قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Supreme Court judges split in three cases on unexpected lines: NPR

Supreme Court judges split in three cases on unexpected lines: NPR



Visitors arrive at the Supreme Court in Washington on Monday morning as the judges prepare to make decisions.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP


Hide Caption

Switch caption

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Visitors arrive at the Supreme Court in Washington on Monday morning as the judges prepare to make decisions.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Less than two weeks into the US Supreme Court, the judges made four decisions on Monday. Despite all the predictions, three decisions were made by postponing liberal-conservative coalitions.

Here, in a nutshell, the results and the fascinating voice shifts are:

Double sovereignty confirmed, with Ginsburg, Gorsuch disagreeing

With a 7-to-2 vote The court reaffirmed its 100-year rule that states and the federal government may each prosecute one person for the same crime without violating the double punishment clause of the constitution. Contradiction was the court's leading liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Neil Gorsuch, one of his most conservative judges.

Judge Ginsburg wrote the 5-to-4 majority opinion, which was joined by the conservative Ri Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas and the liberal judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Contradictory judges Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal judge Stephen Breyer objected.

Uranium ban again confirmed with ideological mix

The court confirmed Virginia's ban on uranium mining. With a 6 to 3 vote, the judges declared that the state law was not replaced by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

Judge Gorsuch wrote for the majority of the court that the AEA grants the federal government the power to regulate nuclear safety, but not the power to regulate mining itself , Conservative colleagues Thomas and Kavanaugh fully agreed with Gorsuch's opinion, but the liberal judges Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed only with his conclusion. They refused to register in Gorsoft's broad language for matters that they said "go well beyond the limits of this case."

Disagreements existed between Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Alito.

A Traditional 5-4 Split

The only classical conservative-liberal split came on Monday in a case in which it was examined whether a private company was a publicly accessible television station in New York City is a public forum that, like a public park, can not discriminate against speakers.

The court concluded with a 5-to-4 vote that the publicly accessible canal was owned by Time Warner and not by Time Warner. And because it was privately owned, the station could not be sued for refusing to broadcast a film.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote the decision for the five Conservative judges and stated that "[M] serious hosting of speeches by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function".

Therefore, channel operators can not be charged with violations of the First Amendment Guarantee of Freedom of Speech. At least at first glance, the decision would rule out charges against private platform operators like Twitter and Facebook against First Amendment, even though Kavanaugh warned that the decision should not be read "too broadly".

Disagreement were the four liberals of the court judge.

What is left?

On Thursday, the court is expected to record more of the 20 remaining decisions on its log. Among them are the three blockbuster cases of the term:

  • The American Legion Against the American Humanistic Association: A case from Maryland proving that a huge World War I monument in the form of a Latin cross is like that The challengers claim this is a symbol of Christianity, which violates the constitutional ban of the religious foundation. The objectors strive for the elimination of private property and the termination of the tax financing of the cross.
  • Rucho v. Common Cause (North Carolina) Lamone v. Benisek (Maryland): Cases from North Carolina and Maryland examining whether there is a constitutional limit to extreme partisan gerrymandering that serves to protect the Rule of a party to consolidate congressional seats in states that are more narrowly divided.
  • Department of Commerce v. New York: State and local governments challenge the Trump administration's plan to add a citizenship issue to the 2020 census. Experts at the Census Bureau have warned that adding the question will lead to a serious submission of the population.

These three decisions (and 17 others) are in the starting blocks.


Source link