Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $31,710
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: scotus

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Judicial Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief with Supreme Court Challenging U.S. Census Policy of...

    01/17/2012 3:20:26 PM PST · by jazusamo · 24 replies
    Judicial Watch ^ | January 17, 2012
    Complete title: Judicial Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief with Supreme Court Challenging U.S. Census Policy of Counting Illegal Aliens When Apportioning Seats in Congress Judicial Watch Brief Supports Lawsuit Filed by State of Louisiana which Lost a Seat in the House of Representatives due to Census Bureau’s Unlawful Policy (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Louisiana challenging a current federal policy in which “unlawfully present aliens” were counted in the 2010 Census (...
  • LISTEN: Justice Alito Fired Up in Case Pitting Property Owners Against EPA

    01/17/2012 8:11:13 AM PST · by WilliamIII · 48 replies · 1+ views
    ABC ^ | January 17, 2012 | Ariane de Vogue
    Justice Samuel Alito seemed none too pleased last week with the government’s argument in a case pitting property owners against the Environmental Protection Agency. Four years ago, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought property to build their dream home near a lake in Idaho. After obtaining local permits the Sacketts began work, pouring in some land fill. But their work came to a screeching halt when they were visited by officials from the Environmental Protection Agency. The couple was slapped with a compliance order asserting that the land is subject to the Clean Water Act and that they had illegally placed...
  • Supreme Court: Discrimination laws do not protect certain employees of religious groups

    01/16/2012 7:30:19 AM PST · by tired&retired · 8 replies
    Washington Post ^ | January 11, 2012 | Robert Barnes
    "Justice Clarence Thomas said in a concurring opinion that he would go beyond the majority’s holding and leave up to the church the definition of who is covered by the exception. Civil courts, he said, should “defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister.” Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Elena Kagan wrote separately to make clear that they do not think the term “minister” is central to courts determining who is covered by the exemption. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists rarely use the title, they wrote. The function performed by the employee is...
  • JON CARROLL { The Lutherans seem so nice, too }

    01/16/2012 7:46:37 AM PST · by SmithL · 21 replies · 2+ views
    San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 1/16/12 | Jon Carroll
    Let us first review the First Amendment as signed by those very Founding Fathers we so zealously quarrel about: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Naturally, various legal penumbras, as they say, have formed around each of these phrases, with freedom of speech bringing up one set of issues and freedom of religious expression another. The First Amendment is regarded by...
  • Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House

    01/13/2012 9:07:20 AM PST · by Veritas_et_libertas · 13 replies
    Fox News ^ | January 11, 2012 | Peter Johnson Jr.
    Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation. The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed....
  • Supreme Court upholds 'ministerial exception' in landmark victory for religious freedom

    01/11/2012 4:52:22 PM PST · by NYer · 6 replies · 1+ views
    Catholic Culture ^ | January 11, 2012 | Diogenes
    In a landmark January 11 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that religious bodies should set their own standards for hiring ministers, free from government interference. The unanimous decision in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC was described by Douglas Laycock, who successfully argued the case before the high court, as a “huge win for religious liberty.” The Hosanna-Tabor case was the result of a discrimination lawsuit, filed by a woman who claimed that she had been wrongly dismissed by the Michigan Lutheran congregation. The Supreme Court ruled the congregation was exempt from such an anti-discrimination suit....
  • Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House

    01/11/2012 2:39:31 PM PST · by americanophile · 135 replies
    Fox News ^ | Peter Johnson Jr.
    Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation. The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed....
  • Republicans Push Pro-Zygote Extremism Over the Top (Über Hurl Warning!)

