B+-+POLS+451+Info+on+USSC+Justices

This is where we will put information on the justices themselves. You can create individual pages for them, but you must link those pages to this one.

Summary pages on the justices and the court:
 * [|Cornell University main page] on the justices with link to brief biographies
 * Washington Post [|scalogram] and other data regarding how the justices agree or disagree with each other.
 * [|Rare public debate] between Justices Breyer and Scalia! Mano a mano! Cage Match! Two justices enter, only one leaves!

[] (Khudeira 11/18)

[] [more on the actual proposition] (Khudeira 11/18) [|Info on all Justices in gay rights] (Maritza 11/11/10)

Chief Justice John Roberts [|Wikipedia page on John Roberts]

[|Fazio Investigates Roberts' Interview]

[|Huffington Post take on the impeachment call]

[|NY Times Take the Roberts Court]

[|Roberts does not block gay mirage in D.C]

Antonin Scalia

[|Justice Scalia speaks about Natural Law, Ana R. 11/7]

[|Wikipedia-Scalia]--B.Ryan 11/9/10

[|Scalia Quotes]--I am not sure if this page will be helpful but it is definitely interesting.--B.Ryan 11/9/10

[|60 Minutes; Interview with Scalia] I found this very interesting to read and I think it may help all being Scalia. At the link is also the video of the interview.--B.Ryan 11/9/10
 * Scalia supports the theory of "[|originalism]" and feels that other views are "flat out wrong".

[|Importance of Justice Scalia's Dissent in Lawrence v. Texas]This is a great link because it talks about Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas and how it can be important when Perry v. Schwarzenegger is decided by the Supreme Court - Ana R. 11/14

[|Scalia expresses views that might pertain to our case part 1] [|Part 2]Ana R. 11/15
 * "There's never been a society that didn't establish some... some.. sexual morality."

[|Could Justice Antonin Scalia Be the Key to Marriage Equality?] (Farihah K., 11/15/2010)
 * This article says that Ted Olson and David Boies (the lawyers behind the Proposition 8 case) both believe that Scalia will uphold the constitutionality of gay marriage.

[|Justice Scalia's Dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas] (Farihah K., 11/15/2010)
 * This link contains Justice Scalia's full dissent from //Lawrence v. Texas// (2003)

Clarence Thomas [|Wikipedia page of Justice Thomas] (Blanca A. 11/7) [|First TV interview of Justice Thomas with 60 Minutes,Not Video.] (Blanca A.11/7) [|Oyez Biography of Thomas] (Blanca A. 11/7) [|Biography of Justice Thomas - childhood, career and Anita Hill charges. (Maria A. 11\8)] [|Justice Thomas - his stance on several issues - Maria A. 11/15]

Samuel Alito http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito (L. Andrade 11/9)

[] Alito on drafting an opinion. (Collins, T. 11/11)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfyZWnQVnQ&feature=related Alito on what he takes into consideration when deciding on cases. (L. Andrade 11/16)

[] Summary of some cases and rulings (Collins, T\ 11/21)


 * Anthony Kennedy**

[|Article on the Ruling of the District Court](Blaul, N 11/18)
 * Apparently the Judge cited //Romer v Evans// seven times and //Lawrence v Texas// eight times.

[|Kennedy on Empathy] (The Nicks 11/16) [|Wikipedia page on Justice Kennedy] (Blaul, N 11/8)
 * There is a section about his rulings on gay rights on the page.

