Supreme Decisions
A vast cache of decisions came down from the Supreme Court today. Here's a rundown:
- Ten Commandments. There were two cases before the court, each challenging permissibility of public displays of the Ten Commandments. The court split, ruling 5-4 (in both cases) that they could not be displayed in a Kentucky courthouse, but could be displayed outside the Texas capitol.
- Restraining Orders. In a 7-2 ruling, the justices ruled that police cannot be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order.
- File Sharing. The court sent the case of Grokster back to a lower court, ruling unanimously that internet file-sharing services can be held liable for copyright infringement.
- Cable Lines. Overturning a lower-court decision, the court ruled 6-3 that cable operators don't have to open their high-speed internet lines to competitors.
- Reporters' Refusal to Testify. The court refused to hear the case in which Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller have been found in contempt of court for not turning over the names of leakers in the Valerie Plame case. That means Miller and Cooper may have to release the names or begin serving time in as soon as a month.
- Rehnquist Retirement. Nothing yet.
As always, your best blogo-resources on the rulings are the SCOTUSblog, the Volokh Conspiracy, and TalkLeft. The mainstream press has plenty of info as well.
|
June 27, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:01 p.m.
Jun 27, '05
Breyer was interesting on the Ten Commandments. He basically cut a middle ground in an attempt to end the religious strife in this country singlehandedly. He won't succeed. Both sides are so committed to fighting at this point. And the radical right hopes to get more favorable rulings from radical right judges in the future, especially once Stevens and O'Connor retire.
But Breyer did have an interesting idea. By focusing on the 40 years that the Texas disply has existed in relative peace and quiet he chastised the Left for creating strife where none existed. And by focusing on the obvious religious motives behind the newly-installed Kentucky displays he chastised the Right for creating strife where none existed.
Breyer's method here seems to say: "If it hasn't caused problems this far, leave it alone. If you haven't put it up before, and you're just doing it now to cause trouble, don't."
But Breyer's approach would allow for genuine, good faith attempts to vindicate an individual's feelings of alienation or disfavor in the face of old displays (such as the case of the Pledge of Allegiance). And the method would also allow for genuine, good faith attempts to honor American law and heritage through partially religious displays (such as where the Commandments are placed near the Code of Hammurabi and the Koran, or where Moses is placed near Roosevelt and Jefferson).
In a way, Breyer's approach is unprincipled because the Texas display is an establishment of religion. In that sense, Breyer sells out one of the key functions of the Establishment Clause: to protect religious minorities and atheists. But in another way, Breyer's approach is princpled because, by choosing to avoid the dogmatic adherence to principle that inflames both sides of the religion war, he adheres most closely to the Clause's other main goal: to limit religious strife.
Unfortunately, the radical right, which won this fight more than it lost, is sure to stir up ever more hate and litigation. In that sense, I wish Breyer would've struck down the Texas display. The radical right, profoundly more than the left, needs a lesson in humility and Christian charity.
Jun 28, '05
Thom Hartmann made an interesting suggestion this morning. The judges that would have retired are not confident Dubya would make a wise choice to replace them, so they are hanging on. Sandra Day O'Connor had indicated that she wanted to retire while a Republican was in office, and I guess Dubya's radical perspective does not reflect her understanding of what a Republican should be/do.