Given the likelihood of heavy snow and coastal flooding, Capital Weather Gang reader Brian French proclaimed: “I hereby name this system Snow v. Wade.”The snow event coincides with the "Right to Life" March on Washington.
The Chicago hedge fund billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin, for example, earns about $68.5 million a month after taxes, according to court filings made by his wife in their divorce. He has given a total of $300,000 to groups backing Republican presidential candidates. That is a huge sum on its face, yet is the equivalent of only $21.17 for a typical American household, according to Congressional Budget Office data on after-tax income.
Ruth Baby Ginsberg wins Halloween, so stop trying. (h/t @NaamaHaviv) pic.twitter.com/T9ETbhL025
— Ghastly Akner (@taffyakner) October 31, 2014
(Yes, it's actually spelled "Ginsburg.")
"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."- Patriot Abigail Adams, 1776
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 2011
In fact, it only took a day for the Court’s “narrow” decision to start to crack open. On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday.
In light of its ruling on Hobby Lobby and a related suit, the Supreme Court ordered three appeals courts to reconsider cases in which they had rejected challenges from corporations that object to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services at all.
[snip]
It’s bad enough that the Court privileged the belief that IUDs and emergency contraceptives induce abortion over the scientific evidence that clearly says otherwise. With Tuesday’s orders, the conservative majority has effectively endorsed the idea that religious objections to insurance that covers any form of preventative healthcare for women have merit.Just as bad, these males on the court actually lied about their ruling.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government has to show it has pursued the least restrictive means to accomplish its goal. Alito claimed that because the nonprofit accommodation exists, that means the government has other ways to get women access to contraception that respects religious liberty. Yet only a few days later, he ruled that the nonprofit accommodation – again, signing a form – is also a violation of religious liberty.Yep, that means that the often trotted out example of the Little Sisters of the Poor (with a name like that, how could anyone deny them anything?) can refuse to even sign a damn sheet of paper saying they want a waiver for providing birth control because: religion.
The prospects for reining in the Obama administration's out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency are brighter because the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has overstepped the authority to regulate “greenhouse gases” it was granted by the justices in 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA .You'll note, of course, that the irony quotes are there for a reason. But that's not what we're here for. Scaife's braintrust does the usual "liberal EPA overstep" dance blah-blah-blah. But let's take a look at what the Supreme Court actually said:
12-1146 ) UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPAYou'll note that nestled warmly among all the pro-business groups challenging the EPA in the list of cases to be consolidated is something called the "Southeastern Legal Foundation."
12-1248 ) AM. CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1254 ) ENERGY-INTENSIVE MANUFACTURERS V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1268 ) SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1269 ) TEXAS, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1272 ) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
TODAY: 9:30am until 11:00am.
Liberty Avenue between 9th & 10th Streets in Downtown Pittsburgh 15222
Join us on Wednesday, June 26 at 9:30 AM on Liberty Avenue as we "RIOT or REJOICE" when the Supreme Court announces its decision on Prop 8 and the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).
This event will happen ON THE STREET live with a large outdoor television, speakers and a time for us to ACT UP or CELEBRATE this historic decision.
The time is NOW for our Government to STOP discriminating against its LGBT citizens and treat everyone EQUALLY!
This event is being produced by the Delta Foundation of Pittsburgh in conjunction with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Equality Pennsylvania, Marriage Equality for Pennsylvania, New Voices Pittsburgh, One Pittsburgh, Persad Center, SEIU Healthcare PA, SEIU Local 668, SEIU Local 32BJ, Shepherd Wellness Center, Steel City Stonewall Democrats, and Dreams of Hope. If your organization is interested in becoming involved please email info@pittsburghpride.org.
This event has been issued a permit by the City of Pittsburgh - Special Events Office. Street closures will be handled by City of Pittsburgh - Bureau of Police personnel.NOTE: Via the P-G: Liberty Avenue to close in Downtown Pittsburgh for Supreme Court same-sex marriage announcements
Come again?: The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler editorializes that since the Framers could not have envisioned DNA testing, swabbing the mouth of those arrested for their DNA is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Neither could the Framers have envisioned high-speed printing presses. Does this mean The Bugler has no First Amendment right to publish? [Bolding in original.]While I realize there's a vigorous debate surrounding Maryland v King, the braintrust does itself no favors by misrepresenting both what the Supreme Court said and then what the P-G said about it.
The Supreme Court's Monday decision affirming the right of police, without probable cause and without a warrant, to take DNA samples from those they arrest (but supposedly only for serious crimes) is chilling.[Emphasis added.]Now let's take a look at the "Held" section of the decision:
When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [Emphasis added.]Notice anything? I even bolded/italicized the important words for any braintrust visitors that may be visiting. If there's any nuances of difference between an arrest supported by probably cause and a search done after that arrest though unrelated to it, they should have explained them. As it is, the braintrust gets it wrong by omitting such details.