[|Oyez Biography of Kennedy] (Berkover W. 11/9) [|Article about Kennedy and gay marriage/rights] (Berkover W. 11/9) [|Romer v. Evans] (Berkover W. 11/9, 11/15)
 * Kennedy delivers the majority opinion
 * Holding: An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prevents protected status under the law for homosexuals or bisexuals was struck down because it was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed.
 * Kennedy says the amendment does not stand against the equal protection clause

//[|Bowers v. Hardwick] [|(1986)] // (Nick Flores 11/15)
 * Kennedy was not on the Court when this was decided, but this case is still (in my humble opinion) relevant.
 * This is a case in which The Court upheld a Georgia criminal statute that made it illegal to for BOTH homosexuals AND heterosexuals to engage in sodomy.
 * The Court's opinion and J. Burger's concurrence relied heavily on history and morality.
 * Justice Steven's dissent is key; Kennedy later says it "should be controlling" in //Lawrence v. Texas//
 * J. Stevens thinks Due Process rights are at issue.
 * 1) The morality of a majority is insufficient to uphold an unconstitutional law.
 * 2) Intimacies of marriage (including sex) are protected by Due Process Clause of the 14th; said "protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried" and "married persons".

//Romer v. Evans// (1996) (Nick Flores 11/20) 2. Amendment 2 targets a specific class of people (gays)
 * Kennedy delivers the opinion of Court
 * Amendment 2 to Colorado's Constitution: made all existing Colorado laws that afforded gays/lesbians minority status INvalid
 * enacted by voters of CO
 * any laws designed to protect gays/lesbians were null
 * Like //Perry v. Schwarzenegger//, CO Gov. Romer did not support amendment
 * CO Sup. Court held that Amendment 2 Violated EPC of 14th Amendment
 * US Supreme Court ("the Court") AFFIRMED
 * Plaintiff's argument:
 * Amendment 2 only denies gays special rights
 * puts them "in same position as other persons"
 * Back to Kennedy
 * Homosexuals are placed in special class "by state decree"
 * amendment 2 voids laws designed to protect gays in public AND governmental settings
 * gays are "forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy"
 * Essentially, gays in CO can only gain back the protection of various anti-discrimination laws that protected them by begging the CO voters to get rid of Amendment 2
 * J. Kennedy's 14th Amendment EPC-classification analysis:
 * If a law doesn't burden a fundamental right or target a specific class of people, then legislation will be upheld only if said legislation is rationally related to some legitimate state interest (i.e. rational basis review)
 * Amendment 2 fails rational basis review:
 * 1) The only government interest one can discern from Amendment 2 is a majority's view to harm/restrict a specific class of people; this desire is based on morality
 * desire to harm a specific group is NOT a legitimate government interest
 * Logic of this:
 * Since gays are being targeted, rational basis review is triggered
 * even if Amendment 2 weren't deficient in its targeting of gays, the interest to which is relates is not legitimate (direction 1 fail)
 * it's not even related to the purported interests (CO's argument)
 * point: *There is no legitmate interest to which this clear discrimination of suspect class can relate
 * NB: Direct your attention to page 5 of 15, paragraph 4
 * Having read the last half of Judge Walker's decision in //Perry,// I think his EPC analysis is almost the same as Kennedy's.

//__Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey__ (Nick Flores 11/26) //


 * This case is largely about whether the Court should overturn //Roe v. Wade// and the undue burden test adopted by the court
 * Undue Burden test
 * States cannot restrict women's right to abort a nonviable fetus (holding of Roe undisturbed in this respect)
 * States can legislate about things surrounding abortion (informed consent, 24-hour waiting period--these were two of five portions of a PA abortion statute) ONLY IF the statutes do not create an undue burden on a woman's right to abort a nonviable fetus
 * (IMPORTANT PART) Direct your attention to Section "V-C" of the opinion (there is a link above)
 * Written by Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor
 * The Pennsylvania statute required married women to give the abortion doctor a signed statement from her husband saying that she has informed him that she is going to have the abortion
 * Kennedy defers directly to the facts found by the federal district court; such facts assert and conclude:
 * a lot of women are beaten every year (married and unmarried, pregnant or not)
 * women undergo various forms of psychological abuses
 * tons of domestic abuse is unreported
 * Women scared to report it because they fear future abuse
 * Women feel there is no other alternative than the remain in abusive relationship
 * abortion can prompt all the factors and can be found in all the facets of domestic abuse
 * a significant amount of domestic abuse can occur because of abortion and during/because of pregnancy
 * "The spousal notification requirement is thus likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion"
 * Abuse can be used a tool to hinder abortion
 * POINT: If there is a woman has an abusive husband who is going to have an adverse/abusive reaction to her yearn to get an abortion and who will exercise abuse over her to deter/influence her decision of whether to get an abortion, then the statute that requires this woman to inform her husband of her decision to abort will place an UNDUE BURDEN on her decision
 * Statute invalid because it imposes an undue burden on women who are married, pregnant and want to get an abortion
 * Why is this section of the opinion so important
 * //Perry// case was a trial; Judge walker based his decision and conclusions of law on FACT (testimony and evidence)
 * In This case Kennedy is making a claim in favor of constitutionally protected rights, albeit abortion rights, based on the cold hard fact uncovered by a federal district court
 * This may shed some light on how Kennedy will view the facts of the Perry trial; he may view them favorably and defer to them direclty as he does in this case

