HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Layoffs  NaturalBornCitizen  FastandFurious  OPSEC  Benghazi  Libya  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice  Donate

Dear FRiends, Your loyal support makes Free Republic possible and your continuing participation makes FR the number one grassroots pro-life conservative forum on the planet! If you have not yet made your donation, please click here and do so now. Thank you very much, Jim Robinson

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $25,104
28%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 28% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Supreme Court Weighs Bizarre Private Property Seizure

    04/20/2015 8:22:33 AM PDT · by No One Special · 13 replies
    newsmax ^ | April 19, 2015 | George Will
    In oral arguments Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the government defend its kleptocratic behavior while administering an indefensible law. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 is among the measures by which New Dealers tried and failed to regulate and mandate America back to prosperity. Seventy-eight years later, it is the government's reason for stealing Marvin and Laura Horne's raisins. New Dealers had bushels of theories, including this: In a depression, prices fall, so a recovery will occur when government compels prices to stabilize above where a free market would put them. So FDR's "brains trust" produced "price stabilization"...
  • Antonin Scalia: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The high Court’s counterweight

    04/19/2015 2:29:20 PM PDT · by EveningStar · 37 replies
    Time ^ | April 16, 2015 | Antonin Scalia
    ... Having had the good fortune to serve beside [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] on [the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court], I can attest that her opinions are always thoroughly considered, always carefully crafted and almost always correct (which is to say we sometimes disagree). That much is apparent for all to see ...
  • Shriveled grapes, shriveled liberty

    04/19/2015 1:59:34 PM PDT · by afraidfortherepublic · 4 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | 4-19-15 | George Will
    In oral arguments Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the government defend its kleptocratic behavior while administering an indefensible law. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 is among the measures by which New Dealers tried and failed to regulate and mandate America back to prosperity. Seventy-eight years later, it is the government’s reason for stealing Marvin and Laura Horne’s raisins. New Dealers had bushels of theories, including this: In an economic depression, prices fall, so a recovery will occur when government compels prices to stabilize above where a free market would put them. So Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “brains trust”...
  • HHS mandate loses again: Supreme Court order protects Pennsylvania Catholic groups

    04/18/2015 3:38:56 PM PDT · by NYer · 10 replies
    cna ^ | April 18, 2015
    U.S. Supreme Court. Washington D.C., Apr 18, 2015 / 04:25 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Supreme Court has continued its trend of decisions stopping enforcement of a federal contraception mandate against religious employers with moral objections. On April 15, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order barring the federal government from enforcing the mandate against Catholic Charities affiliates, Catholic schools and social service organizations in the dioceses of Erie and Pittsburgh. “Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them,” Lori Windham, senior counsel for...
  • The Jujitsu of Same-Sex Marriage: One Last Surge of Reflection for the Court

    04/17/2015 10:23:05 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 72 replies
    First Things ^ | April 14, 2015 | Professor Hadley Arkes
    There has been no want of “writing on the wall” about the upcoming cases on marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas could not help but remark on the point that a majority of his colleagues had already, and gracelessly, signaled their “intended resolution of that question.” And yet, writers and lawyers on both sides continue to expend their genius in writing briefs for the Court, clinging to the possibility that the words they set down may yet tip the balance. But as the arguments pour forth, the curious asymmetry is that only one side is offering substantive arguments. Justice Kennedy has maintained...
  • Supreme Court: Obama Admin Can’t Make Religious Groups Obey Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate

    04/17/2015 6:15:32 AM PDT · by xzins · 44 replies
    Life News ^ | Apr 16, 2015 | Steven Ertelt
    The Supreme Court issued an order today preventing the Obama administration from forcing religious groups in Pennsylvania to obey the HHS mandate that requires them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has rebuked the Obama administration and prevented it from making such a mandate. In an order issued last night, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito prevented the federal government from enforcing its contraceptive mandate against a range of Pennsylvania-based religious organizations including Catholic Charities and other Catholic schools and social service organizations connected with the Diocese of Erie and the...
  • Evolution: Hillary no longer wants marriage left to states, hopes the Supreme Court rules for SSM

