Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $20,554
24%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 24% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: supremecourt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • AL Democrat Congressman 'Fine' with Men Marrying Mules, Calls Clarence Thomas 'Uncle Tom'

    04/14/2014 9:28:44 PM PDT · by Hoodat · 24 replies
    Breitbart ^ | 14 Apr 2014, 12:52 PM PDT | Tony Lee
    Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes (D) who said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an "Uncle Tom" for being married to a white woman believes men should be allowed to marry mules. As Yellowhammer News, a go-to site for Alabama politics, noted, Holmes has come under fire recently for making comments about Thomas, interracial adoptions, and black Republicans. And when asked about interracial marriage, he revealed he was in favor of men marrying animals. “Now, I’m for interracial marriage,” Holmes said on a local radio show, according to Yellowhammer News. He continued: I’m for same-sex marriage. I’m the one that...
  • Supreme Court Refuses to Take on NSA Metadata Case

    04/07/2014 9:15:07 AM PDT · by xzins · 86 replies
    Softpedia ^ | 7 Apr 14 | Gabriela Vatu
    The US Supreme Court is chickening out and taking a step back from the entire NSA scandal. Rather than making a final decision on whether the bulk telephone metadata surveillance program is constitutional, the Supreme Court has decided to decline the case. Instead, the Court has now left lower courts to contradict each other over the legality of this particular NSA surveillance program. One court, for instance, has described the metadata program as an “almost-Orwellian” effort. In fact, this particular petition brought to the Supreme Court concerns precisely a decision given out by US District Judge Richard Leon, who also...
  • Do Gay Rights Trump Religious Rights? Supreme Court Won't Hear Wedding Photographers' Case

    04/07/2014 12:04:02 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 115 replies
    Townhall ^ | 04/07/2014 | Todd Starnes
    Gay rights trump religious rights. That’s the rule of law in New Mexico after the U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to consider whether a wedding photographer was within her rights when she refused to film a gay couple’s commitment ceremony. The high court’s decision not to hear the case lets stand a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that the owners of Elane Photography violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws. As one New Mexico justice ominously noted, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin “are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” The state’s demand that the Huguenins...
  • Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub

    04/07/2014 6:49:39 AM PDT · by markomalley · 106 replies
    USA Today | 4-7-14
    Link only: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/07/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage-photographer/7304157/
  • Fewer Limits on Campaign Contributions Strengthens America

    04/07/2014 4:25:13 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 6 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | April 7, 2014 | Star Parker
    The Supreme Court’s decision last week in McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, eliminating the total limit that an individual can contribute in an election cycle to candidates and party committees, amounts to a shot of adrenalin to American democracy. The court ruled that such limits violate First Amendment free speech protection. Limits remain on the total funds that an individual can contribute to a given candidate in an election cycle. But the limit on the total contributions that an individual can make are now gone. The principle involved - that participation in elections and supporting candidates of one’s choice is...
  • Lifting the Lid on Campaign Contributions

    04/06/2014 2:52:51 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 7 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | April 6, 2014 | Steve Chapman
    The Supreme Court decision killing limits on total donations to political candidates means billionaires will be running amok. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson can lay out astronomical sums to help Republicans. Oilmen Charles and David Koch can see him and raise him. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg can burn through his fortune like a blowtorch. Oh, wait. They already did all that. Under this ruling, tycoons will have one more relatively modest way of supporting the candidates and causes they like. But trust me: You won't be able to see a difference. Adelson went through some $100 million in 2012,...
  • Get Thee Behind Me, Satan -- But First, Write a Check

    04/06/2014 11:21:14 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 4 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | April 6, 2014 | Debra J. Saunders
    After the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision Wednesday that threw out a cap on the total amount wealthy donors can give to federal candidates in an election season, Democrats and self-proclaimed do-gooders cried foul at the prospect of more big money's tainting Washington politics. Federal law continues to cap individual contributions to congressional candidates at $5,200, but the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision eliminated the $48,600 cap on the total individuals can contribute to candidates and the $74,600 cap on donations to political committees. An online New York Times story announced, "The ruling, issued near the start...
  • Man executed with controversial drug despite lawyer's appeal