//[|Lawrence v. Texas] [|(2003)] (Nick Flores 11/15) //


 * Kennedy delivers opinion of Court.
 * Overrules //Bowers//
 * J. Kennedy refutes historical premises "relied upon in Bowers" by countering with his own historical argument.
 * The holding overrules Texas a criminal statue that made ONLY homosexual sodomy illegal.
 * Kennedy's strategy is to determine "whether //Bowers// has continuing validity"
 * Kennedy uses the holdings (which he wrote/helped write) of //[|Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey] [|(1992)] and //[|//Romer//], both of which were decided after Bowers, to show the erosion of Bowers, itself,as a good precedent.
 * Asserts that Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment will advance Due Process rights and Equal Protection rights; a mere Equal Protection claim would not suffice on its own.
 * Kennedy quotes directly from J. Steven's dissent in //Bowers// and says it should be "controlling".
 * This case sheds some light on how Kennedy might reason about the constitutionality of laws regulating homosexual behavior.


 * Ruth Bader Ginsburg**
 * []**


 * [] (Khudeira 11/11)**


 * [] [Scalia and Ginsburg disagree] (Khudeira 11/11)**


 * [] [more background info] (Khudeira 11/11)**


 * [] [Ginsburg on civil rights, scroll down to boy scouts accepting gay scoutmaster] (Khudeira 11/18)**


 * [] (Khudeira 11/18)**


 * Stephen Breyer**


 * Justice Breyer joined the majority in overturning Colorado's Amendment 2, which would have removed all legal protection for homosexuals against discrimination: [|Wikipedia link on Romer v. Evans (Katherine 11/14)]**


 * Justice Breyer stresses the role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil liberties in the age of terrorism: [|Breyer on civil liberties (Katherine 11/14)]**


 * Here's the address if you are not accessing the page from a UIC computer--(Phil 11/10)**
 * [|Breyer v. Scalia (Phil 11/10)]**


 * [|Wikipedia page on Justice Breyer (Katherine 11/6)]**
 * Some highlights from the Wikipedia page: **


 * Appointed by [|Democratic] President [|Bill Clinton] in [|1994], and known for his [|pragmatic] approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more [|liberal] side of the Court.
 * In his 2005 book // [|Active Liberty] //, Breyer made his first attempt to systematically lay out his views on legal theory, arguing that the [|judiciary] should seek to resolve issues to encourage popular participation in governmental decisions.
 * Breyer's [|pragmatic] approach to the law "will tend to make the law more sensible"; according to Cass Sunstein, Breyer's "attack on originalism is powerful and convincing." In 2006, Breyer said that in assessing a law's constitutionality, while some of his colleagues "emphasize language, a more literal reading of the [Constitution's] text, history and tradition," he looks more closely to the "purpose and consequences."


