Tag Archives: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

48 Years After Landmark Ruling, Advocates Push to #ReimagineRoe and Build Abortion Justice

Roe is the floor. We want an end to Hyde. We want people to access abortion care, when they need it, without discrimination, stigma, or harm.”

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer for Common Dreams.  Published 1-22-2021

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Pro-choice demonstration in front of SCOTUS. in June 2016. Photo: Jordan Uhl/flickr/CC

Nearly a half-century after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that access to safe, legal abortion is a constitutional right, advocates are now pushing the Biden administration and Congress to

urgently and aggressively pursue a bold reproductive justice agenda.

While advocates have fought to protect Roe v. Wade since 1973, 48 years later to the day—with a new pro-choice administration and Democrats in control of both chambers of Congress—calls are building to #ReimagineRoe and treat the high court’s landmark ruling as a floor rather than a ceiling for reproductive rights and healthcare. Continue reading

Share Button

Trump’s Pennsylvania lawsuits invoke Bush v. Gore – but the Supreme Court probably won’t decide the 2020 election

Judges can intervene in elections, but the Supreme Court really prefers not to. Jantanee Phoolmas/Moment via Getty Images

Steven Mulroy, University of Memphis

The Trump campaign has filed two lawsuits in federal court over ballot counting and voting deadlines in Pennsylvania, threatening to take the election to the Supreme Court. Both consciously echo the two main legal theories of Bush v. Gore, the infamous Supreme Court case that decided the contested 2000 presidential election.

But this race is not likely to be decided by the Supreme Court.

There are several reasons, sitting at the intersection of law and politics, why the ghosts of Florida past won’t rise again in Pennsylvania. As a law professor who’s authored a book on election reform, I rate success in Trump’s efforts to wrench back Biden’s lead through litigation as a real long shot, though not out of the question. Continue reading

Share Button

Constitutional Law Experts Endorse Democrats’ Bill to Create 18-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices

They called it “a critical piece in prescribing how our country’s leaders can work to depoliticize the Supreme Court and its confirmation process.”

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 10-23-2020

Constitutional law experts on Friday endorsed a bill that would create 18-year term limits for U.S. Supreme Court Justices. (Photo: Matt Wade/flickr/cc)

Over two dozen constitutional law experts on Friday endorsed legislation recently introduced by a trio of House Democrats that would establish 18-year term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The endorsement letter (pdf) signed by professors and scholars across the country, along with a former U.S. senator and a former chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court, comes as the Senate GOP is trying to confirm right-wing Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third nominee to the high court, before the November general election. Continue reading

Share Button

Warning Fundamental Rights and American Lives at Stake, 5,000+ Lawyers Urge Senate to Reject Barrett

“Rushing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett will cause irreparable damage to the public’s faith in the Supreme Court, the rule of law, and our democracy.”

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 10-9-2020

Photo:massmatt/flickr/CC

Ahead of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings scheduled to start Monday, more than 5,000 lawyers issued an open letter Friday urging senators to “defend the lives and fundamental rights of all Americans” by refusing to confirm President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Congressional leaders and the White House have been locked in a political battle over the high court’s empty seat since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  in September. Rights advocates have raised alarm about Barrett’s “extreme ideology”—as the lawyers put it—since even before Trump officially announced her nomination. Continue reading

Share Button

Successful GOP Repeal of ACA Would Strip Health Coverage From Millions and Give Top 0.1% a Massive Tax Cut—During a Pandemic

“If Trump gets the Supreme Court to strike down ACA, the richest 0.1% would get a tax cut of $198,000 a year, and Big Pharma would get a tax cut of $2.8 billion. But millions of seniors would pay billions more for prescription drugs, and 20 million would lose their health insurance.”

By Kenny Stancil, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 10-6-2020

Health Care Reform Law Protests at the US Supreme Court in 2012. Photo: Elvert Barnes/CC

New research released Tuesday shows that if the Supreme Court next month sides with the Trump administration and 18 state attorneys general seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act, more than 20 million people would lose health insurance and millions more would be forced to pay more for healthcare—in the middle of a pandemic—while Big Pharma and the richest 0.1% would enjoy major tax cuts.

