Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $47,400
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 53%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Horowitz: Will Justice Sotomayor Recuse Herself from the upcoming Obama Amnesty Case?

    02/09/2016 9:02:37 PM PST · by Elderberry · 20 replies
    Conservative Review ^ | 2/9/2016 | Daniel Horowitz
    Our judicial branch of government is irrevocably broken, even more so than the other two branches. To begin with, the entire premise of the judiciary being the final arbiter over constitutional questions is wrong. They have usurped power beyond the imagination of our Founders, even those who were skeptical of Article III. Worse, they refuse to use the Constitution as originally conceived as the guideline for determining the constitutionality of laws. Finally, even when applying the Constitution or statutes to relevant cases, they are incapable of divorcing their political views from legal arguments. ...overturning Obama's executive amnesty is the quintessential...
  • Symposium: Why United States v. Texas is the most important case the Court will decide this year

    02/09/2016 8:52:55 PM PST · by Elderberry · 7 replies
    SCOTUSblog ^ | 2/9/2016 | Dan Stein
    The Supreme Court has decided to review certain elements in United States v. Texas. The Supreme Court should leave the injunction in place until a full trial on the merits. There is no urgency to decide this case so long as the administration is restrained from giving out benefits that would be difficult to revoke: work authorization and eligibility for various other benefits. Should the Court lift the injunction and endorse the administration's wildly broad claims of unlimited power to permit millions who are outside the rules stipulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to remain here, then Congress...
  • U.S. Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan

    02/09/2016 7:28:52 PM PST · by Cheerio · 3 replies
    St Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 9 Feb 2016 | Jacob Barker
    WASHINGTON • The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Barack Obama's federal regulations curbing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change. On a 5-4 vote, the court granted a request made by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration’s Clean Power Plan. The move means the regulations will not be in effect while litigation continues over their legality. The brief order from the justices said that the regulations would be on hold until the legal challenge is completed. The court's five conservatives all voted to...
  • Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan

    02/09/2016 3:41:40 PM PST · by CedarDave · 63 replies
    Reuters ^ | February 9, 2016 | Lawrence Hurley
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by blocking federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change. On a 5-4 vote, the court granted a request made by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan. The move means the regulations will not be in effect while litigation continues over whether their legality.
  • Supreme Court likely to hear new “assault weapons” ban case(4th district ruling)

    02/06/2016 7:32:01 AM PST · by rktman · 19 replies ^ | 2/6/2016 | Jazz Shaw
    While it's not a done deal yet, there's a good chance that we may finally be receiving a final decision from the Supreme Court on the question of so called "assault weapons" bans. Back in December, gun rights activists were largely disappointed when SCOTUS decided they would not hear an appeal to Illinois' assault weapons ban, allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand. At the time, I speculated that they were waiting for more lower courts to weigh in on similar challenges around the country to see if there was some sort of consensus or...
  • The immigration case, made simple

    02/05/2016 6:59:12 PM PST · by Elderberry · 3 replies
    SCOTUSblog ^ | 2/5/2016 | Lyle Denniston
    Next week, the blog will publish a series of articles - a symposium - on the major immigration case now under review by the Supreme Court: United States v. Texas. The Justices will hold a hearing on the case in late April. This post provides a basic explanation of that case in non-legal terms. ------ Like every other independent nation, America has the right to decide who comes into the country, to stay or just to visit. But because the borders are not tightly sealed, many foreign nationals enter without official permission and remain. Once here, many of them live...
  • Lawyers for Texas Talk Strategy on SCOTUS Immigration Hearing

    02/04/2016 8:39:44 PM PST · by Elderberry · 6 replies
    The Texas Tribune ^ | 2/3/2016 | Julián Aguilar
    As he prepares to make his fifth trip to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court in perhaps his most high-profile case to date, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller is confident he and his team will prevail and stop President Obama's immigration plan from taking effect. The nation's high court will likely take up Texas v. United States in April. The arguments will focus on Obama's controversial executive order, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, which would shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants in the country from deportation proceedings and allow them...
  • The Supreme Court vs. the President ("take care" clause)

