The couple knew firsthand of Edmund Wilson’s travails with “Memoirs of Hecate County,” a story collection that was withdrawn from sale and prosecuted for obscenity, in 1946. Wilson’s case had made its way to the Supreme Court, which upheld the ban.

In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court will decide whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to fine, ticket, or jail someone for sleeping outside on public property if they have nowhere else to go. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would make it easier for communities to clear out homeless people’s tent encampments, even if no available housing or shelter exists.

outreach and recruitment programs can still target specific groups (e.g., via schools or districts that predominantly serve students of color), so long as they do not award admissions spots solely based on an individual student’s race

In addition, at least two justices have ties to the oil industry writ large. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s father was a Shell attorney for nearly three decades and served in leadership positions with the American Petroleum Institute, and Justice Samuel Alito owns stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 (Alito recused himself from the Baltimore case but Barrett did not).

Another example of that, because you might say, are there othercases like that, Miranda. So Miranda is reaffirmed a lot, but thenin the Dickerson case in 2000, Chief Justice Rehnquist writes theopinion, considering the stare decisis factors and reaffirming Mi-randa. Even though Chief Justice Rehnquist, by the way, had beena fervent critic of Miranda throughout his career, he decided thatit had been settled too long, had been precedent too long, and hereaffirmed it

o that is why both of those cases, Planned Parenthood v. Caseyand Dickerson, are cases where I would refer to them as precedenton precedent.Senator F EINSTEIN. So you believe it is correctly settled, but isit correct law in your view?Judge KAVANAUGH. Senator, there is on that case or onDickerson, or on cases like Citizens United or Heller or UnitedStates v. Lopez or Kelo, just the whole body of modern SupremeCourt case law, I have to follow what the nominees who have beenin this seat before have done.

has been reported that you have said that Roe is now settled law.The first question I have of you is what do you mean by ‘‘settledlaw’’? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law?Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could beoverturned, and has your views changed since you were in theBush White House?Judge KAVANAUGH. Senator, I said that it is settled as a prece-dent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles ofstare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mindabout Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times overthe past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most impor-tantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.And as you well recall, Senator, I know when that case came up,the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The Courtspecifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in consid-ering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Ken-nedy, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Souter, at great length wentthrough those factors.

Is it correct law?RESPONSE: Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), is a precedent of the Supreme Courtentitled to the respect due under the law of precedent. As I discussed at the hearing, the law ofprecedent is not a judicial policy but rather is rooted in Article llI of the Constitution.Adherence to precedent ensures stability and predictability in the law, and reinforces theimpartiality and independence of the judiciary.46. In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that states may not intrudeinto the bedrooms of same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion explainedthat laws prohibiting intimacy between same-sex couples are unconstitutional becausestates "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their privatesexual conduct a crime

is most-ly a sham. You know the game. In the Bush White House, youcoached judicial nominees to just tell Senators that they have ‘‘acommitment to follow Supreme Court precedent, that they will ad-here to statutory text, that they have on ideological agenda.’’ Fairytales.At his hearing, Justice Roberts infamously said he would justcall balls and strikes, but this pattern, 73–0, of the Roberts Fivequalifies him to have NASCAR-style corporate badges on his robes.Alito said in his hearing what a strong principle stare decisiswas, an important limitation on the Court. Then he told the Fed-eralist Society, ‘‘Stare decisis means to leave things decided whenit suits our purposes.’’

he President early on assured evangelicals his Supreme Courtpicks would attack Roe v. Wade. Despite confirmation etiquette as-surances about precedent, your own words make clear you do notreally believe Roe v. Wade is settled law since the Court, as yousaid, ‘‘can always overrule its precedent.’

Justice Kagan, when asked about Roe v. Wade, said the fol-lowing, ‘‘I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to commenton the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settledlaw entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to futurecases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come be-fore the Court in the future.

This reason, we believe—I believe—demonstrates that you arewilling to disregard precedent. And if that is the case because justsaying something is settled law, it really is, is it correct law?

I want to talk a little bit about one of the big deci-sions that we have the belief that although you told Senator Collinsthat you believed it was settled law, the question is, really, do youbelieve that it is correct law? And that is Roe v. Wade

22. We may note in passing the archaic nature of the US Supreme Court, whosejudges are named for life like the pope of the Catholic Church and the apostles of theMormon church. However, a pontifical bull of 1970 denied cardinals over eighty yearsold the right to vote in papal elections, which proves that all institutions can be re-formed, even the most venerable ones.

Alito relies on sources such as Hale without acknowledging their entanglement with legalized male supremacy. The men who cited Hale as they constructed the early American legal order refused to give women the right to vote or to otherwise enjoy full citizenship. Relying on that history of injustice as a reason to deny modern women control over their own lives is a terrible argument but apparently the best Alito can do.

On examination, you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed; your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.

The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.

Alito’s draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages’ worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents – in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.

Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.

Just one observation:

The modern practice of the committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with the nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in 1955; the nomination came shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, and several southern senators attempted to block Harlan's confirmation, hence the decision to testify.[1][8]

CBC Gem Premium Services Subscription Conditions

The law of defamation is a culmination of a conflict between society and the individual. On one hand lies the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, on the other is the right of individual to have his reputation intact. How far does the liberty of free speech and expression extend" And when does it become necessary for the law to step in to safeguard the right of the individual to preserve his honour. THE law of defamation seeks to attain a balance between these two competing freedoms.

“routine burden of citizenship”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 – 697