Motley Moose – Archive

  Make sure you let your peeps

  know where to find you!  

SCOTUS Watch …

The Supreme Court will be releasing opinions on Wednesday and Thursday morning at 10am Eastern and then next week on Monday, June 30th to finish the term. SCOTUSblog will liveblog here today starting at 9:45 Eastern.

SCOTUSblog: October 2013 Term, major cases pending

McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 [Arg: 1.15.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’ selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

~

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 [Arg: 1.13.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.

~

Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681 [Arg: 1.21.2014]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

~

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 [Arg: 3.25.2014]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

~

DECISION: Cell phones cannot be searched without a specific warrant. Unanimous. Opinion PDF

Riley v. California, No. 13-132 [Arg: 4.29.2014]

Issue(s): Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

~

DECISION: Aereo may not retransmit broadcasts of copyrighted material. 6 to 3. Opinion PDF

American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, No. 13-461 [Arg: 4.22.2014]

Issue(s): Whether a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.

SCOTUSblog news below …

A few weeks ago, post-primary Wednesday morning found gleeful Democrats celebrating the double-digit loss of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).

Last night there was another set of primary elections, most notably in Mississippi where there was a runoff between incumbent GOP Senator Thadd Cochran and tea party challenger state Senator Chris McDaniel.

Early in the evening, BWD spoke for me:

Can Cantor lose again tonight? #nostalgia

— BWD (@theonlyadult) June 25, 2014

But the result was much better than expected … Cochran won, unleashing the hounds of hell, specifically, an angry tea party activist named Amy Kremer:

@amykremer If Cochran wins this #mssen race, the GOP is done. They teamed up with Dems to steal a race. Kiss the base goodbye.

@amykremer

Sad that GOP establishment has to reach out to the Dems to help keep the Barbour lobbying business profitable. That’s politics ppl. #mssen

Base kissing? Very unsanitary. But the idea of angry Republicans boycotting the November election and opening the door to a Democratic pickup? Please proceed, tea partiers, please proceed.

And a bonus! The former vice presidential candidate and half-term governor of Alaska will not stand for this …

On Hannity,  @SarahPalinUSA  floats idea of Tea Partiers forming third party.  #OhPleaseOhPlease pic.twitter.com/AgWHNDgee5

— TBogg (@tbogg) June 25, 2014

More below …

Good morning meese! Happy happy Wednesday!

The common Moose, Alces alces, unlike other members of the deer family, is a solitary animal that doesn’t form herds. Not so its rarer but nearest relative, Alces purplius, the Motley Moose. Though sometimes solitary, the Motley Moose herds in ever shifting groups at the local watering hole to exchange news and just pass the time.

I was thinking this week about some of the things I am often told, in a purportedly complimentary mode, about my speech, and writing ability. Have heard these things since I was a child, and after a while it gets tedious. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve been told I’m “articulate”, “well-spoken” or simply “you write so well” from teachers, acquaintances, employers and strangers I’d be rich. I get it tossed at me in two modes- folks who assume cause I’m black that my speaking and writing American Standard English is some major achievement-and for those who have mistakenly assumed I’m Puerto Rican that somehow I’ve managed to transcend Spanglish/broken English as my primary language. I used to snap back and say “what do you expect from the daughter of a PhD in English Literature and Drama?”, adding, “I speak Middle English too” and then spout Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales Prologue…”Whan that aprill with his shoures soote, the droghte of march hath perced to the roote, and bathed every veyne in swich licour “. I don’t bother any more. I just lift an eyebrow.

I was reminded of this when listening/watching Jamila Lyiscott’s Ted Talk this week.  

I’m guessing many of you have come across this today elsewhere.  If you haven’t, please sign and share:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/acti…

  Make sure you let your peeps

  know where to find you!  

Actually, that’s basically the whole diary.  The only thing I want to hear from him is an unqualified apology.  And I doubt he’s ever apologized to anyone.  Not to Leahy for cussing him out on the floor of the Senate.  Not to the chap he shot in the face.  No one.  I’ll bet if he accidentally stepped on your foot and spilled hot coffee down your shirt in an elevator he wouldn’t apologize.  

I don’t want to read about Megyn Kelly “schooling” him.  Why should she get to use him to feign journalistic responsibility and rational thought?  I don’t want Rand Paul and Pat Buchanan using him to create an illusion of vibrant political diversity in the GOP.  I don’t want anyone beyond the local Jackson Hole media covering him.  

So, that’s my argument.  He should really really really shut the FREAK up already.  Really.

SCOTUS Watch …

This week, the Supreme Court will be releasing opinions on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday morning at 10am Eastern. SCOTUSblog will liveblog here today starting at 9:15 Eastern for Orders.  From SCOTUSblog: “The Court is scheduled to sit for a non-argument session on Monday, June 30.” That means 4 more days of opinions.

SCOTUSblog: October 2013 Term, major cases pending

McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 [Arg: 1.15.2014 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

~

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 [Arg: 1.13.2014 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions.

~

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 [Arg: 3.25.2014 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, No. 13-354 [Arg: 3.25.2014 Trans.]

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

~

Riley v. California, No. 13-132 [Arg: 4.29.2014 Trans.]

Issue(s): Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

More news …

It’s Baaaaaaaaccckkkkk… Monday, that is.