Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

On November 25, 2013, Burwell sued Hobby Lobby for not providing certain health benefits for women. Hobby Lobby is a for profit company that is also a Christian owned company. They believed that they could exercise a right to deny female employee a complete female oriented healthcare(abortion, birth control, etc.). They used the Religious Freedom Act in order to argue their conservative belief toward pro life. On June 29, 2014, The Supreme Court decided with a  5-4 favoring Hobby Lobby because they believed that as a Christian organization they did not need to pay for certain women’s health benefit since it goes against their religion ideals.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354

Question:

How does this case promote women’s equality in the society? Does this court case benefit more women or not?

Korematsu v. U.S.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu.html

Summary: 

During WWII, February 19th, 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order forcing all US-Japanese citizens alien or non alien into internment camps for the remainder of the war. This precaution was taken in order to insure that the Japanese did not attempt to sabotage the US in anyway especially since Japan had just declared war on the United States by joining the Axis Forces. "In a 6-3 court decision the supreme court upheld Korematsu's conviction." The Supreme Court sided with the military in that the country's national security outweighed the constitution's promise of equal rights.

Question(s): Is it fair to the Japanese American citizens to be wrongfully justified as enemies of the country if the ancestral country was the one that declared war? Does the president issuing an executive order to intern the Japanese American people considered an emergency power or was his decision a little too hasty?

Stand Your Grounds: A license to kill

In 2005, Florida was the first state to adopt the Stand Your Ground law. It is a law that authorizes you to use deadly forces in cases of self-defense without the duty to retreat in the face of any perceived threat to their life or property. On February 26, 2012 a tragic event occurred where the young African-American, Trayvon Martin was murdered by George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman was freed later that night by having this law make his actions constitutional. The law was adopted by 33 states to lower the homicide rates. Instead the percentages of murders have gone up, most of them coming from white males. Many people are now having second thoughts about this law. Some people believe that there are people out there, who are racially bias, and are taking advantage of this law. http://www.phillytrib.com/stand-your-ground-laws-a-license-to-kill/article_03172c17-c334-5c08-a95c-cb9c281ed29c.html

Is this law constitutional in your opinion? If not what amendment does it violate? Should the states repeal this law or keep it? 

Hassan V City Of New York

Hassan v. City of New York is a federal lawsuit filed against the City of New York that challenges the New York Police Department’s suspicions surveillance of Muslim Americans in New Jersey solely because of their Muslim identity.

Summary

A diverse group of American Muslim plaintiffs filed suit to end the New York Police Department’s invasive and discriminatory spying program. The first legal challenge against the NYPD for intrusive practices targeting American Muslims, the lawsuit seeks an immediate end to the unlawful surveillance and the purging of files maintained by the NYPD.

As documented by the Associated Press, the NYPD has been conducting unlawful surveillance of innocent American Muslims simply because of their faith.  American Muslims were targeted in New York City, as well as in towns, mosques, businesses, and college campuses throughout the northeast, including New Jersey.  Records show that the NYPD took copious notes on the details of American Muslims’ daily lives.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are as diverse as the American Muslim community itself: they include a decorated U.S. Army reservist, a small business owner who is also a Vietnam veteran, students and imams.  

Question:  Do you believe the NYPD has the authority/right to spy on American Muslims just because of there race? 

Capital Punishment and the Supreme Court

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/capital-punishment-and-supreme-court

Summary: Glossip v. Gross
On April 29, 2014, Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett an inmate on the death penalty using three lethal drugs they injected in to him.One of the drugs was untested called Midazolam. The procedure went horribly, Lockett woke up after the injection of the drugs that were supposed to make him unconscious. He said  “This shit is fucking with my head,” and did not die until about 40 minutes later. European companies wont sell drugs to be used in executions, and American companies don't want their brands linked to lethal injections.So Oklahoma and other states have been playing around with the 3 drug protocol in some cases. Using a drug called Midazolam, which botched Lockett’s execution and several others.The case was brought to the court by three prisoners in death row in Oklahoma, who knew that the process of using Midazolam is painful. But in a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the three prisoners failed to prove that Midazolam offers a "substantial risk of serious harm". 

Question: Is using the three drug process with Midazolam against the 8th amendment? Is it right to use an untested drug on a prisoner on the death bed?  

Supreme Court Sides With Police Dog In Search Case-Florida v. Harris

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/justice/supreme-court-search/

Summary: Florida v. Harris was a court case questioning weather a dog sniff by a trained narcotics dog was sufficient enough to enforce probable cause for a search and seizure of a car under the Fourth amenedament of the united states Constitution. On June 24 2006, Harris was initially pulled over due to expired tags, when approaching the vehicle the officer noticed harris shaking, breathing heavily, and agitated, the officer proceeded with the regulatory traffic stop. He noticed an open container of alcohol in the center consul cup holder, immediately the officers ask for consent to search the vehicle harris refuses at that point due the shaking and heavy breathing and open container of alcohol the officer deployed Aldo his K-9 companion, the officer then performed a "free air sniff" of the trucks exterior, the dog alerted his handler to the drivers side door handled. With "Probable cause " from aldo exterior sniff the officer then searched the car and found 200  pseudo-ephedrine pills in a plastic bag under the passenger seat and materials that seemed as if harris was producing large amount of methamphetamine.
Question: Was the officer justified to use Aldo (police dog) to do an exterior sniff of the vehicle due to the open container of alcohol in the front seat cup holder? Also how do we determine the consistency and reliability of a dogs nose throughout the years of service?

U.S. Supreme Court will hear Utah case involving drug search

10/1/2015

link: http://fox13now.com/2015/10/01/u-s-supreme-court-will-hear-utah-case-involving-drug-search/

summary:The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a  a case involving reasonable suspicion during a search for drugs in Utah.The case is about an incident in 2006 when police got an anonymous tip alleging drugs being sold out of a South Salt Lake home. A detective had the home under surveillance and stopped Edward Strieff, Jr. to question him. During that stop, Detective Doug Fackrell arrested Strieff on an outstanding warrant and found methamphetamine and a drug pipe.Strieff challenged his arrest, claiming the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. The district court allowed the evidence in, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld that decision but the Utah Supreme Court reversed it.

question: what do you think the supreme court's decision will be?