Keyword: supremecourt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • More Executive Overreach, This Time from the EPA

    03/29/2015 8:10:39 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 9 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 29, 2015 | Ilya Shapiro
    The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in Michigan v. EPA, asking whether it was unreasonable for the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore costs in determining the appropriateness of regulating mercury emissions from power plants. The EPA’s proposed regulations are expected to cost the coal industry a whopping $9.6 billion, but only offer a meager $500,000 to $6 million in public health benefits. Cato filed an amicus brief in the case that focuses on why the EPA chose to ignore costs in developing these regulations. It turns out that EPA could achieve its goal of comprehensively regulating utility emissions only...
  • The Next Big Obamacare Case?

    03/28/2015 10:59:55 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 2 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 28, 2015 | Ilya Shapiro
    Medicaid, the entitlement program for low-income Americans jointly funded by the state and federal government, represents about 25 percent of state budgets. Federal funding represents more than half (57 percent) of that amount, and that funding is now being threatened by Obamacare. In what seems like déjà-vu all over again, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is pursuing a lawsuit to prevent this sort of federal coercion. Here’s the scoop: In 2009, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) offered states stimulus funds if they agreed to a maintenance-of-effort (“MOE”) provision that required them to maintain Medicaid-eligibility standards...
  • Snake Oil Sociology

    03/27/2015 9:42:03 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 5 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 27, 2015 | Ken Blackwell
    The American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Sociological Association (ASA) submitted friend of the Court briefs in the Windsor case. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. If the Windsor Court majority relied on those briefs, it was reliant on snake oil, not science. The APA and the ASA should be the guardians of good science. Instead, they have joined the ranks of the pink panzers of political correctness. Most studies we have seen that claim that children raised by same-sex parents suffer no disadvantages are so seriously flawed that in...
  • 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.
  • Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage

    03/18/2015 7:34:02 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 8 replies
    Townhall ^ | 03/17/2015 | Frank Turek
    The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated! Some may say,...
  • 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...
  • Lego Says You Can’t Build That — Because Of Politics

    03/13/2015 6:28:54 PM PDT · by Citizen Zed · 35 replies
    kpbs.org ^ | 3-13-2015 | Anthony Palmer / NPR
    Science journalist Maia Weinstock recently got the idea to create a custom LEGO set to celebrate the female justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. She researched the Supreme Court building, the justices, and their traditions, all the way down to the silver mugs that they often carry out to the bench when hearing oral arguments. After purchasing the pieces she needed, Weinstock created the "Legal Justice League: Women of the Supreme Court in LEGO," in honor of International Women's Day. "Some of these women are pretty iconic in terms of their media appeal these days," Weinstock told NPR. "One consideration...
  • 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...
  • 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...
  • Another Dred Scott Ruling?

    03/12/2015 11:17:06 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 12 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 12, 2015 | Ken Blackwell
    As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider whether to overturn the marriage laws of all the states—as some activist federal judges have already done in some of the states--conservatives are naturally calling for judicial restraint. We must warn the court against another exercise of “raw judicial power” like that handed down with its infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. That cruel and unjust ruling is viewed as illegitimate by tens of millions of Americans. Young people, especially, are turning against abortion-on-demand. We see this in every pro-life march. And this public outcry is being translated into a bumper crop...
  • 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...
  • 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...
  • 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...
  • Did Samuel Alito Throw Republicans An Obamacare Lifeline At The Supreme Court?

    03/09/2015 3:11:00 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 22 replies
    Forbes ^ | 03/08/2015 | Avik Roy
    As we await a decision in the big Obamacare Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, progressive pundits have continued to predict a health care apocalypse if the Court sides with challengers to the Obama administration. That’s a wild exaggeration. But there will be some disruption, and Republicans in Congress have been debating the best way to mitigate that disruption. That’s where Associate Justice Samuel Alito comes in. At oral arguments on Wednesday, Alito hinted at another way to overturn illegal subsidies while avoiding near-term problems for the newly insured. The Northern Pipeline precedent At the hearing, President Obama’s Solicitor General,...
  • 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
  • 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...
  • Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

