Keyword: ussupremecourt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Will the Supreme Court grant certiorari in King v. Burwell?

    11/03/2014 12:09:33 PM PST · by right-wing agnostic · 25 replies
    The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | November 3, 2014 | Jonathan H. Adler
    On Friday, the justices of the Supreme Court held a conference to review petitions for certiorari and other procedural matters. Among the most-watched petitions before the justices was that in King v. Burwell, a challenge to the legality of an IRS rule authorizing tax credits for the purchase of health insurance in federally established exchanges. This morning, the Court released the order list from the conference, and King was absent. Rampant speculation about what this could mean ensued. (See Chris Walker’s walk through the possibilities here.) Shortly thereafter, a notation on the King docket indicated that King has been relisted...
  • BREAKING — SCOTUS denies same-sex marriage appeals

    10/06/2014 10:22:33 AM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 12 replies
    The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | Jonathan H. Adler
    The Supreme Court was asked to consider petitions for certiorari in seven separate cases challenging state laws barring legal recognition of same-sex marriage. On Monday morning, SCOTUSBlog reported, the Supreme Court denied all seven petitions. Most commentators have assumed the Supreme Court would take one or more of these cases and (perhaps) conclusively determine whether the federal Constitution bars states from refusing to recognize same-sex marriages under state law. Yet all seven cases below had come out the same way. In all seven, lower courts struck down the challenged state laws, so there was no circuit split. Given the lack...
  • Supreme Court's Robust New Session Could Define Legacy of Chief Justice

    10/04/2014 10:31:29 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 14 replies
    The New York Times ^ | October 4, 2014 | Adam Liptak
    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday returns to work to face a rich and varied docket, including cases on First Amendment rights in the digital age, religious freedom behind bars and the status of Jerusalem. Those cases are colorful and consequential, but there are much bigger ones on the horizon. “I’m more excited about the next 12 months at the Supreme Court than about any Supreme Court term in its modern history,” said Thomas C. Goldstein, who argues frequently before the court and is the publisher of Scotusblog. In the coming weeks, the justices will most likely agree to...
  • Withdraw This Nominee (A Look Back At The Harriet Miers Supreme Court Nomination)

    10/02/2014 11:17:03 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 14 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | October 7, 2005 | Charles Krauthammer
    When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her. We've had quite enough dynastic politics over the past decades. (Considering the trouble I have had with Benjamin and William Henry Harrison, I pity the schoolchildren of the future who will...
  • The Case Against Harriet Miers: The Baseball Analogy (Harriet Miers Nomination Revisited)

    10/02/2014 11:16:52 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 7 replies
    ProfessorBainbridge.com ^ | October 6, 2005 | Stephen Bainbridge
    The transcript of my interview yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show is now up at Radioblogger. By analogy to that great Congressional tradition, I want to use this post to revise and extend my remarks. In particular, I want to pick up on the baseball analogy. (In the course of doing so, I may also be able to at least indirectly answer some of the questions Beldar posed to me the other day.) The Supreme Court is the big league. Those nine old men and women have arrogated to themselves not only the powers historically exercised by jurists in the...
  • Can This Nomination Be Justified? (A Look Back At The Harriet Miers Nomination)

    10/02/2014 11:16:47 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 1 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | October 5, 2005 | George Will
    Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate...
  • Defending The Indefensible (Harriet Miers Revisited)

    10/02/2014 11:16:28 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 2 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | October 23, 2005 | George Will
    Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders. Miers's advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates...
  • Why the Right Was Wrong

    10/02/2014 11:16:18 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 3 replies
    The New York Times ^ | October 27, 2005 | Hugh Hewitt
    OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning...
  • Justice Ginsburg: “no urgency” yet on same-sex marriage

    09/17/2014 10:26:41 PM PDT · by right-wing agnostic · 9 replies
    The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | September 16, 2014 | Dale Carpenter
    Tonight in a public question-and-answer session at the University of Minnesota Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Court did not need to rush into the question of same-sex marriage because the lower courts had not yet disagreed on the issue. Asked whether she thought the Court might take the issue up this Term, Justice Ginsburg noted that all three appellate courts to address the issue so far (the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth) have struck down state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. She added that we are still awaiting a decision from the Sixth Circuit, which has been...
  • Vandals topple Ten Commandments statue near Supreme Court building

