Tag: Supreme Court

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

Member Post

 

I don’t expect to be there, but someone who graduated from high school this past June has an excellent chance of being alive for the Tricentennial of the Declaration of Independence in 2076 and even the Tricentennial of the Constitution in 2087. What will be left of the U.S. Constitution then? Will its role 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.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Five Arrogant Senators Attack the Supreme Court

 

Just when I think I can’t be any more shocked by the outrageous and unethical behavior of members of Congress, they surprise me again. Well, not exactly. I’m not surprised at all that these five senators would threaten the Supreme Court with a legal brief, impugning the Court’s integrity and motivations even before they rule on an upcoming case.

The five senators—Mazie Hirono, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand—filed their brief against the case called New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York. The totalitarian city of New York believed that it could severely restrict the carry of firearms and get away with it. The original legislation was changed to read that a person could transport a gun only to a second home, a gun range or a shooting competition outside the city. Quite generous of the city, don’t you think? And in the process, they declared moot the petitioner’s claim of violating the Second Amendment. Not quite, Bill DeBlasio; you can’t toss out the Second Amendment all by yourself.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Justice Ginsburg Completes Radiation Therapy for Malignant Tumor

 

The Supreme Court announced today that Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg, 86, has completed a three week course of radiation therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center for a malignant tumor on her pancreas. The tumor was detected during a blood test in early July and confirmed through a biopsy on July 31. In addition to the radiation therapy, Ginsburg also had a bile duct stent installed. According to the Office of Public Information at the Supreme Court, the tumor was “definitively treated” and there is no sign of disease elsewhere in her body.

Ginsburg has had cancer numerous times. Most recently, just last December she had a lobectomy on the left side of her lungs to remove cancerous nodules, also performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering. That procedure caused her to miss oral arguments at the Supreme Court, the first time she’d been absent since joining the court.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies at 99

 

Retired Justice John Paul StevensJohn Paul Stevens was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Gerald Ford, a Republican. Justice Stevens became a leader of the left wing of the court, and did not retire until a suitably leftist president could name his successor. In 2010, Stevens retired, allowing President Obama to select his replacement, Elena Kagan. Age 90 at his retirement, Stevens enjoyed nine years of retirement before his passing on Tuesday, July 16, 2019.

The New York Times is praising Stevens in its obituary, written entirely positively by Linda Greenhouse. Writing on the Supreme Court for 40 years, until retiring in 2008, she was credited with shifting Republican appointees left by her writing at the paper, created what has been called “the Greenhouse Effect.” She praises this Republican appointee for going all the way her way. Read her article and you will glimpse what an unaccountable official in black robes can do over a lifetime.

More

Member Post

 

Paul Craig Roberts Rages “Government Can Know Everything About Us Except Our Citizenship?!” by Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge posts Roberts’ essay on the Supreme Court’s decision on Census QuestionWed, 07/10/2019 – 18:45 Url: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-10/paul-craig-roberts-rages-government-can-know-everything-about-us-except-our 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.

Myron Magnet joins Brian Anderson to discuss his new book, Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution.

Magnet contends that Justice Thomas’s originalist jurisprudence offers a path forward for recovering our nation’s “lost Constitution” and restoring America as a free, self-governing nation made up of self-reliant citizens.

More

Daniel DiSalvo joins City Journal editor Brian Anderson to discuss the impact of last year’s Supreme Court decision in Janus v. ASFCME, in which the Court ruled that public-sector unions’ mandatory “agency fees” were unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Unions provide an important source of financial support for politicians—primarily Democrats—around the country. In a new report for the Manhattan Institute, DiSalvo finds that blue states are taking steps to shield their public unions from the full consequences of the Janus ruling.

More

James R. Copland joins City Journal editor Brian Anderson to discuss President Trump’s impact on the federal courts, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and the diversity in conservative judicial philosophy emerging today.

The director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, where he is a senior fellow, James Copland has written and spoken widely on how to improve America’s civil- and criminal-justice systems. “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” his article (coauthored with Rafael A. Mangual) assessing Trump’s court appointments, appears in the Winter 2019 issue of City Journal.

More

Member Post

 

I read this headline, Justice Department asks Supreme Court to allow… and something just seems wrong to me: Regardless of the issue. 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. Quote of the Day: Originalism and the Constitution

 

“Our cases acknowledge the [option of imposing a lesser sentence than the death penalty], but they say that the content of the Eighth Amendment changes from age to age, to reflect (and I quote) ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ You will note the wide-eyed, youthful meliorism in this sentiment: every day, in every way, we get better and better. Societies always mature; they never rot. This despite the twentieth century’s evidence of concentration camps and gas ovens in one of the most advanced and civilized nations of the world. Of course the whole premise of a constitution in general, and of a bill of rights in particular, is the very opposite of this.” — Antonin Scalia, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith and Life Well-Lived

Justice Scalia was a widely lauded originalist in his understanding of the Constitution, and his explanation of originalism in this book is enlightening. But his comment about the Left trying to justify their interpretations of the Constitution is profound. They demonstrate, over and over again, their naivete, arrogance, and ignorance about human nature that dominates their thinking in a way that endangers our Constitutional democracy.

More