-
Recent Posts
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Three — Prime Time Hour Two (9:00 To 9:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Two — Prime Time Hour One (8:00 to 8:59 p.m. Eastern)
- Exit Polls and Projections
- Election Night Preview — Part I — Pre-Prime Time
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Three — Prime Time Hour Two (9:00 To 9:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Two — Prime Time Hour One (8:00 to 8:59 p.m. Eastern)
Recent Comments
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: Native American Rights
Religious Freedom (for some) — Supreme Court Overtime Edition 2
The big news out of the Supreme Court today is that Thursday is the last opinion day of the court. Under normal practice, the justices would hold a public session in their courtroom to announce the opinions. Opinions would be announced in reverse order of seniority (with some exceptions for companion cases) with the justice who wrote the opinion reading a brief summary of the opinion and (sometimes) a dissenting justice reading a statement as well (but such a statement is a rare event). With the Supreme Court not being open to the public (and no public information office handing out copies to reporters), the opinions are merely being posted on-line but at roughly the same pace (one every ten minutes) as would be true if the Supreme Court was actually proceeding as normal with the opinions being released in the courtroom. As we have already seen this term, sometimes the Supreme Court’s website is not quite up to the traffic associated with a major opinion. But, if you wish to go to www.supremecourt.gov at 10am EDT and repeatedly refresh, you can see the opinions as they are being released. As discussed further below, my expectation is that the Chief Justice will have one of the two (or maybe both) of the Trump tax cases. If that is the case, I would expect the Oklahoma opinion to be released at 10 (regardless of who has the opinion) followed by two Trump tax cases at 10:10 and 10:20., but there is a chance of one of the two Trump tax cases at 10:00 followed by the Oklahoma case at 10:10 and the Chief Justices opinion at 10:20. It all depends on how closely connected the holding in the two Trump tax cases are.
Today, the Supreme Court released the two remaining “religion” cases. The first case, written by Justice Alito, concerned the “ministerial exception” as it applies to school teachers. The ministerial exception has its roots in the Free Exercise Clause. Basically, under the Free Exercise Clause, the government has no power over the religious leaders of a religious organization. Courts only play a limited role in deciding intra-faith disputes and only when the issue to be resolved is a secular matter like which group of opposing claimants to leadership actually has title to the assets of a religious organization (including the right to use the name). Today’s case, however, takes the exception to (and arguably past) the breaking point. The issue is whether teachers at a parochial school are covered by the ministerial exception. On the one hand, teachers at a parochial school — especially an elementary school where one teacher handles all subject matters — do teach some religious materials and are expected to comply with a code of conduct. On the other hand, many parochial schools — while having a preference that teachers belong to the same sect that runs the school — do not expressly mandate that teachers are members of the religious group running the school. The majority — in a 7-2 decision — essentially held that all teachers in religious schools are minister based solely on the school’s assertion that it views them as ministers and that the decision to fire was based on non-religious grounds. As the purpose of the ministerial exception is to avoid courts from having to decide whether a particular minister is sufficiently “orthodox,” this broadening of the exception is significantly divorced from the purpose behind the exception. In this consolidated case, the two teachers claimed that they were fired based on age (violating the law against discriminating based on age) and medical condition (breast cancer, violating the laws governing medical leave). The schools — while asserting an absolute bar to proceeding on the merits due to the ministerial exception — asserted that they were fired because they were not good teachers. In short, religious issues had nothing to do with the case, and a court could have decided which secular reason was the main motivating factor in the decision to fire these two teachers.
The other case involved the contraception mandate. Amazingly, the majority opinion by Justice Thomas only made a passing reference to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Instead, the gist of the opinion was whether the Affordable Care Act gave the government discretion to create a religious exemption to the contraception mandate. Technically, the majority opinion does not resolve the final issue of whether the current regulation is valid. Instead, it merely held that the Affordable Care Act granted the government the discretion to create an exception for religious groups (and private companies) with moral objections to the mandates and that the government complied with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is sent back to the lower court to decide if the regulation was adequately supported by the administrative record. (Which means that the future of the contraceptive mandate and this religious exemption depends on the results of the election.)
Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial
Also tagged Affordable Care Act, Contraceptive Coverage, employment discrimination, Free Exercise Clause, Supreme Court, Trump Financial Records, Trump subpoenas
Comments Off on Religious Freedom (for some) — Supreme Court Overtime Edition 2
Supreme Court — The COVID-19 Term (Updated)
In normal years, the Supreme Court would probably have wrapped up business for the term by now. It has been a long time since the last time that the Supreme Court was still issuing opinions in an argued case after June. There is still a chance that the Supreme Court might finish this term by June 30, but we are getting mixed messages from the court. (I do expect to see opinions in all of the cases before the Supreme Court recesses, but there is a chance that some cases could be set for reargument in the fall.)
