SCOTUS had a busy day today, releasing several rulings. The first deals with the fact that the Bill of Rights, for now, is still alive on Life Support. They ruled today that hand gun laws where it makes owning a hand gun illegal, are themselves illegal. However, assault weapons, and publicly carried weapons, and even hunting weapons are not included in this ruling. So, according to SCOTUS, only handguns are allowed to be owned by the 2nd Amendment. Another lawsuit, which many will hail as a victory, carries some ominous warnings for later trials. SCOTUS allowed the Roman Catholic Church to be tried in regards to the sex abuse cases by their priests. While many will say bringing sexual predators to justice is a good thing, let me caution you on two fronts. First off, if the RCC can be taken to court, then any religious group can be, just based on some DA or Law Enforcement person somewhere. We know from watching the trials in Texas that there is always someone willing to lie in order to convict, so you can not trust the validity of the cases once it gets tried. This could be another witch hunt, like the FLDS cases in Texas and also the Mineola Sex ring cases. Secondly, the Vatican, head of the RCC, is considered a sovereign nation. This means, for example, if a state decided to break off from the US and become its own nation, that SCOTUS has said that those people can be tried in US Courts, thereby nullifying any war, because all of them could just be put in a detention area and brought to trial somewhere. In this country, we need more self regulation and less government regulation, because the government still has yet to get anything right that they have tried to fix. Scott
By LAURA E. DAVIS, Yahoo! News
With its decision Monday in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court forever changed the terms of debate over the right to bear arms. The 5-4 vote extends principles the court laid out in 2008, when it struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. In finding that the Second Amendment extends to state and local laws, the court has unequivocally affirmed an individual right to own handguns for self-defense, and has restricted every city and state in the kinds of gun-control laws they may enact.
Of course, there will still be limits on the right to keep and bear arms — and plenty of litigation to redefine them after this landmark decision. But if you’re wondering about the decision’s immediate legal effects, here are some plainspoken answers.
What are the specific terms of the ruling?
The court essentially said state and local laws banning handguns (which preclude citizens from owning handguns for self-defense in the home) are too strict. The decision flows directly from the court’s ruling in the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns. While that case already addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment by affirming the right of citizens to own handguns, it applied only on a federal level. (D.C. is under federal jurisdiction.) This case — by way of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — extends the same interpretation of the Second Amendment to state and local levels. Taken together, these rulings say that the Constitution bars various levels of government from banning handgun ownership.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court won’t stop a lawsuit that accuses the Vatican of conspiring with U.S. church officials to transfer a priest from city to city despite repeated accusations that the clergyman sexually abused young people.
The high court Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Vatican, a decision that allows the lawsuit to move forward. No one has ever successfully sued the Vatican over sex abuse by clergy.
Sovereign immunity laws hold that a sovereign state — including the Vatican — is generally immune from lawsuits. The U.S. has had diplomatic relations with the Holy See since 1984.
The original lawsuit, John V. Doe v. Holy See, was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man who says the priest, the Rev. Andrew Roman, repeatedly molested him in the late 1960s.
The plaintiff contends the Vatican conspired with the Archdiocese of Portland and other parties to protect the priest by moving him from Ireland to Chicago to Portland.
The U.S. attorney representing the Vatican wanted the federal courts to throw out the lawsuit, basing his argument largely on sovereign immunity.
But lower federal courts have ruled in this case that there could be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.
A judge ruled there was enough of a connection between the Holy See and Ronan for him to be considered a Vatican employee under Oregon law, and that ruling was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Vatican has argued that it is not responsible for the actions of individual priests in dioceses.