Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $20,242
Woo hoo!! And the first 23% is in!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!!

Keyword: ussc

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Can ‘Texas v. United States’ Set Us Free From Obamacare?

    03/12/2018 2:53:17 PM PDT · by Twotone · 7 replies
    American Spectator ^ | March 12, 2018 | David Catron
    Ignore everything you have been told by the “news” media about Texas v. United States, the lawsuit recently filed by 20 states challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. The Fourth Estate, in its all but official role as the public relations department of the Democratic Party, has generally downplayed the suit as yet another futile attempt by fanatical Republicans bent on destroying former President Obama’s “legacy.” Following their usual playbook for reporting constitutional challenges to the “Affordable Care Act” the media briefly sneered about its merits and then, to paraphrase David Burge, “covered the story with a pillow.” It is nonetheless...
  • What is the DOJ up to

    12/02/2017 4:40:59 AM PST · by usnavy_cop_retired · 48 replies
    What is the DOJ up to? Most FR readers are not into reading court filings. I will admit that most are boring to read if you don’t have a background in LAW. With that said, I like to read Supreme Court arguments and Cert applications. This one, is what the Session’s DOJ appears to be attempting force all Federal Agencies to require their Administrative Law Judges, (ALJ’S), comply with the Appointments Act of the US Constution. For those that don’t want to read the full filing to the USSC, the basic argument of the Trump DOJ is that the...
  • Trump’s Doing A Lot of Winning Lately

    06/26/2017 12:19:15 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 12 replies
    Rush ^ | June 26, 2017 | Rush Limbaugh
    RUSH: This is actually funny. The media is focused on the fact that the Supreme Court’s gonna hear the travel ban case in October. They’re not focusing on the fact that the court upheld it. It’s amazing. I’m watching CNN during the break, and CNN grudgingly discussing that, yes, the court has upheld the travel ban, but they’re gonna hear the case in October. CNN holding out the possibility that the Supreme Court will side with the Ninth Circuit in affirming the ban’s unconstitutional. It’s the exact opposite of what is going to happen. As I so brilliantly theorized mere...
  • Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban

    06/26/2017 12:06:04 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 19 replies
    Rush ^ | June 26, 2017 | Rush Limbaugh
    RUSH: The Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen, has upheld Trump’s travel ban and has reinstated it. To me, this is an example of how silly and stupid we have been since Trump was — not us. There has been no question that Trump was totally constitutionally within his rights to issue this travel ban. An act of Congress that we read to you many times explicitly granted to Trump the official constitutional powers to do exactly what he did and more if he wanted to in his travel ban. It was stayed by all these lower courts and then upheld...
  • EXCLUSIVE: Trump to stick with conservative list for next Supreme Court pick

    04/30/2017 7:19:34 PM PDT · by ForYourChildren · 87 replies
    The Washington Times ^ | Steven Dinan
    President Trump will stick with the same list of potential nominees for the next Supreme Court vacancy, he told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview in which he also waved aside the lack of a honeymoon from Capitol Hill, saying Republicans are “going to get there” and Democrats are still smarting over losing an election they thought they couldn’t lose. .. He also said he expects the near-universal opposition to his agenda from congressional Democrats to wane. “I notice it calming down,” he said. Reflecting on his first weeks, the businessman turned statesman took pride in having upended traditional...
  • Tempers flare at Supreme Court over religious liberty case

    04/20/2017 1:51:22 PM PDT · by ForYourChildren · 38 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | 04/19/2017 | Ryan Lovelace
    Arguments in a high-profile religious liberty case caused tempers to flare on both sides of the Supreme Court's ideological divide Wednesday. The high court waited for several months to hear Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, and did so with a full nine-justice court bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court this month. At issue in Trinity Lutheran is whether Missouri violated the Constitution in its decision to bar a church-operated daycare and preschool from a state program that provides funding to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Missouri's Constitution includes a provision that prevents public...
  • Gorsuch and the Rule of Law

