Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) said Sunday he would not support any Supreme Court nominee unless they had publicly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided” prior to their nomination.“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided,” Hawley told the Washington Post, referring to the 1973 ruling that established federal protection for abortion. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”“I don’t want private assurances from candidates,” the former law professor added. “I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”Hawley’s stance comes as pro-lifers have underscored the importance of vetting Supreme Court nominees after chief justice John Roberts dealt a series of disappointments to pro-life activists and conservatives in siding with the Court’s liberal justices on abortion, immigration and LGBTQ rights. Last month Roberts joined the Court’s liberals in striking down a Louisiana abortion law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges to perform abortions. Roberts drew sharp criticism from many conservatives for saying his decision was meant to follow the precedent set in the 2016 Texas case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, though he believed that case had been wrongly decided. In his 2005 confirmation hearing, Roberts said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the court,” a position since cited by Republicans during nomination fights. But Hawley’s position could pressure Republicans to move away from that.“Roe is central to judicial philosophy. Roe is and was an unbridled act of judicial imperialism. It marks the point the modern Supreme Court said, ‘You know, we don’t have to follow the Constitution. We won’t even pretend to try,’” said Hawley, 40, who once served as a clerk for Roberts.The movement is preparing for the possibility that President Trump could name a new justice this year — marking his third nomination — should there be a vacancy. White House officials and some top Republicans have privately discussed the possibility that Clarence Thomas could retire, the Post reported.“This standard, for me, applies to Supreme Court nominees, whether they’re a sitting judge or whatever,” Hawley said. “If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them — and I don’t care who nominates them.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is back in the hospital and is being treated for a possible infection. The Supreme Court Justice was admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital early Tuesday morning for treatment. She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital…
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the oversight board established by Congress to help Puerto Rico out of a devastating financial crisis that has been exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak, recent earthquakes and damage from Hurricane Maria in 2017. In a unanimous holding, the court will allow the oversight board’s work to pull the island out of the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history to proceed. At one point, Puerto Rico faced more than $ 100 billion in debt and unfunded pension obligations.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that defendants in criminal trials must be convicted by unanimous consent of the jury, outlawing a practice that has already been prohibited in all states except Oregon.The 6-3 ruling in the case, Ramos v Louisiana, was delivered with an unusual alignment in which conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh joined with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor for the majority opinion. Justices Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and John Roberts dissented."Wherever we might look to determine what the term 'trial by an impartial jury trial' meant at the time of the Sixth Amendment’s adoption—whether it’s the common law, state practices in the founding era, or opinions and treatises written soon afterward—the answer is unmistakable," Gorsuch wrote in an opinion for the majority. "A jury must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict."While unanimous verdicts had previously been required for convictions in federal trials, most states have banned convictions by supermajority of a jury. The ruling applies a unanimous-conviction requirement in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to state law. Currently, Oregon is the only state which allows conviction of criminal defendants even if up to two jurors dissent. Louisiana outlawed the practice in 2019.The current Supreme Court case was brought by Evangelisto Ramos, who was convicted of murder in Louisiana court in 2016 by a 10-2 jury verdict. The Supreme Court's case could allow Ramos to receive a new trial.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has approved the withdrawal of 1 billion euros from the country’s sovereign wealth fund to help fight the coronavirus epidemic, President Hassan Rouhani’s official website said on Monday.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers on Monday issued an executive order to postpone state elections scheduled for Tuesday until June 9, a dramatic last-minute move that capped weeks of indecision by state leaders.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a Catholic church in Washington, D.C., that sought to place religious-themed ads on public buses. The justices are leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that found no fault with the Washington transit agency policy that banned all issue-oriented advertisements on the region’s rail and bus system. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington sought to place an ad on the outside of public buses in the fall of 2017.
The ban will remain in effect.
BET.com – Latest Videos