 * Breyer: (Maritza)**

> Breyer told students there are six criteria judges use to assess a laws constitutionality: statutory language, constitutional history, constitutional tradition, precedent, purpose, and consequences. > "I tend,” Breyer said, "to emphasize purpose and consequences. Others emphasize language, a more literal reading of the text, history, and tradition – believing that those can help you reach a more objective answer.” > Though he refrained from naming those "others,” he was referring to Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – both of whom are known as originalists.
 * Because he trusts the democratic process more than he does sweeping judicial philosophies, Justice Breyer writes without footnotes and generally supports the will of Congress. When he does strike down legislation, he does so with remarkable calmness and objectivity.
 * Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer proudly admitted Tuesday to a philosophy of judicial activism in a speech at the University of Chicago Law School.

Landmark Cases

 * //Eldred v. Ashcroft// (2003): Dissented from a majority ruling affirming the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which added 20 years to the life of a registered copyright.
 * //Illinois v. Lidster// (2004): Wrote for a 6-3 majority in ruling that roadblocks set up to gather information on a specific criminal investigation may not be used to conduct unrelated searches on motorists.
 * //Oregon v. Guzek// (2006): Wrote for a unanimous Court which ruled that new alibi evidence may not be introduced at the sentencing phase of a trial.

Issue

 * What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

Dissent (Breyer)
The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home.


 * Adoption of a true strict scrutiny standard for evaluating gun control regulations would be impossible and I would adopt an interest-balancing inquiry. In applying this kind of standard the Court normally defers to a legislature’s empirical judgment in matters where a legislature is likely to have greater expertise and greater institutional fact finding capacity.**
 * This case is also cited as DC v. Heller. See //[|**United States v. Lopez**]// for a constitutional law case brief addressing the constitutionality of gun control legislation enacted by Congress in exercise of its power under the [|**Commerce Clause**].**

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, ET AL. v. JAMES DALE **(MARITZA)**


 * Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
 * DISSENT:** (Justice Stephen Breyer): the Boy Scouts’ position on homosexuals was merely arbitrary, not a set policy. They argued that the organization practices discrimination not expressive association."Whatever values BSA seeks to instill in Scouts, the idea that homosexuality is not ‘appropriate’ appears entirely unconnected to, and is mentioned nowhere in, the myriad of publicly declared values and creeds of the BSA," wrote Stevens. "That idea does not appear to be among any of the principles actually taught to Scouts. Rather, the 1978 policy appears to be no more than a private statement of a few BSA executives that the organization wishes to exclude gays and that wish has nothing to do with any expression BSA actually engages in."The dissenting justices did not take aim at the Boy Scouts’ declaration that it is a private organization, regardless of its huge membership and long-term presence in the lives of millions of young men in America.In its ruling, the Court majority agreed with the Boy Scout’s assertion that, "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."

[|Justice Breyer](Maritza) Justice Breyer (video discussing his views on a democratic constitution) [] Beliefs on burning the Korans (1st amend) [|Ist amendment beliefs]

Justice Breyer, known to "emphasize purpose and consequences" in assessing the constitutionality of laws, offers his philosophy on due process starting on page 18 of his book //Active Liberty//. An online version can be accessed through the UIC library website. (Phil 11/15)

"That tradition does not expect highly general instructions themselves to determine the outcome of difficult concrete cases where language is open-ended and precisely defined purpose is difficult to ascertain. Certain constitutional language, for example, reflects “fundamental aspirations and... ‘moods,’ embodied in provisions like the due process and equal protection clauses, which were designed not to be precise and positive directions for rules of action.” A judge, when interpreting such open ended provisions, must avoid being “willful, in the sense of enforcing individual views.” A judge cannot “enforce whatever he thinks best. . . ."

Breyer, Stephen. Active Liberty : Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. Westminster, MD, USA: Alfred A. Knopf Incorporated, 2005. p 18. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uic/Doc?id=10101416&ppg=29 Copyright © 2005. Alfred A. Knopf Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Sonia Sotomayor

[].

Elena Kagan [|Wikipedia Page for Elena Kagan (Ivan 11/9)]

[] (Colleen 11/10/10)

[](Colleen 11/30/2010)