    04/03/2014 9:33:01 PM PDT · by CorporateStepsister · 75 replies
    DailyMail ^ | 3 April 2014 | By Associated Press
    A serial killer was put to death Thursday in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his lawyers' demand that the state release information about where it gets its lethal injection drug. Tommy Lynn Sells, 49, was the first inmate to be injected with a dose of newly replenished pentobarbital that Texas prison officials obtained to replace an expired supply of the powerful sedative. Sells declined to give a statement. As the drug began flowing into his arms inside the death chamber in Huntsville, Sells took a few breaths, his eyes closed and he began to snore. After less than...
  • Is Democracy Dead after Supreme Court Strikes Down Political Contribution Limits?

    04/03/2014 10:18:15 AM PDT · by rightwingerpatriot · 25 replies
    Rightwingpatriot.com ^ | April 3, 2014 | Rightwingerpatriot
    From some of the headlines and commentaries that I've been reading, you would think that America has finally fallen and collapsed into a pit of eternal darkness. The culprit is the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down political contribution limits. In a the now normal 5-4 split, the SCOTUS decided that limiting the number of candidates that a citizen can donate to during a campaign was unconstitutional. This limitation was put in place back in 1971, and has been tweaked a few times, notably the McCain-Feingold legislation. So will chaos now rule supreme as we're forced to bow to...
  • Breaking: Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

    04/02/2014 7:17:50 AM PDT · by PaulCruz2016 · 85 replies
    Twitter ^ | 04-02-2014 | SCOTUSblog
    Breaking: scotus strikes down aggregate campaign contribution limits 5-4 per Chief Justice Roberts in McCutcheon case.
  • Can the Supreme Court duck the central issue in the Hobby Lobby case?

    03/31/2014 5:41:06 PM PDT · by Rashputin · 17 replies
    CatholicCulture.org: Pray. Think. Act. ^ | March 28, 2014 | Phil Lawler
    Can the Supreme Court duck the central issue in the Hobby Lobby case? By Phil Lawler - March 28, 2014 6:18 PM In the the Hobby Lobby case, a key question facing the Supreme Court is whether a corporate enterprise qualifies for the same religious-freedom protections as an individual. At first glance that seems a very simple question. It is a long-established principle of Anglo-American law, set forth clearly in Blackstone’s Commentaries even before the American Revolution, that for legal purposes, a corporation is a person. For purposes of affirmative-action programs, the US government recognizes certain corporations as “minority” contractors,...
  • Video: President Of Hobby Lobby Speaks Out!

    03/28/2014 12:32:00 PM PDT · by absentee · 16 replies
    The Right Scoop ^ | 3/28/14 | Caleb Howe
    In an exclusive interview for Heritage, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green very reasonably and calmly articulates a perfectly rational, good faith, and justified point of view that is the underlying motivating fact of this case. [video] Do we lose our ability to have religious freedoms that the founders put to paper on our behalf merely because we have opened a business? That's the real question of the Hobby Lobby case, and it is a good one. Green points out that there are 20 contraceptive methods required, 16 of which the company provides. There are four that are abortifacients, says Green,...
  • Video: MSNBC host asks whether we can trust Catholic justices in Hobby Lobby case

    03/26/2014 10:49:22 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 50 replies
    Hot Air ^ | March 25, 2014 | Ed Morrissey
    If one wants sober and careful analysis of legal issues, the last media outlet one would choose would be MSNBC — and Joy Reid demonstrates why. Taking a page from Jamie Stiehm and using a construct that would be called bigotry in any other context, Reid warns viewers that a Supreme Court full of Catholics are a threat to the progress toward a more secular nation, especially in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga case being heard at the Supreme Court today. Can you really trust Catholics to interpret the law, Reid asks (via Truth Revolt and Jeff Dunetz):(VIDEO-AT-LINK) Now, the most famous...
  • Read the Complete List of Obamacare Delays

