’s right to abortion.

·      Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

The Court was petitioned to address the constitutionality of a number of cases where defendants accused of crimes were interrogated while in custody, and deprived of their rights, such as right to counsel. In a split 5-4 decision, the Court established “Miranda Rights”, ruling that no confession could be admissible unless a suspect was made aware of his or her rights and the suspect had waived them.

·      Roe v. Wade, 1973

A single pregnant woman in Texas by the name of Roe challenged the constitutionality of Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited the practice.  The U.S. Supreme Court upheld abortion rights for women, striking down the law and others like it. The Court based its decision on the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut.

           

            

Current Supreme Court Justices (Part 1)

The United States Supreme Court is made up of one Chief Justice, and 8 other associate justices. Here is some more specific information surrounding our current Supreme Court Justices.

Chief Justice - John G. Roberts, Jr. 

 

Born in Buffalo, New York, January 27, 1955. Married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996 and had two children - Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. He served as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat September 29, 2005. He is the second most recently appointed Supreme Court Justice, and practices Roman Catholicism.

Associate Justice - Antonin Scalia

 

Born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936. He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children - Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986, the longest serving of all the current Supreme Court Justices. Like most of the Justices, he is Roman Catholic.

Associate Justice - Anthony M. Kennedy 

 

Born in Sacramento, California, July 23, 1936. He married Mary Davis and has three children. He has served in many various positions during his career, including as a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961, the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987–1988 and two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988. Is Roman Catholic.

Associate Justice - Clarence Thomas

 

Born near Savannah, Georgia, on June 23, 1948. He married Virginia Lamp in 1987 and has one child, Jamal Adeen, by a previous marriage. He was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974, and throughout his career has served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982–1990. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991. He is also Roman Catholic

Current Supreme Court Judges (Part 2)

This is a continuation of a previous post, which became extremely long as I added more and more information. I decided to split it into two parts, but you can still count it as one post.

Associate Justice - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

Born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, and she was one of the people who helped with the launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993. She is one of the three Jewish justices in the Court, the only other religion aside from Roman Catholicism practiced by the members of the current Court. She is also the second female Supreme Court Justice, after Sarah Day O'Connor.

Associate Justice - Stephen G. Breyer

 

Born in San Francisco, California, August 15, 1938. He married Joanna Hare in 1967, and has three children - Chloe, Nell, and Michael. From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, from 1990–1994. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994. He is also Jewish.

Associate Justice - Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

 

Born in Trenton, New Jersey, April 1, 1950. He married Martha-Ann Bomgardner in 1985, and has two children - Philip and Laura. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat January 31, 2006. He Practices Roman Catholicism.

Associate Justice - Sonia Sotomayor

 

Born in Bronx, New York, on June 25, 1954. She earned a B.A. in 1976 from Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude and receiving the university's highest academic honor. She litigated international commercial matters in New York City at Pavia & Harcourt, where she served as an associate and then partner from 1984–1992. President Barack Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she assumed this role August 8, 2009. She is Roman Catholic.

Associate Justice - Elena Kagan

 

Born in New York, New York, on April 28, 1960. She served for four years in the Clinton Administration, as Associate Counsel to the President and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.   Between 2003 and 2009, she served as the Dean of Harvard Law School. President Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 10, 2010.  She took her seat on August 7, 2010. She is Jewish.

Warger v. Shauers

          Warger v. Shauers was one of the first cases heard by the Court during this year’s term, back in the second week of October. It is No. 13-517.

          The case revolved around a truck and motorcycle collision in South Dakota that caused the rider to lose part of their leg. The rider sued, and subsequently lost. However, after the trial was over, it was discovered that Regina Whipple, the jury’s forewoman, was biased in favor of the truck driver. The information was revealed to the rider’s lawyer by one of the jurors, who said that during deliberations Ms. Whipple revealed that her daughter had been responsible for a fatal accident, and had her daughter been sued, it would have ruined her life.

            Armed with this new information, the rider sought a new trial, but lower courts refused to consider the statement, and so the case went to the Supreme Court. This Thursday, the Court unanimously ruled that jurors may not testify about what went on during deliberations even to expose dishonestly in jury selection. The decision was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who pointed to the sanctity of jury deliberations, and to the fact that Whipple’s daughter’s accident did not provide her or the rest of the jury with specific knowledge regarding negligence liability for car crashes, and therefore does not count as extraneous prejudicial information.

Supreme Court Update (12.12.14)

            This week, the Supreme Court heard the arguments for the following cases:

Departmentof Transportation v. Association of American Railroads

DirectMarketing Assn. v. Brohl

AlabamaDept. of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc.

Gelboimv. Bank of American Corp.

UnitedStates v. June

UnitedStates v. Kwai Fun Wong

            In terms of its schedule, this week was a very normal week as far as the Court is concerned, with three argument days from Monday to Wednesday, and a conference day on Friday. Next week will mark the beginning of a slower few weeks for the Court, with a non-argument day scheduled for Monday, December 15^th, and nothing else on the Court calendar until Friday, January 9^th, 2015, which will serve as a conference day. For clarification, non-argument days are days when the Court announces orders and opinions, and admits new members into its Court Bar.

Outside of oral arguments, the Court also released two new opinions this week, the first on Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, which I discussed in a previous post. The second, Warger v. Shauers, was released later on the same day, Tuesday, December 9^th, and I will be discussing it in a future post.

On Thursday, December 11^th, state officials in Arizona asked the Court to examine the Obama administration’s move on immigration policy, in an attempt to block undocumented immigrants from getting driver’s licenses. This marks the first time the Court has been dragged into the debate over President Obama’s executive action. Justice Kennedy has called for a response to the application to be filed by noon next Tuesday, December 16^th.