Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,664
25%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 25% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Washington Post Quietly Corrects Justice John Paul Stevens’s Grievous Error about Gun Laws

    04/17/2014 6:25:10 PM PDT · by marktwain · 9 replies
    cato.org ^ | 14 April, 2014 | Trevor Burrus
    Last week, former Justice John Paul Stevens penned an op-ed for the Washington Post on “The Five Words that Can Fix the Second Amendment.” The piece is actually an excerpt from his new book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. In the book, Stevens suggests some changes that would ratify his view of cases in which he stridently dissented, such as Citizens United and Heller. Stevens’s dissent in Heller, the case in which a 5-4 Court held that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to own guns even for those not part of a militia,...
  • Olympia Snowe, on compromise, Citizens United and former colleague Kay Hagan

    04/14/2014 9:23:17 AM PDT · by cotton1706 · 17 replies
    washingtonpost.com ^ | 4/14/14 | Mary Curtis
    Olympia Snowe made her case for a return to governing from the “sensible center,” and she did it with conviction. But while the audience was both loud and supportive at a women’s summit in Charlotte, no one – and that includes the former Republican U.S. senator from Maine — thought it would be easy. Snowe was considered moderate in her approach and her politics when she decided not to run for a fourth term in the Senate in 2012. How bad had it gotten? Republicans and Democrats honored her at separate celebrations, a departure from the past. “It’s not even...
  • Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

    04/11/2014 2:49:57 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 97 replies
    Washington Post ^ | April 11, 2014 | By John Paul Stevens
    --snip-- As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:   “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the...
  • Protesting Obamacare 60's Style

    04/11/2014 1:59:24 PM PDT · by kathsua · 1 replies
    Lawrence Journal World ^ | April 11, 2014 | Reasonmclucus
    No, I'm not suggesting anyone should burn a draft card (or the student union) or stage a sit-in in the office of Secretary Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius. Those who feel Obamacare will adversely affect them should conduct a "sue-in". They should file individual lawsuits challenging the law on grounds it will harm them as individuals. The class action lawsuits various states filed against the law didn't force the courts to deal with the hardships the law would create for some individuals. Individual cases can present the courts with actual evidence of individuals who would be adversely affected being forced to purchase...
  • Real Change In DC Requires Campaign Finance Reform

    The left’s hypocrisy concerning campaign finances and billionaires in politics has been on full display recently. Since 2010 we’ve heard them whine about the Citizens United case, now we can hear them whine about McCutcheon v FEC. McCutcheon ruled the cap on total campaign donations unconstitutional, though it left in place the cap on donations to one candidate. The left is outraged that billionaires will be allowed to exercise free speech in the form of donating money. Meanwhile, have you noticed Harry Reid can’t stop talking about the libertarian Koch Brothers. They’ve become the boogeyman for everything wrong in the...
  • Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case

    04/08/2014 4:30:39 AM PDT · by NYer · 25 replies
    cna ^ | April 8, 2014 | Adelaide Mena
    Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, N.M. Photo courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom. Washington D.C., Apr 8, 2014 / 04:13 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on a case involving a small Christian-owned photography business that declined on religious grounds to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006. The court announced its decision April 7. It did not give a reason for declining to hear the case. “Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence of Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Elaine...
  • 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 rejects appeal over gay bias case

    04/07/2014 11:31:56 AM PDT · by Olog-hai · 73 replies
    Associated Press ^ | Apr 7, 2014 2:13 PM EDT | Jeri Clausing
    The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from a studio that refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony, letting stand a New Mexico high court ruling that helped spur a national debate over gay rights and religious freedom. The justices left in place a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling last year that said Elane Photography violated New Mexico’s Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph the same-sex ceremony “in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.” …
  • 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/
  • 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...
  • Team Obama wins fight to have Christian home-school family deported

    03/04/2014 4:35:38 AM PST · by SJackson · 27 replies
    FoxNews.com ^ | March 03, 2014 | Todd Starnes
    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. The Romeikes were initially given asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution. “The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last year. “Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to...
  • Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor: ‘Sometimes You Have To Do the Unexpected’

    04/04/2014 1:22:24 PM PDT · by Olog-hai · 61 replies
    Der Spiegel ^ | April 02, 2014 – 12:43 PM | Samiha Shafy
    “You know, it’s almost a life motto (‘Well-behaved women rarely make history’). If you read the book (My Beloved World), you know I’m very law abiding. But I make it very clear that, like all people, there are exceptions. I like driving fast. I’m a pure New Yorker and I jaywalk. None of us is perfect. Sometimes you have to do the unexpected.” […] “In the United States, certain segments of society played with quotas for a number of years. What ended up happening is that the larger population got angry. And the Supreme Court ultimately said that quotas were...
  • Is it Clarence Thomas’s court?

