Tag Archives: supreme court

Democrats Introduce Bill To Place Term Limits On Supreme Court

A group of House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would place term limits on current and new Supreme Court justices.

The bill, “Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization (TERM) Act,” was introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and seeks to amend federal law, placing an 18-year limit on Supreme Court justices while on the bench.

Read More:  Fox News

Fight in Supreme Court Over Border Wall Funding

The Trump administration have asked that the Supreme Court Stay a lower court order blocking the reallocation of Pentagon Funds to the building of the border wall.  The administration wants the ruling to be  put on hold whilst litigation is ongoing.

However a group of environmentalists and House Democrats have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the court order. Saying that, “If a stay is granted and wall construction begins, there will be no turning back”

Read More: Daily Caller


The Supreme Court’s landmark decision on gay marriage today will see same-sex married couples in States who already have gay marriage, given the same constitutional rights as heterosexual couples. The case means that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court also dismissed California’s ban on same-sex marriage, under Proposition 8, meaning same-sex marriages conducted in California will be reinstated.

The DOMA decision split the Supreme Court down lines of liberal and conservative, with the centralist Justice Anthony Kennedy having the swing vote, on this occasion voting with the liberals.

The courts decision is seen as a reflection on the changing face of America. Within a decade Americans have gone for only 21% being in favor of same-sex marriage, at the time of George W Bush’s re-election, to 30% when President Obama first took office in 2009, and the most recent polls place support for gay marriage at 51%.

The full impact of these decisions will become apparent to ALL Americans, in the coming days and months ahead.

Read More: The Telegraph


View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

It is expected that the Supreme Court will announce it’s decision on the Prop.8 and Defence of Marriage Act tomorrow morning. The Prop. 8 case will decide if California’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional or not. In the DOMA case law makers will decide if it is constitutional to withhold state benefits for same-sex couples who are married, whilst heterosexual couples are in receipt of them.

The two cases could in effect pave the way for same-sex marriage to be legalized nation wide. Many religious and other civil liberties groups are concerned with what the wider implications could be for free speech, if the Supreme Court rules in favour.

Read More: NBC Southern California


Over the last 2 days, the Supreme Court have heard the arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996,  which currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

The main issues raised in the Supreme Court this week touched on the role of individual State decisions to allow gay marriage, (so far in 9 States), and the 1100 federal laws which affect all States and define marriage in the traditional way.

If federal law redefines “marriage”, what happens in the 41 States who have voted against same sex marriage?

Would they be forced to accept it?  The majority have not yet decided…..

Therefore, the argument to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, seen as the “problem” area in terms of the law, became the central issue.

The question raised by the judges were essentially, “How can we get around this definition, to embrace all “types” of marriage so they are all treated the same under the law”.

Simple:  If this is about money/taxes and benefits – which the court case seemed to be saying – then call “marriage” between a man and a woman “marriage” and any other type of union a “civil partnership” within the DOMA definition.  Add those words to the federal law and it’s done.

But isn’t it instead about the longer term consequences on our society, to change it beyond recognition?
…are we allowed to say “No” or “lets just wait and see” without offending somebody? Do we have a choice?

Consider this;
1.    If marriage is redefined, where will it stop?  If the criteria is sexual orientation based, rather than biological (one man/ one woman), other groups who think differently about marriage could demand  “equal rights”.

For example:  Could marriage then become legal between one man and two or more woman, as in Muslim societies?  Could they bring a challenge under Sharia Law regarding marriage in the US in States which have strong Muslim communities?

2.  Lesbian, gay, transgender relationships,  are very new to society compared to the traditional marriage set up as defined for hundreds of years.  Children are secure in families and parents try to protect them from minority group influence they may disagree with.

Events such as the Folsom Street Fair, which allows all those with “different” ideas of sexual deviance, to display their “affections” in public.  Psychologists are now suggesting pedophilia is becoming likened to homosexuality.  These developments of “freedom of expression” could become common-place in our local communities as “normal” behavior.

Will those who disagree with the same-sex marriage ruling now be penalized if they don’t comply? Will church Pastors who disagree be sued if they don’t marry same-sex couples?  This has already happened in parts of Canada.

