Tag: Supreme Court

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Member Post

 

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 […]

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. Another Reason to Distrust Polls. This Time, It’s Evidence Based.

 

We all get those annoying headlines stating “Biden is ahead of Trump by X.” And we’re told that it’s based on science and Big Data, so you can take it to the bank. Well, any amount of time around conservative sites like Ricochet knows that we try very hard not to take “Biden is ahead of Trump by X” as gospel.

Today, we have a legitimate, authoritative, reason to distrust polls. Today, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in Barr v American Association of Political Consultants Inc. For a little background, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 prohibits companies from making robocalls to cellphones. Congress, in 2015, decided to add an exception to the TCPA for purposes of collecting on any debt owed to or guaranteed by the U.S. Government.

More

Ilya Shapiro joined host Ben Domenech to discuss the meaning and impact of recent Supreme Court decisions. Shapiro serves as the Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and he recently wrote a new book, “Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court.

Shapiro observed that Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to push back against the idea that all Supreme Court justices must vote along their own party lines. Roberts thinks that by acting strategically, he is legitimizing the court in many people’s eyes. Shapiro argued, however, this tactic has garnered little respect for Roberts.

More

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.”

More

Member Post

 

Josh Hammer and Garrett Snedeker argue that it’s time for conservatives to adopt a more confrontational attitude toward rogue decisions of the Supreme Court. In Newsweek, they write: A case as wrongly decided as Bostock would, in an earlier era, have immediately triggered the equivalent of constitutional “antibodies.” Congress would bring forth bills to limit the scope […]

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.

Member Post

 

In the wake of Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is necessarily sex-based, a number of conservative legal thinkers have unsheathed rather sharp swords against Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, past and present. The arguments vary but generally boil down to dissatisfaction with textualism and […]

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.

There is an in-depth discussion this week covering three issues that broke just this week

First, the guys talk about the SCOTUS Bostock decision regarding Title VII of The Civil Rights Act, Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, and whether or not it was the court writing legislation instead of interpreting the law.

More

Member Post

 

There’s been much consternation over Justice Gorsuch’s and Roberts’ majority opinion in Bostock v Clayton County. It’s both a major new application of existing law with far reaching effect AND is something Congress has tried but failed to do. As a default, I think the dissent in the case makes sense: the court shouldn’t impose […]

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.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. How Kind: Thinking Well of McConnell and Roberts

 

“…Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

— Nominee for Chief Justice, John Roberts, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2005

More

This week on “The Learning Curve,” Cara and Gerard continue coverage of COVID-19’s impact on K-12 education, joined by Tim Keller, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice, which has been defending school choice from legal challenges, largely from state Blaine Amendments, for 30 years. Tim describes IJ’s work on behalf of the plaintiffs in the high-profile Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the impact of the pandemic on the timing of the ruling. They explore the case’s prospects for success, and some potential political and legal responses in the event of a favorable outcome. They also delve into the national implications of another recent case in Maine, involving families battling a long-standing state law prohibiting public tuition payments to religious school parents. Tim also shares the backstory of Arizona’s popular Empowerment Scholarship, an education savings account program that he helped design and defend.

Stories of the Week: Despite COVID-19 school closures, the College Board will move forward with Advanced Placement exams; but will the increased security measures enacted to prevent cheating raise controversy? Around the world, temples and churches have emptied as a result of the pandemic, but religious leaders are using technology to stream their services, and help congregants celebrate Passover and Holy Week even in the absence of physical connection.

More

Member Post

 

The President, the Chief Justice, the Senate Majority Leader, and at least one other of Chuck Schumer’s Senate colleagues have denounced his threat against two Supreme Court justices. Naturally, Republicans are concerned that someone might take Schumer’s words as an invitation to violence. Senator Schumer’s threat against originalist justices deserves strong rebuke and censure, and […]

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.

Member Post

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/psst-i-want-you-to-illegally-immigrate-11582849036? WSJ editorial headline is More

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.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. New York: ‘Gimme Shelter’; 2nd Circuit: ‘No Satisfaction’

 

President Trump, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, and the American people won again. The Second Circuit smacked down New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington, and Rhode Island, along with a leftist judge. The case was New York et al. v. United States Dep’t of Justice et al.

The White House Press Secretary was right on top of this, quickly publishing a brief thank-you notice, the shorter version of which is “Nice court, good judges!”

