As the U.S. Supreme Court approaches the conclusion of its 2017-2018 term, the justices are expected to release a deluge of decisions in the coming weeks, including marquee opinions addressing mandatory union dues, partisan gerrymandering, and President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
As of this writing, there are 25 decisions outstanding.
Among the remaining cases is one of the first argued this term, a partisan gerrymandering dispute arising from Wisconsin called Gill v. Whitford. Its Maryland counterpart, Benisek v. Lamone, is also pending.
Both cases ask the justices to declare politically motivated line-drawing during the 10-year redistricting process unconstitutional. Gill involves a challenge to the entirety of Wisconsin’s state legislative district map, arguing that it violates the Constitution’s First Amendment and its equal protection guarantees. The Benisek plaintiffs are challenging the boundaries of a single congressional district and make a slightly different First Amendment argument.
The court will also pronounce upon the constitutionality of compulsory public section union dues, known as fair-share fees, in Janus v. AFSCME.
Under this arrangement, labor bosses may collect fees from non-unionized government workers to defray the costs of collective bargaining. Though fair-share fees may not be used for political purposes, critics of the regime say workers are still forced to subsidize political activity, since most union business — especially collective bargaining — is deeply political.
For its part, organized labor warns that mandatory dues are essential for labor peace.
Which is basic Bullshit. There are several "right to work" states that refuse to make employees join a union or pay union dues
Trump’s travel ban also awaits judgement.
A coalition of Democratic states and civil rights groups is challenging the latest iteration of the sanctions, which impose entrance penalties to varying degrees on nationals from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.
Though the administration says the sanctions are essential to national security, the plaintiffs charge that they reflect Trump’s anti-Muslim animus in violation of the Constitution’s ban on religious favoritism and exceed the president’s authority under federal immigration law.
Hang onto your hats, boys and girls. The ride could get exciting!
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that found a Washington state florist had intentionally discriminated against a same-sex couple for refusing to make flower arrangements for their wedding.
The justices vacated the ruling and sent the case back down to the Washington Supreme Court, giving the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, another chance to make her case in light of their decision earlier this month in favor of a Colorado baker, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.
The state Supreme Court must now look at whether Stutzman was treated fairly when the courts first heard her case.
But each of these cases establish a precedent, from which to form a binding opinion later on. Like "in Stutsman v. Washington and ? v. Colorado, the Court has established that . . . "and now you have a basis of Constitutionality.
it's lookin' like President Trump is gonna get another Supreme Court pick
the Democrats are going to do all they can to block it, so we NEED to give the Republicans a super majority in the Senate so that they don't need any Democrats for the confirmation!
seems I stand corrected, and happily so! lol they don't need Dems now, thanks to the Dems, with the nuclear option in play, we very likely will have a new justice before the mid-terms I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that the Dems are asking that President Trump wait until after the mid-terms, you know, the same people who won't lift a finger to help him in any way!
seems I stand corrected, and happily so! lol they don't need Dems now, thanks to the Dems, with the nuclear option in play, we very likely will have a new justice before the mid-terms I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that the Dems are asking that President Trump wait until after the mid-terms, you know, the same people who won't lift a finger to help him in any way!View attachment 21607
i thought i heard it reported 51 was needed...and the vice president would be the 51st...i stand corrected
McCain needs to give up his seat and be replaced..its time they stop worshiping him
he is and always has been a blue coat wearing republican..and should have ran as a democrat..oh wait...he knows
he would never have gotten elected to hold that seat if he had...IMO
the vice president cannot vote to force a majority, he can only vote to break a tie they think they will be able to pull a couple of Dems over, the ones that are in races in states that President Trump won overwhelmingly
thats what i was talking about because 2 women republicans said they would not support Trump's nominee under certain conditions
that leaves maybe 48 for and 49 against if no dems cross over...correct?
but the funny thing is..no one even knows who he will nominate and they are already saying no...lol
the Democrats aren't doing themselves any favors in this hearing but this opening statement from Ben Sasse is a must see ... especially for people who think that a supreme court judge can just decide, all on their very ownies, to change law ... like Roe v. Wade