    09/23/2013 11:06:06 AM PDT · by george76 · 28 replies
    Washington Times ^ | September 23, 2013 | Meredith Somers and Andrea Noble
    A granite monument of the Ten Commandments that sits across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court was toppled by vandals sometime over the weekend. The monument sits in the front yard of 209 Second St. NE, the headquarters of Faith and Action, an evangelical Christian group led by the Rev. Rob Schenck. The 3-foot by 3-foot granite sculpture weighs 850 pounds.
  • Public Enemy Number One

    09/28/2012 5:53:02 AM PDT · by Brett L. Baker · 10 replies
    I believe the subject of this treatise will be about an individual which a great many people consider to be public enemy number one. For those of you who have read my other treatises, I hate to disappoint you, this particular treatise will not be the scathing witch hunt which uncovers the corruptness of our so-called leadership or of any particular leader for that matter. Instead, I am going to spend the time looking into a man who much of the public seems to intensely dislike, but for whom I have a great deal of respect. While there are nine...
  • Justice Roberts Explains Justice Roberts: Politics, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Change

    07/08/2012 12:38:20 AM PDT · by Cincinatus' Wife · 51 replies
    The American Thinker ^ | July 8, 2012 | James W. Lucas
    ...... Just as Justice Owen Roberts' switch was attributed to the political storm of Democrat opposition to the Court's reversal of New Deal legislation, there is a widely cited report....that Chief Justice John Roberts had originally sided with the conservative dissenters in the ObamaCare decision, but changed his vote because of concerns about the political prestige of the Court in the eyes of the media and Washington elites. Owen Roberts destroyed his judicial papers. However..... He acknowledged that the Supreme Court's pro-New Deal decisions "reduce the states to administrative districts rather than coordinate sovereigns" and that his switch reached "a...
  • Obamacare and SCOTUS Court Rule 44 - REHEARING

    06/30/2012 10:19:34 AM PDT · by SeaHawkFan · 65 replies
    U.S. Supreme Court Rules ^ | June 30, 2012 | seahawkfan
    Rule 44. Rehearing 1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner proceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition...
  • OK all if the US Supreme Court DUMPS ObamaCare then what...?

    03/27/2012 9:08:31 AM PDT · by US Navy Vet · 64 replies
    27 March 2012 | US Navy Vet
    Any ideas out there?
  • Celebrate Christmas by embracing God’s gift of life

    12/20/2011 11:32:52 AM PST · by Kfobbs
    Examiner ^ | December 20, 2011 | Kevin Fobbs
    Christmas Day is near, and the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ should not only be based upon a notion of just giving gifts, sharing songs of good cheer. Why not open up one more present and present it to God and to Christ. Whether you are in Cleveland, Ohio, Tampa, Florida, or Atlanta, Georgia, give a commitment in the New Year to be accountable to the right to life. Yes, that is correct; Christmas is the perfect opportunity to pray for life, but also to firmly commit to the right to life. Ever since the 1973 U.S. Supreme...
  • SNOPES NO MORE

    08/27/2011 2:15:46 PM PDT · by Sen Jack S. Fogbound · 44 replies · 2+ views
    Email | Unknown | Unknown
    Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Courts Kagan We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'? We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros! Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros; a big time supporter of Obama! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to...
  • High court rules for military funeral protesters (Westboro Nuts Win 8-1!?)

    03/02/2011 7:27:39 AM PST · by Pyro7480 · 148 replies
    AP ^ | 03/02/2011 | n/a
    <p>The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.</p>
  • Court: No personal privacy for business in FOIA

    03/01/2011 8:47:58 AM PST · by Hawk720 · 3 replies
    Washington Post ^ | March 1, 2011 | Mark Sherman
    WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that corporations have no right of personal privacy to prevent the disclosure of documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 8-0 opinion Tuesday that reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of AT&T. The outcome was notable for its unanimity, especially in view of recent criticism from liberal interest groups that the court tilts too far in favor of business. "The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend...
  • Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan...

    02/15/2011 9:18:08 AM PST · by jazusamo · 17 replies
    CNSNews ^ | February 14, 2011 | Terence P. Jeffrey
    Complete title: Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan Needs to Recuse Herself from Health Care Case (CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Justice Department is contesting in federal court a Freedom of Information Act request filed by CNSNews.com that seeks department records that could shed light on the question of whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan needs to recuse herself from legal challenges to the health-care reform law President Barack Obama signed last March.The case—the Media Research Center v. the U.S. Justice Department—arises from a complaint the Media Research Center filed on Nov. 23, 2010 against the Justice Department...
  • Va. seeks justices' review of health care lawsuit

