Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsScotus
IN THE NEWS

Scotus

FEATURED ARTICLES
OPINION
November 13, 2013 | By The Times editorial board
A bizarre act of revenge against a romantic rival was the unlikely genesis of an important debate in the Supreme Court last week about federal power, states' rights and the conduct of U.S. diplomacy. The justices were asked to overturn the conviction of Carol Anne Bond, an immigrant from Barbados who was convicted of trying to poison her best friend after she learned that the woman had been impregnated by Bond's husband. Bond stole a dangerous chemical from the laboratory where she worked and smeared it on the other woman's car door, mailbox and doorknobs.
ARTICLES BY DATE
OPINION
March 2, 2014 | By The Times editorial board
Surreptitiously recorded videos of Supreme Court proceedings that surfaced on YouTube last week aren't much of a viewing experience. The most revealing video, which captures a few moments from two oral argument sessions, is a jerky affair that makes Abraham Zapruder's amateur footage of the Kennedy assassination look like the work of an auteur. And the justices are bit players: The star of the video is Noah Kai Newkirk, a Los Angeles man who stood up during arguments Wednesday to denounce the court's 2010 Citizens United decision allowing corporations to spend money on politics.
Advertisement
OPINION
March 2, 2014 | By The Times editorial board
Surreptitiously recorded videos of Supreme Court proceedings that surfaced on YouTube last week aren't much of a viewing experience. The most revealing video, which captures a few moments from two oral argument sessions, is a jerky affair that makes Abraham Zapruder's amateur footage of the Kennedy assassination look like the work of an auteur. And the justices are bit players: The star of the video is Noah Kai Newkirk, a Los Angeles man who stood up during arguments Wednesday to denounce the court's 2010 Citizens United decision allowing corporations to spend money on politics.
OPINION
November 13, 2013 | By The Times editorial board
A bizarre act of revenge against a romantic rival was the unlikely genesis of an important debate in the Supreme Court last week about federal power, states' rights and the conduct of U.S. diplomacy. The justices were asked to overturn the conviction of Carol Anne Bond, an immigrant from Barbados who was convicted of trying to poison her best friend after she learned that the woman had been impregnated by Bond's husband. Bond stole a dangerous chemical from the laboratory where she worked and smeared it on the other woman's car door, mailbox and doorknobs.
OPINION
June 27, 2013 | By Jane Schacter
The twin rulings on marriage equality Wednesday were historic in different ways. One of them - Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's decision in Windsor vs. United States, which struck down a key portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act - will be celebrated for its ringing endorsement of the equality and dignity of same-sex couples. The second decision is poised to be historic not so much for its language but for its effect. In Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the court found that Proposition 8's proponents lacked legal standing to appeal a lower court decision declaring that measure unconstitutional.
OPINION
March 31, 2013 | Doyle McManus
If the Supreme Court decides the two gay marriage cases it heard last week the way most court watchers believe it will, expect legal and political chaos. The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional. And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.
BOOKS
September 7, 1986
It may be that Ralph MacInerny's "Leave of Absence," reviewed by Carol A. Crotta (The Book Review, Aug. 24) is a "seriously bad" novel. It is equally possible that Crotta, as a lay Catholic (assumed) knows nothing about the historical tensions the Thomist religious position and that of Duns Scotus created. The "God of Mercy" versus the "God of Power" question is still a lively issue in many theological circles, and had Crotta understood the relative positions, her view of McInerny's best friends might have been less flip.
BOOKS
November 30, 1986 | Richard J. Morris
ART AND BEAUTY IN THE MIDDLE AGES by Umberto Eco; translated by Hugh Bredin (Yale University: $12.95; 131 pp.). Originally published in 1959 as a contributed chapter to a handbook on the history of aesthetics, this slim volume by Umberto Eco is a model of what a historical survey should be. As he moves easily through the Middle Ages, Eco engages us in conversation with some of the most stimulating minds of the period. Yet not with minds, either. With people: Witelo, Hugh of St.
ENTERTAINMENT
April 16, 2014 | By Joe Flint, This post has been corrected, as indicated below.
There will be no tie in the Supreme Court battle of Aereo vs. the broadcasters. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, who previously had recused himself from participating in the case, will take part in it after all, according to SCOTUS Blog , which tracks the Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for next week. Alito had given no reason for recusing himself from the case, but one possible reason is that a justice or his family has stock in some of the companies involved in the dispute.
NEWS
March 26, 2013 | By Matt Pearce, This post has been updated, as indicated below.
Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court arguments over whether gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry in California became a spectacle both in D.C. and on the Web. In Washington, demonstrators expressed both opposition to and support of same-sex marriage while the justices heard oral arguments in what could become a landmark case for same-sex marriage's legality across the United States. The case involves California's Proposition 8, which voters passed in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage, trumping a state Supreme Court decision that had legalized it. On Wed­nes­day, the court will hear another gay-rights case: whether the fed­er­al De­fense of Marriage Act wrongly denies equal benefits to mar­ried gay couples.
OPINION
June 27, 2013 | By Jane Schacter
The twin rulings on marriage equality Wednesday were historic in different ways. One of them - Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's decision in Windsor vs. United States, which struck down a key portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act - will be celebrated for its ringing endorsement of the equality and dignity of same-sex couples. The second decision is poised to be historic not so much for its language but for its effect. In Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the court found that Proposition 8's proponents lacked legal standing to appeal a lower court decision declaring that measure unconstitutional.
OPINION
March 31, 2013 | Doyle McManus
If the Supreme Court decides the two gay marriage cases it heard last week the way most court watchers believe it will, expect legal and political chaos. The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional. And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 26, 2013 | By Kate Mather
Hollywood again sounded off on same-sex marriage Tuesday, as many celebrities took to Twitter -- and went to Washington -- in anticipation of the Supreme Court hearing on California's Proposition 8. Actor-director Rob Reiner was the first person in the public line to go into the courtroom, saying afterward in a statement that Tuesday was a "historic day for all those who believe in freedom and equality. " "I'm proud of the powerful argument presented today by our legal team, and the courage and perseverance displayed by our plaintiffs over these last four years," the statement said.
NEWS
April 22, 2014 | By Alexandra Le Tellier
The Supreme Court upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action on Tuesday. The 6-2 decision, as The Times' David Savage explains, “clears away constitutional challenges to the state bans on affirmative action, which began in California in 1996.” From Savage's article : “Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said the democratic process can decide such issues. 'This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,' he said. 'It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court's precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.'” This is what The Times editorial board argued in October when it opined on the case: “This case isn't about whether state universities may provide preferential treatment in their admissions policies.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|