Egyptian men married to Israeli women are to be stripped of their Egyptian citizenship with the Supreme Court ruling to that effect affirming an earlier judgment. Not just that. The children born out of such wedlock are also to lose their citizenship. The highest court of the land went on to say that the Government must start enforcing the judgment.
In the last two decades or so, thousands of Egyptians have come over to Israel in search of work and better life. Some of the reports have pegged the number of such Egyptians at around 30,000, which is certainly no small number.
The case was brought to the court by Nabil Wahsh, a lawyer known for indulging in litigation in the name of religion and nationalism. Wahsh is reported to have remarked, "I brought this case to court as to prevent the creation of a generation disloyal to Egypt. Children of such marriages should not be allowed to perform their military service."
Interior Ministry was directed by the lower court last year to find Egyptian men married to Israelis, but the ruling was appealed against on the grounds that such an issue could only be entered into by the legislature. The Supreme Court did not find much force in the argument.
Canada: SC upholds restrictions on bail hearing reportage
Imposing restrictions on the reporting freedoms of the news agencies, Canada's Supreme Court has upheld the right of the defendants to bar reportage regarding the evidence presented during bail hearings. Several media organizations had approached the Supreme Court in appeal urging it to scrap a law that confers such a right on the defendants.
There is no bar on reporters attending the bail hearing, but if the defendant does not wish anything about the evidence presented before the court to become part of public knowledge, he could exercise his right under the law and have media restrained from reporting the details of the proceedings.
In the 8-1 decision, Justice Marie Deschamps said that the law upheld was an integral part of the measures designed in the interests of trial fairness and also to ensure that the bail hearings are expeditious.
"Accused should be devoting their resources and energy to obtaining their release, not to deciding whether to compromise liberty in order to avoid having evidence aired outside the courtroom," Justice Deschamps wrote.
Chicago to enact new anti-guns law in face of Supreme Court ruling
With the Supreme Court ruling against imposition of restrictions on the rights
of the citizens to own and carry arms, the gun rights battle has once again begun in Chicago, if it had ever let up.
The Government seems determined to do everything within its powers to allow fewest guns in fewest hands being carried to fewest places possible, for which it has taken another step forward in view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling and is set to enact a new law that would be in line with the judgment but still would regulate the use and purchase of firearms in Chicago.
The Supreme Court ruling in question extended gun rights throughout 50 States trashing city's ban on handguns that had been in operation for decades. The Government considers the ordinance necessary to contain the gun violence in Chicago.
Through the law the authorities in Chicago want to disallow any more than one "assembled and operable" firearm in a household with a restriction on taking the firearms outside homes, not even on porches and backyards. One is tempted to ask as to what one is supposed to do if an armed burglar showed up in the porch somehow. Wait, gun in hand, until he enters the house?
The law would also prohibit the sale of firearms with the limits of the city. So, one can keep the gun, but has to purchase it somewhere else and cannot carry it outside. In Mayor Richard Daley's opinion the measures are "reasonable and responsible ordinance" consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
"When the wrong people have access to guns - whoever they are - whether they're gang bangers and drug dealers or abusive parents or sons or daughters, needless violence is more likely to happen, whether it's on our streets or in our homes," he reportedly stated in a written statement.
The gun rights battle seems to be entering another phase. However, those for the gun rights have already won two legal battles - one was when in the 2008 ruling the Supreme Court ruled in favour of allowing Washington, D.C. residents to have guns at home and the second is the one under discussion here.
Michigan Supreme Court punishes two Judges
Taking serious note of judicial lapses, Michigan Supreme Court has ordered a suspension for the duration of two weeks for a Wayne County Circuit Judge and also issued a public censure to a Grand Rapids District Judge.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Richard Halloran Jr. was punished with a public reprimand and a 14-day suspension without pay for resorting to twisted ways to avoid violating the 364-day deadline set for divorce cases in 30 such cases. The Judge dismissed the cases and continued working on them after that, thereby avoiding the violation of the legal deadline on paper.
In the second case, Grand Rapids District Judge Benjamin Logan II received a public reprimand at the hands of the Michigan Supreme Court for intervening personally to secure the release of Kent County Commissioner, James Vaughn, from the custody. Vaughn had been accused and arrested for and finally convicted of assaulting a woman.
It is noteworthy that Judge Halloran was suspended in 2002 by the Supreme Court for 90 days without pay on the charges of exposing himself to an undercover police officer in a rest room at Detroit Metro Airport. The charges were later dismissed and new guidelines were put in place by the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office regarding the use of police decoys to probe sex between consenting adults.