    02/04/2016 5:35:43 AM PST · by reaganaut1 · 11 replies
    New York Times ^ | February 4, 2016 | Linda Greenhouse
    Hard-wired into the Supreme Court’s DNA is the notion that the court doesn’t reach out to decide a constitutional issue if it can resolve a case by interpreting a statute. “The court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it,” is how Justice Louis D. Brandeis expressed this principle of judicial restraint 80 years ago in a concurring opinion to which the court often makes reference. Wow. The “guidance” is the memo that established the deferred-action program, issued in November 2014 by Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security. The Take Care...
  • Trump calls Roberts 'disgraceful' as chief justice, [Clarence] Thomas is his favorite justice

    12/12/2015 6:38:44 PM PST · by WilliamIII · 125 replies
    Star-Tribune ^ | Dec 12 2015 | BILL BARROW Associated Press
    AIKEN, S.C. — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is "disgraceful" and a "disappointment" to conservatives, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Saturday, while praising Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as his favorite member of the high court. "Justice Roberts really let us down. What he did with Obamacare was disgraceful, and I think he did that because he wanted to be popular inside the Beltway," Trump told about 4,000 supporters.
  • Supremes set date to decide 'what is sin'

    02/01/2016 9:46:26 AM PST · by PROCON · 49 replies ^ | Feb. 1, 2016 | BOB UNRUH
    'If this appeal is lost, government becomes head of every religious denomination'It's a case in which the U.S. government has been accused of claiming the authority to "determine what is in fact a sin." The critics, meanwhile, have accused the U.S. Supreme Court of tilting the playing field in advance. But the Little Sisters of the Poor case against the Obamacare law is moving toward a resolution with the U.S. Supreme Court announcing arguments have been scheduled for March 23. The nuns who run elder care centers worldwide are contesting the Obamacare requirement that their employee insurance plans cover abortion...
  • The Face of School Choice

    02/01/2016 8:35:23 AM PST · by Academiadotorg
    Accuracy in Academia ^ | February 1, 2016 | Malcolm A. Kline
    When the media deigns to cover a landmark Supreme Court case involving education, reporters should cultivate sources outside of the educational establishment, lest they run the long-term risk of being caught flatfooted by the ruling and the short-term risk of sacrificing fairness, balance and, yes, accuracy. "Yesterday’s troubling oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association has prompted a flurry of doom-and-gloom stories in the media about the potentially devastating consequences for the union movement of a decision by the high court to overturn 40 years of precedent and outlaw 'agency fee'...
  • Ted Cruz on John Roberts and government shutdown: GOP debate takeaways

    01/18/2016 3:21:30 PM PST · by Perdogg · 13 replies
    SNIP “It is true that after George W. Bush nominated John Roberts, I supported his confirmation. That was a mistake and I regret that,” he said. But he insisted that he’d fought behind the scenes for a more reliable — and proven — conservative jurist, appellate judge Mike Luddig, for whom he had worked.
  • John Roberts Should Be a Quick Confirm.

    01/18/2016 3:10:56 PM PST · by true believer forever · 113 replies
    National Review ^ | July 20, 2005 | Senator Ted Cruz
    "As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him. He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House, and served as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department. As a jurist, Judge Roberts' approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent. He is a mainstream judge, respected across the ideological spectrum. Thus, he's earned praise from liberal icons such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, as well as from Clinton...
  • When Ted Cruz Said John Roberts Is Undoubtedly A Principled Conservative

    02/01/2016 2:27:43 AM PST · by Sontagged · 136 replies
    Daily Caller ^ | 9/17/2015 | Alex Pappas
    When Ted Cruz Said John Roberts Is *Undoubtedly A Principled Conservative* During Wednesday*s debate, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said his past support for the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts *was a mistake and I regret that*. Cruz argued during CNN*s Reagan library debate that former President George W. Bush nominated Roberts *because it was the easier choice* and he wasn*t *willing to spend political capital to put a strong judicial conservative on the court.* But as critics are pointing out, Cruz, who worked on the Bush campaign and later in the administration as a lawyer, was effusive in...
  • Trump -- even weaker than Clinton

