Proponents of the law indicated that they were put in place to increase oversight of internal controls to protect investors and workers.  It came on the heels of scandals at companies like Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc., and others, which many blame for the onset of the economic decline.

The Supreme Court is still hearing deliberations on the case.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The case was brought to the attention  of the US Supreme court after a chapter of the Christian Legal Society at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law brought an appeal  before the Justices.  They argue that they do not receive funding and  benefits as a  group because of a policy of exclusion.  In an initial judgement, a federal judge ruled against the Chapter, indicating that the college made it clear that they recognized campus groups with an inclusion policy as a part of their evaluations.

Still, the chapter seeks to receive such funding and benefits despite the fact that refuse to  open membership to gays, lesbians and nonbelievers – a requirement of the San Francisco school.

The 30-member Hasting group appealed that decision and are seeking to have the requirements changed to accomodate thier own policies.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A federal  appeals court  had already ruled against valedictorian Brittany McComb of Henderson, Nev. who challenged the actions of Clark County school officials after they turned the microphone off because of a Jesus laden monologue.  The school asserted that the speech was inappropriate because of graphic descriptions of Christ’s Crucifixion and a call for students to join the Christian faith.

School officials also noted that McComb had given them a previous speech which they pre-approved but she had changed the text prior to the event in question.

The justices said Monday they will not re-consider the lawsuit and denied the student’s request  for a new trial.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Married in 1952,  the O’Connor’s were a well known Washington couple who enjoyed the social scene there.  After Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed as the first woman to sit on the Supreme court in 1981, the duo moved  to Arizona where they remained until his death.

Judge O’Connor retired from the US Supreme  Court in 2005 to take care of her ailing husband.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On May 31, 2009, anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder shot and killed in cold-blood Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of the doctor’s church. The reason for the killing: Dr. Tiller provided abortions to women who wanted them, whether it was a matter of pure choice or the pregnancy posed a threat of harm to the woman. Dr. Tiller was a specialist in late-term abortions.

On Monday, November 9, 2009, Roeder confessed to an Associate Press reporter that he killed Dr. Tiller, stating that he killed Tiller “to protect unborn children.” Roeder said he had no regrets because “pre-born children were in imminent danger.” Scott Roeder chose to be a vigilante and take the law into his own hands when he killed Dr. Tiller. Now Roeder is charged with first-degree murder, with his trial set for January 2010. In the jail interview with AP, Roeder said that he didn’t consider his actions murder and that he had no intention of changing his plea of not guilty to guilty. Roeder apparently plans to use a “necessity” defense at his trial, arguing that he killed Dr. Tiller to prevent a greater harm.

Roeder’s confession came on the same day that several fervently opposed anti-abortionists released their  “Defensive Action Statement 3^rd Edition,” that proclaims any force that can be used to defend the life of a “born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.” The statement was signed by 21 anti-abortionists, and demands that Roeder’s jurors be allowed to consider the question of when life begins in deciding whether lethal force was justified.

We cannot choose which laws we will obey and which laws we will ignore without regard for the consequences. If you want to drive 95 mph on the freeway, fine—but don’t be surprised when you see the flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror. The fact that you’re a professional NASCAR driver used to traveling 200 mph in a group of cars mere feet from each other does not give you the right to ignore the speed limit. Likewise, if you don’t agree with a woman’s right to an abortion, you cannot kill abortion providers and expect to get away Scot-free.

If you do not agree with a law, the proper thing to do is to contact your state and federal representatives and senators and urge them to support a bill to change it. Another method to change a law is to go to court and challenge its constitutionality, irregularities in its enactment, or other reason that negates the law. If you don’t agree with the lower court’s decision, you have the right to appeal the case. But when the United States Supreme Court rules against you and no further appeals are possible, you cannot take the law into your hands, regardless of your beliefs, religious or otherwise.

If people were allowed to pick and choose which laws they feel are reasonable and should be followed, and which laws are repugnant to their beliefs and don’t need to be followed, America would be in a constant state of anarchy.  Even if you don’t agree with a law, you must follow it or be prepared to face the consequences.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Slated to be heard by the High Court on  Monday, the two cases in question involved Joe Sullivan, who was 13-years-old when he was sent away for life without possibility of parole for raping an elderly woman.  The other prisoner, Terrance Graham, was 16 when he was linked to an armed robbery.

