Free Republic

The Supreme Court announced a tie vote today in what labor law experts had called a "life-or-death" case for public employee unions. The split decision preserves a long-standing rule that requires about half of the nation's teachers, transit workers and other public employees to pay a "fair share fee" to support their union.

When President Obama first nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans were united in their wall of opposition — no meetings, no hearing, no vote. And while Garland’s path remains a very uphill battle, some Republicans are starting to shift their tone. Two weeks into the nomination fight, 16 Republican senators now say they will meet with Garland — over 25 percent of the GOP caucus — according to a running count by NBC News. That includes senators up for re-election in Blue States, such as New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte and Illinois’ Mark Kirk, who will be the...

The United States Supreme Court on Monday decided not to hear an appeal by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. That decision was noted in a list of orders posted Monday on the court’s website.Blagojevich, 59, reported to a federal prison in Colorado four years ago to begin serving a 14­-year sentence. He was convicted of 18 counts over two trials. Among other things, he was accused of attempting to trade his power to appoint someone to a U.S. Senate seat — the one recently vacated by President Barack Obama — in exchange for personal benefits. A three-­judge appellate panel tossed...

If there is one thing that is bipartisan in Washington, it is brazen hypocrisy. Currently there is much indignation being expressed by Democrats because the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to hold confirmation hearings on President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Democrats complain, and the media echo their complaint, that it is the Senate's duty to provide "advice and consent" on the President's appointment of various federal officials. Therefore, according to this claim, the Senate is neglecting its Constitutional duty by refusing even to hold hearings to determine...

There are plenty of plausible reasons why Republicans might eventually fold in the standoff over the Supreme Court: Overwhelming public opinion, a Democratic pressure campaign, and vulnerable GOP senators trying to save their jobs, to name a few. But there's another even more persuasive reason they won't: The wrath of the right wing. Story Continued Below . . The activist right has been galvanized by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's quick and forceful insistence that the Senate will not take up a high court nominee for the rest of Barack Obama's presidency, spending millions already to defend the GOP position with...

During Wednesday's oral arguments for the Little Sisters of the Poor's lawsuit against the mandate accommodation, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether or not the administration could apply to churches the same the requirement it applies to religious nonprofit organizations. "I think we could ... Your Honor, Yes ... I think we would," Verrilli answered. "It would be an appropriate accommodation, and I think if we had the same compelling interest, and we'd make the same narrowly tailored means argument." "But we have constrained ourselves," Verrilli continued. "We've tried to be especially careful with houses of...

Conservatives are focusing on the nomination of Merrick B. Garland as a fight for Second Amendment rights, but it is much more than that. Seating Garland (or any other liberal) on the bench will be a great triumph for the liberal faction. That one liberal justice will be the last vampire needed to suck the blood out of our constitutional government. To understand my claim, we must first define the liberal process: it is the subjective interpretation and enforcement of law—instead of honoring law as it is written. To a liberal, the actual intent of written law matters only when...

This is the kind of case the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia liked to sink his judicial teeth into -- whether the federal government can compel a religious entity like the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious beliefs and acquiesce to the ObamaCare contraceptive coverage mandate. As LifeSite News reported on Wednesday’s hearing: This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a 175-year-old religious order of women who have vowed their lives to care for the elderly poor.

A senior Republican senator said Republican leaders should hold a vote on President Obama's nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. "I would rather have [constituents] complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I'm not doing my job," Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, former head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told the Garden City Telegram Monday. Moran's comment suggests that the Democratic messaging of "do your job" stings some Republicans.

The Chief Justice of the United States seemed to show sympathy with the Little Sisters of the Poor and others in a case challenging an Obamacare provision when he agreed that the government is “hijacking” their health care plans.Chief Justice John Roberts presided over oral arguments Wednesday in Zubik v. Burwell, where faith-based employers claim that signing a form or letter requesting exemption from the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage for their lay employees actually triggers the coverage and makes them complicit.Roberts said he finds the faith-based groups’ use of the phrase “hijacking” to be an “accurate description of what the government...

In oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked an attorney representing East Texas Baptist University, Southern Nazarene University, Geneva College and the Little Sisters of the Poor whether the United States government would ever be able to function if it could not demand that people do things that those people believe will cause their souls to “be damned in some way.” “Because every believer that’s ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that my soul will be damned in some way,” said Sotomayor. “I’m not naysaying that that is a very...

Oral argument was heard today in the SCOTUS in the case of Zubik v Burwell. Obama Care regulations are forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to be complicit in providing abortion inducing contraceptives to their employees. This is profoundly offensive to the Sisters religious beliefs. They are asking for reiief from these obligations. Justice Stephen Breyer said “a religious person living in society may have to accept all kinds of things that are just terrible for him.” The example Breyer uses is the forcing of Quakers to pay taxes which in part pay tor a war which is objectionable...

Sotomayor Helps Puerto Rico Argue Its Bankruptcy Case Noah Feldman Before Tuesday, I’d have said that Puerto Rico had no chance to win its legal fight to let its municipalities and utilities declare bankruptcy. That's how the island hopes to resolve its overwhelming debt problems, but the federal bankruptcy code says that it can't. That's what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held last summer, unanimously. The statute seemed so clear that even Judge Juan Torruella, the appellate court’s only Puerto Rican member, concurred in an outraged separate opinion criticizing the federal law. Then Sonia Sotomayor stepped...

The Obama administration has been unrelenting in its fight to force a group of Catholic nuns to violate their beliefs and pay for abortion-causing drugs and contraception, arguing that they are essential health care services. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard an appeal from the Little Sisters of the Poor and 37 other religious groups to stop the Obama administration from forcing them to comply with ObamacareÂ’s abortion mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control, drugs that may cause abortions and sterilization. Without relief, the Little Sisters would face millions of dollars in IRS fines....

SAN FRANCISCO — Little Sister of the Poor Rose Cantu remembers the first time she saw the women religious who inspired her to embrace the Catholic Church as her spiritual home. “What drew me to the faith was the joy on the sisters’ faces as they cared for the elderly,” Sister Rose told the Register, as she recalled her pivotal visit to the order’s home as a teenage volunteer. “Witnessing their faith in action led me to ask more questions about the God they worshipped.” Almost two decades later, Sister Rose is a registered nurse who serves the elderly poor...

Update: In 2014, we told you about a challenge to Obamacare's contraception mandate filed in Denver by Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization jointly based here and in Baltimore; we've incorporated elements of our previous coverage into this post. The Sisters lost that case, but they haven't given up their fight. Today, the matter is being heard at the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the groups that have supported the Little Sisters of the Poor is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which describes itself as "a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free...

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a case from religious nonprofit groups challenging the federal government’s contraceptive/abortifacient mandate. Here is what you should know about that case.What is this case, and what’s it about? The case the Supreme Court will hear, Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, combines seven challenges to the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) contraceptive/abortifacient mandate.To fulfill the requirements of the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka ObamaCare) the federal government passed a regulation (often called the “HHS Mandate”) that attempts to force groups into providing insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients. Some religious...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his silence during oral arguments. He has explained that he doesn’t think he learns much about a case that hasn’t already been covered in the briefs for the contending parties plus the numerous amicus briefs that explore many more aspects of the case. He prefers to listen and allow the lawyers to argue without further interruption. Justice Thomas had not asked a question during oral arguments since 2006 when, during the arguments in Voisine v. United States on February 29, he posed a question to the government’s counsel, Assistant to the Solicitor...

Outside the Supreme Court this morning, pro-life advocates are rallying for the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are challenging Obama’s HHS mandate today at the Supreme Court. In the next major battle in the pro-life fight against the HHS mandate, the Supreme Court will hear 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. The Little Sisters of the Poor are asking the nation’s highest court to ensure they do not have to comply...

Democrats hoping to use the death of Antonin Scalia to their political advantage hit upon what they mistakenly thought was another piece of “evidence” in their favor yesterday. To the shock of many with little understanding of the history of the Supreme Court, the justices are back in business and doling out decisions from the current session. On Tuesday, while the world was focused on the awful events in Brussels, SCOTUS delivered the first of what may turn out to be several deadlocked votes, delivering a 4-4 tie in the case of Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore. This...