"As Justice Harlan observed over a century ago, ‘our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’ . . . The people of Michigan wish the same for their governing charter. It would be shameful for us to stand in their way.”Read more
THE WEEKLY STANDARD Podcast with executive editor Terry Eastland on the recent ruling by the supreme court in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.Read more
Steve Hayes, with Juan Williams and Charles Krauthammer, last night on Fox News:
President Obama and Senate Democrats have gone to great lengths to secure the appointment of executive-branch officers and judges and thus help advance his policies and programs. Obama has made recess appointments in a way no president before him did, an action now being challenged in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, which offers the Supreme Court the first occasion in its long history to opine on the until-now obscure recess appointments clause.Read more
New London, Conn.
"See that pole with the transformer hanging from it?” Michael Cristofaro asked me. “That was where my family’s home was.”
Nineteen Democratic senators filed a brief this week with the Supreme Court in support of requiring business owners to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for their employees over their religious objections.Read more
Dr. Brian Lee is pastor of Christ Reformed Church, a small church in downtown Washington, D.C., which he founded six years ago. Lee knows something about a topic not ordinarily discussed at his church, that of “legislative prayer.” As we’ll see, he has his doubts about it.Read more
Among the first cases heard by the Supreme Court in its new term is one from Michigan. The state stands accused of violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee by requiring equal treatment in public-university admissions decisions. Michigan has committed no such violation. Yet to judge by the oral argument in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Court, surprisingly, is closely divided. A decision against Michigan would be a setback for equal protection.Read more
Arguably the most important case the Supreme Court handed down this past term was United States v. Windsor, in which Justice Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage for federal purposes. Largely neglected in commentary on the case is the question the Court had to decide in order to take up the constitutional question—that of whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal.Read more
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. . . .Read more
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled against using race to determine public school assignments. Chief Justice Roberts concluded his plurality opinion with this eloquent statement: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”Read more
As the Supreme Court finished its term, we looked ahead to see which big cases the justices have taken for review starting in the fall. And lo, Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al. v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, et al. caught our eye.Read more
The Scrapbook has said it before and will say it again: Not only has the 24-hour news cycle revolutionized the business of journalism, it has taken a certain amount of the fun out of reading all that 24-hour-cycle journalism.Read more
WEEKLY STANDARD executive editor Terry Eastland reviews the Supreme Court's decisions in Fisher v. University of Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Hollingsworth v. Perry.Read more
Whatever one’s views on gay marriage, it is appropriate — in a sense — that this issue, which was illegitimately thrust onto the scene by willful judges at the state level, has now been illegitimately advanced by willful judges at the federal level. Accordingly, gay marriage has been propelled forward at the expense of the separation of powers, and of applying state constitutions, and now the federal Constitution, as written. Even the policy’s advocates should view this as an unduly high price to pay.Read more
The Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage effectively leave the issue very much alive in state and national politics. The four justices appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama clearly would declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in a heartbeat, if they were to get a fifth vote.Read more
President Bill Clinton released a statement, together with his wife Hillary Clinton, hailing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he signed into law in 1996.Read more
Much will be written about Chief Justice Roberts's opinion for the court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, holding that supporters of California's Proposition 8 lacked constitutional "standing" to defend in federal court California's ballot initiative against same-sex marriage. (Whether or not same-sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage someday, it's certainly destroying Twitter this morning.) But one ironic twist deserves immediate mention.Read more
President Obama called the plaintiffs of the Prop. 8 Supreme Court case while they were being interviewed on MSNBC:
Everyone said they were proud of each other, and thanked each other for their support.Read more
Supreme Court: 'DOMA Singles Out a Class of Persons Deemed By a State Entitled to Recognition and Protection to Enhance Their Own Liberty'
In terms of the “optics,” it doesn’t look good when you initiate a lawsuit against “Baby Girl.” But don’t let that fool you into thinking that the Capobianco family of South Carolina, who launched the lawsuit “Adoptive Couple versus Baby Girl,” and who won today at the Supreme Court, were in the wrong. They simply wanted to get their adoptive baby back. And after a three year legal battle, they have finally won.Read more
In a statement, President Obama called today's Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act a "setback."Read more
On August 1, the one-year “safe harbor” for religious charities objecting to provisions of Obamacare will end. Starting then, these nonprofit employers will be forced to violate their religious beliefs or pay large fines. In charge of collecting the fines will be our recently newsworthy friends at the Internal Revenue Service.Read more
Last month, in City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court’s five judicial conservatives divided on a question concerning the relationship between federal courts and federal regulators. Justice Scalia wrote the decision for a majority that included Justice Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts wrote the only dissent in the case, which was joined by Justices Alito and Kennedy.Read more
On November 7, 2011, the Supreme Court decided to hear Magner v. Gallagher, a case about racial discrimination in housing. Oral argument was scheduled for February 29, 2012. But shortly before that, on February 10, the case was dismissed.Read more
Type in your email
address to get started:
Thank you for signing up for the Jonathan V. last newsletter! You should receive your first newsletter very soon.
We're sorry, there was an error processing your newsletter signup.