    03/06/2015 8:36:21 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 94 replies
    Huff Post ^ | 03/05/2015 | Alexander C. Kaufman
    Big business has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Exactly 379 corporations and employer organizations urged the Supreme Court to strike down state bans on gay marriage, according to a friend-of-the-court brief obtained by The Huffington Post. The document was expected to be filed late Thursday morning. “Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships,” reads the brief, filed by global law firm Morgan Lewis. “Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law...
  • Blaming Who On State Subsidies

    03/06/2015 7:05:07 AM PST · by Kaslin · 4 replies
    Townhall,com ^ | March 5, 2015 | Hank Adler
    King v. Burwell: We are all following the Supreme Court case challenging the Administration's ignoring of the ObamaCare requirement that individuals can only get Federal subsidies for their health insurance if the state in which they reside forms a state exchange. Only sixteen states organized state exchanges, yet the Obama administration determined to pay Federal subsidies to individuals in every state if they purchased health insurance under ObamaCare. There are some eight million individuals who will lose their subsidies if the Supreme Court determines to enforce the law as written by Congress. (One wonders what good it is to have...
  • Does 'Joy of Cooking' Explain Logic of King v. Burwell?

    03/05/2015 11:01:16 AM PST · by Kaslin · 6 replies
    RealClearPolitics ^ | March 4, 2015 | Sean Trade
    One of the frustrating things about reporting on the King v. Burwell litigation is the difficulty explaining some relatively complicated legal concepts to an audience of non-lawyers. Jonathan Cohn of Huffington Post has come up with a pretty good analogy, though I don’t think it works quite the way he thinks it does. First, to recapitulate the legalese. The Affordable Care Act works by mandating that people buy health insurance. To help ensure accessibility of that insurance, the statute creates exchanges where people can shop for policies. This is done in three sections of the law. Section 1311 mandates that...
  • Justice Kennedy Grasps At Straws To Save ObamaCare

    03/05/2015 4:36:47 AM PST · by IBD editorial writer · 29 replies
    Investor's Business Daily ^ | 03/04/2015 | Staff
    Health Reform: If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare in King v. Burwell, it will be because Justice Kennedy thinks doing otherwise would cause too much turmoil. But ObamaCare itself has already done that.
  • Why the Supreme Court Will Rule in Favor of Obamacare

    03/04/2015 6:26:30 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 43 replies
    The New Republic ^ | 03/04/2015 | Abigail R. Moncrieff
    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, which will decide whether health insurance subsidies should be available nationwide or only in those 16 states that established exchanges. Several questions have recently emerged over the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ case, including issues of jurisdiction and congressional intent, but there’s an even deeper flaw: The plaintiffs’ interpretation would render the statute unconstitutional. Several of my colleagues and I made this case in an amicus brief to the Court. If the plaintiffs’ interpretation carries the day, then Obamacare has threatened states that failed to establish exchanges with...
  • A Child of Gay Parents Writes to Justice Kennedy

    03/03/2015 8:50:19 PM PST · by WilliamIII · 16 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | February 27 2015 | Katy Faust
    Dear Justice Kennedy, June is nigh, and with it will comes your ruling on the most contentious political issue of our time: marriage. I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights. It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of...
  • Execution of only woman on Georgia's death row POSTPONED at the last minute

    03/02/2015 9:03:22 PM PST · by CorporateStepsister · 21 replies
    Daily Mail ^ | 2 March 2015 | Sophie Jane Evans For Dailymail.com
    The execution of the only woman on Georgia's death row has been postponed at the last minute for a second time in less than a week - because the drug used in the lethal injection she was scheduled to receive was 'cloudy'. Kelly Renee Gissendaner, 46, was due to be given an injection of pentobarbital at a prison in Jackson at 7pm on Monday in retribution for plotting the murder of her husband in 1997. But after officials observed the drug to be used in the execution had a 'cloudy' appearance, they postponed her death until a future, unspecified date...
  • Substituted Morality