    04/15/2015 6:46:25 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 3 replies
    Hotair ^ | 04/15/2015 | AllahPundit
    I know what you’re thinking. Didn’t she long ago hop aboard the gay-marriage bandwagon, knowing that it’s now an absolute litmus test for Democrats? Granted, she only formally expressed her support for SSM in 2013, but surely that support encompassed a Supreme Court ruling on equal protection legalizing gay marriage nationwide. The left might tolerate her being a Wall Street crony and a hawk and about 8,000 other things they profess to loathe, but they won’t tolerate her thwarting their “Selma envy” by hedging on gay marriage. They let Obama slide on that in 2008 because it was still...
  • Michigan AG's legal team defends fight to uphold same-sex marriage ban

    04/09/2015 7:51:53 PM PDT · by cripplecreek · 12 replies
    Mlive.com ^ | April 09, 2015 | Matt Vande Bunte
    GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- The lawyer arguing in favor of Michigan's same-sex marriage ban before the Supreme Court later this month defended the state's pursuit of the case, despite the fact that it runs contrary to a wide swing in public opinion since a 2004 voter-approved definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. "It's the attorney general's job to defend the (Michigan) Constitution whether he thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea," said John Bursch, the special assistant attorney general who will argue the case before the high court. In a March 31 meeting with...
  • Church braces for same-sex marriage decision (from SCOTUS)

    04/09/2015 2:32:15 PM PDT · by NYer · 62 replies
    OSV ^ | April 9, 2015 | RUSSELL SHAW
    Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaks at the March for Marriage near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., last June. CNS photo Same-sex marriage currently is legal in 36 states — or 37, depending on the outcome of a dispute between state and federal courts in Alabama. But in only 11 of those states was it legalized by referendums or legislation. In the others, it was imposed by courts.It is generally expected, though not certain, that the Supreme Court soon will follow this pattern and impose same-sex marriage nationwide. The court on April 28 will devote two...
  • ‘A Bonhoeffer moment’: Evangelical leaders vow civil disobedience if SCOTUS redefines marriage

    04/08/2015 11:52:51 AM PDT · by wagglebee · 54 replies
    LifeSiteNews ^ | 4/7/15 | Ben Johnson
    April 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dozens of Christian leaders have vowed they will not remain silent, as they did following the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, promising to take nonviolent direct action if the High Court votes to redefine marriage.The Supreme Court is deciding two separate issues: Whether the 14th Amendment guarantees same-sex “marriage” as a constitutional right, and whether states must honor same-sex “marriages” contracted in states that have voted – or, more likely, where an unelected judge has forcibly determined – to redefine marriage.“We believe that the majority of the Court will rule in favor of elevating...
  • Supremes warned: 'God's judgment' now looming

    04/07/2015 7:50:10 PM PDT · by NKP_Vet · 31 replies
    http://www.wnd.com ^ | April 7, 2015 | Bob Unruh
    In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment. And that’s probably not going to turn out well. The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin. The Supreme Court is to hear arguments...
  • Cruz touts radical court-stripping scheme (Ref: Homosexual “Marriage”)

    04/08/2015 12:28:45 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 38 replies
    MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show ^ | April 7, 2015 | Steve Benen
    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was in Iowa yesterday, where the presidential hopeful reflected on the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling endorsing marriage equality. The far-right senator told his audience, “The first thing and I think the most important thing every one of us can do, is pray. Lift up in prayer.” But as the Dallas Morning News noted, that’s not all Cruz said. He reiterated his vow to press for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the power of state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the high court does legalize...
  • What Will the Court Do to Marriage?

