Cases the Supreme Court Avoided Today

[G_j]

http://www.newser.com/story/184949/supreme-court-rejects-early-nsa-challenge.html?utm_source=syn&utm_medium=wid&utm_campaign=js

Justices duck rulings on NSA, gay rights, campaign finance
By Newser Editors and Wire Services
Posted Apr 7, 2014 9:17 AM CDT

Newser) – The Supreme Court quietly made a bunch of headlines today, mainly by rejecting potentially explosive cases. Here's a roundup of the day's (in)action:

• Gay rights: The court announced that it would not take up the highly charged case that began when a New Mexico wedding photographer refused to do the honors for a same-sex commitment ceremony, Politico reports. New Mexico's Supreme Court ruled that this amounted to illegal discrimination. That ruling will now stand in New Mexico, but only in New Mexico.

• NSA: The justices declined a conservative lawyer's unusual request that it bypass the usual appeals process and immediately take up a case arguing that the NSA's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, the AP reports. A lower court had agreed with the lawyer that the program was "almost certainly" unconstitutional.

• Campaign finance: After last week's ruling, reform advocates are likely happy that the court decided not to take up a challenge to the 100-year-old rules banning direct contributions from corporations to candidates. Iowa Right to Life had asked the court to rule that corporations had the same free speech rights as individuals, the AP explains.
As is customary, the Court offered no commentary on any of the decisions.

[msanthrope]

1. Good, good, and great.

Good the first ruling stands and the Gang of Five doesn't get to touch it, good that Larry Klayman's mess of a lawsuit doesn't get farther, and even better that the Court doesn't mess with anymore campaign money.

[former9thward]

2. Well one out of three is accurate.

1) "The Gang of Five doesn't get to touch it." If the gang of five wanted to touch it they would have accepted the case. It is not a case they didn't "get to" touch it.

2) The Klayman case is being heard by the DC Circuit. Klayman wanted to bypass that step. The SC likes to see cases developed. So it is not true that the case "doesn't get farther."

[msanthrope]

3. True--if the Gang of Five wanted to have it, they would have, but I happen to think it is a good

thing they didn't feel like interpreting New Mexico law, no? They won't get to touch it.

As for the Klayman case, it really isn't getting any farther. Sure, it's in the DC circuit, and I'm sure he's gonna try to appeal it, but that trainwreck of a filing is gonna sit a good long time in the DC Circuit before anyone bothers to take it up. And in the meantime, the actual case in the 1st is the one that has merit.

[TroglodyteScholar]

4. The Roberts court in a nutshell.

With a small number of exceptions... if this group isn't doing harm, they're doing nothing at all. Shameful.