Sullivan, now 33 and Graham 22, are being represented by a legal team who argues that rendering final judgment when the offenders are so young is not a good precedent to set.  The team  hope is to repeal sentences for adolescents who were sentenced to life in prison without parole in cases that were not homicide related.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Running, promoting, or participating in a dogfight is illegal in all 50 states. The most publicized criminal case of illegal dogfighting operations involved former Atlanta Falcons’ quarterback Michael Vick, who in August 2007 pled guilty to federal felony charges and was subsequently sentenced to prison for 23 months. Had Vick’s participation in the dogfighting activities been limited to taping the dogfights and selling DVDs or videotapes of them, he could have argued that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—which, among other things, states that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech”—barred his prosecution, as the defendants in the U.S. Supreme Court trial are contending.

The real issue raised by the case is this: Is speech really free in the United States? The First Amendment does not say you have the right to speak freely except upon certain issues. So if we look at it literally, the dogfighting films are protected by the First Amendment and therefore no criminal action can be taken against the persons involved in the filming, distributing, and selling of the tapes. Or can some speech be prohibited based on the argument that barring such speech is in the best interests of protecting society? Just because a DVD contains scenes of an actual crime taking place does not make it illegal. For instance, we often see on the nightly news videotapes of crimes, such as criminals robbing a convenience store. So it would appear that the argument that just because the DVD or videotape shows an actual illegal act (crime) being committed is not alone sufficient grounds to deprive it of free speech protection.

On the other hand, as Justice Samuel Alito asked during oral arguments, would it be okay to have a live, pay-per-view “Human Sacrifice Channel”? After all, although few people in the United States believe in human sacrifice, in some cultures and religions the sacrifice of a person—such as a 14-year-old virginal girl—is perfectly legal and in fact is mandated by their religious beliefs to appease the Gods. Should such sacrificial videos be banned in the United States, even if the person wishing to buy the video is a member of the religion that sanctions human sacrifice and believes he has the religious freedom, right, and obligation to view the film?

It is clear that some speech can be prohibited, despite the First Amendment’s unequivocal declaration. For instance, DVDs, Internet videos, pornographic magazines, and other media showing sexual conduct with minors can be and is prohibited. And it has long been the rule that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. Of course, the definition of just what is obscene has changed over the years. The definition of what is obscene is so nebulous that it led one judge to say he couldn’t define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it.

The truth of the matter is that, if speech were truly free in America, there would be no problem with selling or distributing dogfighting DVDs and videos, even though dogfighting itself is illegal in the United States. Should the government have the right to peer into the deep dark recesses of the primitive—if not perverted—human mind and say what a person is allowed to read, see, or hear, especially in the privacy of his or her own home? The fact is that we do not now have—nor have we ever had—completely free speech in the United States, which leads one to contemplate whether that is a good or bad thing.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Sotomayor graduated from Princeton and went on to attend Yale law school. She was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 by the first President Bush, George H.W. Bush. In 1998, President Bill Clinton nominated her for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. President Barrack Obama nominated her for the United States Supreme Court, to take the place of retiring justice David Souter. The Senate confirmed Sotomayor’s appointment in August 2009 by a vote of 58-31. Sotomayor lists her political affiliation as Independent, but she tends to side with conservatives more often than not.

Some people and groups advocate the appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court based upon a single issue. Whether the judicial candidate is for or against abortion has been the litmus test of religious conservatives ever since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. Today, another issue – whether or not the nominee is for or against same-sex marriage – has become a second issue in the judicial nomination spotlight.

The problem with a litmus test based on a single issue or two is that it completely ignores the fact that justices are called upon to settle questions spanning the whole legal spectrum. A candidate for judicial appointment may be against abortion, but how does he or she feel about such legal issues as affirmative action, racial or sexual discrimination, anti-trust law, civil rights, interstate commerce, the death penalty, or the right of the government to take people’s homes through the power of eminent domain for private purposes, such as the development of a shopping center or a planned residential housing community.

The United States Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, and many decisions that present difficult decisions, legally and morally, are decided by one vote, 5-4. Then when a member of the majority vote retires or dies in office, the push is on by the opposing side to get a justice who agrees with their viewpoint appointed to the high court so they can get the decision overturned. The problem with this situation is that it results in instability in the law. People do not know from one judicial term to the next what is legal and what is not. When a controversial decision has been made 5 votes to 4, a newly appointed justice should respect that decision except in the most egregious situations.

Judicial nominees should be appointed to the courts based on their overall legal scholarship and temperament, and not a single political issue or two. Only by looking at the judge’s entire record can we assure that legal decisions are made based on “the law of the land” and the Constitution. It is hoped that Justice Sotomayor will keep these principles in mind, as well as exercising judicial restraint in infringing upon the fundamental rights of the people to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.