    01/10/2012 11:39:20 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 8 replies
    Womens News ^ | January 11, 2012 | Nancy L. Cohen
    Nancy L. Cohen says the roster of GOP presidential contenders is bringing 40 years of sexual counter-revolution to a crescendo. The party's rightwing social agenda is so secure it barely merits any mention. Perhaps if the pill had not been invented, the race for the Republican presidential nomination would be going very differently. In case you missed it, Mitt Romney serendipitously scored a rare laugh in a debate leading up to Tuesday's New Hampshire primary when he waved away a question about states outlawing birth control. "Contraception; it's working fine," he said. "Leave it alone." If only we could take...
  • A weak defense of EPA

    01/10/2012 8:11:44 AM PST · by WilliamIII · 21 replies
    Scotusblog ^ | Jan 9 2012 | Lyle Denniston
    With a federal government lawyer conceding almost every criticism leveled at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compels landowners to avoid polluting the nation’s waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agency’s enforcement powers. Their task was made easier as Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart stopped just short of saying that EPA was just as heavy-handed as its adversaries — and several of the Justices — were saying. Perhaps the most telling example: when several of the Justices expressed alarm that a homeowner targeted by EPA’s...
  • 27 Members Of Congress Call On SCOTUS To Strike Down ObamaCare

    01/09/2012 6:43:58 PM PST · by ElIguana · 7 replies
    America's Conservative News ^ | 01/09/2012 | America's Conservative News
    Should we call this a case of Congress asking the Court to do what Congress has failed to do? A bold move from our elected officials or are our members of Congress just passing the buck?
  • Supreme Court to hear union dues case Tuesday

    01/09/2012 3:57:34 PM PST · by Miami Vice · 8 replies
    Legal News Line ^ | 1-9-12 | MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE
    The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the appeal of eight California non-union civil servants over an assessment they say the Service Employees International Union wrongly collected from them. An attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Foundation is making the oral argument Jan. 10 for the plaintiffs in Knox v. SEIU Local 1000. In 2005, Local 1000 officials...
  • Supreme Court to hear union dues case Tuesday

    01/09/2012 3:57:22 PM PST · by Miami Vice · 10 replies
    Legal News Line ^ | 1-9-12 | MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE
    The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the appeal of eight California non-union civil servants over an assessment they say the Service Employees International Union wrongly collected from them. An attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Foundation is making the oral argument Jan. 10 for the plaintiffs in Knox v. SEIU Local 1000. In 2005, Local 1000 officials...
  • Justices criticize EPA’s dealings with Idaho homeowners

    01/09/2012 10:26:29 AM PST · by WilliamIII · 88 replies · 10+ views
    WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners. The justices were considering whether to let a North Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as “protected wetlands.” Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can’t challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines. Justice Samuel Alito called EPA’s actions “outrageous.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted the “high-handedness of the agency” in dealing with private property. Chief...
  • Capital lawyer to have Supreme moment (property rights case)

    01/08/2012 2:55:35 PM PST · by WilliamIII · 4 replies
    Sacramento Bee ^ | January 8, 2012 | Michael Doyle
    WASHINGTON – Sacramento attorney Damien Schiff will be carrying the conservative flame Monday when the Supreme Court considers what could become the year's hottest environmental case. For the 32-year-old Schiff, a senior staff attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, the hourlong oral argument marks a personal milestone. The Monday morning session will be his first appearance before the famously aggressive questioners of the nation's highest court. "There is a greater intensity of preparation," Schiff acknowledged Thursday, following a moot court session at Georgetown University Law Center. "Everyone knows that (an attorney) is lucky to have 30 seconds to make their...
  • What If Obama Loses? Imagining the consequences of a GOP victory (Bucket required)

    01/07/2012 9:59:19 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 19 replies
    The Washington Monthly ^ | The January/ February 2012 Issue | The Editors
    It’s a common complaint—we’ve certainly made it over the years—that too much political campaign coverage focuses on the horse race. The packed debate schedule in the current GOP nomination battle has put a bit more focus than usual on the substance of what the candidates are saying, which is good. But even so, most of this coverage has wound up being about whether a given policy position might help or hurt a candidate’s chances of winning. What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would...
  • The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral – Maskell And Gray To Attend – Minor v. Happersett To Preside.

