Justice Scalia is Dead - How will that affect the 2016 Election? | The Trump Administration & US Politics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Justice Scalia is Dead - How will that affect the 2016 Election?
February 14, 2016
7:10 am
Avatar
John Greenewald
North Hollywood, California
Admin
Forum Posts: 502
Member Since:
March 10, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here is one article explaining what decision the Supreme Court have still to make since his passing:

These are the key cases facing the Supreme Court after Scalia’s death

 
The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia casts a cloud of uncertainty over a Supreme Court term filled with some of the most controversial issues facing the nation: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

An eight-member court could split on all of those issues. If the court ties in deciding a case, the decision of the appeals court remains in place, without setting a nationwide precedent.

Pending a new justice, the court now has three consistent conservatives — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and Anthony M. Kennedy, like Scalia a Reagan appointee but one who often sides with the court’s liberals on social issues, such as same-sex marriage.

The court has four consistent liberals: Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Here are the key cases to know:

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The Supreme Court in July agreed to consider again whether race-conscious college admission plans are constitutional. Two years ago, the court voted 7 to 1 to send the University of Texas at Austin’s plan back for further judicial review and told the lower court to apply the kind of rigorous evaluation that must accompany any government action that considers race.

That ruling was largely seen as a punt on the part of a deeply divided court: The ruling stopped short of forbidding the consideration of race, significantly altering the court’s prescription of how such programs should operate, or even passing judgment on the UT program at issue.

Upon reconsideration, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit once again upheld the program. In a 2-to-1 vote, the panel said it was applying “exacting scrutiny,” but it concluded that UT’s limited consideration of race was “necessary” and narrowly tailored to meet the university’s compelling interest in achieving student-body diversity.

Lawyers opposed to affirmative action and representing Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to UT and filed suit in 2008, said the lower court had ignored the Supreme Court’s instructions.

The court already was working with one less justice in this case; Kagan sat it out, presumably because she worked on the issue when she was Obama’s solicitor general. That means only seven justices would decide whether the appeals court was correct to uphold the program.

Read more about the case.

United States vs. Texas

The Supreme Court is also considering whether President Obama exceeded his powers in trying to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. The order protects more than 4 million people who are parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents and allows them to “come out from the shadows” to work legally, as Obama put it when announcing the program in November 2014.

The executive action was put on hold by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A split court would uphold that decision and keep Obama from implementing it before he leaves office next January.

Arguments are scheduled for April.

Read more about the case.

Zubik v. Burwell

Also before the court is another challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this time over whether religiously affiliated organizations such as universities, hospitals and charities can be free from playing any role in providing their employees with contraceptive coverage.

The case pits questions of religious liberty against a woman’s right to equal health-care access, and it will be the fourth time the court has considered some aspect of what has come to be known as Obamacare.

Most appeals courts that have decided the controversy found in favor of the Obama administration. But one did not. Presumably, a split court would mean the law is interpreted differently depending on the region of the country.

Read more about the case.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole

The Supreme Court next month is set to hear its most consequential abortion case in nearly a quarter of a century, agreeing to determine how far states may go in regulating the procedure without violating a woman’s constitutional rights.

The case from Texas will affect women across the nation. Numerous states have enacted restrictions that lawmakers say protect a woman’s health but that abortion providers contend are merely a pretext for making it more difficult to obtain an abortion or even making the procedure unavailable within a state’s borders.

Abortion providers say full implementation of the Texas law passed in 2013 would reduce from 42 to 10 the number of clinics in the nation’s second-largest state. The court took no action on a case from Mississippi, where a similar law would close the state’s only clinic if it were allowed to proceed. That law was stopped in a lower court.

The outcome of the Texas case will turn on an interpretation of the court’s ruling nearly 25 years ago in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It said states had a legitimate interest in regulating abortion procedures but could not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.

Read more about the case.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/14/these-are-the-key-cases-facing-the-supreme-court-after-scalias-death/ 

Sincerely,

 

John Greenewald, Jr.

The Black Vault
http://www.theblackvault.com 

 

Government Secrets
http://www.governmentsecrets.com

 

Phone: (805) 32-VAULT

February 14, 2016
11:02 am
Avatar
Wing-Zero
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3278
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

  I think all of these cases are going to be stalemated until after the new president takes office. I doubt that Obama will be able to get a new justice to his liking in before his term is up. Congress is going to block any attempt at making a liberal majority within the SCOTUS, which means that these cases will either be postponed or Obama will have to appoint someone that hits more in line with the Republican majority currently in power. Good news for some past rulings like Heller and McDonald, bad news for a few of the new cases like Texas and Zubik.

War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life

February 18, 2016
3:32 pm
Avatar
Dragoness
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
January 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not sure congress has the balls to hold out. Dems are already trying to sway public opinion. Bunch of hipocrites that they are. If the shoe was on the other foot, they would be doing the exact same thing, holding out to see the outcome of the election. 

February 24, 2016
8:13 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10159
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How does the court make any rulings with one judge dead, sick, or unable to participate?  You must have an odd number in order to always have a majority.  

I was wondering concerning the funeral, and Obama out play golf instead, was Scalia one of the Judges who did not attend his State of the Union address a few weeks ago?  How many rulings was Scalia siding against Obama on? Was he considered a friend or foe to many of his policies, executive orders, and issues? 

IMHO if Obama could and would replace him with a judge that is very liberal, would that swing the Supreme Court to  completly liberal vs a balance of liberal and conservative justices?  This could almost be more important than electing the next President.  They serve for life! 

February 26, 2016
6:53 pm
Avatar
Wing-Zero
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3278
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

To my knowledge, which is limited on the subject, the Supreme Court can still do business, it just makes a tie more likely. In the case of a tie, the court would reconvene at a time when a tie would not be a possible outcome, and the law that was being challenged would for the time being go back into effect within its state.

War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
31 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10159

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23573

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 32

Topics: 8499

Posts: 122449

Newest Members:

Anthony, Blake Smith, Obatmataminusherbal, hongkongguy, Douglas of Avalon, Albie, Trucker, Fossy

Administrators: John Greenewald: 502, blackvault: 1777