    03/26/2014 8:57:42 AM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 7 replies
    March 26, 2014 10:44 AM Read the Complete List of Obamacare Delays By Alec Torres The Obama administration will announce its tenth Obamacare delay later today, this time extending the March 31 enrollment deadline for people who say they’ve been unable to enroll in health plans in the federal marketplace by the deadline. The extension applies to the federal exchange operating in three dozen states and is expected to last for two or three weeks. Can’t remember what all the delays have been? Politico provided a helpful history of Obamacare delays from most to least recent: March 25: Final enrollment...
  • Republicans Optimistic After Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Arguments

    03/26/2014 7:41:06 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 50 replies
    Pajamas Media ^ | 03/26/2014 | ODRIGO SERMEŃO
    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard Tuesday morning oral arguments for two challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that requires employers to include birth control in their employee health plans. Activists on both sides of the issue clashed outside the courtroom in Washington. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union argued that business owners should not impede female workers from obtaining birth control free of charge in their health plans. On the other side, conservative and Tea Party groups argued that businesses should be free to choose whether they want to comply with the law’s contraceptive mandate. The...
  • The 15 Dumbest Anti–Hobby Lobby Signs at the Supreme Court

    03/26/2014 7:10:28 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 82 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/26/2014 | Andrew Johnson
    Supporters of an Affordable Care Act mandate that requires religious business people to violate their beliefs were out in full force this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court heard arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which pits Obamacare against small businesses seeking to preserve personal and religious freedom. Here’s a look at some of the most nonsensical and ridiculous signs and participants at Tuesday’s rally. 1. “Hobby Lobby: This Uterus Is For You” Not sure what this means #SupremeCourt #HobbyLobby pic.twitter.com/mAekCTdp6L — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) March 25, 2014 2. “Pro-Life? Eating Raped Murdered Animals Makes...
  • Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims

    03/25/2014 11:43:19 AM PDT · by NormsRevenge · 38 replies
    Yahoo! News ^ | 3/25/14 | Lawrence Hurley - Reuters
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to open the door to companies' religious-based objections to government regulations as justices weighed whether business owners can object to part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. It was unclear whether the companies objecting to the regulation requiring them to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception would win overall, but a majority of the nine justices seemed ready to rule that companies had the same religious rights to object as individuals do. In one of the biggest cases of the year, the court heard an extended 90-minute oral argument,...
  • Quick Review of Hobby Lobby Oral Argument (Kennedy and Breyer Leaning Favorably for Plaintiff?)

    03/25/2014 10:50:53 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 20 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/25/2014 | Ed Whelan
    I didn’t attend this morning’s argument and will therefore reserve my own reading of the tea leaves until after I’ve reviewed the transcript. For what it’s worth, one person who did attend and who is very knowledgeable about the issues in the case (but who might suffer from an overly optimistic temperament) has given me his quick take. He sees a 6-3 victory for Hobby Lobby, with Kennedy and Breyer joining the conservatives on the bottom line. (Apparently, Breyer’s questions reflected his recognition that—as I discussed in this post—the accommodation that the Obama administration provided religious nonprofits is a less...
  • The ACA’s Heavy Burden: The Supreme Court Takes on Hobby Lobby's Appeal to Protect Religious Liberty

    03/24/2014 6:39:04 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 1 replies
    National Review ^ | 03/24/2014 | The Editors
    Clinton nostalgists look back on the occasionally picayune controversies of that time — State of the Union endorsements of school uniforms — and conclude that such trivia were a sign of national health, of things being so good that we had nothing more important to debate. Subsequent events ranging from 9/11 to the mortgage meltdown suggest that there was rather more impressing business to be taken care of in the 1990s, but our political leaders were too short-sighted to appreciate it. Similarly, the fact that the Supreme Court is being asked to review the manner in which Hobby Lobby manages...
  • Why Hobby Lobby Is This Year's Supreme Court Case To Watch

    03/21/2014 2:27:27 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 8 replies
    Christianity Today ^ | 03/21/2014 | Kate Shellnutt
    When Hobby Lobby makes its case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, conservative Christians won't be the only ones paying attention. After a year and a half of opposing the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate, the evangelical-owned craft store chain has become shorthand for the corporate fight for religious liberty—one that concerns not only Obamacare critics, or fellow Christians who worry that certain contraception methods are abortifacients, but now, Americans overall. It's expected to be the most high-profile case the Supreme Court reviews this year. CT can refresh your memory. [Infographics below.] CNN called Hobby Lobby's...
  • Hobby Lobby Hysteria Hits New High