    01/30/2016 7:55:58 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 39 replies
    The Washington Examiner ^ | January 30, 2016 | Editorial Staff
    In the year 2020, Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will turn 85 years old. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will turn 87. Justice Stephen Breyer will turn 82. Perhaps they will all live and serve on the Supreme Court for another decade. More likely, some or all of them will retire. This means that by the end of his or her first term, the person elected president this year will almost certainly reshape the Supreme Court for the next generation. And if that person is Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, even if she loses in Iowa,...
  • STANDING: What It Is And Why It Matters To The Supreme Court And To Us

    01/30/2016 12:33:35 PM PST · by Elderberry · 8 replies
    SCOTUS 101: Standing This is the first in a series of "explainers" about the U.S. v Texas immigration case the Supreme Court agreed to take up in 2015. They will explain important legal terms in ways that we hope you will find understandable. Today we will explain the issue of "standing." STANDING: What it is and why it matters to the Supreme Court and to us When the Supreme Court hears arguments on the immigration executive action case, the first question the Justices will have to decide is whether Texas and the other states on this lawsuit even have the...
  • Supreme Court Sets Date for Little Sisters of the Poor’s Challenge to Obama HHS Mandate

    01/30/2016 10:50:43 AM PST · by Morgana · 16 replies ^ | Steven Ertelt
    The Supreme Court has set the date for oral arguments for Little Sisters of the Poor’s challenge to the Obama HHS mandate. The nation’s highest court will hear debate from attorneys representing the Catholic religious order and the Obama administration on Wednesday, March 23 at 10 a.m. The Little Sisters of the Poor are asking the nation’s highest court to ensure they do not have to comply with Obamacare’s abortion mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions. Without relief, the Little Sisters would face millions of dollars in IRS fines...
  • Hillary: Hey, wouldn't it be great to have -- Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama?

    01/28/2016 2:24:16 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 43 replies
    Hotair ^ | 01/28/2016 | Ed Morrissey
    Wow, indeed. When this cycle began, Hillary Clinton tried running to her Left and away from Barack Obama and his administration, hoping to pre-empt Bernie Sanders and co-opt the progressive populism that has seized the Democratic Party’s primary fight. Clearly that effort has not succeeded, so Hillary appears to have decided to offer herself as the third Obama term as well as the third Clinton term. In fact, she went so far Tuesday night as to declare herself wowed by a suggestion that she keep Obama in Washington for a lifetime — as a member of the Supreme Court:...
  • 26 states ask Supreme Court to halt Obama’s carbon emissions plan

    01/27/2016 9:02:38 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 9 replies
    Hotair ^ | 01/27/2016 | Jazz Shaw
    This should be interesting. One state after another have been pushing back on the new EPA carbon emission guidelines, with many of them refusing to file a plan for compliance until the courts have weighed in. Now some of the biggest energy producing states are trying to bring the situation to a head well in advance of the normal challenge and appeal process. Led by West Virginia and Texas, 26 states have filed a request directly with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to step in and put the regulations on hold while the situation gets sorted...
  • Hillary Clinton Would Consider Appointing President Obama to Supreme Court

    01/26/2016 6:11:18 PM PST · by TigerClaws · 60 replies
    A second Clinton administration could mean a future Justice Barack Obama. At a campaign event in Deocorah, Iowa on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton lit up when a voter asked her if she would consider appointing the president to the Supreme Court should she win the White House. "Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow," the Democratic presidential candidate responded. "He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that's a great idea."
  • Obama on Supreme Court? 'A great idea,' Clinton says

    01/26/2016 5:20:45 PM PST · by BenLurkin · 18 replies
    CNN ^ | 6:49 PM ET, Tue January 26, 2016 | Dam Merica
    Barack Obama will be out of a job next year. And one voter in Iowa had a suggestion for Hillary Clinton, should she become president: Nominate him to the Supreme Court. "Wow. What a great idea. Nobody has ever suggested that to me. Wow," Clinton said to laughter and applause from the audience. "He may have a few other things to do," Clinton added. After noting how the next president will nominate "at least three" Supreme Court justices and that she isn't happy with the current Supreme Court, Clinton went back to the voter's question. "I would certainly take that...
  • President or king? Translated, that’s what the Supreme Court is asking about Obama.

