Tag: SCOTUS

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Trump Knocking It Out of the Park Every Day

 

President Trump gave a virtual address to the United Nations, in which he talked like a boss, a completely unapologetic boss. He gave a health care speech yesterday which fills me and millions of other people with chronic illness and long-term health care concerns with great hope and joy.

His campaign speeches are so delightful, and he is in fighting trim, looking lean and well-rested. The man is masterful, striding from one event to the next, standing tall despite the ugly onslaughts. He is a true happy warrior. He dominates his press conferences, in spite of their eager animosity and dripping hostility, cutting them off and correcting them when they are rude.

Member Post

 

Republicans really need to push back hard against the nonsense that both sides do the same thing when it comes to the workings of the Supreme Court. One side reads the Constitution’s text based on its meaning at the time of its adoption and the other believes its meaning changes and evolves, coincidentally only in […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Forgotten Judge

 

The time to speculate on Supreme Court nominations is obviously upon us. Mindful of the diversity calculations in replacing Ruth Ginsburg, President Trump has indicated that he will appoint a woman to the Court. Amy Coney Barrett, two years on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (48 years of age) and Barbara Logoa, with considerable experience in Florida but less than one year on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (53 years of age), are the acknowledged front-runners. While their intelligence is not in doubt, there is a clear lack of a meaningful track record in adjudicating federal cases in both instances. Unfortunately, there also are questions of whether relatively youthful, somewhat inexperienced judges will survive the Greenhouse Effect.

As conservatives, we are rightfully skeptical of supposedly informed comments about the ideology of Supreme Court nominees. There’s no shortage of examples, and there’s nothing to be gained in regurgitating tales of betrayal well known to this audience. Then there’s Judge Diane Sykes.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Filling the SCOTUS Seat Isn’t an Option, It’s an Obligation

 

With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and a newly vacant Supreme Court seat, the political madness of 2020 got even madder. But this moment is precisely why so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump despite their misgivings. A conservative majority on SCOTUS has been a signature goal of the party base going back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Now, 40 years later, the opportunity is finally here.

To quote Margaret Thatcher, this is no time to go wobbly. As expected, many are.

The center-right’s appetite for catering to the Democrat base instead of their own is insatiable. In reaction, GOP voters launched the Tea Party movement. When that fizzled, they elected Trump. Many Republicans still haven’t learned this lesson and want to surrender before any battle begins.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Trump and McConnell, Beware

 

I first met Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the winter of 1978 when we were both fellows at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Our interactions were always cordial. From the first time we talked, it was clear that she was a passionate advocate first, and a detached academic second. She was always immersed in filing certiorari petitions at the Supreme Court in connection with the hugely successful Women’s Rights Project, which she ran at the American Civil Liberties Union from 1972 until she was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1980.

Ginsburg had the rare quality of being both passionate and rigorous in her work, and she displayed those same traits of grit and excellence at every stage of her career. Moreover, her excellence as a lawyer was not confined to the women’s rights issues that brought her fame. She also displayed an impressive expertise on the many procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional issues that form a huge part of the high court’s docket. It was surely possible to disagree with her on the merits of any given case, as I often did. But it was not possible to dispute the brilliance, knowledge, and determination that she brought to her lifetime’s work.

Ginsburg was nominated and confirmed to the United States Supreme Court in 1993 by a 96-3 vote, in a relative period of peace between the huge confirmation battles of Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, and those of Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The most bitter fights have been over Republican nominees, a pattern that promises to continue with the next nominee, whom President Trump has stated, surely incorrectly, that he has “an obligation” (as opposed to an option) to nominate. He has already announced it will be “a very brilliant woman.” The thought that the immediate struggle would be put off until after the election was dismissed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s immediate announcement that he will try to persuade the Senate to confirm a nominee.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Trump Needs to Fill the Court Before the Contested Election

 

I don’t do a lot of social media, other than R> and Instagram (I joined so I could videochat with my daughter traveling in Japan; I stayed because I love posting), but what little I do has been filled for the past day and a half with anguished commentary about RBG and the need to preserve her legacy and burn down Congress and rise up etc etc.

It occurred to me that Susan Collins and her ilk might be persuaded that filling the seat is important if they remembered the 2000 election and the necessity of the SCOTUS to decide the winner. We all know that 2020 is going to be one of the craziest elections of American history, and having a SCOTUS ready to decide may be very very important for the future of the Republic.

Join Jim and Greg as they reflect on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as well as President Trump’s reaction to the news. They also wade into the battle over whether Trump and Senate Republicans ought to press forward with a confirmation process before Election Day and counter Democrats’ insistence that doing so would somehow be unconstitutional. And they respond to the absurd overreactions of people like Barack Obama and Reza Aslan to the prospect of a new justice this year.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Ricochet Replay: A Night with John Yoo

 

For those of you who couldn’t make our live broadcast, we present A Night with John Yoo.

John spends an hour+ with Ricochet Editor Emeritus Troy Senik to talk about his new book, “Defender in Chief,” to reminisce about clerking on the Supreme Court and his time in the Bush 43 Administration and legacy as “the torture memo lawyer.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. RBG Reveals She Has Been Receiving Chemotherapy for Liver Cancer Since May

 

Remember earlier this week when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital to treat an infection? As many thought, there was more to the story. On Friday, the 87-year-old jurist revealed that she is receiving chemotherapy for another recurrence of cancer.

