That being said, there are four of the nine cases that should be of interest to cops.
9 cases to watch in the Supreme Court's upcoming termGod knows we can see getting called to a disturbance or two. Mr and Mr Smith, Mrs and Mrs Jones, how about you simple go down the street for another baker. Yes, I donated to the GoFundMe account for this baker, trying to put this business out of business is BS. Then again, the militant gay lobby has never and does not want tolerance. They want acceptance. And they will force you to accept anything they want.
The Supreme Court's first full term in the Trump era begins Monday, and the nine justices are preparing to tackle a slew of blockbuster cases.
Following President Trump's appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the justices appear eager to resolve controversies they have punted or avoided in the recent past. Here are nine cases we are watching in the upcoming term:
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The Masterpiece case is shaping up to be the highest profile controversy of the term, pitting religious liberty advocates against gay rights supporters in a row over the issue of free expression.
The Supreme Court's resolution of the Masterpiece case will determine the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodations law forcing cake-baker Jack Phillips to create speech that defies his religious beliefs.
How the new nine-justice court chooses to adjudicate the dispute could reveal how it will tackle cases involving tension between religious liberty, free speech, and gay rights for decades to come. The Masterpiece decision looks likely to also impact a deluge of wedding vendor controversies heading the high court's way in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court is jumping into the debate about the limits of governmental surveillance amid new technological advances without giving much in the way of hints about its thinking.
In Carpenter, the Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of law enforcement seizing and searching a cellphone user's records to reveal that person's locations and movements.
Because none of the nine justices sat on the high court when the governing precedence was created, the justices' thoughts on this case remains a mystery. However, the way the justices resolve the case could set the boundaries of federal government surveillance for years to come...
A constant issue for law enforcement is law does not keep up with technology. The court has issued rulings on searching cell phones after arrest and placing trackers on cars. I will predict SCOTUS will require a warrant of some kind, without exigent circumstances.
...Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
The political power of public-sector unions could dramatically shift as the result of the high court's Janus decision.
The Supreme Court looked poised in 2016 to overturn a previous ruling that said public-sector employees who do not belong to a union can still be forced to pay a fee that covers the union's costs in negotiating the contract that applies to all employees. But Justice Antonin Scalia's death left the court with an even 4-4 split from the eight remaining justices in that Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case.
Since Gorsuch replaced Scalia, the nine justices' decision last week to take this case suggests they might overturn the previous ruling and upset the unions again.
My friend Darren at Right on the Left Coast, who has had a personal issue in this for years, will be keeping an eye on this one. I've got no issue with public employees (other than the military) voluntarily joining a union. I'm a union member mainly for the legal representation it provides me in case of shooting, etc. That being said, being force to join a union is wrong. Let the unions prove their worth the their members and then we will see if they are should be supported. When Wisconsin passed a law stopping mandatory membership for public sector employees, the unions lost 40% of them members.
Jennings v. Rodriguez and Sessions v. Dimaya
Whether or not arguments over President Trump's travel ban make it to the Supreme Court this term, the justices will have an opportunity to shape the boundaries of future immigration policies crafted by Trump.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments for a second time in Sessions v. Dimaya and Jennings v. Rodriguez in its opening week of the new term. Sessions v. Dimaya poses questions regarding whether the Immigration and Nationality Act's "crime of violence" provision is unconstitutionally vague, and Jennings v. Rodriguez involves whether illegal immigrants — including those with criminal records — are entitled to bond hearings.
The high court held previous arguments in both cases before Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court, meaning the justices could be deadlocked and relying upon his vote to resolve both disputes...
I look at this and I recall the wisdom of the late, great Judge Robert Bork, when he said "I will defer to the legislature where the Constitution is silent..." The Congress has set up the immigration policy of this nation and the courts have no business reviewing it. But they have a nasty habit of doing that, so we'll see how this works out.
Will be an interesting October.
No comments:
Post a Comment