    02/13/2015 5:21:38 AM PST · by Kaslin · 12 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | February 13, 2015 | Erick Erickson
    The United States Supreme Court will, by June, plunge the nation back into the throws of culture war. At least five justices will substitute their values for those of democracy, further undermining the democratic underpinnings of our republic. By June, the nation's top court will find that gay marriage is in the constitution. They will, more likely than not, go all the way instead of deciding the states can decide for themselves. In 1973, the Supreme Court again substituted the morality of five members of the court for the nation and legalized abortion. At the time, liberal publications assumed the...
  • Supreme Court rejects Rachel Corrie wrongful death case

    02/12/2015 3:05:06 PM PST · by Former Fetus · 61 replies
    The Jerusalem Post ^ | 2/12/2015 | YONAH JEREMY BOB
    The Supreme Court on Thursday put out its dramatic decision in the Rachel Corrie case, rejecting her family's appeal of a lower court decision which had denied them civil damages for wrongful death in which Corrie died in connection with an IDF bulldozer. At the same time, the court accepted a separate appeal by the family and reversed a separate lower court decision - with the result that the lower court will need to further probe the family's claim regarding the possible misplacement of some of Corrie's remains. In the first decision, the court upheld the "combat activities exception" principle...
  • Lina Greenhouse is wrong about King v. Burwell

    02/10/2015 9:20:13 PM PST · by Howard Slugh · 19 replies
    National Review ^ | 2/10/2015 | Howard Slugh
    Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times Supreme Court reporter, stunningly suggests in a recent article that the justices need to be scolded into “reading the briefs” in a pending case. She concludes with an astonishing rhetorical flourish: Like Lucille Ball, the Court will “have a great deal of explaining to do” if it fails to rule in the manner she suggests. It takes a lot of chutzpah to admonish the Supreme Court in such fashion. If someone is going to do so, she had better make certain that her facts are correct, and that her legal arguments are unimpeachable. Unfortunately,...
  • Boehner: House will not support marriage during Supreme Court case

    02/10/2015 10:21:42 AM PST · by BlatherNaut · 21 replies
    LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/9/15 | Ben Johnson
    When the Supreme Court rules about whether to impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation, the House of Representatives will remain mum on the subject. House Speaker John Boehner confirmed that the Republican-controlled body will not weigh in on either side of the constitutional issue. “I don’t expect that we’re going to weigh in on this,” Boehner said at a press conference last Thursday. “The court will make its decision and that’s why they’re there, to be the highest court in the land.” The House's decision effectively abandons the legal field to federal institutions that support the redefinition of marriage....
  • Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages from starting in Alabama

    02/09/2015 6:49:01 AM PST · by alancarp · 163 replies
    FOXNEWS.COM ^ | 2/9/2015 | AP
    Link only, due to AP source.
  • Breaking: SCOTUS denies stay; gay marriage is on in AL [only Thomas and Scalia dissent]

    02/09/2015 6:10:21 AM PST · by GIdget2004 · 33 replies
    supremecourt.gov ^ | 02/09/2015 | SCOTUS
    Order at the link. Notably Alito and Roberts did not join the dissent.
  • BREAKING: Canada’s top court rules doctors can help kill patients; overturns assisted suicide law

    02/06/2015 12:15:32 PM PST · by BlatherNaut · 11 replies
    LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/6/15 | Pete Baklinski
    In a momentous ruling this morning, Canada’s highest court unanimously ruled to open the door to a doctor helping kill someone nearing the end-of-life stage, a ruling comparable to the sweeping Morgentaler ruling 27 years ago that allowed a doctor to kill someone at the earliest pre-born stage of life. In Carter v. Canada, the Court overturned a previous law prohibiting assisted suicide, in effect reversing the previous 1993 Rodriguez decision in which it said the state’s obligation to “protect the vulnerable” outweighed the rights of the individual to self-determination. The ruling makes Canada join the ranks of Switzerland, the...
  • Obama reportedly considered appointing Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court

    02/04/2015 2:47:03 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 49 replies
    Business Insider ^ | 02/04/2015 | Colin Campbell
    President Barack Obama once mulled whether to make Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court justice, according to his top former adviser. The Daily News reported Tuesday that former White House official David Axelrod said Obama considered offering Clinton the job after defeating her in the presidential primary six years ago. Axelrod made the claim in his new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics." The 2008 primary contest was highly charged and at times bitter. Now facing the general election as the Democratic nominee, Obama needed Clinton's supporters to rally behind his candidacy. At the time, Obama was said to be...
  • Will Children of Gay Parents Sway the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?