    04/07/2015 4:22:03 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 16 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | April 7, 2015 | Phyllis Schlafly
    If you get your news primarily from entertainment shows or social media, you might think that same-sex marriage has already been recognized as a constitutional right. In fact, the Supreme Court held just the opposite in 1972 and has since refused several opportunities to revisit that ruling. A new hearing will be held on April 28, and defenders of the traditional definition of marriage are just now having their say. On Friday, dozens of briefs were filed in the Supreme Court, urging the Court not to take the step that liberals have declared to be inevitable. The first of those...
  • Laurence Tribe Fights Climate Case Against Star Pupil From Harvard, President Obama

    04/07/2015 6:08:16 AM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 20 replies
    New York Times ^ | April 6, 2015 | By CORAL DAVENPORT
    Laurence H. Tribe, the highly regarded liberal scholar of constitutional law, still speaks of President Obama as a proud teacher would of a star student. “He was one of the most amazing research assistants I’ve ever had,” Mr. Tribe said in a recent interview. Mr. Obama worked for him at Harvard Law School, where Mr. Tribe has taught for four decades. Many in the Obama administration and at Harvard are bewildered and angry that Mr. Tribe, who argued on behalf of Al Gore in the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, has emerged as the leading legal opponent of...
  • Satan’s Superbowl: “Gay Marriage” at SCOTUS

    04/06/2015 8:36:09 AM PDT · by fwdude · 18 replies
    Scott Lively Ministries ^ | April 3, 2015 | Scott Lively
    Friends, This article was published in my snail-mail newsletter on March 20, 2015 but I have decided to publish it here as well in light of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act debacle http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/changes-to-indiana-law-largest-step-ever-toward-gay-rights/ which confirms my thesis. I take no joy in being right in this prediction. Satan’s Superbowl During the 1992 election cycle I was the Communications Director for Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) during the Measure 9 campaign to amend Oregon’s constitution to define homosexuality as “abnormal, unnatural and perverse” (the Biblical perspective in secular terms). From the initial filing of the ballot measure language in April, 1991...
  • Who Will Be Blamed for <i>King v. Burwell</i> ‘Chaos’?

    04/06/2015 4:38:42 AM PDT · by rootin tootin · 13 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 4/6/2015 | David Catron
    A Supreme Court ruling against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell, according to conventional Beltway wisdom, will create serious political problems for governors and legislators in the 34 states that declined to set up Obamacare insurance exchanges. Most of these officials are Republicans, the thinking goes, and will thus be blamed for letting petty partisanship deprive their constituents of subsidies while plunging state insurance markets into chaos. Public wrath, we are told, will eventually force them to create PPACA exchanges. However, a new voter survey conducted in the affected states suggests that this is very unlikely to occur. According...
  • In Case You Missed It, Obamacare Just Logged a Major Victory at the Supreme Court

    04/04/2015 6:45:17 PM PDT · by EveningStar · 59 replies
    The Motley Fool ^ | April 4, 2015 | Sean Williams
    ... Regardless of whether you're a supporter or opponent of Obamacare, you may have missed an important "ruling" from the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week that resulted in Obamacare logging a key victory. The case, Coons vs. Lew, was initially brought to court in 2011 by business owner Nick Coons and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Eric Novack. The two, with the help of additional legal backing, alleged that the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, would trim Medicare costs and potentially hurt their business by instituting reimbursement levels that wouldn't cover their own expenses. These allegations are where the term...
  • Seven Questions for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates

    04/04/2015 6:53:25 AM PDT · by lqcincinnatus · 68 replies
    Virtue Online ^ | April 3, 2015 | Rev. John C. Rankin
    At the simplest level, there are seven questions central to the debate over same-sex marriage that rarely if ever gain public review. I have written on them below, and what you read here has been refashioned for proper presentation before the United States Supreme Court when it reviews four cases on the matter April 28, 2015. 1. What is the Source for Unalienable Rights? 2. Is Marriage a Right or a Liberty? 3. How Does the Creator Define Human Sexuality? 4. God-given Rights or Human-defined Rights? 5. Is the Declaration of Independence Honored Anymore? 6. Can a Healthy Social Order...
  • American flag case: U.S. Supreme Court ends Morgan Hill flap over shirts