    02/09/2011 9:12:59 AM PST · by abbyg55 · 4 replies
    AP / Washington Post ^ | 2-9-11 | (not given)
    RICHMOND, Va. -- Virginia's attorney general has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his challenge of a key portion of the Obama administration's health care reform law. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office said Wednesday it filed a petition late Tuesday to leapfrog an appeals court review scheduled for May. Cuccinelli had announced his intention to seek the review last week.
  • The War on Science (Kagan Manipulates Document to Protect Partial-Birth Abortion)

    06/30/2010 11:45:47 AM PDT · by mojito · 12 replies
    National Review Online ^ | 6/30/2010 | Yuval Levin
    If you haven’t read Shannen Coffin’s piece on Elena Kagan and the partial-birth-abortion debate today, you really should. What he describes, based on newly released Clinton White House memos, is absolutely astonishing. It seems that the most important statement in the famous position paper of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—a 1996 document that was central to the case of partial-birth-abortion defenders for the subsequent decade and played a major role in a number of court cases and political battles—was drafted not by an impartial committee of physicians, as both ACOG and the pro-abortion lobby claimed for years, but...
  • More Controversy on the Kagan Nomination Casts Doubts on Her Fitness for the Court

    05/13/2010 9:28:27 AM PDT · by Welshman007 · 8 replies · 458+ views
    Conservative Examiner ^ | 5/13/2010 | Anthony G. Martin
    As if there were not already ample evidence to deny Elena Kagan a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the controversy surrounding the nominee continues to swirl. The controversy casts many doubts on her fitness for the Court. First, a recap of what we know so far is in order.
  • Kagan Wrote That Government Can Restrict Free Speech

    05/12/2010 11:57:53 AM PDT · by Welshman007 · 23 replies · 558+ views
    Conservative Examiner ^ | 5/12/2010 | Anthony G. Martin
    As more hidden information is discovered about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan there is increasing cause for alarm. In documents uncovered by CNS, Kagan argued that restricting free speech is a legitimate role of government, provided government can establish the 'proper motive' for doing so. In an article Kagan published in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1996, entitled, 'Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.' she contends that the negative impact of a law restricting freedom of speech is subservient to the government's motive for enacting such restrictions. As long as the...
  • Does America Need an Anti-Military Supreme Court Justice?

    05/11/2010 10:20:30 AM PDT · by Welshman007 · 9 replies · 250+ views
    Conservative Examiner ^ | 5/11/2010 | Anthony G. Martin
    The U.S. Supreme Court, in rare 8-0 unanimous decision, ruled that Obama court nominee Elena Kagan was wrong to ban ROTC military recruiters from the Harvard campus in 2004-05. Even the liberals on the Court ruled against her. But Kagan went further than merely banning the military from Harvard. She attempted to ban federal funding from any institution of higher learning that allowed military recruitment on their campuses. The reason for Kagan's vendetta against the U.S. military was its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy toward gays. Interestingly enough, it was Kagan's own former employer, President Bill Clinton, who first implemented...
  • Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan a Self-Avowed Socialist?

    05/10/2010 2:16:08 PM PDT · by Welshman007 · 29 replies · 923+ views
    Conservative Examiner ^ | 5/10/2010 | Anthony G. Martin
    Now that Barack Obama has chosen his next Supreme Court nominee, the vetting process by the media, both the mainstream and alternative, will begin in earnest. Already the nomination has raised eyebrows among conservatives. Enough evidence exists for the question to be raised, is Elena Kagan a self-avowed socialist? Why would such a thing matter? It matters greatly, for this would be the very first time in American history that a Socialist, if she is confirmed, would sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. And it would be the very first time in American history that a Supreme Court Justice would...
  • Justice Thomas: 'The court is 'avoiding' the Natural Born Citizen question.

    04/16/2010 7:23:33 AM PDT · by penelopesire · 242 replies · 6,318+ views
    CSPAN ^ | April 15,2010 | CSPAN
    A curious thing happened in the Supreme Court budget hearing yesterday. Rep. Joe Serrano went on a long monologue about 'diversity' in the court and even said he would be glad when the day came, that a Puerto Rican could be president...to which Thomas replied that the court was avoiding that question. Nervous laughter ensues and the topic is quickly dropped. I'd like to know what my fellow FReepers think of the exchange. It happens around the 1:13-1:14:10 mark in the video. It would be great if someone could isolate that exchange and put it on YouTube so everyone could...
  • Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

