10:00 AM, Apr 24, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER
The stakes for the 2016 presidential election are high. Consider this: four Supreme Court justices are 76 or older.
"It’s very much at stake in the 2016 election. Four justices are 76 or older. Two, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (82) and Stephen Breyer (76), are liberals. Antonin Scalia (79) is a conservative. And Anthony Kennedy (78) is a swing vote. The next president’s nominees, assuming there are several, will be pivotal," writes Fred Barnes in the Wall Street Journal.
Barnes explains what else is at stake:
The importance of a presidential election depends on what’s at stake. In 1980, a lot was. The economy was stuck with double-digit inflation and interest rates, and Soviet communism was advancing in Africa, Asia and South America. Ronald Reagan was elected president.
Now, as the 2016 presidential race unfolds, the stakes are even higher than 36 years ago. Not only is the economy unsteady but threats to American power and influence around the world are more pronounced and widespread. And those problems are only part of what makes next year’s election so critical.
Like it or not, the next president must deal with the world President Obama leaves behind. It won’t be easy. A Republican president will be committed to reversing a significant chunk of Mr. Obama’s legacy, as most GOP candidates already are. That’s a gigantic undertaking. A Democratic president, presumably Hillary Clinton, will be forced to defend Mr. Obama’s policies, since they reflect the views of her party. That will leave little time for fresh Democratic initiatives.
The most immediate issues confronting the new president are strategic and military. The U.S. role in the world is in retreat. Allies such as Israel and Poland have been alienated. American leadership against Russian intervention in Ukraine and Iran’s dominance of neighboring countries in the Middle East was fleeting. Mr. Obama’s promise of a foreign-policy “pivot” toward Asia turned out to be merely rhetorical.
Lobbying the High Court to save Obamacare Mar 30, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 28 • By CHARLOTTE ALLEN
King v. Burwell, on which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments March 4, is the most politically important case on the High Court’s docket this term. If the King petitioners win a decision in their favor, it could explode the massive 2010 federal health care overhaul known as Obamacare, by removing subsidies for Obamacare-compliant health-insurance policies in most states.
12:41 PM, Mar 6, 2015 • By ADAM J. WHITE
Chief Justice Roberts has said he likes mystery novels; once, as a lower-court judge, he invoked Sherlock Holmes's "dog that didn't bark." But at the King v.
2:31 PM, Mar 5, 2015 • By ADAM J. WHITE
At yesterday's oral argument in King v. Burwell, the solicitor general made a surprisingly partisan quip about Congress.
10:05 AM, Mar 5, 2015 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who rode his opposition to Obamacare to a seat in the Senate, has introduced legislation that should help Republicans avoid turning a potential victory at the Supreme Court into a defeat for the cause of repeal. Sasse’s bill, introduced yesterday evening, is designed to keep Republican governors and state legislators from setting up state-based exchanges in the wak
6:53 PM, Mar 4, 2015 • By ADAM J. WHITE
Three years ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. So it should come as no great surprise that he expressed constitutional concerns in today's ACA case, King v. Burwell.
9:34 AM, Mar 4, 2015 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Five years ago this month — on the night the Democrats passed Obamacare through the House without a single Republican vote — Paul Ryan proclaimed on the House floor, “This moment may mark a temporary conclusion of the health-care debate, but its place in history has not yet been decided. If this passes, the quest to reclaim the American idea is not over. The fight to reapply our founding principles is not finished. It is just a steeper hill to climb, and it is a climb that we will make!”
12:09 PM, Feb 26, 2015 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether the Obama administration has been illegally providing taxpayer-funded subsidies in 36 states under the guise of implementing Obamacare, and there’s been much debate about what Congress should do if the Court rules that the administration’s actions have been lawless. A new McLaughlin & Associates poll, commissioned by
4:38 PM, Feb 6, 2015 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
In today’s Wall Street Journal, my friend Tevi Troy and Scott Gottlieb unwittingly demonstrate why King v. Burwell has always been a dangerous case for advocates of repeal. As they highlight, a favorable ruling at the Supreme Court may give Republicans just enough rope to hang themselves.
Feb 9, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 21 • By TERRY EASTLAND
In one of the biggest Supreme Court cases of the year, Justice Antonin Scalia seems destined to cast the critical vote. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, argued late last month, concerns the Fair Housing Act of 1968, specifically its prohibition of discrimination in housing.
10:23 PM, Jan 20, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER
Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to fall asleep during President Obama's lenghty State of the Union address:
Nov 24, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 11 • By TERRY EASTLAND
Let us now praise famous men, or at least one good federal judge, as some recent work of his demonstrates. Jeffrey Sutton is this judge, and he sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Earlier this month he announced an opinion for his court in DeBoer v.