    04/04/2014 4:07:44 AM PDT · by markomalley · 32 replies
    The Hill ^ | 4/4/2014 | Ben Goad
    Justice Clarence Thomas’s influence was on full display in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to strike down a key campaign finance restriction.  And it’s just one in a string of cases in which Thomas could be dragging the court toward his way of thinking. Chief Justice John Roberts penned Wednesday’s plurality decision, which eliminates the limit on the total dollar amount an individual may give to political candidates and committees.But Thomas, seen by many as the court’s most conservative justice, wrote a concurring opinion that both represented the decisive vote in the 5-4 decision, and beckoned the justices to go further.Thomas...
  • Power Surge for Donors as Terrain Is Reshaped on Campaign Money

    04/03/2014 12:22:09 PM PDT · by Seizethecarp · 12 replies
    New York Times ^ | April 2, 2014 | NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
    Big donors, leaders of political parties and candidates with access to wealthy supporters will be the biggest beneficiaries of the Supreme Court decision issued on Wednesday, a ruling that could fundamentally reshape the political terrain in the 2014 elections and beyond. Election experts predicted a surge of new money into congressional campaigns and political parties, expanding the world of high-dollar fund-raising now dominated by “super PACs” and big-spending political nonprofit groups. The decision effectively eradicates a significant campaign finance restriction brought about in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the cap on the total amount any one person can give...
  • Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling on campaign contributions (Harry Reid bashes Koch Brothers again)

    04/02/2014 12:22:43 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 21 replies
    Politico ^ | 04/02/2014 | By SEUNG MIN KIM
    Democratic lawmakers and campaign finance reform advocates quickly bashed Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, warning of future corruption in elections. Meanwhile, Republicans largely cheered the ruling from the narrowly divided court, which found it unconstitutional to impose caps on the aggregate amounts that one person can donate to campaigns, parties and political action committees. Calling himself “all for freedom,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday commended the ruling, saying “donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give.” And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had filed...
  • High court voids overall contribution limits (democrats and McCain will go nuts with this one!)

    04/02/2014 7:34:58 AM PDT · by cotton1706 · 19 replies
    yahoo.com ^ | 4/2/14 | Mark Sherman
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees. The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates. But their decision...
  • Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Individual Free Speech Contributions

    04/02/2014 9:51:37 AM PDT · by jazusamo · 23 replies
    PJ Media ^ | April 2, 2014 | J. Christian Adams
    Until this morning, the federal government could limit the amount of money you contribute for political speech. Today in McCutcheon vs. FEC, the Supreme Court invalidated overall contribution limits. The federal government limited individual campaign contributions to $48,000 overall and $123,200 to everything (PACs, candidates, national parties) each cycle. The Supreme Court struck down the limits, holding that the government’s justification for limiting free speech rights – to keep money out of politics and the avoid the appearance of impropriety – failed. This decision cuts at the heart of the leftist narrative on free speech attacks. The heart of the...
  • Supreme Court Strikes Limit on Number of Political Contributions

    04/02/2014 9:16:53 AM PDT · by Jim Robinson · 19 replies
    Madison Center (received via email) ^ | April 2, 2014 | By James Bopp, Jr.
    PRESS RELEASE April 2, 2014 Contact: James Bopp, Jr. Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com Supreme Court Strikes Limit on Number of Political Contributions Today, the U.S. Supreme struck down federal “aggregate limits” on how much an individual may spend on otherwise legal contributions in a two-year election cycle to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees (“PACs”). The case is McCutcheon v. FEC. For example, though an individual may legally give $5,200 to each candidate in a two year election cycle, the aggregate limit restricts his total contributions to candidates to $48,600. Thus, an individual may...
  • 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,...
  • U.S. Supreme Court Gives Broad Reading to Federal Firearm Prohibition for "Domestic Violence"