    03/19/2014 4:46:08 AM PDT · by rootin tootin · 18 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 3/19/2014 | David Catron
    Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments concerning constitutional challenges to Obamacare’s contraception mandate brought by Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties … Neither company objects to birth control, per se. Indeed, both provide coverage to their employees for most types of contraception. Yet civilization as we know it will collapse if the justices rule in their favor, according to the increasingly shrill prognostications of panicky liberals. Such a decision, progressives shriek, would constitute a victory for the dark forces behind the “war on women,” erode employee protections against discrimination, and dramatically reduce access to health care...
  • U.S. Supreme Court Gives A Bully A Black Eye

    03/11/2014 6:14:18 PM PDT · by Twotone · 11 replies
    Freedom Foundation ^ | March 11, 2014 | David Roland
    Yesterday eight of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices responded to the U.S. government's efforts to bully property owners by punching the bully square in the nose.
  • Where The Action Is

    03/07/2014 4:41:48 PM PST · by OddLane · 3 replies
    National Review ^ | March 7, 2014 | Mark Steyn
    People keep asking me whom I favor for the 2016 Republican nomination. I politely demur — and not just because it's almost three years till Election Day, and at this stage in the 2008 cycle I'm not sure I'd ever heard of Barack Obama. As a resident of a New Hampshire township with more than 37 people, I don't have to seek out presidential candidates; they're there at the inn and the general store and the diner and the Grange. I've seen enough next-presidents-of-the-United-States for several lifetimes: Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson, Bob Dornan, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Lamar...
  • Kansas high court: School funding unconstitutional (i.e. funding cuts)

    03/07/2014 8:35:07 AM PST · by Olog-hai · 18 replies
    Associated Press ^ | Mar 7, 2014 11:27 AM EST | John Milburn
    The Kansas Supreme Court said Friday the state’s current public school funding levels are unconstitutional. In the much-anticipated ruling, the court said Kansas’ poor school districts were harmed when the state made the decision to cut certain payments when tax revenues declined during the Great Recession. The Supreme Court sent the case back to district court for more review to “promptly” determine what the adequate amount of funding should be, but didn’t set a deadline for a hearing. It did, however, set a July 1 deadline for legislators to restore money for two funds aimed at helping poorer districts with...
  • First, they came for…

    03/04/2014 10:39:11 AM PST · by Oldpuppymax · 10 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 3/4/14 | Michael D. Shaw
    If I had told you ten years ago that a family seeking asylum from religious persecution would be turned away from the US, you would have thought I was nuts. But, it’s finally happened—and no surprise to a Christian family. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike came to the United States in 2008 seeking political asylum. They fled their German homeland in the face of religious persecution for homeschooling their children. They wanted to live in a country where they could raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs. Too bad they picked the United States, huh? I expected this sort...
  • Will the Supreme Court Permit EPA Fraud?

    03/01/2014 5:38:27 PM PST · by Kaslin · 17 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 1, 2014 | Paul Driessen
    The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case will determine how far EPA can extend its regulatory overreach, to control “climate changing” carbon dioxide from power plants and other facilities – by ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” provisions, rewriting clear language in the Clean Air Act, and disregarding laws that require the agency to consider both the costs and benefits of its regulations and what it is regulating. Put more bluntly, the Court will decide whether EPA may deceive and defraud the American people, by implementing regulations that...
  • Thermal Imaging Gets More Common But The Courts Haven't Caught Up

    02/27/2014 3:54:22 PM PST · by Theoria · 16 replies
    NPR ^ | 27 Feb 2014 | Katie Barlow
    Thermal imaging devices have been available for sale online, relatively cheaply, for at least a couple of years. But now, an iPhone attachment will let you carry a thermal imaging camera in your pocket. FLIR Systems, a specialized camera company, plans to release its thermal camera and app for iPhone for less than $350 this spring. These devices — which show you the image of what you are looking at but with colors highlighting heat levels from objects — are getting easy to own and use. And that means consumers could use them to spot a water leak in the...
  • High Court Allows Disputed Home Search

