Supreme Court

Left’s Reaction to Hobby Lobby: Let’s Go Crazy! [Updated]

Featured image Virtually no liberals have read the Hobby Lobby decision or have any idea what the Supreme Court actually ruled, but that hasn’t prevented them from making fools of themselves. Since the Court issued its ruling yesterday morning, it has been wall-to-wall hysteria on the Left. This video montage, compiled at Grabien, is an entertaining look at the Left’s response to Hobby Lobby. Get out the popcorn: MSNBC was hardly any »

Hobby Lobby and the shape of things to come

Featured image What are the implications of today’s Hobby Lobby decision for challenges by non-profit religious institutions, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to Obamacare’s mandate that they facilitate the free distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients to any of their employees who desire them? Professor Mark Rienzi, who together with the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty has been litigating these sorts of religious liberty cases against the Justice Department, offers »

Public employee unions not out of the woods yet

Featured image Conservatives hoped that the Supreme Court would take the opportunity presented by Harris v. Quinn to strike down a 1977 decision holding that full-fledged public employees “who choose not to join a public-sector union may nevertheless be compelled to pay an agency fee to support union work that is related to the collective-bargaining process.” The Supreme Court did not do so. This does not mean, however, that the 1977 decision »

The Funniest Left-Wing Reactions to Hobby Lobby So Far

Featured image As Paul and I have already noted, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision is carefully circumscribed and may or may not ultimately amount to much. (“Meaningless,” is now appellate lawyer Mark Arnold described the decision.) But that hasn’t stopped lefties (hardly any of whom have actually read the opinion, of course) from going crazy. The funniest reactions so far have come from lefties responding to the SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed. These »

Supreme misery for the left [or not]

Featured image The Supreme Court today issued its final two decisions of the term. One of them constitutes a clear defeat for the left. The other looks like a minor defeat. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court held that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. The five center-right Justices formed the majority for that proposition. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court, again with the »

Conservative Supreme Court Majority Prevails In Two Key Cases [UPDATE: Is Hobby Lobby So Narrow As To Be “Meaningless”?]

Featured image Today the Supreme Court issued its last two opinions of the term. Justice Alito delivered both opinions, and both were decided on 5-4 votes. Both decisions were eagerly awaited. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that as applied to closely held corporations, the the contraceptive mandate imposed on employers by Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that the First Amendment »

SCOTUS Smacks Obama Again, But . . .

Featured image Today’s the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the Obama Administration’s abuse of the recess appointment power in NLRB v. Canning.  Unanimous!  And not for the first time.  Think back to Sackett v. EPA two years ago, where a similarly unanimous Court ruled that the EPA had grossly exceeded its legal authority, or the Utility Air Regulatory Group decision on Monday, which, although 5 – 4, held that the EPA can’t »

EPA Gets Smacked Around by SCOTUS

Featured image Today’s Supreme Court decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA is potentially a huge setback for the climatistas and the Obama administration’s recent proposal to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act, though it is a complicated opinion and will take a while to unravel.  It is a typical 5 -4 ruling along the usual lines, but in some ways appears to be a 9 – 0 vote »

Brown v. Board and court worship

Featured image Those who believe the Supreme Court should take an “activist” approach often cite Brown v. Board of Education as an example of the Court’s ability to do good where other institutions and the body politic come up short. It’s a decent example, but not sufficient to make the general case. Keep in mind first that before giving us Brown, the Court gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. It upheld, by a »

A footnote on Brown

Featured image The principle of equal treatment without regard to race is one that is close to my heart. Accordingly, one of my favorite books on a legal subject is Andrew Kull’s history The Color-Blind Constitution, a book I learned of at the time of its publication through Judge Alex Kosinski’s 1993 New Republic review/essay. Professor Kull devotes two chapters to the separate but equal doctrine approved by the Supreme Court in »

Brown v. Board at 60

Featured image Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom rightly celebrate the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education today in the Wall Street Journal, and while I join them in thinking it the correct outcome of the case, it is a source of lasting mischief that the Supreme Court, led by the dubious new Chief Justice Earl Warren, decided the case on entirely non-constitutional grounds–a sorry fact the Thernstroms note briefly. Say what? »

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 »