    01/07/2012 5:24:30 PM PST · by Danae · 29 replies
    Natural Born Citizen Blog ^ | 1-7-2012 | Leo Donofrio Esq.
    Grab a cup of java, put your thinking caps on, kick back and relax. We are going to be here for a while. Focus. Below, you will be privy to a true and proper revision of United States Supreme Court history. One of the foundational building blocks for Justice Gray’s opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the case, McCreery v. Somerville, 22 US 354 (1824), to which Gray made a fatally flawed assumption based upon his failure to acknowledge a judicially recognized misquote. Then, Justice Gray compounded his initial error by creating a separately deceptive quotation. These errors...
  • Predicting Obama-Clinton squeaks by Romney-Ryan (With help fron Ron Paul)

    01/07/2012 9:10:15 AM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 3 replies
    The Iowa City Press-Citizen | January 6, 2012 | Bruce Wheaton
    Link only, due to copyright issues:
  • Four reasons to not sit this election out

    01/02/2012 6:50:14 PM PST · by EveningStar · 74 replies · 1+ views
    January 2, 2012
    In case you were planning to sit this one out... Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 78 years old Antonin Scalia - 75 years old Anthony Kennedy - 75 years old Stephen Breyer - 73 years old If you're wondering about the others: Clarence Thomas - 63 years old Samuel Alito - 61 years old Sonia Sotomayor - 57 years old John Roberts - 56 years old Elena Kagan - 51 years old And of course there are unknown factors not related to age.
  • Chief Justice Roberts: Back off the recusal demands

    01/02/2012 7:47:14 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 36 replies
    Hotair ^ | 01/02/2012 | Ed Morrissey
    Has anyone taken the demands for the recusals of Supreme Court justices on the ObamaCare case seriously? As I’ve written previously, they’re not offered seriously, but as a way of shaping the post-decision political battlefield, efforts that have begun on both sides of the issue. Chief Justice John Roberts told both sides to back off in his annual report to the federal judiciary: The chief justice’s comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it, he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, who are facing calls...
  • Chief Justice Roberts Defends Kagan, Thomas Hearing Health Care Case

    12/31/2011 8:24:14 PM PST · by Nachum · 73 replies
    Pat Dollard ^ | 12/31/11 | New York Times
    In the face of a growing controversy over whether two Supreme Court justices should disqualify themselves from the challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Saturday defended the court’s ethical standards. The chief justice’s comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it, he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, who are facing calls to disqualify themselves from hearing the health care case, which will be argued over three days in late March. He did not, however, mention...
  • Chief justice defends court's impartiality

    12/31/2011 6:02:54 PM PST · by SmithL · 17 replies · 1+ views
    Associated Press ^ | 12/31/11 | ANNE FLAHERTY
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday that he has "complete confidence" in his colleagues' ability to step away from cases where their personal interests are at stake, and noted that judges should not be swayed by "partisan demands." The comment, included in Roberts' year-end report, comes after lawmakers demanded that two Justices recuse themselves from the high court's review of President Barack Obama's health care law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people. Republicans want Justice Elena Kagan off the case because of her work in the Obama administration as solicitor general, whereas Democrats...
  • Duluth City Council takes stand against 'corporate personhood' ruling

    12/31/2011 11:23:42 AM PST · by WOBBLY BOB · 8 replies
    pioneer press ^ | 12-31-11 | Peter Passi
    Duluth made history last week when it became the first city in the state to pass a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment that would essentially overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision, namely Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The court ruled in 2010 that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional rights as individual U.S. citizens. A majority of justices also concluded that political spending was a form of free speech and that corporations should be able to spend an unlimited sum of money to influence voters, without disclosing financial details of their activities. Although Duluth is...
  • Heller Attorneys Awarded $1.1M in Fees, One-Third of Their Request

    12/30/2011 8:13:06 AM PST · by AtlasStalled · 4 replies
    A federal judge in Washington has awarded attorneys who represented Dick Heller in the landmark Supreme Court case that recognized an individual right to posses arms just over $1.1 million in fees — about one-third of what they had requested.
  • George Will: Gingrich, the anti-conservative (The votes are in & the elites want Milt!)

