Hey, gang--
The Supreme Court responded to not one but TWO cases from the stance of states' sovereignty... First an age discrimination case:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>JANUARY 11, 15:15 EST
Court Shields States in Age Lawsuits
By RICHARD CARELLI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Whittling away more of the federal government's power over states, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state employees cannot go into federal court to sue over age bias.
The court, by a 5-4 vote, said Congress exceeded its authority when allowing such lawsuits against the states under 1974 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The ruling killed three separate federal cases from Florida and Alabama.
The federal law cannot trump states' 11th Amendment immunity against being sued in federal courts, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.
Tuesday's ruling extended a series of recent decisions in which the court — by identical votes each time — ignited what legal scholars have called a states' rights revolution by eroding the federal government's sway over states.
Joining O'Connor again were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Once again left in dissent were the court's more liberal justices — John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.[/quote]
The other one was a rape case, in which the accused was sued in civil court over federal civil rights violations. In that one, too, the S. Ct. appears very much in the posture that the federal government should be kept out of what is essentially a state case, and should be left to the state courts.
What a concept!
Whether or not you're sypathetic to the plaintiffs in each case, the reasoning by the court is a happy one by my sight. At one point, they actually made refrence to a Garza decision, in which federal gun control had been limited based on this concept. Would that they would carry the concept a whole lot further.
Where, oh where is my 10th amendment?
------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?
Matt
The Supreme Court responded to not one but TWO cases from the stance of states' sovereignty... First an age discrimination case:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>JANUARY 11, 15:15 EST
Court Shields States in Age Lawsuits
By RICHARD CARELLI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Whittling away more of the federal government's power over states, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state employees cannot go into federal court to sue over age bias.
The court, by a 5-4 vote, said Congress exceeded its authority when allowing such lawsuits against the states under 1974 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The ruling killed three separate federal cases from Florida and Alabama.
The federal law cannot trump states' 11th Amendment immunity against being sued in federal courts, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.
Tuesday's ruling extended a series of recent decisions in which the court — by identical votes each time — ignited what legal scholars have called a states' rights revolution by eroding the federal government's sway over states.
Joining O'Connor again were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Once again left in dissent were the court's more liberal justices — John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.[/quote]
The other one was a rape case, in which the accused was sued in civil court over federal civil rights violations. In that one, too, the S. Ct. appears very much in the posture that the federal government should be kept out of what is essentially a state case, and should be left to the state courts.
What a concept!
Whether or not you're sypathetic to the plaintiffs in each case, the reasoning by the court is a happy one by my sight. At one point, they actually made refrence to a Garza decision, in which federal gun control had been limited based on this concept. Would that they would carry the concept a whole lot further.
Where, oh where is my 10th amendment?
------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?
Matt