    01/25/2016 4:28:26 PM PST · by Elderberry · 14 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | 1/25/2016 | Fred Barbash
    All is forgiven if you're not familiar with the "take care" clause in Article II of the Constitution about the presidency, the words that say "he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court hasn't fooled with it in many years. The words are buried below the State of the Union clause, and the business of receiving "Ambassadors and other public Ministers." They lack resonance; they sound polite. But their meaning, traced back through hundreds of years of history and translated into today's colloquial English is indeed a command: They mean "Mr. President, don't act like...
  • In a blow to capital punishment foes, Supreme Court reinstates 3 death sentences (Wichita Massacre)

    01/25/2016 7:15:07 PM PST · by heartwood · 55 replies
    LA Times ^ | 1/20/2016 | David G. Savage
    The Supreme Court restored death sentences Wednesday for three Kansas murderers by an 8-1 vote, undercutting predictions by some that a majority of the justices is ready to strike down capital punishment nationwide. Speaking in court, Justice Antonin Scalia described the "notorious Wichita Massacre" in which two brothers broke into a home, tortured five young men and women and then took them to a snowy field where they were "shot in the back of the head, execution-style." Amazingly, one young woman survived when a hair clip deflected a bullet, and she later testified against Reginald and Jonathan Carr. A jury...
  • Convict in Houston Carjack Slayings Loses at Supreme Court

    01/25/2016 4:43:35 PM PST · by nickcarraway · 11 replies
    NBC DFW ^ | 1/25
    The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review an appeal from a 27-year-old Houston man on death row for the shooting deaths of a young couple during a carjacking nearly 10 years ago. The high court, without comment Monday, rejected the case of Dexter Darnell Johnson. SNIP He does not yet have an execution date.
  • Bernie Sanders: My SCOTUS choice will overturn Citizens United

    01/25/2016 10:48:53 AM PST · by Sean_Anthony · 17 replies
    Canada Free Press ^ | 01/25/16 | Dan Calabrese
    Do you know how the Supreme Court works? I want to try to give Bernie Sanders the benefit of the doubt here, but he’s not making it easy. Maybe he just meant that some case will inevitably be on the docket involving Citizens United, since liberals have rarely been more incensed about anything. Maybe he just meant, er . . . help me here, I really don’t know how to explain this one away. It really sounds to me like the guy, who is after all a United States Senator, has no earthly idea how the Supreme Court works: Any...
  • Supreme Court will not allow North Dakota law banning abortions as early as 6 weeks(shortened)

    01/25/2016 10:16:07 AM PST · by justlittleoleme · 19 replies
    Newser ^ | 1/25/2016 | JAMES MacPHERSON
    Full Title: "The Supreme Court will not allow North Dakota to enforce a law banning abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected as early as 6 weeks into a pregnancy" The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to review lower court rulings overturning North Dakota's ban on abortion at six weeks of pregnancy -- before many women know they're pregnant. -snip- North Dakota's Republican-dominated legislature approved the law in 2013, though it was quickly put on hold after the state's lone abortion clinic, the Red River Clinic in Fargo, filed a lawsuit that July. Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple has called...
  • Realigning the Courts with the Constitution

    01/25/2016 9:27:33 AM PST · by C19fan · 7 replies
    Jeb! 2016 ^ | January 24, 2016 | Jeb Bush
    The next presidential election will help to determine whether we move further away from constitutional government, or make a critical course correction. Most Supreme Court watchers agree that the next president will significantly influence the court’s course for at least the next decade, maybe longer. With vacancies possible across the Supreme Court’s ideological spectrum, and in the lower federal courts as well, the stakes are high. Nothing less than preserving the form of government our Founders gave us—with limited powers, and accountability to the people—is at stake.
  • What’s at Stake - The Supreme Court, that’s What !

