ACLU To Discuss Robert’s SCOTUS

ACLU to Discuss Robert’s Court—December 15th

WHAT: A talk and discussion on: “The Roberts Supreme Court Comes of Age: How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going?”

WHO: Prof. Courtenay Daum, CSU Political Science Dept. Prof. Daum’s expertise is in the field of public law, teaching courses on constitutional law and civil liberties.

WHEN: Wednesday, December 15 (Bill of Rights Day), 7 to 9 p.m.

WHERE: The Coloradoan Community Meeting Room, 1300 Riverside Ave., Fort Collins

Sponsored by Northern Colorado Chapter of ACLU of Colorado.
Public Welcome Free Admission
For information: 970-484-7553

Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment

For a complete list of local Peace and Justice happenings, please visit
www.cjpe.org and click on “activities calendar” You’re also welcome to post your events there!! CJPE is Community Supported. You can help grow progressive activism in Fort Collins!
For more information, email CJPE or call us at 419-8944.

Preparation: Off Topic

Judge: Names of SEC employees to remain private. As a non-lawyer I find this case curious. A Federal District Court Judge dismisses a case saying that the public does not need to learn the names of porn watchers. Isn’t that the exact opposite of Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corporation 113 F.2nd 806? The Sidis case is discussed in Caroline Kennedy’s book about the right to privacy. Also see Anthony Lewis Freedom For The Thought We Hate. Sidis is an invasion of privacy case. It is not a Supreme Court case though the Second District Court of Appeals is considered close. The case mentioned in the Denver Post is a FOMA case. Maybe that accounts for the different holdings.

Also off topic: Various news personalities have been suspended by MSNBC for making political contributions. For me, this brings up United Public Workers v Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 (1947). Justice Reed, writing for the majority found unpersuasive Poole’s claim that off-hours political activity was different from such activity conducted during working hours. That holding is why I believe that Mitchell was wrongly decided. One aspect of this case may come up again … there is a movement to popularize the 10th Amendment as being a shield against a supposedly tyranical Federal Government. Various state attorneys general assert that “Obamacare” is federal goverment overreach. They do so on 10th Amendment grounds. But the decision in Mitchell held that 10th Amendment powers, being reserved, carry less weight than enumerated powers. If the Roberts Court gets a 10th Amendment case what will they decide?

Other Resources to Prepare for the Discussion

Dahlia Lithwick writing in Slate Magazine provides a wealth of information about the Supreme Court. The link is to an index of her dispatches.

Indespensible to an understanding of SCOTUS is SCOTUSblog. Quoting now from their Reproduction of Content section:

SCOTUSblog holds an “Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives” license from Creative Commons. That means that our content, and the content of our sister site SCOTUSwiki, may be reproduced and redistributed without our permission, but only if it is attributed to SCOTUSblog or SCOTUSwiki and neither used for profit nor modified. If you are uncertain whether your use of blog content is permitted under this license, please contact scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com.

Posted by Gypsy Chief