Ginsburg claimed that the hospital visits this week and back in May were unrelated to her liver cancer, but admits she has been receiving treatment since May. She revealed the chemotherapy for the first time today.

She has no plans to retire from the Supreme Court. “I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam,” Ginsburg said. “I remain fully able to do that.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Rule of Lawyers II: The Lawyering

 

Quick quiz question: How many current Supreme Court judges can you name?

I’ll give you a moment to consider, but don’t take too long. It’s a trick question; the proper answer ought to be zero. Lady Justice is blind. Traditionally that means justice ought not care about the skin color of the defendant, or their wealth or poverty or anything else. Justice is concerned with the fundamental equality of all men, not accidents of nature or position. However, we ought to be able to run that backward; truly just judges ought to be indistinguishable. So why is it that you not only know the Justices’ names but can lay a wager as to how they’d rule on any given controversy?

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Indian ‘Reservations’ Are Real

 

Well, this is interesting. Especially if you live in eastern Oklahoma, including the state’s second-largest city, Tulsa.

While much of the media will focus on the two US Supreme Court decisions involving whether 1) Congress or 2) Manhattan prosecutors may access President Trump’s tax returns, I find the McGirt v. Oklahoma State Appeals Court decision of greater interest. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four “liberals” in what read to me like a walk through history, except the parts he glossed over (like, the post-Civil War treaties in 1866, which were described in great detail in Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent).

Join Jim and Greg for three crazy martinis today! First, they wade into the battle over how schools should open, with President Trump and teacher unions unsurprisingly on opposite sides of the debate. Jim offers a highly entertaining theory on how a recent head injury may explain some of his troubling decisions. And they have a lot of fun dissecting the new presidential campaign of Kanye West.

Greg and Jim are both here! Today, they welcome a Supreme Court decision extolling the importance of honoring the verdict of the people in each state during presidential elections. They also shudder as China reports at least one case of the bubonic plague. And they have fun with the NBA allowing “personalized” messages on players’ jerseys that must come from a pre-approved list of messages.

This week, in a special segment of “The Learning Curve,” Cara and Gerard are honored to be joined by Kendra Espinoza, lead plaintiff in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, just decided yesterday, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Erica Smith, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the plaintiffs. Kendra shares what motivated her and her daughters, Naomi and Sarah, to take such a courageous stand for school choice and religious liberty, and describes her experience being the lead plaintiff in a high-profile Supreme Court case. She also discusses the other Montana moms involved in the case, their reaction to the successful outcome, and the realization of the impact it will have on so many families across the country. Erica shares her thoughts on the decision’s wide-ranging constitutional implications; some surprising aspects of the decision that may prompt future legal battles; and a preview of a state-by-state analysis on which states are best positioned to expand access to school choice now.

Story of the Week: Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case, involving Montana parents who were denied access to a state tax credit program when they sought to use it to send their children to religious schools. The Court held that Montana’s Blaine Amendment cannot be used to exclude religious school parents from the state education tax credit program. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Justice Thomas’s Blistering Dissent on Monday’s Abortion Ruling

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana abortion law requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Chief Justice Roberts again sided with the left in Monday’s ruling on June Medical Services v. Russo. (PDF here.)

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas offered a blistering dissent not only against this decision but the entirety of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade was decided. Below are excerpts from Justice Thomas’s remarks.

Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction. As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Gorsuch Legal Alchemy

 

The United States Supreme Court has sent shockwaves through much of the nation with its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. By a six-to-three vote, the Court held in no uncertain terms that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to fire a person “simply” due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The basic statutory text of Title VII provides that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that his textualist approach compelled the novel conclusion that the term “sex” includes not only biological sex, but also sexual orientation and gender identity. “In the context of an unambiguous statutory text,” he wrote, “whether or not a specific application was anticipated by Congress is irrelevant.” His argument is misguided. It holds that the meaning of the term “sex” necessarily bears no relation whatsoever to the intentions of the Congress that passed the legislation or the public who endorsed it.

Join Jim and Greg as they applaud South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott for a pragmatic approach to police reform and for rightly hammering the Democratic characterization of his legislation as a “token” approach. They also rip Chief Justice John Roberts for siding with the four liberal justices in blocking the Trump administration’s effort to end DACA, which was unconstitutionally created in the first place. And they wade into the ugly back and forth between President Trump and former National Security Adviser John Bolton over Bolton’s scathing new book.

Join Jim and Greg as they cheer Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley for calling out the Supreme Court’s recent judicial activism but also for upbraiding legislators for being too fearful to take up difficult issues and leaving them to the courts to resolve. They also slam NBC for attempting to get Google to deplatform The Federalist and Zero Hedge – largely based on objectionable content in the comments section. And they discuss NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suddenly encouraging teams to sign Colin Kaepernick.

Member Post

 

Never Trump conservatives, having hoped for a Hillary Clinton win in 2016, were often subjected to “But Gorsuch” taunts from supporters of President Donald J. Trump, once he was, with the help of Mitch McConnell, able to fill the Supreme Court position left vacant by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. They quickly turned this […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Everyone is here and the guys have a long discussion about the Michael Flynn case and the dropping of charges by the Justice Department. It’s a mess and even those critical of Trump and Flynn are not thrilled with how this played out, including the co-hosts.

The Democrats want to see Trump’s financial documents. Trump refused and now the Supreme Court will make the decision. Is it legitimate or nothing but a means to embarrass Trump?