Given the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v New London, is it safe to say that private property rights are no longer respected in the United States?
By chance, I live about two blocks away from Fort Trumbull, the neighborhood in Kelo, and not to put too fine a point on it, the place was a dump.The Court ruled that the exercise of eminent domain served a valid public purpose, and knowing what the neighborhood was like as well as New London’s fiscal plight — it has many nonprofit institutions and lacks a commercial tax base, forcing property taxes sky high — it’s hard to disagree.There is something a bit disturbing about the notion that private property can be condemned for purposes of commercial development, but really, that has been done many times before for urban renewal and slum clearance projects, and had the Court ruled differently it’s hard to see how such projects could proceed. Not all of those projects have been meritorious, but it seems to me that that’s something for the elected government to decide.
How will the supreme court Wayfair tax nexus decision affect businesses in the United States?
Most US states already have sales tax rules for retailers. The only difference after the Wayfair decision is the introduction of economic nexus.From now on, physical presence is not the only criteria to have a nexus in some states, but also the amount of sales and the number of transactions. To protect small businesses from being overtaxed, most US tax laws include a tax registration threshold. A common tax registration threshold is 200 transactions or $100,000 in sales in the previous or current calendar year (in that particular state).You have more in depth information regarding economic nexus here: The Ultimate Guide to US Economic Nexus
Based on the Supreme Court's recent "bakery decision", if the owners of a bakery are gay, can they now legally refuse to serve straight couples?
“Based on the Supreme Court's recent "bakery decision", if the owners of a bakery are gay, can they now legally refuse to serve straight couples?”First, you’ve got the decision wrong.The Court didn’t rule one way or the other on whether a State could or could not compel such a baker to bake that cake. Instead, it only ruled that the manner in which Colorado had adjudicated the baker’s claims was prejudicial and discriminatory, and therefore invalid.Second, even if they had ruled in favor of the baker, it wasn’t about refusing to serve gay couples—it was about refusing to create a custom cake (i.e., a work of art) for the specific occasion of a gay wedding. He made it very clear that he was more than happy to serve gay customers any other product, including other sorts of custom-made cakes (and the record makes it quite beyond dispute that he was sincere—that is, his argument that it was specifically about the wedding was obviously not mere pretext for rejecting gay customers).But, let’s say the case eventually bounces back up to SCOTUS (as they sometimes do), and the Court does rule that the baker had a constitutional right to refuse service.Could the gay owners of a bakery refuse to serve straight couples?No.But, if they had a bona fide belief that straight marriage was immoral (perhaps they are Malthusians and believe that humans must stop reproducing to curb overpopulation), then they could refuse to custom-bake a straight wedding cake.They would still be obligated to provide the straight couple with any other goods or services on an equal basis.
Lochner v. New York supreme court case?
i have to do a project on the lochner v. new york supreme court case, but i don't understand it at all. i have to explain both sides' arguments and the courts decision. i looked it up online and its just so complicated. could someone please explain to me and dumb it down for me? thanks so much.
What are the repercussions of the Supreme Court ruling against Aereo over copyright issues?
Reading through the decisions, my big worry is that the opinion (Page on supremecourt.gov) basically says that compliance with the letter of the law doesn't make a business legal if the business looks too much like something else. Page 7 (13 in the PDF) introduces the idea that a viewer is enacting a public performance. Page 10 talks about how the subscriber and broadcaster experience the performance with respect to how they would a cable television subscription as relevant factors of whether the law was broken. Page 12 refers to Aereo's "commercial objectives." Page 15 also tries to make a strange analogy that Aereo is reselling content because it has no relationship with its subscribers.It also makes a fairly significant show of dismissing legal logic to go for a "who will speak for the children?" argument. On page 13, "And why, if Aereo is right, could not modern CATV systems simply continue the same commercial and consumer-oriented activities, free of copyright restrictions, provided they substitute such new technologies for old?" If we held to that logic a hundred years ago, airlines would be paying you rent for passing over your property. Why, if the airlines are right, could not modern buses drive through one's front yard...you get the idea.To me, it boils down to the Supreme Court saying that a business can be declared illegal if someone (perhaps especially someone with deep pockets) could mistake it for being illegal.The decision itself won't have many repercussions, because it's just an extension of the misinterpretation of Intellectual Property law that's been going on for a long while (that copyright is a reward for effort, rather than an incentive to publish), but I worry about how the reasoning used could be applied elsewhere, especially the idea that viewers are enacting performances.