    03/31/2014 2:54:44 PM PDT · by neverdem · 65 replies
    NRA-ILA ^ | March 28, 2014 | NA
    Since 1996, the so-called "Lautenberg Amendment" (named for its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)), has banned the acquisition or possession of firearms by anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Applicable crimes are limited to those that have "as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon" and that are committed by persons with a specified relationship to the victim, such as a current or former spouse or a parent. The prohibition applies no matter when the offense occurred and can include convictions that predated the 1996 law....
  • Supreme Court declines to hear new contraception cases [Catholic Univ and others]

    03/31/2014 8:12:21 AM PDT · by GIdget2004 · 22 replies
    Reuters ^ | 03/31/2014 | Lawrence Hurley
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up preliminary appeals brought by Roman Catholic groups that want an exemption from part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring employers to provide insurance that covers contraception. The cases were brought by a series of Roman Catholic-affiliated nonprofit groups based in Washington, D.C., including Catholic University. The legal issue is different from one involving for-profit companies that also object on religious grounds to the so-called contraception mandate, which was argued before the high court last week. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the two cases at this stage means...
  • Did Justice Kagan embarrass herself during the Hobby Lobby oral arguments?

    03/30/2014 11:39:03 AM PDT · by Nachum · 36 replies
    American Thinker ^ | 3/30/2014 | Thomas Lifson
    If Betsey McCaughey is correct (and I bet she is, because she has not only read the entire ObamaCare bill, she has written a book about it), Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan publicly humiliated herself during the oral arguments on the Hobby Lobby case, revealing that she either did not read the law, or failed to comprehend it if she did so. Writing in the New York Sun, McCaughey lays out what is wrong with the Justice’s declaration about Obamacare: she asserted that the statute itself mandates provision of birth control. Not one word in the Affordable Care Act guarantees...
  • Georgia Catholic organizations win permanent exclusion from Obamacare birth control mandate

    03/28/2014 10:01:03 PM PDT · by topher · 23 replies
    LifeSiteNews.com ^ | Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:49 EST | by Kirsten Andersen
    ATLANTA, GA, March 28, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from enforcing its controversial contraception mandate against Roman Catholic-affiliated organizations in the Archdiocese of Atlanta and the Diocese of Savannah. U.S. District Judge William Duffey ruled Wednesday that the federal government cannot force Catholic schools, hospitals or charities to cover sterilizations, contraceptives or abortion-causing drugs in their health plans, as Obamacare requires of all employers, because to do so would violate their religious freedoms. The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception of any kind is gravely sinful.
  • Nancy Pelosi: Pro-Lifers are “Dumb” For Believing Life Begins at Conception

    03/28/2014 6:30:49 PM PDT · by smoothsailing · 125 replies
    Life News ^ | 3-28-2014 | Steven Ertelt
    Nancy Pelosi: Pro-Lifers are “Dumb” For Believing Life Begins at Conception by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/28/14 12:29 PM Never mind that science has confirmed for some time that human life begins at conception and the union of sperm and egg creates a unique human being with a DNA code that matches no one else ever conceived.Nancy Pelosi believes pro-life advocates who think human life starts at conception are just “dumb.”Politico has the quote: At Planned Parenthood’s annual gala last night, attendees and your PULSEr stopped laughing at comedian and emcee Tig Notaro just long enough...
  • 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...
  • 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,...
  • Democrats' ObamaCare Albatross

    03/28/2014 12:29:43 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 22 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 28, 2014 | Jeff Jacoby
    In September 2010, six months after signing the Affordable Care Act and just weeks before his party's massive losses in the midterm elections, President Obama wondered whether the law's unpopularity might be due to a communication failure on his part. "Sometimes I fault myself,"he told an audience in Virginia, "for not having been able to make the case more clearly to the country." There was nothing wrong with the president's communication skills. The case he made for his sweeping health care overhaul was straightforward and appealing: It would make health insurance available to every American, especially the more than 40...
  • Six Lies The Leftist Media Tells About The Contraception Mandate Cases The media narrative is false