    02/25/2014 4:59:06 PM PST · by Altariel · 127 replies
    AP ^ | February 25, 2014 | Mark Sherman
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested. The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.
  • Supreme Court ruling eases police search of suspect's home

    02/25/2014 12:39:08 PM PST · by Theoria · 58 replies
    Reuters ^ | 25 Feb 2014 | Lawrence Hurley
    The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to law enforcement agencies by making it easier for police to search a dwelling without a warrant. The court held on a 6-3 vote that police can search a home without a warrant, even if the suspect has objected, as long as he is no longer on the scene and a co-tenant gives consent. It made no difference that the suspect, Walter Fernandez, had earlier objected to the police entering the apartment before police took him outside, the court concluded. The ruling was a loss for Fernandez, who had wanted evidence found...
  • Justice Scalia on Kelo and Korematsu

    02/24/2014 10:06:57 PM PST · by JerseyanExile · 14 replies
    Washington Post ^ | February 8 2014 | ILYA SOMIN
    In a recent speech in Hawaii, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made some interesting predictions about two of the Supreme Court’s most notorious decisions: Kelo v. City of New London, which ruled that government can condemn private property and give it to other private owners to promote “economic development,” and Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II. On Kelo, Scalia reiterated his 2011 prediction that the decision will eventually be overruled, stating that it “will not survive.” Kelo was a closely divided 5-4 decision (Scalia voted with the...
  • THE BRAINS BEHIND BLACKMUN

    02/22/2014 8:21:36 PM PST · by guitarist · 9 replies
    Legal Affairs ^ | may/june 2005 | David J. Garrow
    THE BRAINS BEHIND BLACKMUN Harry Blackmun's papers reveal that, more than any justice in memory, he gave his law clerks control over his thinking and writing when he was on the Supreme Court. By David J. Garrow I HARRY A. BLACKMUN SERVED ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT for almost a quarter of a century, beginning in 1970 after his selection by President Richard Nixon and ending in 1994 with his retirement at age 85. When Blackmun's papers were opened to public inspection in March 2004, five years after his death, laudatory news stories highlighted his evolution toward a more...
  • Are 'Smart Gun' Laws Constitutional?

    02/22/2014 7:21:09 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 29 replies
    RealClearPolicy's The Mark Up ^ | February 20, 2014 | Robert VerBruggen
    A "smart gun," if you have not yet heard, is a firearm that uses some type of technology -- fingerprint recognition, etc. -- to ensure that it cannot fire unless it is being held by an authorized user. In 2002, New Jersey passed a law saying that once smart handguns become commercially available in the U.S., three years later gun stores won't be allowed to sell anything else. Now a smart handgun is available in California, in the form of the Armatix iP1, a .22-caliber pistol that can't be fired unless the user is wearing the watch that unlocks it....
  • Clarence Thomas’s Disgraceful Silence (They're mad because he's effective behind-the-scenes)

    02/21/2014 7:01:10 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 20 replies
    The New Yorker | February 21, 2014 | Jeffrey Toobin
    Link only: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/clarence-thomas-disgraceful-silence.html?currentPage=all
  • Federalism Prohibits Preemption of States on Broadband Safeguards

    02/21/2014 2:39:36 PM PST · by ThethoughtsofGreg · 1 replies
    American Legislator ^ | 2-20-14 | Seth L. Cooper
    Federal regulation of the Internet is a bad idea. So is federal regulation of states that would rather keep their local governments out of the Internet business. Following a recent federal court ruling about the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet, supporters of government-run broadband Internet service have urged the FCC to preempt state restrictions on local government efforts to build and operate their own broadband networks that compete directly with the private sector. More significantly, an announcement yesterday by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, proposing yet another attempt to impose some sort of net neutrality...
  • Obama's War on the First Amendment

    02/18/2014 9:42:33 AM PST · by Kaslin · 15 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | February 18, 2014 | Phyllis Schlafly
    When President Barack Obama said he planned to "fundamentally transform" the United States, he wasn't referring only to spreading the wealth around or even to conforming our foreign-trade regulations to the dictates of globalist busybodies. He is also working openly and covertly, through administrative regulations and supremacist judges' decisions, to transform us into a sanitized secular nation. The cutting edge of Obama's war on religion will come into public view on March 25, when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about the Obama administration's attempt to force private companies, such as Hobby Lobby, to cover abortion-inducing drugs for...
  • It’s Over: Gay Marriage Can’t Lose in the Court: A perfect record for equality post-Windsor.