    04/10/2017 4:30:38 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 4 replies ^ | April 10, 2017 | Jenna Ellis
    Judge Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed as an associate justice to the United States Supreme Court. Americans on both sides of the aisle should be pleased and proud of the Senate’s confirmation. Sophisticated arguments have been levied back and forth over the propriety of Judge Gorsuch, and liberals and conservatives both claim their support or opposition are in accordance with the “rule of law.” What does the “rule of law” actually mean? It means, simply, that we are a nation of rules not of rulers. This philosophy and understanding is a hallmark of American government. Consider this analogy: When playing...
  • End of Filibuster Not Good for Either Party

    04/07/2017 8:01:14 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 49 replies ^ | April 7, 2017 | Linda Chavez
    Back when I was a young staffer in the House of Representatives, we viewed the Senate with some disdain. Senators -- and more so their staffs -- were imperious. They viewed themselves as being in the higher chamber and employed arcane rules, most notoriously the filibuster, to block actions they didn't like. But I've learned a thing or two in the more than 40 years since I left my job on the House Judiciary Committee, and I've changed my mind about those Senate rules. Sometimes we need a brake, judiciously applied, to give politicians and the country the time to...
  • Gorsuch and the Ghost of Harry Reid

    04/04/2017 6:03:40 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 13 replies ^ | April 4, 2017 | Cal Thomas
    What goes around comes around is one of life's undeniable truisms and never more than in the politics of Washington, D.C. (the "D.C." increasingly standing for dysfunctional city). Last week was Cherry Blossom week in D.C. This week it's Neil Gorsuch week. Republicans must now decide whether to use the "nuclear option," a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes, as a tool for confirming President Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. For those whose primary diet is...
  • Manchin, Heitkamp Become First Democratic Senators to Say They’ll Vote for Gorsuch

    03/30/2017 4:55:32 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 19 replies
    Mediaite ^ | March 30, 2017 | Josh Feldman
    Senators Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp have become the first two Democrats to publicly say they will vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Both senators––one from West Virginia and one from North Dakota––released statements on Twitter this afternoon:
  • It's not Neil Gorsuch's fault, but we can't support his ascension to a stolen Supreme Court seat

    03/25/2017 4:41:57 PM PDT · by Trump20162020 · 84 replies
    The Los Angeles Times ^ | March 25, 2017 | The Editorial Board
    A decade ago, The Times urged the Senate to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court even though he was a conservative judge nominated by a conservative president and was likely to pull the court to the right for decades to come. We backed him, despite our disagreements with his judicial philosophy, because we believe that presidents — Democrats and Republicans alike — are entitled to significant deference when they nominate justices to the high court, so long as the nominees are well qualified and scandal-free, respect precedent and fall within the broad mainstream of judicial thinking. Under normal...
  • Gorsuch rebuffs Leahy on Trump travel ban questions

    03/21/2017 1:08:42 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 24 replies
    Fox ^ | March 21, 2017 | Cody Derespina
    Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy struggled to pin down Judge Neil Gorsuch Tuesday on President Trump's controversial travel ban, as the Supreme Court nominee smoothly sidestepped questions relating to the policy currently on hold by the courts. Gorsuch instead directed the contentious cross-examination into more general terrain where Gorsuch could advocate for religious liberty, without commenting on the specifics of the case. “I will apply the law,” Gorsuch vowed, during the second day of his Senate confirmation hearing. Leahy initially had tried to get the 10th Circuit Court judge to comment on the notion of a “religious litmus test for entry...
  • Same Old Playbook: Democrats Attack Gorsuch as Sexist

    03/20/2017 2:08:56 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 11 replies
    Rush ^ | March 20, 2017 | Rush Limbaugh
    Same Old Playbook: Democrats Attack Gorsuch as Sexist Mar 20, 2017 By the way, the Gorsuch hearings began today too. The Democrats have two soap operas going today. They’ve got the destroy Trump soap opera and the effort here on Gorsuch, who is the Supreme Court nominee, and this is somewhat interesting, ladies and gentlemen. This is from the… What is this? Well, I’m not sure the source of this, but the story is this. There’s a backup story NPR. It’s a legitimate story. I just can’t find — in the small font here — the actual source here. But...
  • Chuck Schumer's Attacks on Neil Gorsuch Are Un-American

