|
|
|
Ginsburg back at home, expected at court next week
Court Issues |
2014/12/01 22:53
|
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has returned home after undergoing an operation to implant a heart stent to clear a blocked artery and is expected to hear oral arguments on Monday.
Ginsburg, 81, experienced discomfort during exercise with a personal trainer Tuesday and was rushed to MedStar Washington Hospital Center. The stent procedure came after doctors discovered a blockage in her right coronary artery, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.
Stents, a kind of mesh scaffolding, are inserted into about half a million people in the U.S. each year to prop open arteries clogged by years of cholesterol buildup. Doctors guide a narrow tube through a blood vessel in the groin or an arm, inflate a tiny balloon to flatten the blockage and then push the stent into place.
Ginsburg has had a series of health problems, including colorectal cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer in 2009. She was hospitalized after a bad reaction to medicine in 2009 and suffered broken ribs in a fall two years ago. Still, the court's oldest justice has not missed any time on the job since joining the high court.
Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, she has rejected suggestions from some liberals that she should step down and give President Barack Obama a chance to name her successor. She leads the court's liberal wing.
Her hospitalization just three weeks after elections handed Republicans control of the Senate raised anew the question of whether Obama would be able to appoint a like-minded replacement if she were to retire.
Ginsburg has repeatedly rebuffed suggestions that it's time to step down. She remains one of the court's fastest writers and has continued to make frequent public appearances around the country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects appeal over Senate filibuster rules
Court Issues |
2014/11/05 20:51
|
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a public interest group and four members of Congress who challenged the Senate filibuster as unconstitutional.
The justices let stand a lower court ruling that said Common Cause and the lawmakers did not have legal standing to pursue the case.
The plaintiffs argued that Senate rules requiring at least 60 votes to bring legislation to a vote violates the constitutional principle of majority rule. A federal appeals court said the lawsuit was filed against the wrong parties.
The case was brought against Vice President Joe Biden in his role as president of the Senate, and against the Senate's secretary, parliamentarian and sergeant at arms.
Common Cause says it can't sue the Senate directly because that is barred under the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause.
Last year, the Senate voted to end use of the filibuster rule from blocking most presidential nominees. Democrats said they ended the rule out of frustration that Republicans were routinely using the tactic to block President Barack Obama's nominees for pivotal judgeships and other top jobs.
But 60 votes are still required to end filibusters against legislation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor
Court Issues |
2014/10/27 21:46
|
No matter the situation, an attorney from the Plymouth Canton Law Office of Rita O. White is available to assist. For everything from questions only a lawyer could answer, to a specific legal issue you may have, we are here to lend a helping hand.
You can expect convenient office hours, along with knowledgeable lawyers and reasonable attorney fees from us. Legal problems can loom large and become stressful, so our Plymouth Canton lawyers give all our clients the personal attention and caring respect they deserve.
Your legal situation may be negatively impacted if you try to deal with it on your own. Instead of risking the outcome, why not call our committed attorneys for guidance? When you need it most, contact us at the Law Office of Rita O. White today to learn more and set up an appointment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court orders on voting rights mostly about timing
Court Issues |
2014/10/13 23:26
|
In seemingly contradictory voting-rights actions just a month before November's elections, the Supreme Court has allowed new Republican-inspired restrictions to remain in force in North Carolina and Ohio while blocking Wisconsin's voter identification law.
But there's a thread of consistency: In each case, the court appears to be seeking a short-term outcome that is the least disruptive for the voting process.
Another test of the court's outlook on voter ID laws could come from Texas, where the state is promising to appeal a ruling that struck down its strict law as unconstitutional racial discrimination.
None of the orders issued by the high court in recent days is a final ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. The orders are all about timing — whether the laws can be used in this year's elections — while the justices defer consideration of their validity.
In some ways, these disputes over the mechanics of voting are like others that crop up frequently just before elections as part of last-minute struggles by partisans to influence who can vote.
Republican lawmakers say the measures are needed to reduce voter fraud. Democrats contend they are thinly veiled attempts to keep eligible voters, many of them minorities supportive of Democrats, away from the polls. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