    12/22/2011 12:02:29 AM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 19 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | December 20, 2011 | George F. Will
    When discussing his amazingness, Newt Gingrich sometimes exaggerates somewhat, as when, discussing Bosnia and Washington, D.C., street violence, he said, “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 16, 1994]. What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary. But Gingrich’s hunger for distinction has surely been slaked by his full-throated attack on such a judiciary. He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. That is the meaning of his vow to break courts to the saddle of politicians, particularly...
  • Supreme Court sets Obama healthcare arguments

    12/19/2011 11:43:56 AM PST · by markomalley · 33 replies
    Reuters/Yahoo ^ | 12/19/11 | James Vicini
    Oral arguments on President Barack Obama's sweeping U.S. healthcare overhaul will last 5-1/2 hours spread over three days from March 26-28, the Supreme Court said on Monday. The Supreme Court last month agreed to hear the 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, one of the lengthiest arguments in recent years. There have been similar marathon sessions in a handful of big cases dating back over the past 70 years. The court said it would hear one hour of arguments on March 26 on whether the legal challenges to the requirement that all Americans buy insurance must wait until after that part...
  • There Is No Power and No Reason to Subpoena Federal Judges

    12/19/2011 10:54:45 AM PST · by indianrightwinger · 75 replies · 2+ views
    National Review Online ^ | Andrew C. McCarthy
    There Is No Power and No Reason to Subpoena Federal Judges December 19, 2011 12:21 P.M. By Andrew C. McCarthy I was surprised that the usually excellent Megyn Kelly’s debate question to Newt Gingrich about his proposal for reining in the judiciary intimated that former Bush administration attorneys general Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales had panned the proposal as “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponseible, outrageous,” etc. To be sure, that’s what they said about some aspects of Gingrich’s proposal; but not the overall plan. In fact, as Megyn’s report states, Judge Mukasey said of Gingrich’s plan, “There’s a lot in there...
  • Supreme Court sets aside three days for healthcare arguments (decision before 2014?)

    12/19/2011 9:31:35 AM PST · by Libloather · 14 replies
    The Hill ^ | 12/19/11 | Sam Baker
    Supreme Court sets aside three days for healthcare argumentsBy Sam Baker - 12/19/11 11:40 AM ET The Supreme Court will hear arguments on President Obama's healthcare law over a three-day span in late March. The schedule further confirms the universal expectation that the court will issue a ruling on the healthcare law next June, at the height of the 2012 campaign. The Supreme Court will begin on March 26 with one hour of arguments on whether it can reach a decision on the health law before 2014. There is a possibility that a separate federal law prevents the courts from...
  • Gingrich vs. Courts Echoes South's Criticism of 1950s Segregation Decisions

    12/18/2011 9:21:46 PM PST · by Steelfish · 36 replies
    Wall St. J ^ | December 19, 2011 | JESS BRAVIN
    DECEMBER 19, 2011 Gingrich vs. Courts Echoes South's Criticism of 1950s Segregation Decisions BY JESS BRAVIN In his call to rein in the judiciary, Newt Gingrich has gone further than any major candidate in recent memory, with scalding rhetoric rarely heard since the 1950s and '60s, when Southern politicians claimed the Supreme Court exceeded its authority to order the end of segregation. (Subscriber Content only)
  • Newt Gingrich Tackles The Court System

    12/19/2011 5:55:04 AM PST · by Starman417 · 9 replies · 1+ views
    Flopping Aces ^ | 12-19-11 | Curt
    Newt Gingrich has proposed many solutions to the ever growing power of our courts. Power that has surpassed the other two branches of government: Kelly: You have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make. In certain cases, you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing courts altogether. Two conservative former attorneys general have criticized your plan, saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government. And they used words like “dangerous,” “outrageous,” and “totally irresponsible.” Are they wrong? Gingrich: Well, the first half is right. It alters the...
  • Three Supreme Court Cases That Should Worry You [if you like Obama's politics]

    12/19/2011 2:56:00 AM PST · by Cincinatus' Wife · 33 replies
    Truth Dig ^ | December 18, 2011 | Bill Blum
    At his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, John Roberts, the nominee of President George W. Bush to become the 17th chief justice of the United States, promised to serve in the neutral fashion of a baseball umpire and lead the Supreme Court away from all manner of judicial activism. “[I]t’s my job to call balls and strikes,” he testified, “and not to pitch or bat.” Few, if any, observers took Roberts at his word, given his track record as a Republican warhorse, including stints as a clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and as deputy solicitor general under the first President...
  • The Evangelical Case for Newt Gingrich

