Supreme+Court+in+the+News

= Supreme Court in the News =

Mojave Cross:
On April 29th 2010 The Supreme Court gave its approval to display a cross on public land to honor fallen soldiers, saying the Constitution "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public[| realm]." Justice Anthony M. Kennedy quoted the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to [|petition] the Government for a redress of grievances," to disagree with the judges in California. The Californian courts said that the cross which had been standing since 1934 should be taken down because the symbol is enforcing a religion. The Supreme Court decision was 5-4 making the California lower court reconsider. This time Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with Kennedy that the cross should stay. They felt the cross symbolized crosses on battlefields world wide. John Paul Stevens disagreed. He thought it right to honor people who heroically died in our honor, but not right to do so religiously. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor agreed. This case has been watched over the years and for now it appears to be staying, but who knows that could change.

Sources:




Vioxx Lawsuit:
On April 28th the supreme court gave the go-ahead for a lawsuit against [|Merck & Co Inc]. Merck & Co made a drug called Vioxx, which was used as a painkiller. This drug was originally approved in 1999 but then in 2004 was pulled off the market after links to more than 27,000 heart attacks from 1999 through 2003. The reason for the law suit is that investors that bought [|shares] in the company (Merck & Co) did so believing that it had discovered a new medicine (Vioxx) which was affective, safe, and was likely to make a lot of profit for Merck. Because it has now been revealed that Merck knew the drug had safety concerns, but did not alert investor to this fact, The Supreme Court has agreed that Merck may have mislead investors and this possibly is an example of[| fraud]. It was shown that Merck knew about the safety concerns for years before it was eventually withdrew Vioxx from the market and during this time it was selling shares to investors without disclosing this information.

Sources:




John Paul Stevens:
[|John Paul Stevens] was the second man in the history of the United States of America to reach the age of 90 while serving in the Supreme Court. They didn't [|publicize] the occasion when the Supreme Court appeared to hear an argument and make an opinion. President Obama though did note the occasion. He, just like [|President Hoover] sent Holmes a letter, Obama sent Stevens a letter of congratulation on his achievement. Obama's letter talked about the difference that Stevens has made in our country for the past 35 years, of his work in the Supreme Court. April 9th John Paul Stevens announced his retirement plans, he is retiring at the end of the summer when the Supreme Court's term ends.

Sources:
Barnes, Robert. "Justice John Paul Stevens." //Washingtonpost.com - Nation, World, Technology and Washington Area News and Headlines//. The Washington Post Company, 21 Apr. 2010. Web. 17 May 2010. .

Ban on genetically modified Monsanto seeds:
The supreme court is thinking about banning the [|genetically modified] Monsanto seeds that many farmers have used since 2006. Another name for this genetically modified seed is "[|roundup ready.]" They were thinking about this because it makes the [|alfalfa resistant] which is not good for other surrounding plants.The decision would not be a very large change, or a very broad law. Some organic farmers and environmental groups sued because they thought that the first report on the roundup ready was insufficient. This group was lead by a man named, Phillip Geertson of [|Geertson Seed Farms]. The problem with the seeds is that they could contaminate other surrounding plants from being organic to genetically modified. The decision that they have to make about this case is whether these seeds should still be allowed to use and whether or not they are hurting their environment.

Sources:
Friend, Kristen. "Supreme Court Considers Ban on Genetically Modified Monsanto Seeds." Web log post. //SEO Lawfirm//. Adviatech Corp., 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 17 May 2010. .

Gay Rights:
There were very difficult decisions to make on April 27 when the court case [|Doe vs. Reed], also known as gay rights vs. free speech, came to the Supreme Court. It is about people who didn't want their signatures on petitions challenging a gay-rights law becoming public. They had some very difficult questions to answer, such as "if you step up and play a role in the democratic process, shouldn't your actions be public?" People that signed the [|referendum] petitions don't want their names to be public for the fear of being harassed. [|James Bopp Jr]., representing voters in Washington state who didn't want their signatures being public, told the justices that "the First Amendment protects citizens from intimidation resulting from compelled disclosure of their identity." One of the main Judges in this court case was [|Justice Antonin Scalia]. Justice Scalia replied, "The fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls." Bopp said there was no reason for the public to have access, and said the only reason others would want the information was to intimidate the signers. [|Attorney General Robert M. McKenna], fighting for the signature to be shown to the public, compared the petition disclosure requirements to, "having to register with a political party or reveal that you have donated to a campaign or candidate." Gay rights is a big problem in the United States, and this case will have a big effect on the people that are trying to stand up for or against gay marriage.

Sources:
Ruby-sachs, Emma. "Gay Rights vs. Free Speech, the Round-up." //The Huffington Post//. 28 Apr. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. . Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Ponders Privacy Rights for Petition Signers." //Washington Post//. 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2010. .

media type="youtube" key="8Eq_xrzcYfg" height="295" width="362" align="center"

Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eq_xrzcYfg



Californian ban on minors buying violent Video Games:
The California government wants to ban people under 18 from buying Mature-rated video games, but video game companies are arguing that it will take away free speech and conflict with the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court declined to make an exception to the First Amendment by refusing to pass a law that would [|restrict] minor's access to Mature-rated video games. Under this law, all video game companies were required to place a 4-square inch label with an "M" on it on violent video games. Anyone who sold such video games to [|minors] could be fined as much as $1,000. The Supreme Court refused to go against the 1st Amendment by restricting minor's rights to express themselves. By restricting minor's access to violent video games, the Supreme Court would create a huge [|loophole] in the 1st Amendment.

Sources:
"Judging Video Games." //LA Times// 1 May 2010. Web. .



Supreme court nominee:
Recently [|John Paul Stevens], the oldest Supreme Court member, announced his plans for retirement. He will be leaving the Supreme Court at the end of the summer. President Obama has just [|nominated] someone to replace Stevens. He stated that he thought that [|Elena Kagan] should be the new Supreme Court Justice. From 1991 to 1995 she lived in Chicago, and worked as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. She is a person who will be interesting to watch as her career unfolds in the years to come.

Flash cards:
media type="custom" key="6123495" width="411" height="411"

Quiz:
media type="custom" key="6123393" width="390" height="390"