    02/14/2014 10:59:55 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 42 replies
    Slate ^ | February 14, 2014 | David S. Cohen and Dahlia Lithwick
    “We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have...
  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg should do all liberals a favor and retire now

    02/14/2014 1:23:33 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 36 replies
    The Guardian ^ | 02/14/2014 | Michael Cohen
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the more important liberal litigators and jurists of her generation. She has been trailblazer on the issue of women's legal rights and a powerful voice for progressive causes as a justice on the highest US court in the land. And she must retire. Right now. While we're at it, Stephen Breyer should retire too. This call has nothing to do with either justice's job performance. Ginsburg's commanding dissent in last year's 5-4 decision to overturn a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is compelling evidence that she remains a vital member of the...
  • Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms

    02/10/2014 12:09:17 PM PST · by Texas Fossil · 56 replies
    Wall Street Journal ^ | Feb 10, 2014 11:06 am | Jacob Gershman
    You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home. We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the...
  • The Court, the Buffer Zone, and the Marketplace Of Ideas

    01/27/2014 6:12:13 AM PST · by Kaslin · 7 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | January 27, 2014 | Jeff Jacoby
    or anyone having trouble understanding why the Massachusetts law requiring a 35-foot "buffer zone" at abortion clinics is so offensive to the First Amendment, there was a moment during the oral arguments in McCullen v. Coakley — the Supreme Court case challenging the law — that crystallized the issue perfectly. Massachusetts officials have always justified the 2007 buffer law as a narrow, impartial response to the problem of obstruction, disorder, and intimidation of women seeking abortions. That concern is understandably taken seriously in the state where John Salvi murdered two employees of Planned Parenthood clinics in 1994. But federal and...
  • Will Supreme Court Rule Against Unions?

    01/24/2014 11:03:26 PM PST · by rightwingerpatriot · 8 replies
    RightWingPatriot.com ^ | January 24, 2013 | RightWingPatriot
    The Supreme Court has taken on an interesting case and it's decision can have massive ramifications for unions nationwide. The issue is whether unions can coerce workers to pay dues even if the disagree with the union. The case was brought by a group of home health care workers who were forced to join a union in Illinois as they receive money to take care of family members through Medicaid. The SEIU persuaded Illinois that these families who were taking care of family members at their homes who are in need of assistance, say of someone who is developmentally disabled,...
  • Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ATF Change of Interpretation Without Change in Law

    01/23/2014 10:00:19 AM PST · by marktwain · 21 replies
    Gun Watch ^ | 24 January, 2013 | Dean Weingarten
    The oral arguments in the case of Abramski v. United States, where the Supreme  Court is determining if the ATF can change the definition of what is a "straw buyer" without a change in the statute, and whether a person who transfers a firearm to someone who can legally posses the firearm is involved in a "straw purchase".  The ATF had one interpretation of the statute from the implementation of the law in 1968 until 1994, 26 years later.   Then they started a different interpretation of the law under the Clinton regime. The arguments did not seem to go...
  • Argument preview: Checking up on gun buyers

    01/22/2014 6:08:10 PM PST · by marktwain · 12 replies
    scotusblog.com ^ | 21 January, 2014 | Lyle Denniston
    One of the strongest debates over guns in American society continues over the claim of Second Amendment protection for firearms owners. The Supreme Court, however, has resisted spelling out the actual reach of that right in the more than five years since it first ruled that the Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, at least for self-defense. The Court, though, has been working on a series of side issues of gun control, and will do so again in the new case of Abramski v. United States. Even though there is now a constitutional right to have a...
  • Supreme Court positioned to repeal the 4th Amendment