“The stakes in this case, always extraordinarily high”—wrote Tara Straw and Aviva Aron-Dine in one of several reports (pdf) published this week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)—”are even higher now amidst a global pandemic and an economic crisis that has caused more people to lose health insurance and become eligible for help from the ACA.” Continue reading

Share Button

Unlike US, Europe picks top judges with bipartisan approval to create ideologically balanced high courts

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 21 called on the Republican-controlled Senate not to confirm a new justice until the next president is in office. Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images

David Orentlicher, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Filling Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court immediately sparked a bitter partisan fight.

But choosing judges for the nation’s highest court doesn’t have to be so polarizing.

In some European countries, judicial appointments are designed to ensure the court’s ideological balance, and the entire process, from nomination to confirmation, is generally not seen as partisan. By choice and by law, high court justices in those places work together to render consensus-based decisions. Continue reading

Share Button

‘Knives Out on SCOTUS’: Patriotic Millionaires Open Letter Pushes Senate Dems to Fight ‘Nakedly Illegitimate’ Nomination Attempt

Citing Trump’s signals that he may try to remain in office regardless of the election results, the group tells lawmakers, “to be clear, you no longer have the option to stand idly by and wait for things to ‘play out.'”

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 9-25-2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her Circuit Court confirmation hearing. Screenshot: C-SPAN

Ahead of reporting Friday that President Donald Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Patriotic Millionaires launched a “Knives Out on SCOTUS” campaign pressuring Senate Democrats to fight back against “morally-bankrupt Republican hypocrites” in the chamber who are trying to “hand a far-right ideologue a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court just days before the most divisive and consequential election in American history.”

The group’s open letter, which Americans are urged to sign, comes after a week of mobilizing in response to Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConell (R-Ky.) vowing after Ginsburg’s death that they were committed to nominating and voting on her replacement before November 3. The letter demands that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and members of the Democratic Caucus “use every possible procedural tool” at their disposal “to disrupt and delay this public fraud.” Continue reading

Share Button

Mail-in voting does not cause fraud, but judges are buying the GOP’s argument that it does

Protesters against passage of a bill to expand mail-in voting during a Nevada Republican Party demonstration, August 4, 2020, in Las Vegas. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Penny Venetis, Rutgers University Newark

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee filed lawsuits recently against New Jersey and Nevada to prevent expansive vote-by-mail efforts in those states.

These high-profile lawsuits make the same argument that Republicans have made in many lesser-known lawsuits that were filed around the country during the primary season. In all of these lawsuits, Republicans argue that voting by mail perpetuates fraud – an argument President Donald Trump makes daily, on various media platforms. Continue reading

Share Button

As Prisons Across US Report Surge in Covid-19 Cases, Supreme Court Rules Jail Does Not Have to Provide Basic Protections to Inmates

“There is no legal principle justifying this stay. The only ‘principle’ animating it is the belief of the Republican appointees to the Court that prisoners are subhuman.”

By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 8-6-2020

Orange County Central Jail Complex. Photo by D Ramey Logan / CC BY-SA

As prisons and jails across the country continue to report Covid-19 outbreaks among inmates and staff, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late Wednesday that a county jail in California does not have to provide its population with basic sanitary and protective equipment or test symptomatic inmates.

Responding to an emergency application by officials at Orange County Jail, the court handed down a 5-4 ruling along partisan lines and issued a temporary stay on an earlier ruling by federal Judge Jesus Bernal. Continue reading

Share Button

US Supreme Court Upholds ‘Pay-to-Vote Scheme,’ Allowing Florida to Impose Poll Tax on Those With Felony Convictions

“This Court’s order prevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating in Florida’s primary election simply because they are poor,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent.

By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 7-16-2020

Screenshot: MSNBC

The voting rights of hundreds of thousands of former felons in Florida were called into question Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a lower court ruling to stand, permitting the state to bar former inmates from voting if they owe court fees or fines.

The decision relates to Amendment 4, a law that overwhelmingly passed in November 2018 via a referendum. Sixty-five percent of Florida voters approved of the amendment, which said former felons can vote in the state after they have completed “all terms of [their] sentence.” Continue reading

Share Button