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Member Post

 

As President Trump likes to say, the impeachment process was a “hoax.” Some say that the accusations that the House of Representatives made against him may have been true, but many legal experts agree that they were not “impeachable.” Then the question becomes, can an impeachment be expunged? Can the Supreme Court rule President Trump’s […]

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.

On this episode of “The Learning Curve,” Bob & Cara are joined by Dick Komer, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice. Komer led the oral argument this week before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs in the high-profile school choice case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. They review the details of the Montana case and the nativist history of the Blaine amendments that remain in nearly 40 states. Komer also compares Espinoza with the recent Trinity Lutheran case, shares his take on the justices’ thinking and the outlook for success, as well as the political challenges that persist even if the plaintiffs prevail.

Stories of the Week: In Tennessee, a contentious new education savings account program for students from low-performing districts is attracting nearly 60 participating private schools. Alaska is considering consolidating 54 school districts into 18 – will this erode communities, or bring about long-overdue cost savings? West Chester, Pennsylvania is using a new online learning program to win back students who left the district for charter-run cyber schools.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Impeachment as Congressional Contempt of the Constitution

 

The Framers did not intend the impeachment power to give Congress supremacy, in the form of being able to harass and paralyze the Courts or the president over policy differences, let alone raw political will. Nevertheless, Congress has acted, almost from the beginning, with selective contempt for the Constitution, both legislatively and in its employment of the impeachment power. There is really nothing new under the sun, including what the current majority party in the House of Representatives is doing…and it is still contemptuous of the Constitution.

Take a step back from the current tempest in the Congressional teapot and consider the facts laid out in 1992 by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Grand Inquests: the Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson. The Chief Justice published this very approachable book the year that William Jefferson Clinton beat President Bush the First. Taking his book as a guide to the subject and the actors, some focused searching on the internet yields plenty of historical data and documents. Consider just the first major impeachment, along with a prelude, at the dawn of the 19th Century.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. In Harris Funeral Homes Supreme Court Case, We Should Ask ‘Am I Next?’

 

“Am I next?” That’s the question that should come to your mind when you think of G.R. & R.G. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which the US Supreme Court is set to hear Tuesday, Oct. 8.

And no, that’s not a reference to funeral homes in general—along the lines of “ask not for whom the bell tolls”—but whether or not Americans can rely on what the law says. If the ACLU has its way and defeats Harris Funeral Homes, everyday Americans will face punishment for violating laws that unelected officials have changed out from under them.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Presidential Ukraine Phone Transcript: Nothingburger? Not Exactly.

 
President Donald Trump // shutterstock.com

President Trump has declassified and released the transcript of his phone conversation in July with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy (See our post here.) The transcript is a complete nothingburger when it comes to the loony Left’s (and NeverTrumper’s) insane desire to remove President Trump from office. Trump did not, as had been alleged by partisan hacks in the Fake News, threaten to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless they gave him dirt on Biden. (Why this would have been an impeachable offense is not clear to me, in any case.)

Some people are suggesting that, like a Rorschach test, the transcript reveals different things to different people. Those who hate Trump will use it against him, those who love him will use it to defend him. Sure. Absolutely. This has been the case with many things over the past three years. But here’s the thing: Some people have a track record of being wrong, and other people have a track record of being proven right by the facts. The people who told you yesterday the transcript would show Trump had corruptly threatened Ukraine with withholding military aid in exchange for opposition research on a potential rival were wrong

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Slate Peddles Conspiracy Theory to Explain Conservative Courts

 

Mark Joseph Stern is a silly person. He’s also a lawyer and writer, employed by Slate to cover the courts with that straight-down-the-middle reportage we’ve come to expect from his colleague Dahlia Lithwick.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Transgenderism, the Supreme Court, and Child Abuse

 

This past week The Federalist published an article that once again highlighted the damage that transgenderism has inflicted on our society. The article described an amicus brief that has been filed in the Supreme Court for the case R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the case will be heard October 2019. It described the powerful statements in an amicus brief from several individuals who acknowledged the devastation they had experienced in deciding to change their gender identity. In this post, I’m going to provide a summary of the original case, include some of their statements from the amicus brief, and also the impact of these types of beliefs on our children.

Here is a summary of the original brief:

More