    03/30/2015 2:46:30 PM PDT · by artichokegrower · 30 replies
    San Jose Mercury ^ | 03/30/2015 | Howard Mintz
    Turning away a legal plea literally wrapped in the American flag, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to intervene in a controversial case involving a South Bay high school's discipline of students who chose to wear flag-adorned shirts during a 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration. The high court's action left intact a federal appeals court ruling last year that found Live Oak High School officials had the legal right to order students wearing the American flag shirts to turn them inside out or go home.
  • Supreme Court Won’t Hear Lawsuit Challenging Death Panels in Obamacare

    03/30/2015 8:25:53 AM PDT · by wagglebee · 31 replies
    Life News ^ | 3/30/15 | Steven Ertelt
    The Supreme Court today decided it will not hear a lawsuit challenging the death panels in Obamacare that pro-life groups strongly opposed because they involve rationing health care and potentially denying lifesaving medical treatment — putting patients’ right to life at risk.Previously, one of the leading national pro-life groups called for legislation to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board established by the controversial Obamacare legislation because of pro-life concerns about it.“Repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is critical to prevent the rationing of life-saving medical treatment,” said Burke Balch, J.D., director of National Right to Life’s Robert Powell...
  • Supreme Court may hear case on school barring American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo

    03/29/2015 2:38:23 PM PDT · by PROCON · 32 replies
    latimes ^ | March 29, 2015 | David G. Savage
    A California school dispute that arose when students wore shirts emblazoned with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo could prompt the Supreme Court to take a new look at free-speech rules for high schools. Ever since students protested the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands, the justices have said the 1st Amendment protects the rights of students to peacefully protest at school, so long as their actions do not lead to a "substantial disruption." In recent years, however, some school officials have moved to curtail political fashion statements such as wearing T-shirts with Confederate flags or anti-gay slogans. They...
  • Supreme Court decision a 'victory for pregnant women' in workplace

    03/27/2015 11:31:24 AM PDT · by Citizen Zed · 13 replies
    Peggy Young, a pregnant mother, was a driver for UPS. Though other workers received a “lighter duty” accommodation for conditions like sprained ankles, Ms. Young was denied an accommodation during her pregnancy, in violation of the federal PDA. Ms. Young lost in the two lower courts, and today the United States Supreme Court reversed their decisions in favor of Ms. Young. Ironically, during the course of the legal action, UPS changed its policy to grant “light-duty” to pregnant employees. The case drew widespread attention as pro-life advocates agreed with abortion supporters that pregnant women deserved protection in the workplace.
  • Nine Obamacare takeover elements at stake in King v. Burwell

    03/25/2015 7:34:19 PM PDT · by TurboZamboni · 9 replies
    The Hill ^ | 3-9-15 | Twila Brase
    As the Supreme Court considers oral arguments in the King v. Burwell Obamacare subsidy case, the media is awash in claims that a King win will be a political disaster, forcing Republicans to save the illegal Obamacare subsidies issued in the 37 states without a state-based exchange. But the real disaster is the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the dangers the federal takeover of healthcare poses for patients, doctors, pocketbooks and health freedom. These very real dangers include: Socializing Medicine – The ACA sets up Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to nationalize the delivery of medical care. ACOs, sometimes called “HMOs...
  • Obamacare’s Fate? Here’s What A Key Supreme Court Justice Just Said That Could Be A Huge Clue

