Search

The article addresses issues concerning the stand of the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to abortion in July 2000. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court reaffirmed abortion as a U.S. constitutional right and has put partial-birth abortion beyond the reach of the law. The reason behind the Court's decision to strike down the ban on partial-birth abortion in Nebraska is that the law is too vague, and putting a ban on partial-birth abortion might place an undue burden on the alleged right to abortion. But the real concern of the Court is that all of its decisions will be put into question if it accepts any restriction on abortion.

Considers the role of the courts in enforcing school desegregation since "Brown v. Board of Education," and "Brown II," decided a year later in 1955. In Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court decided that racial discrimination by the government in student school assignments was unconstitutional. Instead, the Court generated a decade-long effort by federal courts to develop convoluted school-desegregation`` plans'' and to assess the`` good faith'' of communities in preparing such plans. Inevitably, in later Court decisions, the confused direction of Brown II metamorphosed into requirements of racial integration and "balance'' achieved through such devices as forced school busing and prohibition of neighborhood school assignments. Lower federal courts have now been directed by the Supreme Court to end their supervision if school districts can demonstrate that they have complied in`` good faith'' with previous judicial orders and eliminated the`` vestiges of past discrimination. What the decision means is that some number of the five hundred or so school districts subject to federal supervision will now proceed to federal court and embark upon five more years of litigation with civil-rights groups in an effort to persuade a federal judge that they have met the vague new standards set forth by the current 5 to 3 Court majority.

Presents an analysis of the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Determination that the burden of proof in employment-discrimination suits rests with the plaintiff; Determination that an affirmative action agreement entered into by a city and a spokesman for racial minorities could be challenged by white employees; Ruling on private discrimination in alleged sexual harassment suits; State of civil rights activism in the United States; Suggestions for conservative reactions to the rulings.

Discusses the United States constitutional right to privacy, with reference to Supreme Court cases Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade. Ruling in which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that forbade dispensing birth-control information or contraceptives to married couples; Use of this case in the 1973 decision that the right to privacy encompassed a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

Offers a look at three United States Supreme Court decisions related to terrorism, and discusses how they are defeats for the President George W. Bush administration. Decision that the president's war powers include the ability to detain enemy combatants, but that they have the right to challenge their detention; Case of the detention of Yaser Hamdi; Ability of foreign enemy combatants to go to federal courts to challenge their detention.

The article discusses the homosexual laws before the United States Supreme Court. The debate before the house was the Court ruling in 1986 Bowers v. Haniwick, which upheld the right of a state to declare as criminal, homosexual conduct between consenting adults. The article presents the pending case similar to Bowers in almost every respect. Two men in Houston, Texas were arrested for engaging in such activity. The conviction was appealed and carried upstairs by the Lambda Defense and Education Fund, whose agenda is to abrogate all legislation banning, or frowning upon, homosexual contact, never mind just by consenting adults. The Texas law says that gays cannot do what non-gays can do and the facts of the matter weigh against Texas.

The article argues against the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson blocking the enforcement of the civil rights initiative called Proposition 209. It correlates the initiative with that of the proposal by former President James Madison during the early Republic. It also criticizes the lack of reaction from Republican Senators Trent Lott and New Gingrich to the issue. It calls for the passage of a federal version of the initiative. It supports the impeachment of Henderson based on his position on the issue.

The article refutes the ruling of Judge Barbara Rothstein of the U.S. District Court in Seattle striking down Washington's state law prohibiting a doctor from assisting a patient to commit suicide. Judge Rothstein's ruling have shown a wrong interpretation of the constitutional right to privacy when she selected the argument used in the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. She erroneously prescribe death to someone suffering from a terminal illness, while prohibiting the same to a young person. Judge Rothstein, in essence, created another right, a right to help other people kill themselves.

This article considers the sentencing of two white former officers of the Los Angeles Police Department in the Rodney King case of conduct unbecoming and racial disruption. The officers were sentenced to two and a half years in prison for allegedly provoking plaintiff Rodney King, whom the officers chased in traffic and apprehended after refusing to submit. This case involved an exoneration of the defendants that caused riots in the town of Los Angeles, California, forcing U.S. President George Bush to allow police officers to use force. This then led to charges filed against the officers with violating the civil rights of King.