Supreme Court

Another win: Supreme Court okays Trump travel ban

James Simpson, Bombthrowers

The other day, in a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court allowed Presidential Proclamation 9645, the third iteration of President Trump’s travel ban, to come fully into effect pending two legal challenges expected to be heard soon in the oft-overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A piece of cake for the Supreme Court

Editors, Washington Examiner

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, it will buttress state power at the expense of the Bill of Rights. It would endorse coercion to force people to pretend to believe what they understand to be false. This would shatter the First Amendment. It would institutionalize a violent struggle, which cannot end, in which might decides what is right, in which the powerful can use the law to subjugate the weak.

Will Supreme Court Uphold Slavery Of Christians?

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the case of Christian baker Jack Philips and Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to participate in a same-sex wedding. To force someone to do labor against their will is the very definition of slavery and that is what the radical homosexual lobby has been using courts across America to do.

Why Many Christian Conservatives Support Roy Moore

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

If the election in Virginia this year is a harbinger of what is to come, GOP control of Congress could be washed away in a tidal wave in 2018. Hence, 2018 may be a do-or-die year to recapture the third branch of government for conservatism. Which is why that December 12 election in Alabama counts.

Trump Finally Gets His ‘Travel Ban’ Victory

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

The Court not only dismissed as moot the challenge to the administration’s restrictions on travel to the United States by aliens from six countries. Critically, the Court also vacated lower-court rulings that had upheld injunctions against the travel restrictions.

Democrats find excuses for election losses in lawsuits

Editors, Washington Examiner

There is only one reason this case is being heard now. It is that Democrats still haven't accepted their loss in the 2016 election. They can fall back on Hillary Clinton's victory in the national popular vote, but they lost the popular vote for the House of Representatives. Incapable, apparently, of accepting that their ideas and candidates have fallen short, they are peddling to their demoralized followers the notion that they lost because of gerrymandering.

The dam holding back school choice will soon collapse

Editors, Washington Examiner

Without a flood of plundered money, unions will be a diminished force, and their power over Democratic politicians will likewise decline. As polling increasingly shows bipartisan support for school choice, especially for the type of program in Florida, politicians are likely to swing that way too. They go where they can get votes.

SCOTUS Gives School Choice a Chance

Bill Donohue, CNS News

It is up to state lawmakers to introduce legislation that allows for non-discriminatory school voucher programs, and all other measures that provide parents with choice in education. Education equality is long overdue. Those who seek to keep the poor in their place—by condemning innocent minority children to failed public schools in the inner-city—are the big losers.

Two wins for Trump

Cal Thomas, Washington Times

The Supreme Court’s two rulings mark a welcome setback to the open borders crowd and those secular progressives who view the expression of any religious view in the public square the way a vampire views a cross. It has been a curiosity of mine that some people believe using God’s name as a curse word is speech protected by the Constitution, while claiming the opposite when it comes to speaking well of the Deity at a commencement ceremony.

Is the Second Amendment Only for the Elite?

The Framers of the Constitution did not reserve the right of self-defense to those elite members of society whose position or wealth provides them with armed guards. When the courts fail to enforce the promises of the Constitution, then it is up to the legislature to act. We urge Congress to take up and pass a national concealed carry bill.

The Supreme Court Order Is Not Much of a Victory for Trump

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

When push comes to shove, the Trump administration does not really grasp what “radical Islam” is and would have no stomach for a battle over factoring sharia-supremacist ideology into account when vetting aliens who seek to enter our country. I’d love to be wrong. But if I’m right, we will eventually remember the extensive, strident travel-ban litigation as much ado about nothing.

Supreme Court Will Take Up Christian Baker's Refusal to Serve a Gay Wedding

Tyler O'Neil, PJ Media

States like Mississippi and Alabama are pioneering the way to navigate these complex religious freedom issues, and this fall, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Religious freedom is in the balance, and with Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court leans to the Right. There is reason to hope that the First Amendment will win the day.

FLASH: Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Terrorist Travel ban

Today's Supreme Court ruling means that the administration may impose a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States, with certain exceptions noted by the court.

Trump Immigration Order Took Another Hit: Now SCOTUS Must Get Involved

Hans von Spakovsky, CNS News

If the lower courts are uniformly getting it wrong and failing to follow the Supreme Court’s binding precedents on an issue, that is a more than sufficient reason to take up a case. In fact, the court has an obligation to do so in order to prevent chaos in the legal system resulting from lower courts refusing to follow the law. That is especially true when the judicial branch is interfering with the president’s prerogatives in the national security and immigration area.

Gorsuch Gets Comfortable in Scalia’s Chair

Kenneth Star, Wall Street Journal

Thursday afternoon, Justice Gorsuch will ceremonially take the chair Scalia occupied for almost 30 years. At his confirmation hearing, he called Scalia a mentor who “reminded us that words matter—that the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.” Antonin Scalia changed the way mainstream judges think about their role in a representative democracy. On this investiture day, the Scalia tradition boasts a worthy inheritor.

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear NC’s Voter ID Appeal

Hans von Spakovsky, CNS News

Thirty-two states require some form of ID in voting, although not all of them require a photo ID. And states are continuing to pass such needed laws. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad just signed into law a new voter ID law in his state. State legislators and the public should not allow the 4th Circuit decision to deter them from taking the steps necessary—including commonsense voter ID requirements—to improve the integrity of our elections.

Trump's first 100 days: Our next Supreme Court pick will be the kicker

Hans A. von Spakovsky, Fox News

Whoever the next departing justice is, President Trump must make sure the next Supreme Court justice is someone who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100 percent of the time, not just when it is convenient to achieve the particular policy goal the justice wants. And President Trump will need someone who doesn't care what the New York Times, MSNBC, or the Washington cocktail circuit says about him or her.

Gorsuch Asks The Right Questions

Asking the right questions doesn’t mean that Justice Gorsuch will reach the right decisions in these or any future case before the Court.  However, conservatives can take encouragement that Justice Gorsuch is starting from the plain language of the Constitution and the statues Congress has passed, not the whims and fantasies of other judges.

How Mitch McConnell Won the Battle to Confirm Gorsuch

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

Rather than scrapping tradition, the end of the judicial filibuster restores a longstanding tradition of not using it against nominees for judgeships. That tradition was tossed out in 2003 when Democrats began filibustering Republican nominees. That was new. The old way, the traditional way, was followed in the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas in 1990. To say he was a highly controversial pick is putting it mildly. Despite this, no one called for a filibuster or said there's a rule that says 60 votes are required. Thomas was confirmed, 52-48.

Nixon, LBJ, and the First Shots in the Judges’ War

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

The Democrats’ drive to defeat Neil Gorsuch is the latest battle in a 50-year war for control of the Supreme Court—a war that began with a conspiracy against Richard Nixon by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Abe Fortas, and Lyndon Johnson. