THE FIGHT FOR RIGHTS | To Vote, To See A Judge, To Own an AR-15?
March 12, 2018
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The New York Times thinks the courts “should be a bulwark protecting voting rights” but that hasn’t been the case at the Supreme Court under CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. Read why NYT thinks that at this “fragile moment for our nation” we need a big fix to voter disenfranchisement, suppression and disillusionment.
IN LIMBO
|The Supreme Court closed out last week without any action on the high-profile constitutional fight over Pennsylvania’s congressional district maps. Lyle Denniston with Constitution Daily notes what is at stake in the dispute and he writes, “The fact that swift action has not come this time could mean several things. It could be that he has decided to share the issue with the other Justices, and so the process has grown a little more complex, since the Justices are in a brief recess right now. But it also might mean several other things, such as a desire to await the outcome of the case in the federal district court, or a split has developed among the Justices on what to do about the GOP request, or a decision has been made on what to do but that has drawn some dissents so time is being taken to write opinions, or as simple a fact as that some of the Justices are out of reach temporarily because of the recess.”
A DEVASTATING BLOW
|In The Hill, Sarah Sherman-Stokes covers the Supreme Court’s Jennings v. Rodriguez decision which she says dealt a “devastating blow to noncitizens facing deportation.” She notes, “Indefinite detention without the opportunity to see a judge threatens the most fundamental of our American values.”
A RIGHT TO WEAPONIZE
|Ross Grossman with the Chicago Tribune reports on what the Second Amendment does and doesn’t say about guns, and how the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past. But given everything we know, he is left with one question: “Does the right of self-defense entitle someone to own an AR-15?”