    03/25/2015 12:11:01 PM PDT · by Jim Robinson · 40 replies
    Western Journalism ^ | March 24, 2015 | by NORVELL ROSE
    As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case whose outcome could prove to be a death blow to Obamacare — the case known as King v. Burwell challenging whether enrollees through the federal signup site, healthcare.gov, are entitled to premium-reducing subsidies — one key justice has casually dropped what could be a huge clue to his thinking. And this potential clue suggests to some court watchers that Justice Anthony Kennedy — who often casts the high court’s swing vote — may be siding with plaintiffs who want to gut a key part of Obamacare and likely bring the law crashing...
  • Wisconsin Is Finally Free to Implement Voter ID Law

    03/23/2015 4:47:58 PM PDT · by afraidfortherepublic · 15 replies
    The Daily Signal ^ | 3-23-15 | Hans von Spakovsky
    Great news for those interested in election integrity and common sense reforms like voter ID: the Supreme Court today removed the final legal obstacle to implementing Wisconsin’s voter ID law. The Court refused to hear the American Civil Liberties Union’s appeal of a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that threw out the injunction issued against the state’s ID law by federal district court Judge Lynn Adelman. Adelman, a Clinton appointee and former Democratic state senator, had thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court, claiming that he did not have to follow the Court’s prior 2008 opinion in Crawford v....
  • U.S. Supreme court rejects challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law

    03/23/2015 9:44:14 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 11 replies
    Reuters ^ | 03/23/2015 | LAWRENCE HURLEY
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to Wisconsin's Republican-backed law requiring voters to present photo identification to cast a ballot, a measure Democrats contend is aimed at keeping their supporters from voting. The justices declined to hear an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law. The ACLU said it then filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to try to keep the law from taking effect immediately. Republican Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said the law cannot be implemented for the state's April 7 election because absentee ballots are already...
  • Supreme Court turns away challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law

    03/23/2015 8:30:15 AM PDT · by Cincinatus' Wife · 35 replies
    Washington Post ^ | March 23, 2015 | Robert Barnes
    The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law, which it had previously kept from going into effect before November’s elections. The court’s decision not to review a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the law was a victory for Gov. Scott Walker (R) and perhaps other states that have tightened voting procedures to require additional identification.
  • Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

    03/22/2015 12:28:41 PM PDT · by PROCON · 106 replies
    AP ^ | March 22, 2015
    Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble. But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.
  • Confederate Flag License Plate Battle Reaches Supreme Court

    03/22/2015 8:11:04 AM PDT · by DUMBGRUNT · 86 replies
    chronicle bulletin ^ | 22 Mar 2015 | unknown
    The nine justices will hear a one particular-hour oral argument in a case that raises the situation of how states can let or reject politically divisive messages on license plates with out violating absolutely free speech rights. States can generate revenue...
  • Daughter of Two Moms Comes Out Against Gay Marriage

    03/20/2015 6:49:23 AM PDT · by SoFloFreeper · 29 replies
    A South Carolina woman’s new essay about being raised by her lesbian mom contains a surprising revelation: she opposes marriage equality. “Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s,” writes Heather Barwick, a 31-year-old mother of four, in The Federalist. “I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”
  • A little-noted masterpiece of constitutional scholarship by Justice Thomas

    03/20/2015 5:10:59 AM PDT · by cotton1706 · 54 replies
    americanthinker.com ^ | 3/20/15 | Mark J. Fitzgibbons
    Everything you really need to know about the Constitution (and that’s barely an exaggeration) -- why it is structured the way it is, what led to it, its purposes -- is found in pages 2 – 12 of the March 9 concurring opinion by Justice Thomas in the Dept of Transportation v Assn of American Railroads case. Although it received little media attention, Justice Thomas has provided us a masterpiece of constitutional thinking, explaining why “administrative law” -- the practice of delegating to bureaucrats the making and enforcement of rules with the force of law – is so profoundly unconstitutional....
  • Would A Supreme Court Decision In Favor Of Gay Marriage End The Religious Right?