    01/25/2016 7:43:28 AM PST · by justlittleoleme · 39 replies
    Canada Free Press ^ | January 25, 2016 | Chuck Lehmann
    Coming up during the next administration will be 3 or possibly 4 openings to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. If you elect, as president, someone who will appoint activist judges, who will tend to have a "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution, then you can expect to see a wholesale change to our society as we know it. -snip- If the Democrats retain the White House, you can expect potential nominees to make decisions, if confirmed, who will promote the far-left agenda as personified by the four liberal judges now sitting on the Supreme Court (i.e. Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and...
  • This is Ted Cruz's Plan For the Supreme Court

    01/25/2016 8:03:19 AM PST · by justlittleoleme · 283 replies
    Fortune ^ | December 2, 2015 | Ben Geier
    Liberals won't like it. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he has big plans for the Supreme Court -- namely, picking extremely conservative candidates to fill any vacancies among the nine justices. In an interview with Bloomberg, the Senator and former solicitor general from Texas said that Republicans are generally bad at picking nominees for the high court, and that he'd be different. "Unlike many of the other candidates, I will be willing to spend the capital to ensure that every Supreme Court nominee that I put on the court is a principled judicial conservative," Cruz said. As solicitor general,...
  • Supreme Court Tone Appears to Favor Ending Agency Fees to Unions

    01/20/2016 10:05:30 AM PST · by MichCapCon · 4 replies
    Capitol Confidential ^ | 1/17/2016 | Jason Hart
    A group of California teachers fighting mandatory union fees at the U.S. Supreme Court had, by all appearances, a good day Monday. Supreme Court justices seemed receptive to the arguments brought by teachers in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case. If the case is successful, Rebecca Friedrichs and other government workers across the nation will gain the ability to opt out of agency fees unions charge to nonmembers. Remarks from several of the justices indicated they agree with Friedrichs on a central point, that public sector union negotiations are inherently political because they involve taxpayer money, public employees, and...
  • Supreme Court bombshell: Does Obama’s immigration guidance violate the Take Care Clause?

    01/20/2016 7:32:28 AM PST · by yoe · 23 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | January 19, 2016 | David Bernstein
    In the process of granting review of the decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, invalidating the Obama administration’s immigration guidance granting de facto (albeit revocable) legal status to hundreds of thousands of undocumented residents of the United States, the Supreme Court unleashed a bombshell. Without any explicit request from the parties, the court (added the following question for review): “Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3.” This is a stunning development. The clause states that “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is...
  • Supreme Court refuses to take another Obamacare case

    01/19/2016 9:26:51 AM PST · by PROCON · 42 replies
    washingtontimes ^ | Jan. 19, 2016 | Tom Howell Jr.
    The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to take up an appeal that says Congress flouted the Constitution by kick-starting Obamacare in the wrong chamber. Justices have already weighed in on the Affordable Care Act's mandates, government subsidies and birth control rules, but declined to wade into a bid by a conservative group to scrap the entire law based on the origination clause drafted by the Founding Fathers. The Pacific Legal Foundation said the Affordable Care Act of 2010 raises hundreds of billions in taxes, making it a revenue bill subject to the founders' vision for which chamber should act first. Since...
  • BREAKING: Supreme Court to rule on Obama immigration orders

    01/19/2016 6:37:18 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 98 replies
    Politico ^ | 01/19/2016 | Josh Gerstein
    The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will take up a case challenging the legality of President Barack Obama's executive actions aimed at granting quasi-legal status and work permits to up to five million people who entered the U.S. illegally as children or who have children who are American citizens. The high court's widely-expected move gives Obama a chance to revive a key legacy item that has been in limbo for nearly a year, since a federal judge in Texas issued an order halting immigration moves the president announced just after the 2014 midterm elections.
  • U.S. justices take no action on Obama immigration case

    01/15/2016 4:56:41 PM PST · by PJ-Comix · 12 replies
    Reuters ^ | January 15, 2016 | LAWRENCE HURLEY
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday took no immediate action on whether it will hear President Barack Obama's bid to revive his plan to shield more than 4 million immigrants from deportation, a move that bypassed the Republican-led Congress. The case was not on the list of new cases the court agreed on Friday to take up. The court could make an announcement next week on whether it will hear the immigration dispute. If the justices hear the case it would become one of the centerpiece cases of its current term, which runs until June.
  • Donald Trump Calls Chief Justice John Roberts a 'Nightmare for Conservatives'

    01/17/2016 11:50:22 AM PST · by springwater13 · 186 replies
    Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has "turned out to be a nightmare for conservatives," and put some of the blame for Roberts' presence on the Court on 2016 rival Sen. Ted Cruz. "Cruz fought like hell to get Justice Roberts in there. Justice Roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster, he turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us Obamacare." Trump told ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday. Trump repeatedly went after Cruz, who served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice William...
  • The US Government Has An Internet Killswitch — And It’s None Of Your Business