    03/17/2017 7:57:54 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 23 replies ^ | March 17, 2017 | David Harsanyi
    If Democrats want to filibuster President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, they're entitled to do it. In fact, Democrats are free to try and stop federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation for any reason they desire, whether ideological or personal, or even no particular reason at all. There is nothing in the Constitution that compels senators to vote on judicial nominees the president forwards. Make no mistake, though: Sen. Chuck Schumer now opposes a potential SCOTUS justice because he promises to be impartial when upholding the Constitution. Since Gorsuch's confirmation hearing starts Monday in front of the Senate Judiciary...
  • It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

    02/19/2017 8:42:54 AM PST · by Kaslin · 28 replies ^ | February 19, 2017 | Michael Brown
    The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the governmentÂ’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the...
  • Justices Breyer and Ginsburg: Thank you for your selfishness. (Vanity/Opinion)

    02/04/2017 9:49:50 AM PST · by Enterprise · 84 replies
    2/4/17 | Enterprise
    We are at the threshhold of appointing a Judge to the Supreme Court who will replace the late Justice Scalia. This will give the court, once again, a 5-4 conservative advantage.
  • Trump Says ‘Go Nuclear’ as Democrats Brace for Gorsuch Fight

    02/01/2017 12:43:09 PM PST · by Innovative · 38 replies
    NY Times ^ | Feb. 1, 2017 | MATT FLEGENHEIMER
    President Trump, seeming to relish a fight with Democrats over his nominee for the Supreme Court, on Wednesday encouraged the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, to invoke the so-called nuclear option and abandon the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,’” the president said on Wednesday from the Roosevelt Room of the White House. “Because that would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was put up to that neglect. I would say it’s up to Mitch, but I...
  • Supremes face bombshell: Law censoring Christian counselors

    01/13/2017 11:20:16 AM PST · by amorphous · 45 replies
    Worldnet Daily ^ | 13 Jan 2017 | Bob Unruh
    The U.S. Supreme Court has been handed a bombshell: An appeal of a lower-court ruling that banned Christian counselors from talking with teens about the biblical standard for sexuality. The case challenges laws that force licensed counselors to affirm homosexuality, prohibiting them from helping clients overcome same-sex attractions. Such laws have been adopted in New Jersey, where a biased judge used it to shut down a Christian ministry, and in California and other states. The case already was presented to the Supreme Court several years ago, but it did not get a ruling. Now a new appeal has been submitted...
  • Things Conservatives can be thankful for on Thanksgiving

    11/24/2016 6:16:55 AM PST · by Kaslin · 10 replies
    American Thinker ^ | November 24, 2016 | Ed Straker
    A lot of you with liberal extended family members may grit your teeth when you think about Thanksgiving. But we really have so much to be thankful for that you really shouldn't mind putting up with a few hours of moans and howls from race, sex, and Islamaphilic social justice warriors. Here are just a few things to be thankful for: 1) First and foremost, the Supreme Court is saved. If Hillary Clinton had been elected President, she would have appointed an extreme leftist to replace Antonin Scalia, changing a court that was sometimes 5-4 left and other times 5-4...
  • If You Think Electing Anti-Abortion Candidates to Office Achieves Nothing,

    11/05/2016 9:40:50 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 4 replies ^ | November 5, 2016 | Frank Pavone
    Among the absurdities I’ve heard during this election season are the following assertions: “It doesn’t matter who gets elected President – it’s been over 40 years since Roe v. Wade and abortion is still legal.” “Even if a politician says he’s pro-life and that he’ll appoint pro-life judges, nothing changes.” “Overturning Roe v. Wade would only be a symbolic victory.” Maybe you’ve heard statements like these from people who identify as pro-life.  They express a frustration with what some think is a lack of progress in protecting the unborn from brutal deaths. In fact, though, the above charges are...