Tag Archives: rehnquist

Upcoming Court Cases

Posted on by

By the end of the month, the U.S. Supreme Court will have completed its current term (and Chief Justice Rehnquist will very likely have announced his retirement, although I hope not).

Here are the cases yet to be decided this term that I find the most interesting (taken from here – any case that has nothing listed under “Opinion” and does not say “2005-06 term” under “Oral Argument” will be decided this month; the following links provide nice summaries of the cases mentioned as well as links to case materials):

Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU – These are probably the highest-profile cases remaining and will likely be decided together. They involve whether a government-sponsored display of the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment.

MGM v. Grokster – The Court will decide whether the distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer software can be held vicariously or contributorily liable for copyright infringement. This will be high-profile as well.

National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., et al. v. Brand X Internet Services / FCC v. Brand X Internet Services – The Court will decide whether it is proper for the FCC to classify cable modem service as an “information service” and not a “telecommunications service” for purposes of regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. DSL is subject to stricter FCC regulation than cable modem service because it is owned by telecommunications companies and is therefore classified as a “telecommunications service.”

In all, there are 26 decisions remaining to be announced by the end of this term. Supreme Court decisions are announced on Mondays and sometimes on Thursdays as well.

There are no gay-rights cases this term, but next term there’s Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, about whether the federal government can withhold funding from law schools that bar military recruiters from campus. Several law schools bar military recruiters because they say the ban on gays serving openly in the military violates those schools’ non-discrimination policies. See also this article that discusses the case in light of Dale v. Boy Scouts of America.

The Court seems to take up a gay-related case every three or four years. The last one was Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

Interstate Wine

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning that a state cannot prohibt wineries located out of state from shipping wine directly to customers in that state. The decision “is expected to increase the sales of wines over the Internet by small, boutique wineries.”

And I love it when things like this happen:

The majority is Kennedy (author), Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The dissent is Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, and Thomas.

Scalia versus Thomas! Stevens and Thomas voting together! Dogs and cats living together!

And how often do you see the Supreme Court having to interpret the amendment that repealed Prohibition?

I’ll really have to read the decision.

I Live Here, Too

Posted on by

I’ve gotten over being depressed. Now I’m just pissed. I’m not moving to Canada; this is my country, too, and nobody gets to tell me to leave. Forty-nine percent of the country voted against W — and probably even more, but thanks to likely voter fraud, we can’t know for sure. And don’t hate the red states — there are plenty of blue-staters in that part of the country. (Except not so much in Nebraska, Kansas or Oklahoma.)

A 51-percent, 3.5-million popular-vote win seems shocking only because Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. In reality, W won the popular vote by the narrowest margins of any candidate since 1976. That’s not a mandate. That’s not some overwhelming voice of the people.

Two out of three Americans are not evangelical Christians. There are more of us than there are of them.

The gay marriage amendments? Read Evan Wolfson’s piece, to which I linked yesterday. Momentum is on our side. Young people are on our side, and they’re our country’s future. Remember — forty years ago, bans on interracial marriage were still legal.

As for the Supreme Court, Lawrence v. Texas was decided 6-3. If Rehnquist and O’Connor had retired and been replaced by archconservatives after Democratic filibusters were overcome, we still would have won Lawrence, 5-4. We must not relax, though. Justice Stevens, please hang on for a few more years. O’Connor, you too.

This is my fucking country, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let some bigots take it away from me.