    12/18/2011 3:58:39 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 35 replies
    American Thinker ^ | December 18, 2011 | Kevin Tharp
    Evangelicals play a significant role in the Iowa electorate. In 2008 they overwhelmingly voted for Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is perceived by many as having won the vote by living and campaigning in Iowa exclusively and speaking to many churches and church groups prior to the caucuses. Many Iowans may also have voted for him because he was a Baptist minister. Iowans were impressed for sure. But it was not enough to propel him to the nomination. In fact by the time the process rolled around to Florida, the Huckabee share of voters was only 13%. For this election cycle, evangelicals...
  • Gingrich Uses Judicial Reform as Magnet For Conservative Iowans

    12/18/2011 2:22:39 PM PST · by Jim Robinson · 71 replies
    FOX News ^ | Dec 18, 2012 | AP
    Republican president hopeful Newt Gingrich doubled down on his criticism of federal judges and the Supreme Court on Sunday as chief rival Mitt Romney defended his record against likely Democratic attacks. With close to two weeks before GOP voters start choosing their nominee, Gingrich is courting the conservative primary voters he will need to win in Iowa and sustain his campaign against Romney, whose superior organization and pile of cash has him seeming ever more confident as he looks ahead to the general election. "There is steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a nonreligious country...
  • Newt Gingrich Says He'd Defy Supreme Court Rulings He Opposed [Obama Campaign Ad Material!]

    12/17/2011 3:51:50 PM PST · by Steelfish · 159 replies
    LATimes ^ | December 17, 2011 | David G. Savage
    Newt Gingrich Says He'd Defy Supreme Court Rulings He Opposed By David G. Savage December 17 Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings. "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters. In recent weeks, the Republican presidential contender has been telling conservative audiences he is determined to expose the myth of "judicial supremacy" and...
  • The EPA vs. the Constitution (Supreme Court prepares to hear a major 5th Amendment case.)

    12/16/2011 7:24:45 PM PST · by bamahead · 30 replies · 1+ views ^ | December 15, 2011 | Damon W. Root
    The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” ... It’s one of the cornerstones of our entire legal system, with roots dating back at least as far as the Magna Carta, which declared, “No free man...shall be stripped of his rights or possessions...except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prefers a less venerable form of justice, as the Supreme Court will hear next month during oral arguments in the case...
  • Will The Supreme Court Seal Our Nation's Borders?

    12/14/2011 11:34:04 AM PST · by raptor22 · 8 replies
    Investor's Business Daily ^ | December 14, 2011 | IBD staff
    Border Justice: As the administration proposes unmanned border entry and halving our National Guard force on the border, the Supreme Court agrees to tackle Arizona's tough immigration law in an election year. Arizona wasn't around when the original 13 states formed the federal government knowing there were certain things it could do best, such as the constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense and protect our borders. National and border security involves not only deterring foreign armies armed with tanks, but also protecting our borders from an invasion involving ladders and pickup trucks. That, Arizona argued when it passed...
  • Elena Kagan and Question 3

    12/14/2011 10:05:47 AM PST · by Kaslin · 3 replies ^ | December 14, 2011 | Terry Jeffrey
    Considering the debate around President Barack Obama's health care plan and the lawsuits filed against it, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan's written answers to some of the 13 written questions relating to Obamacare that Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans submitted to her during her Supreme Court confirmation process were remarkably simple and straightforward. "No," she said. That was how she answered question No. 2, which inquired if she had ever been asked her opinion about the merits or underlying legal issues in Florida's lawsuit against Obamacare. That was also the way she answered question No. 3, which asked: "Have you ever been...
  • DOJ Memo: Solicitor General Kagan ‘Substantially Participated’ in Preparing Obamacare-Related...