    03/28/2014 8:20:28 AM PDT · by xzins · 15 replies
    The Federalist ^ | March 24, 2014 | Gabriel Malor
    This week, the Supreme Court will consider whether businesses and their owners must choose between paying millions of dollars in fines and violating their religious beliefs. The outcome of the combined cases, popularly styled Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, will shape how government interacts with religious Americans for decades to come. It is no overstatement to say that an adverse outcome would banish from public life many Americans who wish to go on operating their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs, as they have for decades. But a funny thing happens if you pick up a newspaper covering these cases....
  • Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them

    03/27/2014 12:02:35 PM PDT · by shepardspie33 · 56 replies
    Red Dirt Report ^ | March 27, 2014 | Brian Woodward
    It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously. The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs. In their initial complaint to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Hobby Lobby stated, “After learning about the current HHS...
  • How Hobby Lobby Will Hurt Conservatives (Barf Alert!)

    03/27/2014 7:06:51 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 43 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 27, 2014 | Steve Chapman
    Lawyers for Hobby Lobby this week urged the Supreme Court to let companies opt out of certain health insurance rules for religious reasons, and they have a good chance of success. If employers are allowed to refuse to provide coverage that pays for certain types of contraception, it will be a big victory for religious conservatives. Or will it? After all, they have found before that getting your way does not always mean advancing your cause. Sometimes winning is a recipe for defeat. That was the surprising case with same-sex marriage. Not long ago, public opinion was strongly opposed to...
  • Citizens United and Hobby Lobby

    03/27/2014 7:21:37 AM PDT · by A'elian' nation · 13 replies
    I am not a lawyer or legal beagle nor have I even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but would there not be some connection with the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United and the current Hobby Lobby case? And if so, why isn't this being discussed in the media and conservative talk radio? In Citizens United, the Supreme Court basically established corporations as individuals allowing them to contribute to political campaigns. If a corporation is regarded as an individual when it comes to political contributions, why would not a corporation be given religious freedom rights as an individual? The...
  • Is There a “Right” to Birth Control? (what the administration really wants)

    03/27/2014 5:42:37 AM PDT · by NYer · 29 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | March 27, 2014 | Joe Hargrave
    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday from opposing legal counsel on the HHS contraception mandate cases. The media consensus appears to be that the justices were hard on the mandate and appear likely to issue a narrow ruling exempting “closely-held” corporations, which both of the plaintiffs are, while leaving open the question of whether or not publicly-traded corporations have First Amendment rights. The distinction is relevant since closely-held corporations are directly operated by their owners and are fairly limited in the number of shareholders they typically have, while public corporations have hundreds or thousands of shareholders. The...
  • Sandra Fluke: 'Corporations Cannot Have Religious Views' [Hobby Lobby case]

    03/26/2014 6:48:19 PM PDT · by marshmallow · 66 replies
    Truth Revolt ^ | 3/25/14 | Bradford Thomas
    Sandra Fluke sounds the alarm over "potentially catastrophic" Hobby Lobby case Social justice attorney Sandra Fluke, now running for California State Senate, sounded the alarm Tuesday about the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, which pits the religious objections of the owners of corporations against Obamacare’s “contraception mandate.” In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Fluke called the case a “potential catastrophe for women’s rights,” arguing that “corporations cannot have religious views” and a rule in the favor of religious objections would set America on a dangerous course. USA Today reports that the first day of the hearings did not...
  • Justice Sotomayor Compared Abortions to Vaccinations, Blood Transfusions in Hobby Lobby Case

    03/26/2014 6:45:41 PM PDT · by Morgana · 25 replies
    LIFE NEWS ^ | Steven Ertelt
    Over the years we’ve heard all sorts of attempts to downplay abortions as something insignificant rather than an act that destroys the life of an unborn children and injures women. Sotomayor Senate RolesDuring yesterday’s oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case, which observers think will have the Supreme Court ultimately siding with the Christian-run business in its efforts to not have to pay for abortion-causing drugs, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the latest to make an oft-putting comparison. While the lawyer for the Obama administration appeared surprised that the case had anything to do with abortion, Justice Sotomayor compared abortions to...
  • Administration: We Can Force You to Cooperate in Killing Your Grandchild

