Difference between revisions of "Roberts Court"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Xanadu2 (Talk) to last revision by Whizkid)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
A place where nobody dared to go
+
The '''Roberts Court''' refers to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] during the tenure of [[John Roberts]] as its Chief Justice (2005-). It is the successor to the [[Rehnquist Court]]. The current members are as follows:
−
The love that we came to know
 
−
They call it Xanadu
 
  
−
And now
+
* Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] (since October 2005)
−
Open your eyes and see
+
* Associate Justice [[John Paul Stevens]]
−
What we have made is real
+
* Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]
−
We are in Xanadu
+
* Associate Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]]
 +
* Associate Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] (since August, 2009)
 +
* Associate Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]
 +
* Associate Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]
 +
* Associate Justice [[Stephen Breyer]]
 +
* Associate Justice [[Samuel Alito]] (since January 2006)
  
−
A million lights are dancing
+
The Roberts Court expressly overturned these precedents as of July 2007:
−
And there you are
 
−
A shooting star
 
−
An everlasting world
 
−
And you're here with me
 
−
Eternally
 
  
−
Xanadu, Xanadu,  
+
*''Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007) overturned the antitrust per se rule against [[Resale Price Maintenance]] established by ''Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co'', 220 U.S. 373 (1911)
−
(now we are here)  
 
−
In Xanadu
 
−
Xanadu, Xanadu,
 
−
(now we are here)
 
−
In Xanadu
 
  
−
Xanadu, your neon lights will shine
+
*''Bowles v. Russell'', 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007), overturned a procedural rule about the timing of a filing that was established in ''Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.'', 371 U.S. 215 (1962), and ''Thompson v. INS'', 375 U.S. 384 (1964)
−
For you, Xanadu
 
  
−
The love
+
*''Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 28 (2006), overturned by an 8-0 vote an antitrust precedent established in ''International Salt Co. v. United States'', 332 U.S. 392 (1947).
−
The echoes of long ago
 
−
You needed the world to know
 
−
They are in Xanadu
 
  
−
The dream
+
In addition, [[liberals]] feel that the Roberts Court implicitly overturned precedents in these cases, making a total of eight precedents overturned by the Roberts/Alito Court in merely a year and a half:<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.html</ref>
−
That came through a million years
 
−
That lived on through all the tears
 
−
It came to Xanadu
 
  
−
A million lights are dancing
+
*''Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1'', 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007) (ending school desegregation programs in the absence of an applicable court order)
−
And there you are
 
−
A shooting star
 
−
An everlasting world
 
−
And you're here with me
 
−
Eternally
 
  
−
Xanadu, Xanadu,
+
*''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007) (ending partial-birth abortion by upholding the federal statute)
−
(now we are here)  
 
−
In Xanadu
 
−
Xanadu, Xanadu,
 
−
(now we are here)
 
−
In Xanadu
 
  
−
Now that I'm here
+
*''Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007) (upholding [[faith-based programs]] by limiting jurisdiction to challenge spending by the Executive Branch under the [[Establishment Clause]])
−
Now that you're near in Xanadu
+
 
−
Now that I'm here
+
*''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007) (cutting off employment sex discrimination claims)
−
Now that you're near in Xanadu
+
 
−
Xanadu...
+
*''FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007) (end restrictions on independent campaign expenditures prior to an election by striking down portions of the [[McCain]]-Feingold campaign finance bill)
 +
 
 +
== Future cases ==
 +
 
 +
The Roberts Court appears to have a 5-vote majority to overrule [[liberal]] precedents in these areas:
 +
 
 +
*election law
 +
*[[Establishment Clause]]
 +
*[[affirmative action]]
 +
*some types of [[abortion]] cases
 +
*use of the [[Sentencing Guidelines]] (but not 5 votes for Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]'s view)
 +
 
 +
== References ==
 +
<references/>
 +
 
 +
[[Category: United States Law]]
 +
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
 +
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Revision as of 01:20, August 10, 2010

The Roberts Court refers to the U.S. Supreme Court during the tenure of John Roberts as its Chief Justice (2005-). It is the successor to the Rehnquist Court. The current members are as follows:

The Roberts Court expressly overturned these precedents as of July 2007:

  • Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007) overturned the antitrust per se rule against Resale Price Maintenance established by Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co, 220 U.S. 373 (1911)
  • Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007), overturned a procedural rule about the timing of a filing that was established in Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 (1962), and Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 (1964)
  • Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006), overturned by an 8-0 vote an antitrust precedent established in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947).

In addition, liberals feel that the Roberts Court implicitly overturned precedents in these cases, making a total of eight precedents overturned by the Roberts/Alito Court in merely a year and a half:[1]

  • Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007) (ending school desegregation programs in the absence of an applicable court order)
  • Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007) (ending partial-birth abortion by upholding the federal statute)
  • Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007) (upholding faith-based programs by limiting jurisdiction to challenge spending by the Executive Branch under the Establishment Clause)
  • Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007) (cutting off employment sex discrimination claims)
  • FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007) (end restrictions on independent campaign expenditures prior to an election by striking down portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill)

Future cases

The Roberts Court appears to have a 5-vote majority to overrule liberal precedents in these areas:

References