    01/15/2016 2:14:18 AM PST · by hughesm1 · 40 replies
    Mint Press News ^ | 14 JAN 2016 | Derrick Broze
    The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition concerning the Department of Homeland Security's secretive internet and cellphone killswitch program. On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) that sought to force the Department of Homeland Security to release details of a secret 'killswitch' protocol to shut down cellphone and internet service during emergencies. EPIC has been fighting since 2011 to release the details of the program, which is known as Standard Operating Procedure 303. EPIC writes: "On March 9, 2006, the National Communications System ('NCS') approved SOP 303, however...
  • Supreme Court strikes down Florida's death penalty system

    01/14/2016 11:23:02 AM PST · by Lurking Libertarian · 16 replies
    The Los Angeles Times ^ | January 12, 2016 | David G. Savage
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Florida's death penalty system on the grounds that judges, not juries, decide the key facts that determine whether a killer is condemned to die. In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said this judge-driven system violates a defendant's right to a jury trial. The ruling will likely give new sentencing hearings to inmates who were recently sentenced to death in Florida, but the justices in the past have said such new rulings do not apply automatically to old cases. Tuesday's ruling relied on a 2002 decision that struck down Arizona's judge-driven system for...
  • SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Puerto Rico Double Jeopardy and Sovereignty Case

    01/13/2016 12:35:11 PM PST · by cll · 8 replies
    The argued case relates to the matter of the sovereignty (or lack of) of the several territories of the United States (Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands) in a double-jeopardy case. In essence, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court Court ruled that the island is under the total control of the U.S. Congress according to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution and that as such, it lacks the sovereignty of a regular U.S. State, and that because of that a defendant already tried in the federal district court cannot be tried for the...
  • Supreme Court Strikes Down Florida Death Penalty Law

    01/12/2016 7:58:52 AM PST · by Zakeet · 17 replies
    NBC News ^ | January 12, 2016 | Pete Williams
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Florida's death penalty law unconstitutional. Florida requires the trial judge, not the jury to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty.
  • US Supreme Court lets stand rejection of pro-Israel ad

    01/11/2016 10:04:42 PM PST · by Olog-hai · 19 replies
    INN ^ | 1/11/2016, 10:00 PM | Cynthia Blank
    The US Supreme Court rejected on Monday an appeal from a pro-Israel group seeking to place ads on the Boston-area mass transit system, AP reports. The ads are sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), also known as Stop Islamization of American, and they describe the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a war between the "civilized man and the savage." The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) initially rejected the AFDI ads, asserting they could be construed as "demeaning or disparaging" to Palestinian Arabs and Muslims. ...
  • Supreme Court Seems Poised to Deal Unions a Major Setback

    01/11/2016 11:24:41 AM PST · by Cincinatus' Wife · 31 replies
    New York Times ^ | January 11, 2016 | ADAM LIPTAK
    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court seemed poised on Monday to deliver a severe blow to organized labor. The justices appeared divided along familiar lines during an extended argument over whether government workers who choose not to join unions may nonetheless be required to help pay for collective bargaining. The court's conservative majority appeared ready to say that such compelled financial support violates the First Amendment Collective bargaining, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, is inherently political when the government is the employer, and issues like merit pay, promotions and classroom size are subject to negotiation. The best hope for a victory...
  • Sowell: 'Messing With the Constitution'

    01/11/2016 11:34:38 AM PST · by jazusamo · 54 replies
    Creators Syndicate ^ | January 12, 2016 | Thomas Sowell
    In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention. The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an...
  • Supreme Court may free teachers from forced union dues

    01/10/2016 2:19:26 PM PST · by Kaslin · 26 replies
    Hot ^ | January 10, 2016 | Jason Hart
    Monday the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case that could bring freedom from forced union fees to teachers and other public employees across the country. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Rebecca Friedrichs is asking for the right to choose whether to pay a labor union. Because California isn’t a right-to-work state, she has to pay nearly $1,000 per year in union fees in order to teach.Those mandatory fees, the legal reasoning goes, are permissible because they cover costs CTA, CTA’s local chapter, and the National Education Association incur representing nonmembers. Forced union fees cannot be spent on...
  • Little Sisters of the Poor Appeal to Supreme Court for Protection Against Feds

