The Supreme Court has upheld Donald Trump’s travel ban with a 5-4 majority vote. The ruling holds a significant message. The ruling by the courts has basically shown Donald Trump and any other president moving forward, that no matter what you say out of your mouth, or the reason or real purpose behind a policy or law, if you add National Security to your argunent, the mostly conservative Supreme Court will uphold it. A very dangerous power to place in the hands of one man.
Trump called the ruling a “tremendous victory for the American people and the Constitution.” The ban has been revised several times as it made its way through the Circuit Courts before ultimately landing in the Supreme Court’s lap. The travel ban the Supreme Court approved this morning restricts travel from Iran, Syria, North Korea, Yemen, Libya, Venezuela, and Somalia. Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court’s decision.
“The majority here completely sets aside the President’s charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant. That holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has emphatically protected, and it tells members of minority religions in our country that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”
The Supreme Court sided with a baker in Colorado who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court, however, refused to rule on the legality of a business invoking religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
The Associated Press (@AP) reports, the justices’ limited ruling turned on what the court described as “anti-religious bias”, on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker, Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips’ rights under the first amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the issue “must await further elaboration.” Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
The same-sex couple at the heart of the case, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, complained to the Colorado commission in 2012 after they visited Phillips’ shop in Suburban Denver and the baker quickly told them he would not create a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting votes.
In a move that looks like the beginning of a new and disturbing trend, the Supreme Court sided with employers over employees. The court’s ruling made today says that employers can prohibit employees from banding together to complain about pay, conditions, and likely many other things in the workplace. The move looks like a first blow in a battle by some employers to de-unionize some industries.
NBC News (@NBCNews) reports, the Supreme Court Justices ruled 5-4 on Monday, with the conservative court’s majority members in that businesses can force employees to individually use arbitration to resolve disputes. Meaning, multi-person class action lawsuits against companies will disappear. Giving big companies and their high-priced attorneys a clear advantage over one individual who can’t afford an attorney, instead of going up against hundreds of defendants who filed a joint lawsuit against a company. The outcome is an important victory for business interest.
An estimated 25 million employees work under contracts that prohibit collective action by employees who want to raise claims about some aspect of their employment. The Trump administration backed the businesses, reversing the position the Obama administration took in favor of employees.
Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorusch, writing for the majority said, the contracts are valid under the arbitration law.
“As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law the answer is clear.” Gorusch wrote.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision “egregiously wrong.” Ginsburg said that individual complaints can be very small in dollar terms, “scarcely of a size warranting the expense of seeking redress alone.” Ginsburg said in a summary of the decision that she read aloud.
Looks like you won’t have to travel all the way to Las Vegas if you’re looking to get in on a little sports betting action. The U.S. Supreme Court has just made sure of that today, when they voted to allow other states to get in on the bookmaking action and take in their cut of the huge profits from sports betting.
NBC News (@NBCNews) reports, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of striking down a federal law that required stated to ban gambling on the outcome of sporting events. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was considered highly unusual by most people. The act did not ban sports gambling nationwide as a matter of federal law, but it said that states were not allowed to permit it. Nevada was grandfathered in when the law was passed in 1992.
States across the country are reportedly preparing to cash in on the Supreme Court’s decision immediately. None more-so than New Jersey, whose former Governor Chris Christie had long challenged the gambling ban. Christie argued that it violated the 10th amendment, which the Supreme Court has said prohibits federal laws that compel states to carry out dictates. Christie argued that the gambling law commandeered the states by forcing them to prohibit sports wagering. Well, Christie and New Jersey’s residents won’t have to worry about that pesky law anymore. The Supreme court’s ruling could not have come at a better time for New Jersey. With multiple casinos opening up in Philadelphia, New York, and Delaware, New Jersey’s Atlantic City casinos has lost at least 75% of their annual revenue from gambling profits over the last 10 years or so. Sports betting just may give New Jersey’s casinos a b12 shot in the arm that the state desperately needs right now.