Is Justice Ginsburg Risking the Future of the Supreme Court?

“A Way Out of the Same-Sex Marriage Mess” | NY Times

The public trial of Justice Roberts

Clinton Era Roadless Rule Headed to the Supreme Court?

“Justices will decide the fate of gay marriage” | UPI

Unanimous SCOTUS: IVF children conceived after dad’s death not covered by Social Security

Crooks target Supreme Court Justice Breyer for second time in three months

Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court?

    Richard L. Hasen at Slate: The news this week that a federal appeals court has refused to block a lower court ruling requiring the disclosure of more funders of campaign ads has campaign finance reformers tasting their first victory in a long time. “It’s the first major breakthrough in overcoming the massive amounts of secret contributions that are flowing into federal elections,” Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 told the Los Angeles Times.


  • Posted: 05/17/2012
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: www.slate.com

  • Tags: , ,

Teresa Collett: “A Constitutional and Wise Way to Protect the Unborn: A Response to Paul Linton”

“Scalia Turns Advocate Against Obama as Queries Criticized”

Paul Benjamin Linton: “The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: Unconstitutional and Unwise”

Court says farmers must pay bankruptcy tax

Leading Democratic Primary Candidate for Senator from Maine Calls for Court-Packing

Supreme Court justice urges civility in legal talk

    Las Vegas Sun: Then Kennedy leaned forward to the lectern to urge those schooled in what he called “the language of the law” to set a good example for the rest of the world with “rational, quiet, thoughtful, respectful discussion and debate.” “The verdict on freedom is still out in over half the world, and the rest of the world is looking at us,” Kennedy said. “They see the current dialogue and discourse and they are horrified by it.”


  • Posted: 05/02/2012
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: www.lasvegassun.com

  • Tags: ,

Will SCOTUS Stamp Out Montana’s Constitutional Mischief? – Corporate Campaign Expenditures

SCOTUS for law students: What does the Solicitor General do? (sponsored by Bloomberg Law)

Ken Klukowski: “Analysis: Supreme Court May Split Decision Arizona Immigration Law”

High court seems favorable to Arizona immigration law

Sen. Dick Lugar’s challenger, Richard Mourdock: I’ll be more conservative on Supreme Court nominees

Supreme Court is political by design

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Rent-Control Challenge

The Supreme Court’s Job Is to Protect Americans from Democracy

FCC asks Supreme Court to uphold fine for Super Bowl ‘wardrobe malfunction’

Chemerinsky: Arizona Immigration Case Closes a Momentous Court Term

Ronald Dworkin: If Obamacare is stricken “our eighteenth- century constitution is not the enduring marvel of statesmanship we suppose but an anachronistic, crippling burden”

    Ronald Dworkin at NY Review of Books, Why the Mandate Is Constitutional: The Real Argument, : If the Court does declare the act unconstitutional, it would have ruled that Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable remedy—not because that national remedy would violate anyone’s rights, or limit anyone’s liberty in ways a state government could not, or be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in the Court’s opinion our constitution is a strict and arbitrary document that denies our national legislature the power to enact the only politically possible national program. If that opinion were right, we would have to accept that our eighteenth- century constitution is not the enduring marvel of statesmanship we suppose but an anachronistic, crippling burden we cannot escape, a straitjacket that makes it impossible for us to achieve a just national society.


  • Posted: 04/19/2012
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: www.nybooks.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Private lawyers hired by local governments get same immunity as public employees

Ideologues In Robes: The major theories about interpreting the Constitution serve competing schools of activism

U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear appeal over ministerial exception

SCOTUS for law students: What happens now in the health care cases? (sponsored by Bloomberg Law)

Justice Scalia defends view of the Constitution

Supreme Court rules against God banners

President Obama might note that in American politics the goal is not to curb the judiciary but to co-opt it.

    Paul Moreno at the Wall Street Journal (The Unhappy History of Running Against the Supreme Court) (via Google): By scolding the Supreme Court over its 2010 Citizens United decision and cautioning it against declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, President Obama is ignoring a lesson liberals and progressives should have learned long ago. None has ever succeeded in galvanizing popular opinion against the courts. In American politics, the goal is not to curb the judiciary but to co-opt it.


  • Posted: 04/10/2012
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar

  • Tags: , ,

Paul D. Carrington: “Bring the Justices Back to Earth” | NY Times

    Paul D. Carrington at the NY Times: If five of our present justices broadly prohibit the federal government from providing accessible health care, Congress should consider using its constitutional power again to add two more justices — and impose a reasonable limit on the length of time that a mere mortal should hold so much political power.


  • Posted: 04/10/2012
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: www.nytimes.com

  • Tags: ,

Why Progressives Like President Obama Loathe Judicial Review

    Richard M. Salsman at Forbes: Mr. Obama’s legal reference to Lochner is apt, but ridiculous too, given his fear that SCOTUS may scotch ObamaCare. In Lochner v. New York (1905) the Court rightly jettisoned a state regulatory scheme that violated commercial rights; yet that was the last it so ruled. Thereafter, and especially after being intimidated by FDR and his thuggish New-Dealers in the 1930s, the Court dropped its obligation to uphold economic and property rights. In effect the Court denied what the Founders had earlier argued; that liberty is indivisible, that violations of economic liberty eventually spilled over into violations of civil liberty. The Founders were right. After 80 years of losing our commercial liberties – losses that Obama only applauds – perhaps Americans are starting to glimpse the loss of their civil liberties too.


  • Posted: 04/10/2012
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: www.forbes.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Alabama a top stop for justices

Thomas chides colleagues for too many questions

President Obama Locks Horns With Chief Justice Roberts Over Health Care Case, Role of Lochner

Ken Connor: Supreme Court Mulls Not Just Healthcare, but the Role of Government in America

Obama eases rhetoric about Supreme Court on health care

For Court, a wider ideological divide: On health care, Roberts Court charts aggressive course

Ron Paul: The Supreme Court and Obamacare

The Supreme Court Cannot Overrule the People for Long

Obama: Supreme Court Won’t Overturn Obamacare Law

Why Did Legal Elites Underestimate the Case Against the Mandate?

Jeffrey Rosen: “One Simple Argument Could Have Saved Obamacare. Too Bad Verrilli Didn’t Make It.”

Campaign to intimidate SCOTUS into upholding Obamacare underway?

Washington Times: “Justice Robert’s Cellphone: Court arguments expose weakness of Obamacare’s foundation”

In Plain English: Conditions or unconstitutional coercion?

Thomas Messner: Justice Kennedy Shows How to Avoid Conflicts on Religious Freedom and Litigation Tidal Wave

Some Tentative Thoughts on the Medicaid Case

SCOTUS Argument recap: Will Medicaid expansion succumb to state rights?

Ken Klukowski: “Obamacare Day 3: Court May Strike Down Entire Law, Not Just Mandate”

Scalia to lawyers: What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

Six Years of Silence for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Supreme Court divided over striking down entire healthcare law

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch: One Supreme Court vote can change everything