On the one hand, we have yet to get any opinions from the May arguments. While the May arguments were two weeks later than the usual time for the April arguments, it is usual to have some of the April opinions by the early part of June. We also have not seen the pace of opinions pick up. In the last weeks of the term, it is not unusual to see three or more opinion days per week, and multiple opinions on each opinion day. At the present time, while we have had second opinion days for the last two weeks, we have only gotten a total of five opinions over the last two weeks (as opposed to the more usual eight to ten opinions per week). And the Supreme Court has only announced two opinion days for this upcoming week.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has announced that they will have a conference on Wednesday and release orders on Thursday (rather than the normal Monday order day). That sounds like Wednesday could be the “wrap-up” conference.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Affordable Care Act, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, electoral college, Faithless Electors, Free Speech, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Supreme Court, Title VII, Trump Finances
Comments Off on Supreme Court — The COVID-19 Term (Updated)
Supreme Court Preview: October 2019 Term (Part IV) (EDIT — 10/5)
As noted in Part I, the Supreme Court has yet to issue the calendar for its January argument session. However, for the first time in several years, the Supreme Court has ten cases left over after the December argument session; so there are enough cases already granted to fill the five days of argument in January 2020. There is a chance that the Supreme Court might bump some of these cases to one of the later argument sessions, but — for each of these cases — it is more likely than not that they will be heard in January.
Among the cases set for argument, you have the following issues: 1) can the beneficiary of a pension plan seek relief for misconduct by the plan managers without first proving that they have suffered actual loss; 2) whether changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (governing when foreign governments can or can’t be sued in U.S. courts) are retroactive; and 3) whether federal employees claiming that the federal government discriminated against them due to age must — similar to private employees — prove that age was a “but for” cause of the adverse employment decision.
There are three potentially big cases for January. First, there is Kelly vs. United States. This is the “bridgegate” case from New Jersey. The ultimate issue is whether a public official who uses false statements to create the pretense that their order to employees is legal is guilty of defrauding the government (by wasting public resources).
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Bridgegate, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Supreme Court, unions
Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview: October 2019 Term (Part IV) (EDIT — 10/5)
June and the Supreme Court
As the calendar flips to June, the Supreme Court tends to move to center stage of political life in America. While, technically, the annual term of the Supreme Court runs from October to September, the Supreme Court tries to finish issuing opinions in its cases by the end of June. As a result, June has most of the opinions on the most divisive and politically important cases.
At this point, we have some information on what to expect for this month. We know the cases that were argued (as the last argument was on April 24). We also know which cases have been decided and which cases remain to be decided and when those cases were argued. That is a key fact because of how the Supreme Court usually operates. At the Supreme Court, cases are argued in a two-week argument session (followed by a period of at least two weeks without argument). In each argument week, the cases are discussed at a weekly conference (typically on Friday) and a tentative vote is taken. After that vote, the senior justice in the majority (either the Chief Justice or the longest serving Associate Justice) assigns a justice to write the case. (With the current splits on the court, in most cases, the senior justice will be either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Ginsburg.) Regardless of who assigns the cases, the assigning justice tries to keep the assignments balanced within the argument session (no more than two per argument session) and over the term as a whole. This year, the argument sessions ranged from six cases to thirteen cases. When all of the argument sessions are combined, there were sixty-nine argued cases (actually seventy, but one was quickly dismissed without opinion) for which an opinion either has been or will be issued. Thus, we expect each justice to have seven or eight opinions for the entire term.
At this point in time, we have the most information on the first four argument sessions. Typically, opinions are issued between three and five months after the argument; so the Supreme Court has issued opinions in most of the “early” cases. In October, there were nine cases argued (technically ten, but one of the cases was argued during the first week before Justice Kavanaugh was on the court and was quickly set for reargument in January implying a 4-4 split). Of those nine cases, eight have an opinion. In November, there were twelve cases argued; and opinions have been issued in eleven cases. In December, there were ten cases argued; and opinions have been issued in eight cases. Finally, in January, there were eleven cases argued; and opinions have been issued in eight cases. On the opposite side, we only have a total of three opinions from the cases argued in February and March and none from the April arguments.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Census, Double Jeopardy, Establishment Clause, Partisan Gerrymandering, Racial Gerrymandering, Supreme Court, Takings Clause
Comments Off on June and the Supreme Court