Most of the push toward gay marriage began in San Francisco and so it is not surprising that the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act started with Proposition 8, (the ruling of the people banning same-sex marriage) being challenged from California.

After World War II the US military dropped off it’s embarrassing gay recruits in San Francisco around Haight & Ashbury. At the same time the Hindu invasion lead by the Beatles and several Yogis entered our society. It is important to note here, this was all happening right after the fall of Hitler and his friend the Dalai Lama.

This was a spiritual invasion into western society that very few understand, but everything we are seeing is exactly what happened in Germany before “Nazi” Germany… it too was a “spiritual” invasion of these eastern deities.. This level of Occult is exactly WHY China kicked the Dalai Lama out and indeed fights anyone to this day, who promotes him.. but that’s another story.

Today in this same region of San Francisco it is normal to see naked people walking the streets in bondage and live anal sex acts performed for a world audience all streamed live to subscribers, being created and broadcast from the San Francisco Armory. NOTE: the court, government buildings and the federal reserve are all in the same neighborhood, and those who work in them, live work and play with their neighbors. Yes indeed this government sold the San Francisco Armory to the sex bondage company and were/are very aware of what they are doing in these “Upper Room” sexual debauchery events.

It is also important to note that during Arnold Schwarzenegger reign as Governor of California, Maria Shriver, under the tutelage of the Dalai Lama was brought in to influence “Woman’s Groups” and indeed first hand accounts of Maria putting the screws to Arnold, to sign Gay marriage or else… Once he did, and was no longer Governor, Maria let it fly about the child Arnold had 10 years prior and divorced to gain 250 million dollars to further invest in setting up his un-holinessines the Dalai Lama as the new Pope of the world…but this too is another story.

Harvey Milk, played by Sean Penn, was a close friend of the infamous Jim Jones, who used his sexual christian cult and black followers, to indeed, vote and re-vote, by busing them around to different precincts, getting elected those who would block the feds from investigating him. Harvey Milk indeed diverted a federal investigation away from Jim Jones. What bed fellows? forgive the pun, but facts are facts.

One person lead the movement through a relationship from San Francisco into the East Village in Manhattan NY and from their spawned the movement we see today.

Their focus were “Seats of Power”, Government, San Francisco Supreme Court, and Media Manhattan New York.

Important to note that despite the good citizens of California striking down gay marriage, out of San Francisco Supreme Court the Gay judge, involved with his neighbors and friends, as described above, over turned millions of voters in favor of the sexual deviance coming out of his neighborhood, to indeed affect the entire world.

Fox recently asked “Why do the muslims hate us?” Could it be the immorality we push via our media to an unsuspecting world?

Marriage as an institution has already suffered at the hands of historical social “norms”. In western society today we are reaping the legacy of the “progressive” 70’s and 80’s era of drug addiction and sex outside of marriage, with abortion used as the latest form of birth control today.  Where does someone’s moral opinion count?

Who is paying the price?  Our children of course !

The court mentioned that this was very much in the experimental stage –  to see the affects long term requires a 40 year span of time before the affects on children and family could be measured effectively.

So,…..will we see more mentally mixed up and abused children grabbing guns and mass shootings?  Who can tell…

Where is the nurturing mother in a sodomite male on male union who adopt children?  Nature made women nurturers……so how will this work?

Our future generations are at stake, and therefore the Supreme Courts decision will be life changing for us all .

3.   The country is already in crisis from a financial recession and on the verge of breakdown – Has the cost of this decision really been calculated?

In financial terms – who will pay the extra benefits and cover the loss of revenue, if this opens the floodgates for every “type” of “challenge” to federal law, decided by a minority group?

Note: California is on the verge of collapse and it is the largest economy in the USA. Depending on how this case goes, it could take California over the edge…
Has the cost been counted?

Isn’t this case about more than discrimination to a minority group who wish to achieve benefits for themselves?

Isn’t the real issue brought before the Supreme Court fundamentality challenging the solid principles of our society?

Legal discussions take no account of the implications on our society in general, because they decide on the individual outcome on a case by case basis usually. However, with the DOMA question, their vital decision will rule over the desires of ALL individual States, (the majority of whom have not embraced gay marriage), and shows clearly that the Law will not protect our nation from erosion and harm, where moral or spiritual issues are at stake. Let us hope they make a decision for the greater good, rather than just the legal dilemma brought before them.



