Mediaboss Marketing

Story highlights Supreme Court term opened by deflecting big cases But that quickly as the Court is poised to decide major issues

How things have changed.

By November, the Court accepted yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Actthe signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration. In a matter of weeks, the justices heard arguments concerning pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and the First Amendment implications of threats made on Facebook.

In January, they decided to take up a challenge to gay marriage, and for good measure, also agreed to hear a case regarding Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol.

"The term went from being one of the more uneventful terms in recent years to potentially one of the biggest ones in a generation" says Supreme Court expert Amy Howe who is the Editor of Scotusblog.com.

Here's a glimpse of some of what has been decided, what has been heard and what is to come:

WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED

Religious freedom in prison: A unanimous Court ruled in favor of the religious freedom claims of Gregory Holt, an Arkansas inmate who wanted to grow a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith, but was blocked by the Department of Corrections' policy that forbid beards except for diagnosed dermatological problems. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion holding that the prison policy violated a federal law designed to protect the religious exercise of prisoners. The Becket Fund for Religious Freedom proclaimed the decision a "huge win for religious freedom" for all Americans. But in a very brief concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, distanced the case from last year's Hobby Lobby decision.

WHAT HAS BEEN HEARD

Separation of powers: A 12 year old American boy, born in Jerusalem, is caught in the middle of a significant dispute between Congress and the executive branch. The disagreement began in 2002 when the parents of Menachem Zivotofsky sought to have "Israel" recorded in his passport as the place of his birth pursuant to a federal law passed in 2002. Sounds simple right? Not according to the State Department, which refuses to implement the law. The executive branch says that because Israeli and Palestinian leaders have long been engaged in a dispute over the status of Jerusalem, it avoids any official act that might be perceived as taking sides. The current policy is to list "Jerusalem" as the place of birth instead of "Israel." The Zivotofskys seek to compel the State Department to follow the law. They argue that Congress has broad power over passports, and that this case is about the identify of a passport holder. A lower court disagreed holding that the law "impermissibly intrudes" on the president's authority to decide whether and on what terms to recognize foreign nations.

Read the rest here:
Why this court term matters

1-30-15 Nicole Sandler Show - Lowlife Scum
It #39;s Protest Friday as Nicole Sandler looks at the nearly extinct First Amendment right to peaceably protest with activists Kevin Zeese and Medea Benjamin, b...

By: Nicole Sandler

See more here:
1-30-15 Nicole Sandler Show - Lowlife Scum - Video

BCOM 405 Week 2 Individual First Amendment and Journalism Pa
BCOM 405 Week 2 Individual First Amendment and Journalism Paper To Buy This material Click below link http://www.uopassignments.com/BCOM-405/BCOM-405-Week-2-...

By: kamal goyal

View post:
BCOM 405 Week 2 Individual First Amendment and Journalism Pa - Video

Published: Friday, January 30, 2015 at 05:25 PM.

On Feb. 17, the North Carolina Supreme curt is slated to hear two cases challenging the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low-income families the option to receive vouchers of up to $4,200 for their child to attend a non-public school of the parents choosing. Staunch supporters of the United States Constitutions First Amendment and secularists have cried foul, as the program opens old wounds of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris by enabling public tax dollars to fund not only religious schools but schools that can discriminate against applicants based on religion and schools that cant be held to education performance standards.

I am one such secular, non-religious United States citizen and North Carolina resident who believes public tax dollars shouldnt fund education that simultaneously indoctrinates its students in religion (e.g. Greensboro Islam Academy or Victory Christian Center School).

However, despite my belief in the Constitutions First Amendment and my disagreement with Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, I want the Opportunity Scholarship Program to be ruled constitutional in the state supreme courts upcoming hearing and so should secularists everywhere.

I want taxpayer backed school vouchers to continue to enable attendance at private schools, because on average, the private schools these students attend will provide a better education than North Carolinas failing public school system. And that better education and the critical thinking it facilitates, coupled with the wealth of knowledge available on the internet, will allow these students, as they come into adulthood, to see past the very indoctrination religious schools hope to achieve.

Religion is giving way to reason in this country as youth have more and more access to knowledge and opinion outside of their towns and schools through the internet. All the secular, non-religious community has to do is enable critical thinking skills through education, and the internet will take care of the rest. The Opportunity Scholarship Program is one such enabling tool. Lets allow that affront to our First Amendment values teach children to reason and focus our efforts on improving the critical thinking skills of the children left in the public school system.

Matthew Lindauer, New Bern

Read more:
Letter: Rooting for the Opportunity Scholarship Program

January 31, 2015 11:31 AM

(Judge Marjorie Rendell, at the National Constitution Center, during a break in a schoolteachers forum on the First Amendment. Photo by Pat Loeb)

Pat Loeb's radio experience has the makings of a country song:s...

By Pat Loeb

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) Pennsylvanias former First Lady, Judge Marjorie Rendell, is giving up her full-time seat on the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals but shes hardly retiring.

Judge Rendell says she may be able to have a greater impact in her new role. Shell be a senior judge, with 80 percent of a full-time caseload, and shell be doing more work at the Rendell Center for Citizenship and Civics, an outgrowth of her focus as First Lady. She started the center just over a year ago with her husband, former governor Ed Rendell, from whom she is separated. Its currently piloting a fourth-grade civics curriculum and working with Annenberg on high school civics and a project on judicial independence.

Im looking forward to working with Annenberg to have impact, Rendell says. In fact, Im wondering whether that aspect of my life might have more impact than even what Ive been doing so far.

But giving up her seat now assures that President Obama will appoint her successor, a factor that she says figured into the timing of her decision.

Hes done a pretty good job, Rendell says. Were very fortunate that we have three new judges that Obama has picked, and our senators have been fabulous in agreeing on the nominees, because that can be an issue. So Im hopeful that my successor would be chosen fairly promptly.

Rendell will lose her vote on en banc cases, but she says shell still have a voice on the court where she served for 21 years.

More here:
Former Pennsylvania First Lady Midge Rendell Takes On New Role