Tag: Supreme Court

Join Jim and Greg as they enjoy the fun ad for GOP congressional hopefuls in Texas, an ad starring Rep. Dan Crenshaw and includes skydiving and multiple movie references. They also fume over the latest revelations proving the FBI knew the Steele dossier was based on a likely Russian spy and still sought FISA warrants without ever revealing the source to the FISA court. And they get a kick out Democrats suddenly wanting Supreme Court term limits since we may soon have an actual conservative majority.

End the Drama, Reform the Court

 

reform or restore constitutionSenate Republicans should fill the Supreme Court vacancy and vote on fixing the Court permanently. Both major parties agree there is a real problem with the Supreme Court, making membership in the court a subject of the most extreme political tactics. The Republicans must keep their decades-old campaign promise to correct the leftward march of the federal courts. At the same time they should give both Democrats and Republicans real hope of limiting the courts’ potential excesses.

I suggest something like the following:

Joint Resolution

Join Jim and Greg as they welcome Sen. Dianne Feinstein – the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee – saying she opposes ending the legislative filibuster. Without killing the filibuster, Democrats would be unable to add seats to the Supreme Court, but is Feinstein sincere or is she just worried about touting court packing before the election? They also brace for a violent day or more in Louisville as officials announce whether police officers will face charges for the shooting death of Breonna Taylor in March. And they unload on media outlets for not only beginning to attack possible Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett but for getting the story spectacularly wrong.

Join Jim and Greg as they react to 51 Senate Republicans announcing they will support the process of confirming a Supreme Court nominee before Election Day. They also hammer Dems from the Obama and Clinton teams for insisting that Democrats adding seats to the high court is the only response to the supposed constitutional crisis spawned by a vacancy near an election. And they crush Joe Biden for refusing to say whether he supports court packing.

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.

About That Vacancy…

 

Now that the coronavirus crisis is essentially over but for the continuing economic disaster being wrought by various governors and power-drunk state officials, we could do with yet another catastrophe to keep the press enthused through the end of this election year.

The passing this week of Justice Ginsburg will do just fine.

Member Post

 

Already by March this year the joke had begun to fly: “If 2020 were written as a movie script, it would be rejected as too outlandish.” And that was before progressives across the nation embarked on a curious gambit of furthering minority prosperity by burning minority businesses and neighborhoods to the ground, before the West […]

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.

Pastor Ché Ahn and Attorney Mathew Staver joined Senior Editor Christopher Bedford to discuss their recent lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom for his actions in banning religious worship amid the ongoing government lockdown. Ahn is the founder and head pastor at Harvest International Ministry and Harvest Rock Church, and Staver is a founding member of Liberty Counsel.

Ahn argued Gov. Newsom imposed a double standard in shutting down religious services while praising the reckless protests and looting that ensued following the death of George Floyd, despite their lack of compliance with CDC guidelines. Staver said the Constitution makes it clear the government cannot prevent citizens from gathering to worship.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

Inflaming public passions against a party, particularly a criminal defendant, and encouraging prosecutors to vastly increase the charges against him, is the very antithesis of calling balls and strikes.

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.

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.