    03/26/2014 4:33:09 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 52 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | March 26, 2014 | Terry Jeffrey
    Question: Does the Obama administration claim the right to force Americans to cooperate in killing their own grandchildren? Answer: Yes. On the face of it, this seems like an outrageous claim. But it is true. The outrage is what the government is demanding Americans do. The Affordable Care Act -- aka Obamacare -- includes a "requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage." The main part of this "requirement" says: "An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for...
  • (Hobby Lobby) Argument recap: One hearing, two dramas

    03/26/2014 2:25:40 PM PDT · by NYer · 24 replies
    scotusblog ^ | March 25, 2014 | Lyle Denniston
    The Supreme Court, in a one-hour, twenty-eight-minute session Tuesday, staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage: first the liberals had their chance and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave them some help, and then the scene shifted entirely, and the conservatives had their chance — and, again, Kennedy provided them with some support.So went the argument in the combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. The “contraceptive mandate” in the new federal health care law, challenged under federal law and the Constitution, fared well in the first scene, and badly in...
  • HIGH COURT BOLSTERS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUN BAN LAW

    03/26/2014 12:30:59 PM PDT · by Lurking Libertarian · 61 replies
    Associated Press ^ | March 26, 2014 | Associated Press
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- People convicted of minor domestic violence offenses can be barred from possessing guns even in states where no proof of physical violence is required to support the domestic violence charge, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The ruling was a victory for the Obama administration, gun control groups and advocates for victims of domestic abusers who say the gun ban is critical in preventing the escalation of domestic violence. The justices unanimously rejected the argument put forth by gun rights groups and a Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault against the mother of his child...
  • OBAMACARE ABORTION MANDATE ON THE ROPES AT SUPREME COURT

    03/26/2014 11:12:51 AM PDT · by Jim Robinson · 38 replies
    Breitbart ^ | March 25, 2014 | by KEN KLUKOWSKI
    In one sentence, Justice Anthony Kennedy signaled he may vote to strike down Obamacare’s so-called “abortion mandate,” suggesting he may form the crucial swing vote in delivering a body blow to the president's signature legislative achievement. “What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?” Kennedy asked. It's a question that cuts to the core of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two consolidated cases over whether the government can force a private business...
  • 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...
  • TMLC Senior Counsel Hopeful Justice Kennedy Will Side with Hobby Lobby and Religious Freedom

    03/26/2014 9:32:16 AM PDT · by NKP_Vet · 12 replies
    http://www.thomasmore.org ^ | March 26, 2014 | Thomas More Law Center
    Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel, Erin Mersino, was in the U. S. Supreme Court gallery yesterday, as the Court heard the historic oral arguments regarding challenges to the HHS Mandate filed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. Mersino observed, “There was a division amongst the Court. Justice Kagan was clearly advocating to uphold the Mandate, while Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Alito recognized how the Mandate violated the plaintiffs’ freedom of religion.” Continued Mersino, “But based on comments of the various Justices, and particularly, Justice Kennedy, I am hopeful that religious freedom will prevail with the majority...
  • 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 Supreme Court 'Sounds Ready' To Throw Out A Controversial Part Of Obamacare

    03/26/2014 1:26:23 AM PDT · by kingattax · 58 replies
    Yahoo/Business Insider ^ | 3-26-14 | Brett LoGiurato
    The Supreme Court sounded "ready" to throw out the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires certain religious corporations to offer employees contraceptive coverage, according to a report in The Los Angeles Times. The court's conservative justices were sharply critical of the provision in the law. The women justices, meanwhile — liberals Elena Kagan , Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — defended the law, according to the Times. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing voter with a libertarian bent, told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who defended the mandate, that his reasoning " would permit requiring profit-making corporations to...
  • Hobby Lobby Has Its Day In Court - Despite the antics of liberal justices

    03/26/2014 4:21:08 AM PDT · by Cincinatus' Wife · 41 replies
    The American Spectator ^ | March 26, 2014 | David Catron
    One of the reasons Clarence Thomas gives for the studious silence he maintains during Supreme Court hearings is that his fellow justices have shown an increasing tendency to talk too much during oral arguments, thus preventing advocates from presenting their arguments coherently. Yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius suggest that Thomas is right.Paul D. Clement, who appeared on behalf of the two companies challenging the Obamacare contraception mandate,was repeatedly interrupted and badgered by justices Sotomayor,Kagan,and Ginsburg. The transcript from yesterday’s hearing shows that Clement was permitted to talk less than...
  • Religious Freedom At Stake In Hobby Lobby Case

    Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the case of Sebelius v Hobby Lobby. This is a potentially momentous case. Hobby Lobby is owned by a Christian family. Their religious beliefs are such that they oppose abortion in any form. They provide healthcare to their employees, however they don’t provide coverage for any procedure or pill that could harm an unborn child. Under Obamacare, the Federal government has mandated contraception and abortion coverage. Hobby Lobby objects on religious grounds. The left is crying war on women, Sandra Fluke is loudly proclaiming that corporations aren’t people and can have no religion. To take...
  • Tired of Hobby Lobby?

    03/26/2014 2:42:12 AM PDT · by rhema · 50 replies
    LCMS Blog ^ | March 24, 2014 | Matthew Harrison
    You’re tired of hearing about Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court, tired of all the talk of fines and health-care plans and reproductive rights, tired of being bombarded with words spoken in anger from both sides of the aisle. You want to put your fingers in your ears, switch the channel, and wait for the ruling and the rest of it to just go away. But even though you are tired, even though you’ve grown weary of having the same discussions about the same points, Hobby Lobby and fines and health-care plans still matter. They matter because your country –...
  • Pin drop! Obama lawyer stuns Supreme justice

    03/25/2014 9:03:08 PM PDT · by Beave Meister · 106 replies
    WND ^ | 3/25/2014 | GREG COROMBOS
    In a dramatic moment at the Supreme Court Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told justices that U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions. Justices and lawyers also sparred over whether businesses actually have religious freedom and whether striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens. The notable abortion exchange between Verrilli and Justice Anthony Kennedy came during oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two cases linked by the companies’ owners objecting to the Department of Health and Human Services requirement that businesses fully...
  • Ted Cruz, Veteran of 9 Supreme Court Arguments, Says First Amendment on Trial Today

    03/25/2014 6:49:43 PM PDT · by SoConPubbie · 14 replies
    Heritage - The Foundry ^ | March 25, 2014 at 9:52 am | Rob Bluey
    Ted Cruz has argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in his lifetime, more than any other current member of Congress. Today, as a U.S. senator from Texas, Cruz is making a different kind of argument—one in the court of public opinion.On his Facebook page and in a statement released by his office, Cruz has declared his support for the families who own Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties in their First Amendment challenge of an Obamacare mandate.Oral arguments in both cases take place today at the Supreme Court.>>> Q&A: Tough Questions on Religious Freedom, Abortion Drugs“The Supreme Court...
  • Sen. Ted Cruz rallies religious freedom activists at the Supreme Court in support of Hobby Lobby

    03/25/2014 6:01:55 PM PDT · by SoConPubbie · 13 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | MARCH 25, 2014 AT 2:13 PM | Charlie Spiering
    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, surprised freezing religious freedom activists who had spent the morning rallying in support of Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court appeal."God bless you for being here today!" Cruz said Tuesday, after wading into the crowd and stepping up to the podium.Activists cheered Cruz's arrival after spending several hours standing in the snow in front of the court during oral arguments inside."Thank you for being here in this beautiful weather from God," Cruz added as the crowd laughed.Cruz reminded activists that the United States was founded by people who fled religious oppression and enshrined religious freedom in the Constitution."There...
  • Justices Divide By Gender In Hobby Lobby Contraception Case

    03/25/2014 5:42:48 PM PDT · by Jim Robinson · 35 replies
    NPR ^ | March 25, 2014 | By Nina Totenberg
    There was a clear difference of opinion between male and female justices at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. The issue was whether for-profit corporations, citing religious objections, may refuse to include contraception coverage in the basic health plan now mandated under the Affordable Care Act. The female justices were clearly supportive of the contraception mandate, while a majority of the male justices were more skeptical. The lead challenger in the case is the Hobby Lobby corporation, a chain of 500 arts and crafts stores that has 13,000 employees. The owners object to two forms of contraception, IUDs and morning-after...