View Offices of Roberta Kaplan lawyer for Edith Windsow in a larger map

The supreme court is today hearing the arguments in the case which will determine the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case is being brought by Edith Windsow, who is sueing the US government over $363,000 in federal estate tax she paid at the death of her partner Thea Windsow. The court is expected to make a decision in late June.

The 83 year old Edith Windsow was engaged to her partner Thea for 40 years, when in 2007 they went to Canada to marry. After Thea died in 2009 Edith had to pay the federal estate tax. She argues that had her wife been a husband then she would not of had to pay the tax, and therefore she believes DOMA to be unconstitutional, because it discriminated against her.

Edith Window’s story led President Obama to say the he and the Justice department would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA, in February 2011.

Windsow will be represented by Roberta Kaplan. Kaplan is regarded by her peers in the Law to be one of the finest lawyers of her generation, being voted by the National Law Journal as one of the top “40 under 40” lawyers in the US.


View Supreme Court of the United States in a larger map

This week in Washington DC, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday 26th and Wednesday March 27, for and against the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 (DOMA) and Proposition 8 in 2 separate cases, before 9 Supreme Court Judges, who will listen to 50 minutes of arguments from both sides and then make a final decision over the coming months.

Tuesday 26th – at 10am – Hollingsworth v Perry, which is the California Marriage Proposition 8 discussion, brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER).

Wednesday 27th – at 10am – Windsor v. United States brought by the ACLU, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP with super lawyer Roberta Kaplan from their New York office leading the arguments.
For more information about Windsor click here

The Gay, & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders group (GLAD), located in Boston, MA,  under the direction of Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto, have coordinated the amicus strategy, (meaning  sympathisers of the strategy write to support the legal case arguments), for the challenge to DOMA in the Supreme Court.

Essentially the arguments will revolve around the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is being challenged in separate individual cases as not standing up to higher scrutiny, and therefore controversial to the principles of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution on equal rights and protection under the law.

The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws”.

The challenge appears to have been brought as a result of cases where gay and lesbian individuals have not had the same protection under the law as married heterosexual couples, in the event of death of a partner and their right to inherit their estate.

On Tuesday morning, lawyers will present their arguments challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage for support/opposition of Proposition 8 in the case of Hollingsworth v Perry.

On Wednesday morning lawyers  for Windsor v United States will argue before the 9 Supreme Court Justices on the brief:

“Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as “only a legal union between one man and one wom- an as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. 7. It similarly defines the term “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Ibid.

The question presented is:

Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state.

The Justices final decision is expected in June, though some opinion is expected by their initial private vote this Friday.

GLAD has two other challenges to DOMA, Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. OPM, which will be held pending a ruling on Windsor.

Read more….


As the Supreme Court convenes to hear the arguments in the Proposition 8 case, it has emerged the lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts will be attending. Jean Podrasky, from San Francisco, will be sitting in the area reserved for friends and families during Tuesday’s hearing.

Podrasky has a very personal interest in the case, she wants to marry her partner Grace Fasano, and has campaigned against prop 8.

Podrasky has said previously in an interview with Fortune magazine that she would never ask her cousin his views on gay marriage, out of respect. Chief Justice John Roberts and Jean Podrasky only meet occasionally at family functions.

The Supreme Court is expected to make it’s ruling on the prop 8 case in late June, at the same time it delivers it’s verdict on the DOMA case, also being heard this week.

Read More: The Huffington Post


The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the first of two cases on Tuesday. The line began at 4 p.m. on Thursday by paid line stander John Spears. The line formed a full 114 hours in advance, which is even earlier than the line for the Obamacare case, which started about 72 hours before the hearing.

The hearings of oral arguments this week will include California’s Proposition 8, which addresses gay marriage, on Tuesday and the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday. According to the Supreme Court Hearing List, Proposition 8 is to have about and hour for their arguments and the Defense of Marriage Act Jurisdiction will have 50 minutes and Merits will have an hour for their arguments.

Read More – Huffington Post: Supreme Court Gay Marriage Line Forms Even Earlier Than Obamacare Queue