    03/17/2015 7:22:13 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 41 replies
    The Daily Caller ^ | March 16, 2015 | W. James Antle III, managing editor
    If the Supreme Court decides that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, will that signal the end of social conservatism? People have long predicted the end of the religious right and, increasingly, even the demise of “white Christian America.” These obituaries typically prove premature. First, why assume a loss at the Supreme Court will end the religious right’s reason for existence? Organized social conservatism was built from such defeats, including high court rulings against school prayer and legalizing abortion. The school prayer decision will turn 53 in June. Roe v. Wade turned 42 in January. Neither of those...
  • Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court? (George Wallace Would be Proud)

    03/17/2015 12:09:03 PM PDT · by C19fan · 26 replies
    NY Times ^ | March 17, 2015 | William Baude
    IT is time to talk about President Obama’s contingency plan for health care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges. While the legal issues are dry lawyers’ fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high. The government estimates that millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses. While the administration may well prevail, it has expressed remarkable pessimism about its options if it does lose. The...
  • Could Obama Bypass the Supreme Court?

    03/17/2015 7:08:42 AM PDT · by PROCON · 57 replies
    nytimes ^ | March 17, 2015 | William Baude
    CHICAGO — IT is time to talk about President Obama’s contingency plan for health care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the provision of tax credits on federal insurance exchanges. While the legal issues are dry lawyers’ fare — how to interpret several interconnected phrases of the Affordable Care Act — the practical stakes are high. The government estimates that millions of Americans will be left without affordable health insurance if it loses.While the administration may well prevail, it has expressed remarkable pessimism about its options if it does lose....
  • The Sum of All Obamacarian Fears

    03/16/2015 4:35:17 AM PDT · by rootin tootin · 3 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 3/16/2015 | David Catron
    If you carefully consider the claims of Obamacare’s defenders in King v. Burwell you will discover that their worst fear, sanctimonious pretense notwithstanding, is not the loss of insurance subsidies for some Americans. The most terrifying prospect for proponents of PPACA is that the Court will let Congress clean up its own mess. They do not want our elected representatives to have another chance to consider the will of the voters while revising Obamacare ... Nothing scares Obamacarians more than the will of the people.
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Birthday: 10 Gifts to Get the 'Notorious' Supreme Court Justice

    03/15/2015 10:33:38 AM PDT · by PROCON · 36 replies
    abcnews.go.com ^ | March 15, 2015 | VERONICA STRACQUALURSI
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest sitting Supreme Court Justice, turns 82 Sunday. To borrow the words of the late rapper Biggie Smalls, who inspired Ginsburg’s “Notorious R.B.G.” nickname, if you don’t know, now you know. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg is the second woman justice in U.S. history and, as Reuters reported, she has no plans to retire anytime soon, despite some calls for her to step down. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Embraces ‘Notorious R.B.G.’ Tees Justice Ginsburg Earns Her 'Notorious' Nickname With Black Gloves To celebrate, here are 10 things (some farfetched, others easy...
  • Corporations are the Enemy (Scotus case that would impose same-sex “marriage”)

    03/13/2015 3:49:36 PM PDT · by NYer · 28 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | March 13, 2015 | AUSTIN RUSE
    A man I know was a top executive at a major American media company, one of the biggest and most influential in the world. A young man came into his office one day asking to display a rainbow sticker with the words “safe space.” This was a decade ago and this man, a faithful Catholic, felt confident he could demur without reprisal though he could see the veiled threat of being “outed” as less than gay friendly, as a homophobe.But, in these post-Brendan Eich days, it is doubtful my friend would feel as safe to say no because things...
  • How the Supreme Court is about to explode America’s racial wealth gap

    03/14/2015 1:41:25 PM PDT · by EveningStar · 101 replies
    Salon ^ | March 14, 2015 | Sean McElwee and Catherine Ruetschlin
    Yet again, conservatives on the Supreme Court are poised to do significant damage to minority communities When discussing race, the conservative argument is best expressed by the famous words of Chief Justice John Roberts: “The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Translation: America has done bad things in its history, but those bad things are gone now, so we should move past those horrors and look forward. Conservatives believe that if blacks and Latinos simply work hard, get a good education and earn a good income, historical...
  • CAAP Calls on Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Decision

