Opinions The Supreme Court Court Of - South Carolina Judicial: Fill & Download for Free

Hello!To be clear. Amy Coney Barrett is qualified for the job. Her credentials are impeccable. She’s a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and has sat on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since Trump nominated her to that position in 2017. Amy Coney Barrett - WikipediaHowever, what disqualifies her is her right-wing ideology. She has said that abortion is “always immoral.” She has said that Roe creates a framework of “abortion on demand” (a patently false claim given that Roe explicitly created a fetal viability standard after which the state was allowed to limit women’s fundamental rights). Trump Supreme Court pick Amy Coney Barrett ensures abortion fight for election's final daysShe will also vote to gut Obamacare causing about 20 million people to lose their health insurance. The incredible irony of Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment is that she is the opposite of a visionary like Justice Ginsburg who was so ahead of her time, even though she is a beneficiary of Ginsburg’s life work for gender equality. Amy Coney Barrett is a Targeted Missile at the Affordable Care Act and Protections for People with…And not, Democrats don’t hate Catholics but I do know one white evangelical who does! Listen for yourself:Democrats don't hate Catholics. Who does? Some of Trump's Evangelical supporters such as Trump faith advisor Rev Robert Jeffress who in 2010 made it clear Catholicism is a "cultlike, pagan religion" that spread "due to "the genius of Satan." Listen below #AmyConeyBarrett pic.twitter.com/i1cWrKAQX3— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) September 26, 2020On the bright side for the Democrats and ultimately for the American people is that her nomination will be a short-lived win for Trump, McConnell and the GOP. This will literally accelerate the demise of the Republican party.The American people know what is at risk here and polls show they are not happy about it. Republicans are in the fight of their lives this election cycle as they try to keep control of the Senate. But Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, Iowa, Georgia, Montana, South Carolina, and even Alaska are in play, especially now with a Supreme Court fight looming.So bye bye Trump, McConnell and the other plutocrat traitors aka the GOP. The Democrats will expand the court as some already openly hinted on doing so. Democrats eye expanding Supreme Court if Trump's nominee is confirmed That would instantly wipe out the GOP’s judicial supermajority overnight.Oh, and say adios to Florida as well for making the terrible political mistake in raising the expectations of the Cuban-American community by tantalizing the Supreme Court seat by having dangled the name of Judge Barbara Lagoa.And if that doesn’t work out for some reason, we can always give them less work to do. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, enumerating the powers of the judiciary, contains this little gem: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Article III Section 2 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of CongressMeaning Congress has the power to limit which laws are subject to judicial review, and “under such regulations,” how they are reviewed. I personally see a lot of opportunity for congressional meddling in the powers of the judiciary — as in, stripping away its powers.We really have no choice but to pack the court. To do otherwise would be to allow the ghosts of Trump and McConnell to strangle all potential progress for decades after they’re gone. The majority simply won’t allow that. So I hope it’s worth it to McConnell to lead his Senate majority off a cliff for nothing.

Rick Santorum - on Twitter:Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #MarriageRick Santorum -Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people's opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate ... The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices.Mike Huckabee -The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat." This ruling is not about marriage equality, it's about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court's most disastrous decisions, and they have had many.Jeb Bush -Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.Scott Walker -I believe SCOTUS' decision is a grave mistake. 5 unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage.-SKW.Carly Fiorina -This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring it constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be ... The Court ruled today that All Americans should receive equal benefits and rights from the government under the law. I have always supported this view. However, this decision was also about the definition of marriage itself. I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage.Dr. Ben Carson -While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs. I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.Rick Perry -I am disappointed the Supreme Court today chose to change the centuries old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I'm a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.Marco Rubio: I 'Disagree' With Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, But It's 'Law' - Read the full transcriptBobby Jindal -The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me.Lindsey Graham -The senator from South Carolina followed suit, calling himself a "proud defender of traditional marriage," but went on to say that but said he will "respect the Court's decision.""Given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress," Graham said in a statement. "Rather than pursing [sic] a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans."Rand Paul - Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business AltogetherHillary Clinton -Proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality—& the courage & determination of LGBT Americans who made it possible. -HBernie Sanders -Today the Supreme Court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building: 'Equal justice under law.' This decision is a victory for same-sex couples across our country as well as all those seeking to live in a nation where every citizen is afforded equal rights. For far too long our justice system has marginalized the gay community and I am very glad the Court has finally caught up to the American people.Martin O'Malley -What a day for our country—join me in celebrating today's decision & thanking the advocates who helped make it happen.Lincoln Chafee -Congratulations to Supreme Court on today's good ruling for marriage equality! #chafee2016.Presidential candidates react to Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriageRepublican candidates criticize gay marriage ruling2016 Presidential Candidates Pounce With Their Opinions on Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage RulingMarco Rubio: I 'Disagree' With Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, But It's 'Law'Governor Jindal Releases Statement on Gay Marriage RulingWhat 2016 Candidates Are Saying About the Gay Marriage RulingRand Paul: Privatize MarriageI updated somewhat. I removed Donald Trumps quote, and added Bobby Jindal's press release.As of 6/29 I updated to add Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul (thanks to Ed Caruthers).

I agree with Jennifer Ellis that Scalia will be remembered for his fiery, acerbic dissents more than for his majority opinions. But of those majority opinions, the most memorable were probably:Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. This decision made it much harder for plaintiffs to obtain "standing," which requires that a litigant show that he personally has a stake in the outcome of the litigation before the courts will examine whether the defendant acted lawfully.District of Columbia v. Heller, the case that resurrected the Second Amendment right to bear arms from judicial oblivion.Crawford v. Washington, a decision that greatly strengthened criminal defendants' 6th Amendment right to confront the witnesses against them, and is a staple of evidence classes in every law school in the country.Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, which held that free exercise of religion is not a defense to prosecution or punishment for violating neutral criminal laws of general applicability, a decision which has come back to bite Scalia's fellow Christian conservatives hard.INS v. Elias-Zacarias. A person who is threatened with death by rebels for refusing to join their guerrilla group is not persecuted for his "political opinion," and thus is not eligible for political asylum in the U.S. Maybe not memorable to all Americans, but everyone in my line of work needs to remember it constantly.Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. Scalia held that a regulation that completely destroys the economic value of a property is a "taking" of private property for public use that requires just compensation under the 5th Amendment, even if the owner nominally retains title to the property. A big part of the "takings revolution."