There's no argument that a DNA sample taken from someone arrested by the police is a search of sorts, but the key word in the amendment is "unreasonable." On reasonableness grounds, the majority had the best of this argument. The decision to restore the conviction of a man arrested on a different charge but identified and subsequently tried as a rapist because of a DNA test was the right one.[Emphasis added.]But let's get on to the main point here: go back and read what the braintrust's take on the P-G editorial
DNA, of course, can be a window into family histories and genetic dispositions, which might be alarming if the Maryland law did not specifically limit testing to identification. Only those charged with serious crimes are tested. Fourth Amendment purists might be reassured but Justice Scalia was not, basing his analysis as always on what the tyranny-fearing Founding Fathers might have thought.Seems to me, that by the braintrust's own argument they'd have to reject the use of fingerprints by police as well. I mean, since the founders could not have envisioned fingerprinting either....
The trouble with this is that DNA testing could not be dreamed of in their day -- indeed, fingerprinting was at least a century away from being used. Besides, the purist approach sells the Founding Fathers short. They were not against scientific progress and were resolutely practical men. If they had to choose between a hypothetical threat and a reasonably applied test that beyond doubt can convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, they might have decided as the Supreme Court did.
Washington, DC- Today U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement on same-sex marriage:
“When the Respect for Marriage Act (the legislation that repeals the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]) was first introduced and debated in the Senate in 2011, I began to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage much more intensely than I had before. As a candidate for the Senate in 2006 and 2012, and as a Senator, I have supported civil unions. I also supported strongly the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), was a leading co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and had stated publicly that I opposed efforts to enact constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage. In the six years I have been in the Senate, there have not been any floor votes to repeal DOMA or to legalize same-sex marriage. Both questions have now been argued before the Supreme Court and are being debated across our country. After much deliberation and after reviewing the legal, public policy, and civil rights questions presented, I support marriage equality for same-sex couples and believe that DOMA should be repealed.
As part of my consideration of these issues, I read letters written to me by LGBT Pennsylvanians and their families. These letters included deeply personal statements from people across our Commonwealth and the questions they posed challenged me directly. These stories had a substantial impact on my position on this issue. If two people of the same sex fall in love and want to marry, why would our government stand in their way? At a time when many Americans lament a lack of commitment in our society between married men and women, why would we want less commitment and fewer strong marriages? If two people of the same sex want to raise children, why would our government prevent them from doing so, especially when so many children have only one parent, or none at all? A letter I received from a woman in Southeastern Pennsylvania was particularly compelling:
‘My partner and I are both college educated. I am a stay-at-home mom and part-time kindergarten assistant teacher. I left a full-time position…when my partner gave birth to our twins to be a stay-at-home mom. We went through the process of second parent adoption and are both legal parents to our kids. My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for 18 years. We attend church every Sunday and we own a house, cars, and are truly blessed by our [two children]. As I do a rough calculation and add up the additional money we have paid in taxes compared to a financially similar heterosexual married couple over the last ten years, that amount approaches $100,000! $100,000 dollars would go a long way towards future retirement or in the college education of my kids. More important than the financial inequality to me is the message I send to my kids. My kids have two proud and loving parents who are honest [and] work hard. I want my kids to know they are equal and our family is equal . . . I just want my family to be treated equally and with respect by my state and federal government.’
As a Senator and as a citizen, I can no longer in good conscience take a position that denies her and her family the full measure of equality and respect.
I understand that many Americans of good will have strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I believe elected public officials have an abiding obligation to refrain from demonizing and dividing people for partisan or political gain. Rather, Democrats and Republicans should come together and find areas of agreement to do what’s best for the country, including lesbian and gay Americans.”
The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.I'm sure Scalia likes to see himself as a defender of the faith too (even when acting less than saintly) and, no doubt sees no conflict in that. I'm also guessing that More would have had no problem with Scalia's views on women (or little else).
Rally to celebrate the Affordable Care Act and tell Corbett we demand a PA Healthcare ExchangeRSVP at link above or via MoveOn.
When: Today! June 29, 2012, Noon
Where: Piatt Place 301 5th Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 (map)
What: The Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court, guaranteeing that millions of Americans will receive healthcare! As Attorney General, Tom Corbett filed a lawsuit against the ACA. We are going to rally to celebrate the SCOTUS decision and to remind Corbett that WE WON and that we demand he stops dragging his feet to create PA's healthcare exchange.
Roberts is the Severus Snape of the Supreme Court.
— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) June 28, 2012
