There were five remarkable cases of interest to
conservatives decided by the United States Supreme Court in its latest term,
four of which protected liberty and one defended good government. This Independence Day post is an analysis of each of the first
four in the order in which they were announced since May. I shall analyze the last case in Part II of
this series of posts, the case about a religious exemption for closely-held
corporations from the insurance mandate that includes abortifacients.
I had
already posted in April about a case from earlier in the term, The Supreme
Court Ruling Expands Freedom of Expression by Striking Down the Overall Cap on
Political Contributions, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-united-states-supreme-court-ruling.html,
which was another victory for liberty.
The Court rules prayer
at public meetings of government bodies is constitutional
A municipality in New York was within its
constitutional right to invite local clergy lead prayers at public municipal
meetings, even if the prayers were expressly Christian and not non-sectarian,
the Court ruled. It ruled that a government
body is not required to recruit non-Christians, such as, in the case in
question, from beyond the county, even if many fellow citizens attended a
synagogue over the county line.
The Court upheld
a 1983 ruling that public prayer is part of the historical fabric of America . It noted private individuals conduct the
prayer. The targets of the prayer are the
public officials, not the general public, the Court observed. The Court determined that public prayer that
invokes God help or thanks Him is understood not as an attempt to evangelize
anyone, let alone to establish or “endorse” any particular religion, as it does
not diminish anyone’s liberty. Public
prayer reminds the officials of the American Creed, as expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, that freedom comes from God, not government. Even atheists’ freedom of conscience depends
upon this belief.
The Court strikes
down President Barack Obama recess appointments as unconstitutional violations
of the separation of powers doctrine
The Court ruled that Obama
violated the Constitution by usurping Congress’s role in confirming
presidential nominations. Obama had made
“recess” appointments, which Presidents may do when the Congress is in recess,
when the Senate was conducting pro forma sessions every three days, arguing
they were essentially in recess. The
Court ruled the Senate is the judge of when it is in recess under the
Constitution, not the President. Because
the Senate was not in recess, the President had no constitutional authority to
make the appointments.
The
question was not particularly liberal or conservative, but of overstepping the
bounds of office by the Chief Executive.
There has been encroachment on executive power since the Vietnamese War by
the Legislative Branch, particularly in matters of defense, where the President
is the Commander in Chief. The
appointments made by Obama, however, were unusually partisan because they were
to boards that are required to be filled by appointees of both major political
parties. His appointees tended to be
biased to the left to such a degree as to upset the bipartisan balance on those
boards, which is why congressional confirmation was necessary for the
presidential nominees and why Obama avoided obtaining it. Obama’s abuse of his recent appointment
authority is part of a pattern of overreach, such as declining to enforce
certain laws, despite a constitutional requirement that the President take care
to execute the laws faithfully, and to issue numerous executive orders that
usurp the legislative authority, in violation of the constitutional doctrine of
the separation of powers.
As the
appointments were invalid, the decisions made by the boards with the votes of
the invalid appointees should now also be deemed invalid, as they lacked a
quorum.
The Court strikes
down abortion clinic protest buffer zones as unconstitutional restrictions on
free speech
Buffer
zones outside of abortion clinics unconstitutionally violated the freedom of
speech of pro-life protestors, the Court ruled.
The protest buffer zones were targeted against only those individuals
who hold a particular opinion – the pro-life opinion, at a time when pro-lifers
have their most effective opportunity to express peacefully their political
opinions and to counsel women against abortions. The zones were thus prejudicial against
pro-life protestors, who are as free as any other citizen to engage in the
freedom of speech on the sidewalk.
The Court rules home
healthcare providers cannot be forced to pay dues to government worker labor
unions
The Court
ruled individuals who receive state funds to provide healthcare to family
members in their own homes are not employees of the state and thus are not subject
to being forced to pay dues for a public sector collective bargaining unit.
The plaintiff was a woman in Illinois who received
state Medicaid funds for caring for her son at home, which by state law made
her an employee of the state. She was an
agent of the state or an independent contractor who did not receive the usual
state employee benefits such as tax-free health insurance or a pension, not a
state employee, and thus not subject to all the laws regarding employees. Therefore, there are no issues over which to
bargain collectively such as to necessitate the forced payment of union
dues. The Court’s decision was a victory
of the freedom of association.
No comments:
Post a Comment