    02/04/2015 9:23:08 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 27 replies
    Christian Post ^ | 02/04/2015 | Napp Nazworth
    Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote in the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming gay marriage decision, appeared to place a high value in how the Court will affect the children of gay parents. Some of those children are now telling Kennedy and the Court that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is harmful for children. During oral arguments for the 2013 gay marriage case Hollingsworth vs. Perry, Kennedy asked, "there is an immediate ... what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children [of same-sex parents]. There are some 40,000 children in California ... that live...
  • U.S. Constitution Exceptions Clause, and Gay Marriage

    02/01/2015 10:24:37 AM PST · by Sean_Anthony · 11 replies
    Canada Free Press ^ | 02/01/15 | Douglas V. Gibbs
    States can simply nullify unconstitutional laws and rulings, for how can they be forced to follow these federal laws and rulings if they are illegal from a constitutional point of view, in the first place? An email I received recently asked about the Exceptions clause in Article III of the United States Constitution. Here is my reply: Dear XXXXXX, First, we must establish a proper premise. Part of the problem with dealing with folks that either oppose the Constitution, or have fallen for the “case law” interpretation, is that they don’t understand the argument because they are operating from a...
  • State Legislators Renew Battle Against Same-sex Marriage Decrees

    01/30/2015 12:08:11 PM PST · by Tolerance Sucks Rocks · 29 replies
    The New American ^ | January 30, 2015 | Jack Kenny
    In what has been described as a new front in the battle over same-sex marriage, legislators in several states under judicial orders to confer marital status on same-sex couples have introduced bills to forbid state or local officials from issuing marriage licenses to couples of the same gender. The bills would also strip the salaries of employees who issued the licenses, the New York Times reported Thursday.The bills have been introduced in the legislatures of Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, with South Carolina also considering a bill that would allow officials to opt out of issuing such licenses if it...
  • Andrew Sullivan: Why I’m Jittery About SCOTUS On Marriage

    01/28/2015 6:26:10 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 33 replies
    The Dish ^ | January 22, 2015 | Andrew Sullivan
    I was too sick to grapple with the recently revealed fact that the Supreme Court is going to decide some foundational issues with respect to marriage equality this spring and summer. And maybe because I’ve spent so long worrying about a premature decision that I cannot quite believe that the Fourteenth Amendment will find one more minority to protect. The power of the language and arguments in the Windsor decision would be very hard to take back, and with 36 states now offering marriage equality, the ruling would not be another Roe (there’s already a budding national majority for equal...
  • Ted Cruz 2016: 7 Highlights From Pre-Politics Life of GOP Presidential Hopeful

    01/27/2015 4:06:53 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 4 replies
    NewsMax ^ | January 27, 2015 | Lisa Cunningham
    Ted Cruz, an outspoken attorney whose first elected role was as a U.S. senator from Texas, is seen as a strong contender for a run for president in 2016. Although he’s only been a senator since 2012, Cruz has already ingratiated himself with the Tea Party. Here are seven highlights from his pre-politics life: 1. His father was a political prisoner of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista during Fidel Castro's revolution and nearly lost his life. "Being the son of an immigrant who came here fleeing oppression and seeking freedom, I think, is an incredible gift," Cruz has said. "It makes...
  • The Totalitarianism of Same-Sex “Marriage” (what has happened in Canada since 2005)