    02/17/2010 3:22:53 PM PST · by US Navy Vet · 19 replies · 790+ views
    Yahoo! News blog ^ | 17 Feb 2010 | Brett Michael Dykes
    Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements. But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political...
  • Articles of Faith: Why Americans can't talk about religion and the Supreme Court

    12/15/2009 8:30:37 AM PST · by Alex Murphy · 2 replies · 489+ views
    Slate ^ | Dec. 10, 2009 | Dahlia Lithwick
    When Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 89, retires—and he's expected to in the next year or so—there will be no Protestant left on the highest court in the land. Will President Obama be pressured to appoint one? Popular opinion once held that even one Catholic was too many on the court. Today there are six. But would anyone even notice if Obama appointed a seventh to replace Stevens? Once upon a time, there was an outright religious litmus test for Supreme Court appointees. Today religion is almost irrelevant in appointing new justices. All of which raises a question: Are...
  • Supreme Pride for Sotomayor [race-before-reason Puerto Rico editorial]

    08/10/2009 12:57:43 PM PDT · by rrstar96 · 2 replies · 771+ views
    (English-language translation) Yesterday's media headlines in Puerto Rico and the United States leave no room for doubt over the historical impact the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th justice to join the United States Supreme Court has. The fact that the judge, the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, is the third woman to reach the highest court in the U.S. is in itself historic. In addition, however, she is the first member of the Hispanic community to join this body which interprets the application of the American Constitution. This factor is a transcendental step in making the Supreme...
  • A BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAWSUIT - IN GOOD STANDING

    11/12/2008 11:17:44 AM PST · by Free ThinkerNY · 42 replies · 3,272+ views
    Atlas Shrugs ^ | November 12, 2008 | Pamela Geller
    Leo Donofrio filed a solid lawsuit. Hard to get behind Berg, his was not a good lawsuit. This, OTOH, is. Do I think it should be pursued, yes? Do I believe Obama was born in Hawaii? Probably. Is there something on Obama's birth certificate he does not want us to see. Foe shizzle. Should a President of the United States have to present his vault copy to take office? Absolutely. I don't know what is on the birth certificate- I do know Obama does not want us to see it. But with Obama - there is no law. It's Alinsky...
  • Despite gaffe, Supreme Court won't revisit landmark child-rape ruling

    10/01/2008 1:27:49 PM PDT · by mojito · 29 replies · 2,312+ views
    CSM ^ | 10/1/2008 | Warren Richey
    Less than a week before its October term is set to begin, the US Supreme Court became a spectacle of sound and fury on Wednesday over a landmark decision handed down three months ago declaring that the death penalty for child rapists is cruel and unusual punishment. At issue was whether the high court would revisit the landmark 5-to-4 decision after revelations last summer that contradicted the majority justices' conclusion that a "national consensus" had emerged against the death penalty for the rape of a child. The June 25 decision said only six states had laws authorizing capital punishment for...
  • USA: Texas execution violates international law

    08/10/2008 8:13:47 PM PDT · by davidosborne · 141 replies · 1,151+ views
    Amnesty.ORG ^ | 08 August 2008 | Amnesty.ORG
    The execution of José Ernesto Medellín Rojas by the state of Texas is a violation of international law, said Amnesty International today. "It undermines the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which had ruled in favour of a stay of execution."
  • Jesse Jackson + Chicago Mayor Are Stymied By High Court's Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban

    07/06/2008 11:21:34 AM PDT · by Daniel T. Zanoza · 8 replies · 173+ views
    RFFM.org ^ | July 6, 2008 | Bill Zettler
    Afghanis Get It, Too Bad Anti-Gun Elitists Don’t: NRA To Target Chicago + Neighboring Suburban Hand Gun Bans, After Supreme Court Ruling Commentary by Bill Zettler * According to the Associated Press, June 27, 2008, "The number of civilians killed in fighting between insurgents and security forces in Afghanistan has soared by two-thirds in the first half of this year, to almost 700 people, a senior U.N. official said Sunday." We have all seen pictures on TV of Afghan citizens walking the streets with AK-47's draped over their shoulders. And who can forget the Afghan weddings where hundreds of shots...
  • Too good to check: Scalia writing the majority opinion in the upcoming Second Amendment case?