    12/13/2011 1:53:29 PM PST · by jazusamo · 26 replies
    CNSNews ^ | December 13, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffery
    Complete title: DOJ Memo: Solicitor General Kagan ‘Substantially Participated’ in Preparing Obamacare-Related Case for Supreme Court ( - On Jan. 13, 2010, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan a series of written questions examining the issue of how she would handle recusing herself from cases she might have been involved in as solicitor general if she were confirmed to the Supreme Court. "Notably, we are concerned about the standard you would use to decide whether to recuse yourself from litigation you participated in as Solicitor General," the senators wrote. "In particular, we are concerned...
  • Legal Eagles...Please Help...Kagan Recusal(s)

    12/12/2011 1:16:31 PM PST · by CincyRichieRich · 31 replies
    12-12-11 | Self
    I'm concerned. Rush didn't pick up on this like I thought he would today. When I saw the DrudgeReport headline, I smiled, but then when Rush DID say the SCOTUS "ties", i.e., "4" to "4" revert back to the next highest court ruling, I recalled the Arizona Immigration case last ruling was not favorable ***AND*** I recall the last Obamacare ruling also was split, but VERY much in favor of the commerce clause, which will destroy the nation as we know it if it stands. Then I suspected Kagan is doing this on purpose, meaning, she will I predict recuse...
  • Justice Kagan Recuses Herself From Case Involving Arizona Immigration Law

    12/12/2011 9:14:09 AM PST · by Justaham · 43 replies ^ | 12-12-11 | MARK SHERMAN
    The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for an election-year decision on an issue that is already shaping presidential politics. The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally. The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South...
  • Supreme Court Asked to Weigh-In on Arizona's Immigration Law (BREAKING UPDATE SAYS IT WILL RULE)

    12/12/2011 7:21:37 AM PST · by TSgt · 33 replies
    FoxNews Latino ^ | December 12, 2011 | FoxNews
    The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to weigh-in on immigration. The state of Arizona is requesting that the court allow enforcement of those parts of Arizona's immigration measure that have been blocked by lower courts at the Obama administration's request. Among those provisions is one that requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
  • Supreme Court intervenes in Texas redistricting case

    12/10/2011 12:28:14 PM PST · by lqcincinnatus · 3 replies
    Los Angeles Times ^ | December 9, 2011, 8:13 p.m. | David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
    Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal Friday night from Texas Republicans, putting on hold a redistricting map drawn by judges that would give Democrats a good chance to pick up at least three seats in the next Congress. In an unusual move, the justices announced they would schedule special arguments on Jan. 9 to decide whether Texas and other Southern states may proceed to hold elections under new redistricting plans that have not been approved under the Voting Rights Act.
  • 'Live Nativity Scene' to Be Displayed at Supreme Court, Capitol Building

    11/30/2011 9:52:00 AM PST · by GonzoII · 8 replies
    Christian Post ^ | Tue, Nov. 29 2011 10:08 PM EDT | Eryn Sun
    Print CP Article 'Live Nativity Scene' to Be Displayed at Supreme Court, Capitol Building Tue, Nov. 29, 2011 Posted: 10:08 PM EDT The Christian Defense Coalition and Faith and Action are publicly sharing the message of Christmas this season by sponsoring a live nativity scene in front of the United States Supreme Court.Part of “The Nativity Project,” a nationwide campaign that seeks to bring the focus of Christmas back to Jesus Christ, the display not only hopes to proclaim the powerful message of the Gospel but also celebrate religious freedom, countering the hostility toward public expressions of faith.“Sadly, we...
  • The Indoctrination of Children: Murray v. Curlett Revisited

    11/29/2011 10:05:21 AM PST · by ReformationFan · 11 replies
    Orthodoxy Today ^ | 8-1-11 | Chris Andreas
    The year 1963 was very significant for America in many ways. It was the year that the Negro American, the term used back then, revolted openly but in non-violent fashion against a discriminatory system found especially in the south; it was the year that John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, was assassinated; and it was the year that the new President, Lyndon B. Johnson, confirmed America’s continued economic and military support of South Viet Nam. It was also the year, however, that a less remembered court decision took place that had far reaching effects on American cultural...
  • Judge Will Not Recuse Herself on Obamacare

    11/27/2011 1:09:27 PM PST · by John Semmens · 16 replies
    Expectations that her previous work in getting Obamacare passed might compel U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to abstain from participating in the Court’s hearing of a case challenging the law were disappointed this past week. “I have worked long and hard to see that this reform of our nation’s health care system is implemented, I am not going to sit aside as it is imperiled by the president’s enemies,” Kagan announced. “As one of the nine most powerful people in America, I would be wasting an opportunity to promote the transformation of the country toward a new paradigm of...
  • U.S. Supreme Cour to hear case of National Right to Work vs SEIU