    01/09/2016 2:21:59 PM PST · by NYer · 16 replies
    Aletelia ^ | January 9, 2016 | JOHN BURGER
    Seventy million dollars is a lot of dough for a group named the Little Sisters of the Poor.But that's what the religious order says it will be forced to pay the government if they continue to refuse to arrange for insurance that provides lay employees coverage for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization.This week, the sisters, along with several Christian colleges and other entities, filed a brief with the Supreme Court, which is hearing a challenge to the Obamacare "Contraceptive Mandate" in March.The religious objectors are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Alliance Defending Freedom."The Little Sisters...
  • "My Abortion" stories meant to sway Supreme Court, change public perceptions

    01/07/2016 3:00:29 PM PST · by presidio9 · 45 replies
    Modern Healthcare ^ | January 7, 2016 | Lisa Schencker
    More than 110 prominent members of the legal profession shared stories about their abortions with the U.S. Supreme Court this week to try and persuade it to rule against a Texas law that they say limits access to the procedures. Their stories are part of a campaign encouraging women to talk openly about their experiences. In addition to the amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court (PDF), women have also been sharing their stories online. "People are just hungry for breaking the silence that has sadly, unfortunately surrounded abortion for years and years and years by speaking out about their...
  • Little Sisters of the Poor nuns will take Obamacare birth control mandate to Supreme Court

    01/05/2016 5:00:52 PM PST · by Nachum · 13 replies
    Washington Times ^ | 1/5/16 | Tom Howell, Jr.
    An elder-care charity run by nuns asked the Supreme Court on Monday to shield them from Obamacare’s birth control mandate, arguing that the government can provide their organizations’ female employees with contraceptives if it really wants to but shouldn’t force them to facilitate the coverage. Attorneys for the Little Sisters of the Poor and three Christian colleges say the administration already has exempted a series of employers, undercutting its push to force religiously affiliated groups to formally opt out of the regulations so that a third party can step in and pay for the drugs and services. “It is
  • Ted Cruz: Supreme Court Will Dismantle Second Amendment if Hillary Clinton Is Elected President

    01/04/2016 8:36:11 PM PST · by Isara · 79 replies
    The Blaze ^ | Jan. 4, 2016 | Leigh Munsil
    WINTERSET, Iowa - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Monday warned voters that their Second Amendment rights are in jeopardy if they elect Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton this November."If Hillary Clinton is elected president, the Supreme Court will rule that no individual American has any individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever," the Texas senator said. "And the government can make it a felony for you to own a firearm and protect your family."The GOP candidate and Iowa frontrunner backed up his claim by arguing that the next president will likely be responsible for naming anywhere from one to...
  • (Supreme Court) Argument preview: New threat to public employee unions

    01/04/2016 1:23:48 PM PST · by aimhigh · 7 replies
    Scotus Blog ^ | 01/04/2015 | Lyle Denniston
    Next Monday, January 11, when the Supreme Court returns from its holiday recess, it will devote an expanded argument to a case that has made unions which represent government workers deeply fearful for their financial future and their public stature. A significant blow to their treasuries could come if non-union workers are able to turn broad hints by the Supreme Court into final victory in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Since 1977, the Court has allowed public-sector unions to charge the non-members whom they represent fees to cover the cost of bargaining over working conditions that will benefit those non-members...
  • Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    05/11/2010 11:37:57 AM PDT · by ianschwartz · 20 replies · 1,083+ views
    Kagan Watch ^ | May 11, 2010 | Kagan Watch
    In May of 2009, Elena Kagan, as US solicitor general, filed papers with the US Supreme Court encouraging it not to listen to arguments in a lawsuit against the Saudi Arabian government. The suit was filed by thousands of family members and victims of the 9/11 terror attacks on the US.
  • Scalia Dismisses Concept of Religious Neutrality in Speech

    01/02/2016 12:56:42 PM PST · by Isara · 21 replies
    AP via Newsmax ^ | Saturday, 02 Jan 2016
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.Scalia was speaking Saturday at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie,.....Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.He told the audience at the Catholic school that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.He also said there is "nothing wrong" with...