Progressives led by President-elect Joe Biden will soon take over the White House, but at the Supreme Court, liberalism has reached a historically low ebb.
A court that drove liberal social change for decades is now an engine of conservatism. That was evident in a religious liberty dispute over Covid-19 rules last week and is likely to be seen on abortion rights, gun restrictions and possible new Biden regulations, such as to protect the environment and address climate change.
The transformation of America’s highest court has been years
This article is republished here with permission from The Associated Press. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Pennsylvania’s highest court questioned Tuesday whether Bill Cosby’s alleged history of intoxicating and sexually assaulting young women amounted to a signature crime pattern, given studies that show as many as half of all sexual assaults involve drugs or alcohol. Cosby, 83, hopes to overturn his 2018 sex assault conviction because the judge let prosecutors call five other accusers who said Cosby mistreated them the same way he did his victim, Andrea Constand. The defense said their testimony prejudiced the jury against the actor and should not have been allowed.
“That conduct you describe — the steps, the young women — there’s literature that says that’s common to 50% of these assaults —
Boston Municipal Court Judge Serge Georges Jr. would bring district court, property law background to Supreme Judicial Court, supporters say
If appointed to the state’s highest court, Boston Municipal Court Judge Serge Georges would bring expertise in real estate law, substance use disorders and the daily churn of the state’s district courts — a perspective Gov. Charlie Baker says is sorely needed at the top.
“This is a chance to put somebody who has presided over a drug court, who’s been deeply involved in the busiest district court in the Commonwealth of Mass. in a position where he can engage his colleagues in discussions about how their decisions affect the actual practice and delivery of justice every single day in the working courts across the commonwealth,” the Republican governor said Wednesday morning.
As the Governor’s Council heard remarks from and about Georges, they weighed not only whether the district court judge has the qualifications and character to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court, but whether the benefits outweigh
U.S. Supreme Court debates Louisiana split-jury law’s impact as it weighs applying it retroactively | Courts
Whether the verdicts rendered by non-unanimous juries are less accurate than ones built on consensus – and just what accuracy means with a racially discriminatory law – drew a spirited debate at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as the nine justices considered applying the court’s recent ban on split verdicts retroactively.
The justices, including famously mum Clarence Thomas and the court’s newest member, Louisiana native Amy Coney Barrett, were vocal as they wrestled with where jury unanimity fits in with previous rulings that the court has refused to make retroactive, such as with the right to race-neutral jury selection.
Some of the same six justices that agreed in April that divided juries are unconstitutional, declaring a Jim Crow-era anomaly of Louisiana law a mistake, cast doubt on the case for applying it to inmates who have exhausted their appeals.
About 1,500 Louisiana convictions hang in the balance
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday struggled with whether to require new trials for potentially thousands of prisoners who were convicted by non-unanimous juries before the court barred the practice earlier this year.
The high court ruled 6-3 in April that juries in state criminal trials must be unanimous to convict a defendant. Previously, Louisiana and Oregon as well as the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico had allowed divided votes to result in convictions. In striking down the practice, the court said Louisiana and Oregon had originally adopted their rules for racially discriminatory reasons. Now, juries everywhere must vote unanimously to convict.
But the Supreme Court‘s decision affected only future cases and cases in which the defendants were still appealing their convictions when the high court ruled. The question for the court now is whether the decision should be made retroactive. That would benefit prisoners convicted by non-unanimous
The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday for a case that could change how the nation treats hacking and cybercrime.
The ruling will come sometime later this year or early next year, and it could be either way. Best case scenario: We’ll start being more fair to white-hat hackers who locate and warn of major security vulnerabilities. Worst case? Lying about your height on Tinder becomes a federal crime.
That’s right, the stakes are high on this one. Here’s what to know about the last 30-plus years of US hacking law.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Since 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has been the single biggest cybercrime law in the US. It’s widely considered outdated, as you might expect from a law about the internet that was passed just a year after the last season of Stranger Things was set.
Because it’s so old
| The Columbus Dispatch
Writing that his “pants are charred” from the volume of his lies, the Ohio Supreme Court disbarred a Columbus lawyer Wednesday for practicing law while suspended for having a sexual affair with a court-appointed client.
Jason Sarver’s law license was revoked by the court in a unanimous ruling, with Justice Patrick Fischer writing that Sarver manipulated vulnerable clients and violated their trust “to pursue his own objectives.”
Sarver was convicted of misdemeanor charges and received a suspended 180-day jail sentence in Hocking County in 2016 related to engaging in sex with a woman he was appointed to represent in court. He originally was charged with sexual battery, but maintained the affair was consensual.
The Ohio Supreme Court suspended him for two years, with 18 months stayed, on Nov. 28, 2018, for violating lawyer conduct rules by engaging in a sexual affair with a client.
Washington, D.C., Dec. 01, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a Second Supplemental Notice of Pertinent and Significant Authorities on behalf of the Petitioners in the matter of Desrosiers v. Baker currently awaiting a decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). The Notice advised the SJC of the Thanksgiving eve emergency injunction issued in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, blocking New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from imposing strict numerical occupancy limits on places of worship. Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn supersedes Supreme Court precedent Gov. Baker previously cited in his defense and Justices of the Massachusetts SJC raised at oral argument.
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker imposed a Civil Defense State of Emergency and issued at least 55 COVID-19 executive orders since March that shut down the businesses, churches, and the private school that are suing Baker in