    03/13/2015 9:14:04 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 11 replies
    Breitbart's Big Government ^ | March 12, 2015 | Dr. Susan Berry
    The founder and president of a coalition of black pastors has called upon U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case that is currently before the high court. In a recent press release, Rev. William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) cited Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s “stated bias” as reason to recuse themselves in order to preserve the integrity of the court. Owens and his organization have launched a petition to bring attention to the alleged “lack of impartiality” on the part of the two justices. In February, Ginsburg,...
  • Justice Obama

    03/13/2015 5:12:52 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 24 replies
    The Washington Monthly's Political Animal ^ | March 12, 2015 | Ed Kilgore
    So in his turn writing “Tilting at Windmills” in the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, contributing editor (and esteemed friend) Steven Waldman needs just three sentences to toss out a very interesting idea: If Hillary Clinton wins, Obama should be her first Supreme Court appointment. It’d be good for her, and very good for progressives. Would he want it? It’s possible he’d view it as too confining, but it may be the only job a former president can get that won’t seem like a step down. Jeffrey Toobin actually devoted a long op-ed back in 2010 to Obama’s sterling...
  • The "Doe" of Doe v. Bolton

    01/09/2002 6:24:33 PM PST · by Tolerance Sucks Rocks · 37 replies · 331+ views
    The Center for Reclaiming America ^ | January 9, 2002 (posting date) | By Greg Hoadley
    Sandra Cano is the woman whose name was used against her will to legalize late-term abortion in Doe v. Bolton, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. As she recalled, she was trying to file for a divorce from her husband and regain custody of her small children. She never sought, had, or even believed in abortion. Sandra Cano, the former &quot;Doe&quot; of Doe v. Bolton. After she dropped out of school in the ninth grade, she married at 17 to a man she later learned was a convicted child molester. Throughout her marriage, Sandra's husband would disappear ...
  • Touchdown! Notre Dame Scores Big on HHS Mandate at Supreme Court

    03/10/2015 2:26:27 PM PDT · by NYer · 12 replies
    NC Register ^ | March 9, 2015 | MATT HADRO/CNA/EWTN NEWS
    WASHINGTON —  In a potentially groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a federal court ruling against the University of Notre Dame on the HHS contraception mandate and sent it back for reconsideration by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The university is “gratified” by the decision, said its vice president of public affairs and communications, Paul Browne. Notre Dame officials had requested the case be remanded by the court in light of the Hobby Lobby decision last June. “Notre Dame continues to challenge the federal mandate as an infringement on our fundamental right to the free exercise of our...
  • Federalism Will Sink, Not Save, Obamacare

    03/10/2015 7:12:19 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 10 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/10/2015 | Josh Blackman
    With the Supreme Court on the brink of invalidating an IRS rule that provides billions of dollars of subsidies in states that did not establish Obamacare exchanges, defenders of the law have suddenly become fair-weather federalists. They argue that the Obamacare regulation must be upheld, because invalidating it would intrude on state sovereignty. Yes, you read that right: Allowing the federal government to expand the reach of Obamacare and its mandates into states that refused to create Obamacare exchanges would promote states’ rights. While this argument may seem crazy on its face, it has emerged as a Hail Mary effort...
  • King v. Burwell's Very Existence Says a Lot About Obamacare

    03/10/2015 5:12:49 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 12 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 10, 2015 | Michael Barone
    On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the IRS's decision to pay subsidies to lower-income health insurance buyers in states with federal insurance exchanges -- even though the Obamacare legislation authorizes subsidies only in states with exchanges "established by the state." The Obama administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the president's signature law says what it doesn't say. Nevertheless, initial analyses of the oral argument suggest the government might win. The four Democratic-appointed judges seemed determined to advance arguments that, if you look at the statute as a...
  • Sen. Brown: Why Not ‘Medicare for the Whole Country?’ It ‘Would Be Terrific’

