Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Major arguments at Supreme Court in 2005

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:53 PM
Original message
Major arguments at Supreme Court in 2005
DEATH PENALTY: May states prosecute foreign nationals in death penalty cases without notifying their government, in violation of international law? (Medellin v. Dretke, 04-5928.) Argument expected in March. Whether people facing the death penalty can be shackled in front of jurors during their sentencing hearing? (Deck v. Missouri, 04-5293) Argument March 1.

LAND RIGHTS: When can local governments seize people's homes and businesses to be used for tax-producing projects like shopping malls? (Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.) Was it an unconstitutional taking when Hawaii imposed rent caps on dealer-run stations, intended to promote competition and keep down gas prices? (Lingle v. Chevron USA, 04-163.) Arguments Feb. 22.

TEN COMMANDMENTS: Do government displays of the Ten Commandments at public buildings violate the First Amendment's ban on an "establishment" of religion? (Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.) Arguments March 2.

FILE-SHARING: Should Internet file-sharing services be held responsible for their customers' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies? (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 04-480.) Argument expected in March. <snip>

http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/politics/story/199...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. I love this one
"Do government displays of the Ten Commandments at public buildings violate the First Amendment's ban on an "establishment" of religion?"


Let's look at that, shall we? It's a government display of a religious text in a public building. How is that not an establishment of religion by the government? :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not Only That.....
it's not even ecumenical. To have the ghost of a chance, should at least include the Koran, Confucius, and Chairman Mao!

Nowadays, I'd be grateful if they just posted the Bill of Rights! I suppose there's something in the Patriot Act that outlaws it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC