WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court (click here) added a new legal challenge Tuesday to the legislative and political battles raging over President Obama's embattled health care law.
The justices agreed to consider whether for-profit corporations whose owners oppose abortion on religious grounds must abide by the law's mandate that health insurance policies include free coverage of government-approved forms of contraception.
It's the first legal challenge to reach the high court since it upheld the law 17 months ago in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. While a loss for the government wouldn't strike down the law itself, conservatives still seething over Roberts' rescue of Obamacare say the case offers Roberts an initial chance to rule against it....
Interestingly enough, Sam Alito dissented in regard to anti-gay protests. So, it isn't as though Freedom of Speech and Religion is seen as above any reproach by at least one conservative judge. I mean this is not an opinion that says 'hands off.'
By CBS NEWS March 2, 2011, 11: 54 AM
High court rules for military funeral protesters
And Justice Alito doesn't stop there in dissenting as a unique opinion. This time it is a diversity requirement he is unhappy with.
In another certiorari case he was joined by Justice Scalia. Truly the independent thinkers of the court. Justice Alito never gets any rest from the wordy importance of the law. "BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS !!!!!"
I too worry about the pursuit of noncompliance within the wordiness of the law. I even worry more for the clerks exposed to such ideas and whether or not they need remediation after serving Justice Alito. But, what do I know. Surely, Justice Alito is a perfectionist beyond that of any capacity of god and we are lucky to his is off tone musings.
... Justice Samuel Alito, (click here) joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, explained in a separate dissent why they thought the case merits review.
"The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in this case was based on a serious misreading of our decision in Harrington v. Richter, and if left uncorrected, it is likely to interfere with the proper handling of a significant number of federal habeas petitions filed by Michigan prisoners," Alito wrote. "UnderHarrington, when a state court summarily rejects an appeal without clearly indicating whether the disposition was based on the merits of the claims presented or instead on procedural grounds, a federal habeas court must presume that the decision was on the merits, but the presumption may be overcome under certain circumstances. By contrast, when the state court makes it clear that a summary disposition was on the merits, Harrington's rebuttable presumption has no application. A federal court may not probe beyond the state court's order to inquire whether the court accurately characterized its own decision.
Interestingly enough, Sam Alito dissented in regard to anti-gay protests. So, it isn't as though Freedom of Speech and Religion is seen as above any reproach by at least one conservative judge. I mean this is not an opinion that says 'hands off.'
By CBS NEWS March 2, 2011, 11: 54 AM
Justice Samuel Alito (click here) was the sole dissenter in Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to protect the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to hold inflammatory, anti-gay protests outside of funerals, insisting the funeral protests did not deserve constitutional protection.
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote in his dissent.
The Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay fundamentalist group led by Rev. Fred Phelps, habitually protests high-profile events as a means to publicize its view that U.S. deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are God's punishment for American "immorality" - particularly in regard to national tolerance of homosexuality....
And Justice Alito doesn't stop there in dissenting as a unique opinion. This time it is a diversity requirement he is unhappy with.
Last Updated: November 22 2013
Article by Kevin S. Ranlett
...After the class action against Sirius settled, (click here) some objectors appealed Judge Baer's approval of the settlement—and specifically, his order regarding the diversity of class counsel. The Second Circuit held that the objectors lacked standingbecause "they never contend that class counsel's representation was actually inferior" to the representation that would have been provided absent a diversity mandate.
One of those objectors—represented by Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness—filed a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Second Circuit's holding that he lacked standing to challenge Judge Baer's order regarding class counsel's staffing of the case.
The Supreme Court denied review. But Justice Alito took the unusual step of issuing a separate statement respecting the denial of certiorari (pdf) in an effort to dissuade Judge Baer (and other judges) from imposing a diversity requirement for appointed class counsel.)
Justice Alito explained that the "uniqueness of" Judge Baer's "practice weighs against review by this Court, but the meaning of the Court's denial of the petition should not be misunderstood." That is because, in Justice Alito's view, it is not only "doubtful that the practice in question could survive a constitutional challenge," but also likely that the practice runs afoul of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), which regulates the appointment of class counsel....
In another certiorari case he was joined by Justice Scalia. Truly the independent thinkers of the court. Justice Alito never gets any rest from the wordy importance of the law. "BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS !!!!!"
November 18, 2013
By BARBARA LEONARD
... Justice Samuel Alito, (click here) joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, explained in a separate dissent why they thought the case merits review.
"The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in this case was based on a serious misreading of our decision in Harrington v. Richter, and if left uncorrected, it is likely to interfere with the proper handling of a significant number of federal habeas petitions filed by Michigan prisoners," Alito wrote. "UnderHarrington, when a state court summarily rejects an appeal without clearly indicating whether the disposition was based on the merits of the claims presented or instead on procedural grounds, a federal habeas court must presume that the decision was on the merits, but the presumption may be overcome under certain circumstances. By contrast, when the state court makes it clear that a summary disposition was on the merits, Harrington's rebuttable presumption has no application. A federal court may not probe beyond the state court's order to inquire whether the court accurately characterized its own decision.
"In this case, the Sixth Circuit overlooked that important rule....
Alito did refuse to comment on the Duke case.
November 13, 2013
An appeal relating to the 2006 lacrosse scandal (click here) was rejected for consideration by the United States Supreme Court Tuesday....
...Alito is a visiting professor of law at the School of Law...
I have a theory about Justice Alito. He really interested in being a relevant Justice. He is a partisan. He simply is. In acknowledging that it is easy to find purpose in his 'stand alone' dissents. He is creating OPPORTUNITY for politics to be INTRODUCED to any decision as a minority opinion. He is attempting to overthrow the US Constitution from a minority seat with anticipated results projected into the future. There is no other conclusion to make for his Lone Wolf decisions. In most publicized case that has the focus of the country he is always among the conservatives, but, otherwise he is acting as a political hack and not a sincere Justice interested in upholding the USA Constitution so much as undermining it.
Alito did refuse to comment on the Duke case.
November 13, 2013
An appeal relating to the 2006 lacrosse scandal (click here) was rejected for consideration by the United States Supreme Court Tuesday....
...Alito is a visiting professor of law at the School of Law...
I have a theory about Justice Alito. He really interested in being a relevant Justice. He is a partisan. He simply is. In acknowledging that it is easy to find purpose in his 'stand alone' dissents. He is creating OPPORTUNITY for politics to be INTRODUCED to any decision as a minority opinion. He is attempting to overthrow the US Constitution from a minority seat with anticipated results projected into the future. There is no other conclusion to make for his Lone Wolf decisions. In most publicized case that has the focus of the country he is always among the conservatives, but, otherwise he is acting as a political hack and not a sincere Justice interested in upholding the USA Constitution so much as undermining it.
