“But if they keep the ballot proposal off, then there’s no opportunity to even get to that place because you haven’t allowed voters to have their say at all.”Ībortion-rights activists spent much of this year gathering signatures from all 83 counties in the state - far exceeding the roughly 425,000 required to qualify. “If they truly believe that those spacing and typographical issues should prevent this measure from becoming law, they don’t lose the ability to challenge it if it passes,” Nessel said in a video posted Thursday. Constitution also had a variety of spacings between words. Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel - who is up for reelection this year - submitted a brief noting that the U.S. The coalition supporting the amendment responded that denying the certification “disenfranchised the more than 730,000 Michigan voters who read, understood, and signed these petitions.”
“It may have the right words in the right order,” Justice David Viviano said about the abortion rights petition, “but the lack of critical word spaces renders the remaining text much more difficult to read and comprehend.”Ĭitizens to Support MI Women and Children, the group anti-abortion activists in the state formed to campaign against the ballot measure, had argued in a court filing that the Reproductive Freedom for All amendment included “nonsensical collections of letters that are not words” and should therefore not be allowed on the ballot. Two justices dissented, arguing that the court should have held oral arguments on the case before issuing a ruling and that the claims raised by the challengers are legitimate. McCormack added that using spacing errors to justify keeping the measure off the ballot is “a game of gotcha gone very bad” and commented: “What a sad marker of the times.” Yet two members of the Board of State Canvassers would prevent the people of Michigan from voting on the proposal.”
Sale photo supreme full#
The challengers have not produced a single signer who claims to have been confused by the limited-spacing sections in the full text portion of the proposal. Kagan also briefly addressed the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion in the abortion case, saying it makes the justices’ jobs much harder “when you might wake up tomorrow morning and there’s an opinion on the front page of the newspapers.Chief Justice Bridget McCormack blasted those officials for that decision, writing in her ruling Thursday: “Seven hundred fifty three thousand and seven hundred fifty nine Michiganders signed this proposal-more than have ever signed any proposal in Michigan’s history. In the court term that begins next month, the court will take up a challenge to the use of race in college admissions, just six years after the court reaffirmed affirmative action in higher education. They voted to overturn Roe, and also imposed limits on the Biden administration’s efforts to fight climate change, expanded gun rights and weakened the separation between church and state. Three of the justices who are part of the court’s conservative majority were appointed by President Donald Trump. The public has a right to expect, she said, “that changes in personnel don’t send the entire legal system up for grabs.” Kagan joined the court in 2010, an appointee of President Barack Obama. The chief justice has been a consistent defender of the court’s legitimacy against complaints that the court is not much different from the political branches of the government.īut Kagan said the court risks damaging its own legitimacy when big changes in the law follow changes in the court’s membership. “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court,” Roberts said.
The 62-year-old New Yorker struck a different tone from Chief Justice John Roberts, who spoke to a gathering of judges and lawyers in Colorado Springs, Colorado, last week. “Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves … when they instead stray into places where it looks like they’re an extension of the political process or when they’re imposing their own personal preferences,” Kagan said at Temple Emanu-El in New York. Still, her remarks were similar to points made in dissenting opinions she wrote or contributed to in recent months, including in the abortion case. She stressed that she was not talking about any particular decision or even a string of rulings with which she disagreed.
0 kommentar(er)