    06/23/2008 11:47:32 PM PDT · by OnRightOnLeftCoast · 13 replies · 773+ views
    Hot Air ^ | June 23, 2008 | Allahpundit
    Just a theory, but so tantalizing that it warrants a post all its own....
  • Boumediene v. Bush: US Supreme Court Tapes “Kick Me’ Sign on America’s Back

    06/17/2008 9:26:04 AM PDT · by mondoreb · 14 replies · 137+ views
    DBKP ^ | June 17, 2008 | Mondoreb
    The Supreme Court's Boumediene v. Bush used the U.S. Constitution to find extraordinary rights for the very same people trying to destroy that Constitution. In doing so, the five liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court taped a "KICK ME!" signs to their own backs. But unlike other Kick Me Liberals, in the Supreme Court's case, they've also taped that sign onto the backs of 300 million of their countrymen. A few examples of Kick Me Liberals. United States Supreme Court Incredibly, these five Justices [the Court's liberal bloc of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen...
  • Congressional Drug testing - Unannounced

    04/21/2008 1:38:30 PM PDT · by wac3rd · 22 replies · 79+ views
    April 21, 2008 | William Craun
    I get philsophical sometimes when I go running and have time to think outside the house and workplace... A question to all my fellow Freepers... During a joint session of Congress, could we simutaneously drug test all of our elected Federal representatives/Senators, judges and Excutive Branch employees? Could we have one same-sex military person stand there while Mr. Levin, Mrs. Ginsberg, Mr. Bush or Mr. Lott gives a urine sample, unannounced? If private sector, local, state and Federal employees are required to submit to a drug test, can one be done to the lawmakers? Just a ponderance...
  • SCOTUS: DC Gun Ban Arguments: Which Side Are They On

    03/18/2008 9:22:22 PM PDT · by seanrobins · 14 replies · 1,453+ views
    seanrobins ^ | March 18, 2008 | Sean Robins
    As most of you will know, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. gun ban case. An extremely important Second Amendment case; in fact, the first of its kind in generations (about 70 years). The transcript of the argument is available here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987832/posts But what is truly interesting, is to see the listing of amicus: that is, third parties who have submitted "friend of the court" briefs, advocating one side or the other of the issue. Following is the list. It is arranged first according to those who support the ban -...
  • Bush Administration Aids DC Gun Grabbers

    01/12/2008 1:44:11 PM PST · by GunsareOK · 123 replies · 689+ views
    Myguns.net ^ | 1/12/2008 | Jim Purtilo
    2008-01-12) On Friday the Bush administration filed an amicus asking the Supreme Court to remand the Parker case (“DC gun law case”) back to the District of Columbia to come up with a ‘softer standard of review’ on what constitutes reasonable gun regulations. In doing so, Bush strikes a major blow against all Americans in the on-going struggle over the scope of individual rights. Filed through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the administration’s stated purpose is to protect a host of federal laws that restrict private ownership of firearms. DOJ argues in its brief that the same reasoning which allowed...
  • Under the gun ( the Second Amendment )

    11/25/2007 4:28:50 PM PST · by george76 · 24 replies · 106+ views
    Rocky Mountain News ^ | November 24, 2007 | Robert A. Levy
    It's been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment. It's been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It's been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban...unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided to review the circuit court's blockbuster opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia,...
  • Running mate not only job Clinton could offer Obama (Supreme Court Justice?)

    10/11/2007 2:07:55 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 6 replies · 489+ views
    The Chicago Tribune ^ | October 10, 2007 | Clarence Page
    As Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has firmed up her lead in the Democratic presidential race, speculation about her potential running mate is rising -- among Republicans! "Absolutely," said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani when asked during a recent interview if he thinks Clinton will be nominated. "I believe she will be the nominee and Sen. [Barack] Obama will be the vice presidential nominee." Yes, some people already are talking about Clinton as though she were the nominee, even before a single Democratic primary or caucus voter has had a chance to weigh in. As Clinton leads by as much...
  • Rush Interviews Justice Clarence Thomas (The Inspiring Story Of A Great American Alert)

    10/01/2007 7:08:29 PM PDT · by goldstategop · 10 replies · 397+ views
    Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | 10/01/2007 | Rush Limbaugh
    RUSH: We're truly honored today, ladies and gentlemen, to have with us at our microphones Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. His new book is out today, My Grandfather's Son. It is a powerful, motivational, inspirational memoir, and I'm so happy that you're doing all of this, Mr. Justice Thomas, because, as a member of the court, you can't say much other than what you write. It's the protocol -- and I have so long wanted people to get to know the man that I know and that so many people who know you know, because you're...
  • DC Asks Supreme Court To Back Gun Ban (Ignore That Dastardly 2nd Amendment Alert)

