Free Republic

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday evening reversed a lower court’s block on certifying the state’s elections issued Friday night, dismissing with prejudice a lawsuit brought by Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives that sought to have the results nullified over constitutional concerns about a 2019 change in absentee ballot rules. The lead plaintiffs in the case are Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell.

In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. SNIP As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd; "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;" And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no,...

Federal Bench: Yet another judicial nominee seeks to impose the "empathy" standard on the courts. He thinks judges should base rulings on a plaintiff's status, legislate from the bench and amend the Constitution. Indiana federal judge David Hamilton stands poised to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to assume a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals serving Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. He's a former fundraiser for Acorn and a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He is also another in a series of activist judges who believe the U.S. Constitution is not...

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes HOPE YEN Associated Press WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights. Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas....

The president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world we assume. We think. Do you know why we have to do this, according to the president? Do you know why we need a constitutional amendment to see to it that everybody understands and knows what marriage means? Do you know why? Why? It's not just that. It's not just some people breaking the law. It's that we're not enforcing the law! We've already got law. But since nobody's willing to enforce it, we've got to put another law on the books, this time in the Constitution....

On today's show, Rush was claiming that pro-marriage people should be civily disobedient and force the pro-gay marriage activists to overcome the opposition.

Legalization of same-sex marriage would be a seismic event across this culture. Nothing would ever be the same. Every young child asks his parents, "Can boys [or girls] get married to each other"? If the answer changes from "no" to "yes," homosexuality would have then achieved equal status with heterosexual conduct and marriage. This equivalence would be taught in schools, observed in the workplace and eventually imposed even on churches. If the answer becomes "yes" there will doubtless be a dramatic increase in the incidence of homosexuality. Sexual arousal is a mystical thing, subject to conditioning. How else can one...

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that might help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts. In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision...

Pass a law that will not allow anyone to be married in Massachusetts until the Constitutional question is resolved. Either that or pass a law to really make the Supreme Court look really bad and allow statutory rape, no age limit, that you can marry your immediate relatives, be a polygomist, or marry your children. This could really f them up

Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that they will accept nothing short of full marriage rights for same-sex couples. In doing so, the court clearly demonstrated their radical gay marriage agenda by rejecting the Massachusetts state legislatures attempts to find a compromise. Responding to the Massachusetts ruling, U.S. Senate candidate Herman Cain said, “The courts have failed the American people. Congress needs to enact a constitutional amendment to protect the sacred institution of marriage.” Cain went on to say, “Liberal-minded judges have opened a floodgate of judicial tyranny that will chip away at the core values of this country until...

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley. This past weekend, after the affirmation the president gave to the Federal Marriage Amendment in the State of the Union, President Bush stated his unequivocal support, not only for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but also for the amendment process and for the version known as the Musgrave Amendment. He did it in response to a question by Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The amendment reads as follows: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution...

BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May. AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits — but not the title of marriage — would meet constitutional muster. The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court considered Wednesday whether to give politicians new rules for drawing election districts in a case that questions whether the process has gotten too political. Justices were reviewing a fight from Pennsylvania over a congressional map that essentially redistricted three Democratic House members out of a job. Court members debated whether to throw out the entire map, or order a redrawing of one questionable district in the Philadelphia suburbs. Democratic voters who challenged the plan want the high court to use the case to spell out rules limiting partisan gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts...

In a tragic decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that jeopardizes a cardinal principle of the U.S. Constitution: free speech. Concerned Women for America's Chief Counsel Jan LaRue noted that the decision means less protection for political speech, the very speech the First Amendment aims to shield, than for pornography. The following article comes to us from the James Madison Center for Free Speech of Washington, D.C. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Today the United States Supreme Court has...