    01/21/2014 9:05:21 AM PST · by Oldpuppymax · 61 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 1/21/14 | Doug Book
    Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Navarette v California, a case in which a wrong decision will effectively repeal the 4th Amendment rights of the American people. The text of the 4th Amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that “…law enforcement...
  • SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument on Abortion Clinic 'Buffer Zones'

    01/15/2014 7:03:55 PM PST · by Kaslin · 17 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | January 15, 2014 | Cortney O'Brien
    Editor's note: This post was co-authored by Townhall web editor Christine Rousselle. A 2007 Massachusetts law stops pro-life activists 35 feet short of abortion clinic entrances. Because of the enforced distance, they often have to shout to get their message across to the scared young women walking into Planned Parenthood to have abortions — not exactly a winning strategy. McCullen v. Coakley, the case that enforces the unfair limit on pro-lifers' free speech, was center stage at the Supreme Court today. Justices listened to oral argument this morning after deciding to hear the case in June. SCOTUSblog outlined what’s...
  • U.S. District Judge Rules Oklahoma Ban on Marriage Equality Unconstitutional

    01/14/2014 2:33:09 PM PST · by BurningOak · 102 replies
    Human Rights Campaign ^ | January 14, 2014 | HRC staff
    Today U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional. His ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in the Sooner State. ... The ruling comes on the heels of a year-long string of electoral, judicial and legislative victories for marriage equality. In recent weeks both the New Mexico Supreme Court and a federal district judge in Utah have ruled in favor of marriage for lesbian and gay couples.
  • Sure sounds like the Supreme Court’s going to rule against Obama on recess appointments

    01/13/2014 2:02:07 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 21 replies
    Hotair ^ | 01/13/2014 | AllahPundit
    I know, I know: Didn’t we go through this once before? SCOTUS sounded skeptical after oral arguments on ObamaCare’s individual mandate too and we all know how that turned out. We’re setting ourselves up for heartbreak. Again.One big difference between then and now, though, is that everyone assumed a ruling against the mandate would be no better than 5-4. Obama had four liberal justices in the bag for his position, as usual; the only question was whether they could get one conservative. Per Moe Lane, the word from SCOTUSblog about this morning’s arguments is that even some of the liberals...
  • Recess appointments appear in jeopardy

    01/13/2014 11:36:00 AM PST · by Cincinatus' Wife · 35 replies
    The Hill ^ | January 13, 2014 | Ben Goad
    Three of President Obama’s recess appointments appeared in jeopardy Monday of being deemed unconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case that could help define the limits of executive power. Nearly every justice on the high court questioned the basis of Obama’s 2012 appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, signaling a ruling that could temper presidential authority and bolster the Senate’s hand. At issue is whether Obama overstepped by making the appointments during a limited “pro-forma” session of the Senate and, further, when exactly presidents can install judges and fill top federal vacancies without the upper chamber’s...
  • The not so dependable Chief Justice Roberts

    01/11/2014 10:28:02 AM PST · by Oldpuppymax · 31 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 1/11/14 | George Spelvin
    What is motivating Chief Justice John Roberts? Does he need to talk to us, the American people, about his oath to judge the law in an unbiased, non partisan manner? Why are so many judicial decisions being made that clearly run counter to the wishes of the American people? Where is the caveat that America must be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? “Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling...
  • Was Justice Roberts’ ObamaCare ruling a curse for Republicans, or a blessing?

    01/11/2014 9:03:57 AM PST · by Oldpuppymax · 54 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 1/11/14 | Doug Book
    When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.” “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people from a wanton abuse of power, he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing...
  • SCOTUS to Decide Landmark Recess Appointment Case

    01/11/2014 7:49:18 AM PST · by Kaslin · 28 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | January 11, 2014 | Fred Wszolek
    In the coming days, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Noel Canning versus the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This case arose when President Obama made several so-called recess appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012 when the Senate was not formally in recess. This landmark case is expected to determine how much leeway the President has to make appointments without Senate confirmation, and more significantly, it will have serious implications on the broader powers of the presidency itself and the system of checks and balances. The United States Court of Appeals for...