Supreme Court

If there ever was a election to vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat this is it.

Thanks for a Constitution which withholds absolute power from the political panics of the day--and for a Supreme Court majority which can still recognize exceptional injustice when it slaps them in the face.

Dear Friends:

First and foremost, a tip of the hat to NChands, who posted on this story earlier tonight on the DailyKos, and who has graciously allowed me to recount the report here at BlueNC.

There's a shocking story coming to us tonight from the Raleigh News & Observer tonight regarding two men recently arrested for committing homosexual acts.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said too many justices have financial conflicts for the court to act in an appeal by 33 companies trying to stop a flurry of lawsuits brought against companies that did business in South Africa during the apartheid era.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing


click to enlarge

Cross posted at The Progressive Pulse

For Progressives, it has been one ugly Supreme Court term. As outlined Sunday in The New York Times, the first full term of the Roberts Court shows how quickly and significantly the Supreme Court has staggered to the right. Go here for the details.

This is another stark reminder, as if we needed one, about how diminished America is under a Bush presidency as compared to what might have been with a Gore presidency.

In a ruling yesterday that all sides of the abortion debate agree has changed the legal landscape of this issue, the Supreme Court voted by narrow majority to uphold the 1993 federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

CNN’s Washington Bureau described the decision thusly:

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

As many of us at BlueNC are probably aware, the Supreme Court has historically held that the life and health of the mother is a critical determinant in upholding or overturning abortion laws.

Here again, CNN sums it up for us:

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

On April 18, 2007 our Bush-ified Supreme Court threw history out the window.

More below the fold

Crossposted from Town Called Dobson & My Left Wing


click to enlarge

The Supreme Court makes another ruling for the public and against big business. Now understand I have nothing against business because commerce makes the world go round as they say. What I am very much against are laws that allow some businesses to take unfair advantage of the patent laws and excessive unfair profit.

A company can have a patent on a product and just by making an insignificant change either to the product or even the packaging of that product apply for and get another patent on the product. This would allow them to keep their monopoly on the product for another period of time, thereby controlling the price and supply and stifling competition. The companies owning the patent can also sell licenses to other companies to produce the product and pay royalties to the owning company. This is especially the case with the drug companies. I have made this explanation very brief and rather simplistic since most of us are not lawyers and can only understand the gist of the rulings and not the legal ins and outs.