    01/27/2015 9:54:09 AM PST · by NYer · 21 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | January 27, 2015 | JOE BISSONNETTE
    In November of 1996 First Things hosted a symposium titled “The Judicial Usurpation of Politics” in which contributors discussed the threat to American democracy posed by the Supreme Court instated imposition of abortion on America. Nothing rivals the sheer volume of innocent human beings killed by abortion and yet First Things saw fit to focus not on the babies themselves or the mothers and fathers, but on the threat to democracy and the American experiment posed by the judicial over-reach that legalized abortion.The legalization of same-sex “marriage” does not bring with it the innocent blood which cries to heaven,...
  • Prejudiced Justices? AFA calls on Ginsberg, Kagan to recuse themselves from marriage equality ruling

    01/24/2015 7:51:13 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 17 replies
    Dallas Voice ^ | 01/20/2015 | Tammye Nash
    The American Family Association has called on U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the marriage equality cases the court announced last Friday (Jan. 16), that it will be hearing appeals on, likely in April. Ginsberg and Kagan should not participate in the hearing, AFA President Tim Wildmon has declared, because they have both officiated as same-sex weddings, according to reports by the UK LGBT news site Pink News. SCOTUS announced Friday that the court will accept appeals on four marriage equality cases — from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The four cases...
  • Supreme Court Malfeasance

    01/22/2015 10:05:14 AM PST · by Sean_Anthony · 3 replies
    Canada Free Press ^ | 01/22/15 | Alan Caruba
    I will say no to those who want to remove the moral pillars that have served our society and all societies over the millennia. Over the course of its history the Supreme Court has made some very bad decisions and the decision to declare abortion legal ranks high among them. On January 22, 1973, in Roe v. Wade the Court interpreted the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to extend a right of privacy to a woman’s decision to have an abortion prior to the third trimester of pregnancy. There have been 57.5 million abortions since 1973—42 years—when the...
  • How Chruistians and non-Christians have fared before the Supreme Court (Shortened title)

    01/21/2015 8:24:34 PM PST · by right-wing agnostic · 4 replies
    The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | January 20, 2015 | Eugene Volokh
    I’ve long been skeptical of claims that justices in religious freedom cases — and especially devoutly Christian justices, such as Justice Antonin Scalia — are biased in favor of Christians in religious exemption cases. To be sure, justices are people, and people have biases, usually in favor of their own groups. But justices also know quite well that their opinions will affect many more cases, including cases brought by other religious groups. I’m also skeptical of trying to prove such biases simply by counting cases. Different cases involve different legal issues, and — especially when you have only a few...
  • A.G. Eric Holder ends Equitable Sharing scheme; theft of $3 billion from American citizens

    01/21/2015 8:46:40 AM PST · by Oldpuppymax · 10 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 1/21/15 | Doug Book
    Thirty years ago, the practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture was implemented by the federal government as a means of confiscating cash and assets, principally from drug dealers. But since 9/11, this method of punishing criminals has been used to literally steal billions in legally owned wealth from law abiding Americans. In 2008, the Department of Justice began emphasis on that part of the Asset Forfeiture law called Equitable Sharing, a scheme whereby money confiscated from citizens–usually by police–would be divided between state and federal governments. Legal permission for this extraordinary method of “profit sharing” was provided in the Comprehensive Crime...
  • Attorney General Eric Holder wants the "Supreme Court" to oppose the Author of marriage

    01/17/2015 6:43:49 AM PST · by cleghornboy · 32 replies
    La Salette Journey ^ | January 17, 2015 | Paul Melanson
    High court to hear gay marriage cases in April Associated Press WASHINGTON (January 16, 2015) — Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution. The justices will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June. Proponents of same-sex marriage said...
  • Fox’s Shep Smith: Same States That Were ‘Fighting Integration’ Are Against Gay Marriage

    01/16/2015 8:05:01 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 53 replies
    Mediaite ^ | January 16, 2015 | Matt Wilstein
    During his breaking news coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear four different cases challenging same-sex marriage bans in four different states this term — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee — Fox News’ Shepard Smith compared the remaining resistance to marriage equality in this country to those who wanted to keep segregation intact during the Civil Rights Movement. “Not in every case, but in most cases, the same states which were fighting integration are fighting this as well,” Smith said. “Those states which always seem to be behind the curve for reasons which are explainable and understandable. Those are...
  • Is Political Speech More Important Than Religious Speech? Supreme Court Hears Arguments