    03/10/2015 6:16:22 AM PDT · by Whenifhow · 40 replies
    CNS News ^ | March 9 2015 | Craig Millward
    While speaking with liberal talk-radio host Thom Hartmann last week, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he agreed with the idea of lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 0, and essentially establishing a national, government-run health care system, claiming it “would be terrific.” Hartmann, while discussing the King v. Burwell case now before the Supreme Court, which could potentially end federal Obamacare subsidies for people in 34 states, said to Sen. Brown on Mar. 3, "Might it be a good time to start talking about alternatives, like, for example what Robert Ball, the guy who wrote the Medicare bill...
  • Here's What Scalia Said About Obamacare Last Week. It's Not What He Said 3 Years Ago.

    03/09/2015 9:59:11 AM PDT · by TangledUpInBlue · 36 replies
    Huff Post ^ | 3/9 | Jonathon Cohn
    It's going to be at least a few weeks, and probably a few months, before we know what the Supreme Court is going to do with Obamacare. But Wednesday's oral arguments in King v. Burwell have already made something very clear: Justice Antonin Scalia isn't too worried about intellectual consistency. Among the many issues that came up Wednesday were the likely consequences if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby prohibiting the federal government from distributing Obamacare's tax credits in two-thirds of the states. Millions of people depend on those tax credits to purchase health insurance; without the...
  • US Supreme Court Throws Out Lower Court Decision On Obamacare Contraception Rules

    03/09/2015 6:38:15 AM PDT · by mn-bush-man · 67 replies
    CNBC ^ | March 9, 2015 | CNBC
    Headline Only at this point
  • Freedom Yes, Redefining Marriage No (Poll: By 2-1 Margin, Americans want states deciding marriage)

    03/06/2015 3:19:28 PM PST · by xzins · 40 replies
    CNS ^ | March 6, 2015 | Peter Sprigg
    Supreme Court Gay Marriage FILE - In this June 25, 2013 file photo, Vin Testa of Washington waves a rainbow flag in support of gay rights outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court will hear arguments over same-sex marriage on April 28 and make audio of the proceedings available later that day. The gay marriage cases mark the only time this term that the court has agreed to the quick release of audio recordings. But the court is continuing its ban on providing video of its sessions or even live-streamed audio. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) By an...
  • Super Bowl, World Series champs back gay marriage at court

    03/06/2015 11:04:29 AM PST · by massmike · 19 replies
    http://news.yahoo.com/ ^ | 03/06/2015 | Mark Sherman
    The New England Patriots are for same-sex marriage. So are the San Francisco Giants. The reigning baseball and football champions, along with baseball's small-market Tampa Bay Rays, are among the thousands of businesses, religious groups, advocacy organizations and politicians who are filing legal briefs at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage. The Patriots play in Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry, and the Giants represent a city that is notable for its gay and lesbian community. Rays president Brian Auld said it was important that his team stand up, as well. "We're a small...
  • The Danger Lurking in a Possible Supreme Court Victory for Obamacare ("President Ted Cruz")

    03/06/2015 10:20:26 AM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 27 replies
    The Nation ^ | March 5, 2015 | George Zornick
    When the Supreme Court heard arguments in King v. Burwell on Wednesday, it was forced to consider whether just a few words in the Affordable Care Act—“exchange established by the state”—meant that people living in states with federal exchanges shouldn’t be receiving any subsidies to buy health insurance. If the justices ultimately don’t think the language is clear either way, they could still invoke what’s known as the Chevron deference to uphold Obamacare in its current form. In 1984, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a precedent that courts should defer to relevant agencies if a legislative text does...