Supreme Court

Justice Ginsburg: Abolish Mother’s Day

Featured image The Left has been conducting an open campaign lately to persuade coerce Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose health has been shaky the last few years, to retire immediately so that President Obama can replace her with a high octane liberal while Democrats still have a majority in the Senate.  Nothing speaks “confidence” in your prospects more than trying to push a loyal soldier out the door.  So far »

The courts will not save us

Featured image George Will seems to me the preeminent political columnist of our era, with the possible exception of Charles Krauthammer. Will and Krauthammer are in a league of their own. Both are conservatives, of course, and you have to wonder who the liberals can put up against them. Tom Friedman? Maureen Dowd? Paul Krugman? E.J. Dionne? I don’t know. I come to question Will, however, not to praise him. He has »

Eric Holder’s idiotic praise of Justice Sotomayor

Featured image As I noted here, Justice Sotomayor dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision upholding what should be a truism: the Constitution permits a state to prohibit race discrimination by public institutions. Sotomayor was joined by the ultra-leftist Justice Ginsburg. However, she failed to persuade the only moderately leftist Justice Breyer, who joined the 6-2 majority. Attorney General Holder calls Sotomayor’s dissent “courageous.” Her dissent is lots of things — verbose and »

The Constitution Is Still Constitutional, For Now

Featured image I think Scott was the first person I heard say that one day, the Supreme Court may rule the Constitution unconstitutional. That didn’t happen yesterday, when the court decided the Schuette case on a 6-2 vote, but it could have. The issue in Schuette was whether it is permissible for a state to prohibit race discrimination by public institutions. The majority held that a state can indeed ban discrimination on »

Voters can bar racial discrimination by their government, for now

Featured image The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a Michigan ballot initiative providing that the state, including state educational institutions, may not “discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.” It is shocking, but not surprising, that the constitutionality of such a proposition — which »

Cass Sunstein’s April Fools’ Joke

Featured image Yesterday Cass Sunstein, one of the most formidable thinkers on the left today, devoted his Bloomberg column to his eight favorite Supreme Court justices, whom he called the “Home Run Hitters of the Supreme Court.”  Why only eight?  Wouldn’t you want to field a full all-star team of nine, so we can get 5-4 rulings?  Why invite extra innings?  This may be the first sign that he was pulling our »

“Rights” of Obamacare

Featured image Abraham Lincoln’s argument with Stephen Douglas came down to a disagreement over the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln articulated this disagreement with special gusto in his critique of Douglas on July 10, 1858. According to Douglas, the teaching of the Declaration had no general applicability beyond the immediate situation that confronted the Founding Fathers. Restating and paraphrasing Douglas’s argument, Lincoln asked “in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, »

Why dropping health insurance is no solution for Hobby Lobby

Featured image Long-time Power Line reader Michael McConnell, a (if not the) leading scholar of the Constitution’s Religion Clauses, analyzes the four serious legal issues presented in the Hobby Lobby case. The issues are: (1) Could Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping health insurance and paying fines of $2,000 per employee? (2) Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting the statutory rights of Hobby »

D.C. Circuit panel seems to think Obamacare means what it says

Featured image The second big Obamacare case of the day, Halbig v. Sebelius, was argued before the D.C. Circuit. As Scott has explained, the issue there is the legality of a crucial IRS rule authorizing tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of health insurance on federally run health care exchanges. The Obamacare statute only authorizes tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of insurance in an exchange “established by a state” »

As usual, Justice Kennedy likely will determine the outcome in Hobby Lobby

Featured image Oral argument took place today in Hobby Lobby and a companion case. Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog provides a recap. You don’t really need to read Denniston’s post (though I recommend you do) to figure out where things stand. Four Justices seem ready to strike down the offending Obamacare rule; four seem ready to uphold it; and Justice Kennedy will decide the case. You will be equally unsurprised to learn that »

A dangerous technical argument against Hobby Lobby

Featured image It’s bad enough when a court decision deprives of us liberty or fails to remedy a deprivation wrought by the State. But it’s particularly galling when a court takes away liberty through a technicality. Unfortunately, that route often tempts a judiciary too sheepish to base indefensible outcomes on substantive grounds. In the Hobby Lobby case discussed by Scott earlier this morning, the substantive issue before the Supreme Court is the »

Best. Supreme Court. Brief. Ever.

Featured image Make sure you’ve swallowed any and all liquids, especially hot ones like coffee, before you read further. P.J. O’Rourke has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, related to the upcoming case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus.  The only possible thing that could top this would be an amicus brief from Dave Barry. Steven Driehaus is the sore-loser Democrat who is suing Susan B. Anthony List for independent »

Down the Toob

Featured image The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin indicts Justice Clarence Thomas for his infrequent participation in oral argument in hearings before the Supreme Court. At oral argument attorneys elaborate on arguments they have made in extensive briefs and a written record they have filed with the Court. By the time of oral argument in a given case, the justices will have read the briefs and formed views of the case. If you’ve »

Justice Stevens: Let’s Amend the Second Amendment!

Featured image Retired Justice John Paul Stevens was one of the great mischief-makers in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. At age 93, he has now written a book in which he recommends six amendments to the Constitution. Presumably these are the changes he wasn’t able to implement the easy way, via a 5-4 vote on the court. One of Stevens’ proposed changes relates to the Second Amendment, and is intended »

Score one for the little sisters of the poor

Featured image President Obama has lost the latest round in his fight against the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Supreme Court, with no recorded dissent, has enjoined the Obama administration from enforcing the Obamacare mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor and their co-plaintiffs while their appeal is pending in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. More precisely, as Ed Whelan explains, to escape the mandate while their appeal is »

5 Things You Didn’t Know About Citizens United

Featured image Today is the fifth anniversary of the blessed Citizens United decision, which the loony left has compared to Dred Scott (no really—they do).  Remy Munasifi puts down his guitar in this video and in two crisp minutes walks us through the sense and nonsense about this terrific decision. »

Supreme Court halts gay marriage in Utah, for now

Featured image The Supreme Court has stayed a Utah federal district judge’s decision that struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court’s order stops for now a wave of same-sex marriages across the state. Utah’s ban is reinstated and will remain in force pending appellate review. There were no dissents from the Supreme Court’s stay order, which suggests that all nine Justices agree with it. However, the order tells »