DIRS.INFO top alerts submit data jurnalism about API
login
Top related persons:
CNN — - 1 Alex Murdaugh - 1 Creighton Waters - 1 Waters - 1 Murdaugh - 1 Clifton Newman - 1 “ - 1 ” “ - 1
Top related locs:
South Carolina Beaufort County Murdaugh Waters Carolina Colleton North Carolina
Top related orgs:
CNN - 1 Carolina Constitution - 1 South Carolina - 1 Murdaugh - 1 Service - 1 Trump - 1 Biden - 1 North Carolina - 1

Search resuls for: "Carolina Constitution"


8 mentions found


☆ Alex Murdaugh pleads guilty to state financial charges
  + stars: | 2023-11-17 | by ( Dianne Gallagher | ) edition.cnn.com   time to read: +5 min
Murdaugh was facing dozens of state charges in alleged schemes to defraud victims of millions. Lead prosecutor Creighton Waters said the deal would bring “finality to the matter” and ensure Murdaugh would “stay in state prison for a very long time.” The agreement, if approved, would see Murdaugh spend a total of 27 years in a South Carolina state prison, according to Waters. “Alex Murdaugh’s guilty plea will finally allow his financial victims to begin the process of healing,” Eric “EB” Bland and Ronnie Richter, attorneys for some of the victims, said in a statement. It also only covers the state financial charges and does not address any of the remaining county charges Murdaugh faces. Judge Newman sentenced Murdaugh to two consecutive life sentences in a South Carolina state prison, which Murdaugh is currently serving.
Persons: CNN —, Alex Murdaugh, Creighton Waters, Waters, Murdaugh, Clifton Newman, “, ” “, ” Murdaugh, ”, ” Newman, Newman, “ Alex Murdaugh’s, Eric “ EB, Bland, Ronnie Richter, Judge Newman, Alan Wilson, ” Wilson, Maggie, Paul, Becky Hill Organizations: CNN, Carolina Constitution, South Carolina, Murdaugh Locations: South Carolina, Beaufort County, Murdaugh, Waters, Carolina, Colleton
☆ SCOTUS just killed a fringe conservative legal theory that could have upended national elections
  + stars: | 2023-06-27 | by ( Brent D. Griffiths | ) www.businessinsider.com   time to read: +4 min
State legislatures will continue to be checked by state courts. Then-President Donald Trump and his allies helped elevate the once-fringe election theory in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. In effect, it meant that state legislatures could nullify their own state's presidential election results, disenfranchising potentially millions of Americans in the process. Roberts said that the high court's decision does not mean that state supreme courts have "free rein" in ruling on election laws. "We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections," he concluded.
Persons: John Roberts, Roberts, —, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump, Michael Luttig, Luttig, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Thomas, Moore, Harper, Harper I Organizations: Service, Trump, Biden, North Carolina, North, North Carolina Constitution Locations: North Carolina
☆ Judge Puts South Carolina Abortion Ban on Hold
  + stars: | 2023-05-26 | by ( Ava Sasani | ) www.nytimes.com   time to read: +1 min
Why It MattersSouth Carolina has become an important access point for abortion in the South as other states in the region have banned the procedure. BackgroundSouth Carolina legislators struggled for months to come to an agreement on an abortion ban after the Supreme Court last year overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the national right to abortion. The ban is similar to an earlier six-week ban overturned by the State Supreme Court last year, known as a heartbeat bill, because cardiac activity can be detected around that time. The court ruled that the South Carolina Constitution provides a right to privacy that includes the right to abortion. “While I respect Judge Newman’s decision, I remain convinced that the heartbeat bill is constitutional and that the Supreme Court will agree,” said the Senate’s president, Thomas Alexander, a Republican.
☆ Opinion | The Courts Should Be More Political, Not Less
  + stars: | 2023-05-17 | by ( Jedediah Britton-Purdy | ) www.nytimes.com   time to read: +3 min
The North Carolina gerrymandering decision made that scandal impossible to ignore: What else but rank partisan allegiance could account for such an abrupt switch on a question that determined political power in the state? In other words, the vote for Supreme Court justices may have been the most important of the year, and it was a black box to most voters. Like it or not, the courts are another political branch, most of all when they decide basic constitutional questions, such as whether freedom and equality forbid extreme gerrymandering. On April 4, Judge Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court and switched the court’s ideological balance, by openly emphasizing her support for reproductive rights and broadly liberal commitments. Deep political conflicts over constitutional vision have always existed in American law, particularly when courts are called upon to judge what a fair election system looks like.
☆ A North Carolina Supreme Court Switcheroo
  + stars: | 2023-04-29 | by ( The Editorial Board | ) www.wsj.com   time to read: +1 min
Images: AP/Reuters/AFP Composite: Mark KellyNorth Carolina’s Supreme Court reversed itself Friday on partisan gerrymandering, ruling 5-2 that it poses “nonjusticiable, political questions.” Last year a 4-3 court said the opposite. In between was the November election, in which GOP candidates won two Supreme Court seats, giving conservatives a majority again. Critics will call the reversal a judicial power play, but it’s really a corrective to the old majority’s overreach. Four liberal justices held that the North Carolina Constitution bans partisan map-making, because it guarantees “free elections,” the rights of speech and assembly, and so forth. At one point the court floated specific metrics that could be used to police gerrymandering, saying that a map could be presumptively constitutional if it has “a mean-median difference of 1% or less.”
☆ South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down state abortion ban
  + stars: | 2023-01-06 | by ( The Associated Press | ) www.nbcnews.com   time to read: +7 min
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The South Carolina Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a ban on abortion after six weeks, ruling the restriction enacted by the Deep South state violates a state constitutional right to privacy. With federal abortion protections gone, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued in July under the South Carolina constitution’s right to privacy. Currently, South Carolina bars most abortions at about 20 weeks beyond fertilization, or the gestational age of 22 weeks. In South Carolina, lawyers representing the state Legislature have argued the right to privacy should be interpreted narrowly. South Carolina Democratic House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford said any continuation of Republicans’ “war on women” is a deliberate waste of taxpayer dollars.
☆ South Carolina Supreme Court overturns state abortion ban
  + stars: | 2023-01-05 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com   time to read: +4 min
The decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court is based on the state's own constitution, which, unlike the U.S. Constitution, explicitly gives citizens a right to privacy. President Joe Biden's press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, in a tweet wrote: "We are encouraged by South Carolina's Supreme Court ruling today on the state's extreme and dangerous abortion ban." The South Carolina Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the state's ban on abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy, ruling that the law violated the state's constitutional right to privacy. South Carolina's abortion ban was again blocked in August, this time by the state Supreme Court, after a new lawsuit was filed seeking to invalidate it. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating the federal right to abortion effectively left it up to individual states to regulate pregnancy terminations.
☆ The Supreme Court’s Elections Opening in Moore v. Harper
  + stars: | 2022-12-07 | by ( The Editorial Board | ) www.wsj.com   time to read: 1 min
The Supreme Court’s argument Wednesday in Moore v. Harper is being called a case that will determine the fate of democracy. Or can state courts do it? The dispute in Moore v. Harper involves a House redistricting plan passed in 2021 by the North Carolina Legislature. That map was invalidated by the state Supreme Court, which said it was a partisan gerrymander and therefore prohibited under the state constitution. The North Carolina constitution says nary a word about partisan gerrymandering.
0 next >>
Total: 8