    09/04/2007 11:38:59 PM PDT · by goldstategop · 45 replies · 1,223+ views
    Washington Post ^ | 09/05/2007 | Robert Barnes And David Nakamura
    The District today asked the Supreme Court to uphold the city's ban on private ownership of handguns, saying the appeals court decision that overturned the law "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence." Most legal experts believe the court will accept the case, which could lead to a historic decision next year on whether the ambiguously worded Second Amendment to the Constitution protects private gun ownership or only imparts a civic right related to maintaining state militias. The District argues in its petition for review that its law--one of the toughest handgun bans in the nation--should be upheld regardless...
  • Fighting For Our Handgun Ban (DC Thug Adrian Fenty Urges SCOTUS To Ignore Second Amendment Alert)

    09/04/2007 12:21:27 AM PDT · by goldstategop · 26 replies · 1,127+ views
    Washington Post ^ | 09/04/2007 | Adrian M, Fenty And Linda Singer
    The central meaning of the Second Amendment has long been settled in the courts. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the provision -- which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- was in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own...
  • This Year In History:Judicial Power (James Meredith)

    08/27/2007 3:44:57 AM PDT · by Nextrush · 1 replies · 337+ views
    8/27/07 | Nextrush
    When one is trying to advance a case in court, you have to have a plantiff with a good image. Lawyers at the NAACP achieved a major victory when the Warren Supreme Court came down with the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling. Now there were opportunities to use federal judicial power to overrule state segregation laws through lawsuits. In 1955 a number of people defied bus segregation in Montgomery, Alabama. But until seamstress and local member Rosa Parks came along, the NAACP stayed out of court. Earlier cases involved people who had bad reputations or who might break under...
  • This Year In History:Judicial Power (Little Rock and Old Miss)

    08/12/2007 6:01:58 AM PDT · by Nextrush · 28 replies · 430+ views
    8/12/07 | Self
    Racial integration in the early part of the last century was very much a personal moral decision that involved no rules or laws to force it. If one chose to be in the company of other races it was a personal decision because legally speaking segregation was the "law of the land" at least in the mind of those who accept "stare indecisis" as their principle. When one chose to integrate it was very much a personal moral decision with laws not coming into play. Ronald Reagan related a story in his writings of his mother bringing a black basketball...
  • Alito Calls Free-Speech Limits 'Dangerous' as Court Considers Cases (McCain/Feingold overturned?)

    06/15/2007 3:22:50 AM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 21 replies · 1,411+ views
    The Washington Post ^ | June 14, 2007 | Robert Barnes
    Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. made it clear as he began taking questions at yesterday's National Italian American Foundation luncheon that he couldn't reveal any of the Supreme Court's forthcoming opinions. But did he at least give a hint? Two of the court's biggest remaining cases focus on the First Amendment, and while Alito didn't mention either, he did make it clear that any restrictions on speech face a high hurdle with him. "I'm a very strong believer in the First Amendment and the right of people to speak and to write," Alito said in response to a question of...
  • U.S. court to decide case of Mexican on death row

    04/30/2007 9:18:16 AM PDT · by 3AngelaD · 29 replies · 772+ views
    Reuters ^ | Apr 30, 2007 | ames Vicini
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether President George W. Bush had the authority to direct a state court to comply with an international tribunal's ruling in the case of a Mexican on death row in Texas. The justices agreed to review a decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that concluded Bush had exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary. The case involved Jose Medellin, who was denied the right to meet with a consular officer from Mexico after his arrest for murder. The World...
  • Next big test of power to seize property?

    01/01/2007 11:37:00 PM PST · by DaveTesla · 19 replies · 1,505+ views
    The Christian Science Monitor ^ | January 02, 2007 | Warren Richey
    Next big test of power to seize property? The US Supreme Court will examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for not seizing private property. By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from the local planning board. But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to reach an understanding with a private company that had been...
  • Appeal on school's lesson in Muslim culture is rejected

    10/03/2006 6:55:59 PM PDT · by US Navy guy · 67 replies · 1,332+ views
    San Francisco Cronicle ^ | October 3, 2006 | Bob Egelko
    The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by evangelical Christian students and their parents who said a Contra Costa County school district engaged in unconstitutional religious indoctrination when it taught students about Islam by having them recite language from prayers.
  • Gingrich Urges Overriding Supreme Court

    09/30/2006 6:25:20 AM PDT · by US Navy guy · 59 replies · 1,643+ views
    Newsday & AP ^ | September 29, 2006,
    WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court decisions that are "so clearly at variance with the national will" should be overridden by the other branches of government, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says.