    11/21/2011 5:12:03 PM PST · by Iam1ru1-2 · 10 replies
    National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc - Email | 11/21/2011 | Mark Mix
    Your National Right to Work Foundation is headed back to the United States Supreme Court... and the union bosses are in full panic. The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear oral arguments on January 10 in Knox v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, a case brought by Foundation attorneys. Fearing an embarrassing loss, union lawyers have now begged the Supreme Court to toss out the case after offering to pay back all of the money to objecting employees. Simply put, we caught the union bosses red-handed. Big Labor desperately wants to sweep the case under the...
  • Thomas, Kagan asked to sit out health care case

    11/26/2011 10:37:39 AM PST · by Enosh · 43 replies · 1+ views
    WASHINGTON – Conservative interest groups and Republican lawmakers want Justice Elena Kagan off the health care case. Liberals and Democrats in Congress say it’s Justice Clarence Thomas who should sit it out. Neither justice is budging — the right decision, according to many ethicists and legal experts. None of the parties in the case has asked the justices to excuse themselves. But underlying the calls on both sides is their belief that the conservative Thomas is a sure vote to strike down President Barack Obama’s health care law and that the liberal Kagan is certain to uphold the main domestic...
  • 'Don't trust Supremes with Obamacare'

    11/26/2011 9:59:32 AM PST · by opentalk · 15 replies
    WND ^ | November 25, 2011 | Bob Unruh
    States' rights group says 10th Amendment opens door to rejection. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, the president's signature health-care-takeover legislation, but a rights organization that advocates for restoration of recognition of the 10th Amendment says states and consumers should not count on the court to reverse the law. "From 1937 to 1995, the Supremes didn't strike down a single federal law as unconstitutional. Not one in nearly 60 years," Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, wrote in a warning about the issue. "Bottom line? When it comes to limiting...
  • Newt Gingrich follows FDR with court-packing scheme

    11/25/2011 5:13:14 PM PST · by Navy Patriot · 58 replies · 1+ views
    San Francisco Examiner, opinion ^ | November 25, 2011 | Ken Klukowski
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s idea for checking judicial activism is a textbook case of historical revisionism that is strikingly similar to the court-packing scheme of liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Gingrich said Congress should just pass a law eliminating specific judgeships, presumably immediately ousting the activist judges currently filling those seats. Gingrich lionizes an incident now regarded as profoundly troubling by constitutional scholars. When Thomas Jefferson replaced John Adams as president in 1801, the outgoing Congress created new federal courts and judgeships which Adams promptly filled. The new Congress repealed the law and the judges were ousted. Jefferson considered...
  • The Bell Tolls for Obamacare

    11/25/2011 8:39:14 AM PST · by neverdem · 27 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 11.23.11 | Peter Ferrara
    The key to the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling will be clear recognition of constitutional alternatives to Obamacare. On November 14, the Supreme Court granted the Writ of Certiorari to hear the appeal of the cases testing the constitutionality of Obamacare. The resulting decision will mark an historic watershed not only in the restoration of constitutional jurisprudence, but in fundamental, market reform of the entire entitlement state... --snip-- While the decision of simpatico Judge Laurence Silberman upholding the Obamacare mandate is somewhat troubling, that reflected Silberman's poorly reasoned conclusion that he was bound as a lower court judge by the Supreme...
  • Obama's Torpedo: The Strange Case of Elena Kagan

    11/24/2011 7:49:02 PM PST · by SpaceBar · 23 replies
    Weird Republic ^ | October 17, 2011 | Thomas Clough
    Who Is Elena Kagan? There was a brief period in her early 20s when Elena Kagan expressed clear and forceful opinions on matters legal and political. That window of expressiveness abruptly closed and she has been a cipher ever since. She was bright, had stellar grades, garnered glowing teacher recommendations, had boundless self-confidence and a winning personality. She is also a typical creature of the newly-emerged230 meritocratic system that now funnels bright kids onto elite college campuses. Unlike earlier generations of students who were intellectual risk takers willing to challenge authority, Kagan's cohort was more subdued, strategic and calculating. Kagan's...