Tag Archives: SCOTUS
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a potentially landmark case challenging a Maine law that bans families from participating in a student-aid program if they choose to send their children to religious schools.
Recently, an activist group known as the Secular Democrats of America (SDA) sent a document to the president and the administration with a directive “to take back the mantle of religious freedom and pluralism.”
On the surface, the title—Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House—makes the SDA’s mission sound appealing.
Posted in Federal
Tagged Coach Kennedy, Danbury Baptists, Equality Act, Fulton v. City of Pennsylvania, Joe Kennedy, Kelle Berry, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, SCOTUS, Secular Democrats of America, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court
Eighty-four years ago, on February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announced a bold plan. He grew tired of the United States Supreme Court striking down key pieces of the signature “New Deal” legislation because it gave too much power to the executive branch.
So, on that Friday in February, President Roosevelt announced his intent to seek legislation to expand the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to as many as fifteen justices—what came to be known as the “court-packing” plan.
The idea of expanding the size of the U.S. Supreme Court, also known as “court packing,” has surfaced once again, as it did after the Brett Kavanaugh appointment. Often mentioned is a proposal by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California Berkeley’s Law School. He favors increasing the size of the court to 13 instead of its current nine. There are other calls for a larger court, such as those produced by organizations like “Take Back the Court” and “Demand Justice.”
Posted in Federal
Tagged Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Johnson, court packing, Donald Trump, Erwin Chemerinsky, George Washington, Jimmy Carter, Judiciary Act of 1789, Judiciary Act of 1869, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court, University of California-Berkeley, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor
Illinois’ feckless U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth opposes the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the U. S. Supreme Court because Barrett signed a 2006 newspaper ad sponsored by an Indiana pro-life organization that said, "We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion." In an October 2nd letter to her Senate colleagues, Duckworth said the pro-life organization whose ad Barrett signed 14 years ago opposes, "a critical step of the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process that gave me my children."
Duckworth conveniently omitted what that critical step is.
Posted in Federal, Sanctity of Life
Tagged Amy Coney Barrett, Dick Durbin, Earl Warren, John Hart Ely, Maile Pearl, Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS, Stanford Law School, Tammy Duckworth, U.S. Supreme Court
Last Saturday, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett, 48, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since October 2017. While there may be much dissent across political lines over the confirmation of Judge Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, the facts of her extensive qualifications speak for themselves.
The United States Constitution's Article 2, Sec. 2, cl. 2, provides that the president of the United States "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett as U.S. Supreme Court justice who will replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
In June Medical Services v. Russo, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts again disappoints conservatives. Roberts voted with the politically “progressive”/morally regressive majority to strike down a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the slaughterhouse in which they kill tiny humans and occasionally end up killing or maiming their mothers. This law would have required abortuaries in which surgical procedures are performed to adhere to the same safety regulations as all other ambulatory surgical centers.
Posted in Federal, Sanctity of Life
Tagged Abner Mikva, Abortion, Alan Dershowitz, ambulatory surgical centers, Archibald Cox, Clarence Thomas, Earl Warren, Edward Lazarus, Gordon Gekko, human slaughter, Jeffrey Rosen, John Hart Ely, John Roberts, Kermit Roosevelt, Laurence Tribe, Louisiana, Michael Kinsley, Richard Cohen, Roe v. Wade, Science, SCOTUS, Sophie Lewis, Supreme Court, surgery, William Saletan
In June Medical Services v. Russo, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts again disappoints conservatives. Roberts voted with the politically “progressive”/morally regressive majority to strike down a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the slaughterhouse in which they kill tiny humans and occasionally end up killing or maiming their mothers. This law would have required abortuaries in which surgical procedures are performed to adhere to the same safety regulations as all other ambulatory surgical centers.
(Im)moderate Republicans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans, Republicans with dollar signs rather than Scripture reflected in their myopic eyes have been pushing conservatives toward the end of the short pier, hoping that either spines will crumble or conservatives will tumble into the dark waters. Supremacist Court Justice/lawmaker Neil-the-Usurper-Gorsuch just gave conservatives a huge shove toward the watery abyss.
Posted in Religious Liberty, Sexuality
Tagged Brandon Straka, Christians, Chuck Grassley, Civil Rights Act, Dave Rubin, Deb Fischer, democratic, Guy Benson, homosexuals, LGBTQ, Matt Gaetz, Milo Yiannopoulos, Neil Gorsuch, Republicans, Rob Portman, SCOTUS, Scripture
I and others have been shouting from our virtual rooftops for over a decade that there is no greater threat to First Amendment protections than that posed by the subversive “LGBTQ” movement. Can conservatives not yet see the end of the short pier toward which GOP leaders have long been pushing them? Really? (Im)moderate Republicans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans, Republicans with dollar signs rather than Scripture reflected in their myopic eyes have been pushing conservatives toward the end of the short pier, hoping that either spines will crumble or conservatives will tumble into the dark waters. Supremacist Court Justice/lawmaker Neil-the-Usurper-Gorsuch just gave …
Conservative writer, podcaster, and attorney Ben Shapiro interviews Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and founder and editor of Public Discourse on the dire implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that has roiled the political waters, including within the Republican Party. They discuss the likely affect of this decision on Title IX, speech mandates, businesses owned by people of faith, and more. To better understand the profoundly troubling nature of this decision, take 12 minutes to watch and listen to this important discussion.
In a blistering must-see address on the U.S. Senate floor, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the youngest member of the U.S. Senate, condemned Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Writing for the Majority, Gorsuch essentially legislated from the bench, changing duly passed federal law with far-reaching and destructive consequences for all Americans, especially religious Americans.
Posted in Federal, Religious Liberty
Tagged Antonin Scalia, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Josh Hawley, Judicial Activism, Neil Gorsuch, Originalism, SCOTUS, textualism, U.S. Senate
In a shocking U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch voted with the axis of evil—that is, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the axis of evil decided that in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the word “sex” includes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”—both subjectively constituted conditions. As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin”—all objective conditions—now prohibits …
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has garnered less attention than usual lately with COVID-19 monopolizing headlines. However, with the Court’s term ending in June, some of the most controversial decisions are expected to be released any day now. Among the most notable are three cases involving Title VII of the landmark Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex. The question is whether Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination also includes decisions based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The cases are Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock …
Posted in Sexuality
Tagged Altitude Express, Antonin Scalia, Equality Act, Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Federal Courts, Inc. v. Zarda, Neil Gorsuch, Originalism, SCOTUS, textualism, Title VII