Supreme Court vs. Political Leaders - US History?
The Library of Congress has everything and it's on line (us.gov, I believe). I know 1901 is when Theodore Roosevelt began his office and he was famous for "trust busting." He was hounding particularly J. P. Morgan, I understand. Roosevelt inspired policies of more restraint on abusive business practices. His Secretary of War, William Taft, followed him into the presidency and Taft went to the Supreme Court after that. I understand Taft angered Roosevelt by reversing some of Roosevelt's accomplishments. Their political battle helped Woodrow Wilson win the next election. Woodrow Wilson furthered Roosevelt's progressive movement. I would research those president's economic policies and if the court's renderings changed under Roosevelt's and Wilson's presidency or Taft's term as president and then Chief Justice. I suspect that should basically cover what you need.
1. The Idaho Supreme Court rules against Jiffy Mart in a case against Kwik Stop Stores, Inc. Jiffy Mart files?
1. The Idaho Supreme Court rules against Jiffy Mart in a case against Kwik Stop Stores, Inc. Jiffy Mart files an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The Court does not hear the case. This a. is a decision on the merits with value as a precedent. b. indicates agreement with the Idaho court's decision. c. means nothing d. means that the Idaho court's decision is the law in Idaho. 2. Jo files a suit against Lara in a Missouri state court. Lara’s only connection to Missouri is an ad on the Web originating in Nebraska. For Missouri to exercise jurisdiction, the issue is whether Lara, through her ad, has a. a commercial cyber presence in Missouri. b. conducted substantial business with Missouri residents. c. general maximum contact with Missouri. d. solicited virtual business in Missouri.
What do Liberals think of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in favor of baker Jack Phillips as well as the rebuke of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission?
If you read the SCOTUS decision, it only deals with a very narrow sliver of the issue at hand. They don’t deny that the couple was discriminated against. That was not the issue at hand. The issue was whether the Commission in Colorado showed bias toward Phillips. There was a clear case of discrimination and this very case could still be argued along a different path. Religious freedom and the freedom to worship cannot trump individual rights. This case is not about the baker’s right to refuse service, but the way that the discrimination was handled by the local authority. If you think this issue is finished, it isn’t. In the end, the 14th Amendment will apply to all, including the baker. In the meantime, if any business is encouraged to refuse service to anyone based on any of the attributes of a protected class, they will totally be surprised and will be rudely awakened as this country should. One’s religion has nothing to do with one’s business. If one enters into business, one must accept that they cannot refuse service to anyone for any reason. That, is part of our social contract. The conservatives want to take away a victory in this case, but they did not.
What does the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Colorado baker mean for LGBT individuals in the U.S.?
It means almost nothing. The majority decision did not deal with the issue of sexual orientation in the slightest. The only discrimination issue that the majority decision addressed was the discrimination against religion that was evident to the justices when they analyzed the behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and in particular the comments of one specific member of that commission.As a result of that perceived discrimination, any findings of the commission with respect to the plaintiffs in this case must be thrown out altogether, i.e. putting the onus on the plaintiffs (the gay men who had asked for a custom cake) to file a new claim from scratch, if they so choose. It took six years to achieve this non-conclusion.However, one can infer that this ruling indicates that the US Supreme Court is not prepared at the present time to endorse sexual orientation as a protected class for purposes of evaluating claims of discrimination, which is impossible to interpret in a positive light if you are gay.