    01/15/2015 8:31:04 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 4 replies
    Christian Post ^ | 01/15/2015 | Michael Gryboski
    The issue of whether political speech is more important than religious speech was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in oral arguments Monday in a case involving a small church that is suing an Arizona town over a sign display code they believe violates their rights. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to favor Good News Community Church and its pastor Clyde Reed over the town of Gilbert's restrictions on religious roadside signs. During the arguments, a couple attorneys wondered if Gilbert's code on roadside signs placed political speech above religious speech. Reed and his congregation were represented by...
  • A whopping 87 per cent of Obamacare customers to get taxpayer-funded subsidies in 2015...

    12/30/2014 9:38:27 PM PST · by afraidfortherepublic · 52 replies
    The Daily Mail ^ | 12-30-14 | David Martosko
    About seven out of every eight Obamacare insurance customers who enrolled between November 15 and mid-December are poor enough to qualify for taxpayer-funded subsidies designed to lower their monthly premiums. The Department of Health and Human Services reported that number Tuesday, saying it's up from 80 per cent a year ago. Americans who participate in government-brokered medical insurance can get subsidies from the federal treasury if their households earn less than four times the government's official 'poverty' level. That situation describes 64 per cent of all U.S. residents, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But far more are qualifying, suggesting...
  • Obamacare´s Coming Year of Living Dangerously

    12/29/2014 5:15:32 AM PST · by rootin tootin · 6 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 12/29/2014 | David Catron
    Recent news coverage concerning Obamacare’s legal difficulties has been dominated by King v. Burwell, which challenges the controversial IRS decision to issue subsidies and penalties through federally created insurance exchanges in 34 states that refused set up PPACA “marketplaces.” The Supreme Court announced last month that it would take up King, and it will hear oral arguments in March. The alacrity with which the Court took up the case, upon which it will hand down a ruling in June, has rendered the law’s supporters nearly hysterical. But King is by no means the only legal threat Obamacare will face next...
  • Why Liberals Should Fear the Supreme Court in 2015

    12/26/2014 4:41:35 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 35 replies
    National Journal ^ | 12/26/2014 | Sam Baker
    The Supreme Court is poised for a blockbuster year in 2015—and the list of high-profile cases could keep growing. Already, the Court is set to rule in a case that threatens to wreak havoc on Obamacare. The justices are also considering questions of religious freedom, free speech, and limits on political fundraising. That mix of cases poses big risks for liberals, who were caught off guard by the Court's enthusiasm for another high-stakes Obamacare battle. And under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has steadily chipped away at campaign-finance limits. But Republican governors and social conservatives also have a lot...
  • Obama trying to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights in a typical Obama way

    12/26/2014 9:12:14 AM PST · by Oldpuppymax · 30 replies
    Coach is Right ^ | 12/26/14 | Doug Book
    During the past several years, the expected signing by the Obama Administration of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has raised the serious question among gun owners of whether the terms of a treaty can take precedence over the rights secured by the Constitution or the laws of the land which derive from it. That is, can our inalienable rights be undone by International Law? Secretary of State John Kerry signed the ATT last year and the Treaty entered into force—took effect—two days ago on Christmas Eve. Apostles of one world government have endeavored to convince the American people...
  • Sixth Circuit Upholds Second Amendment; Strikes Involuntary Commitment as Permanent Disqualifier

    12/21/2014 5:20:09 AM PST · by marktwain · 3 replies
    Gun Watch ^ | 20 December, 2014 | Dean Weingarten
    Another step has been taken to restore second amendment rights to the position that they held before the modern assault on the Constitution.   It is an important case because it establishes the precedent that your second amendment rights cannot be permanently removed for a temporary condition; and that the proper level of scrutiny in the court is the highest accorded to fundamental constitutional rights, that  of strict scrutiny.  From the opinion of the court, pdf file: BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of...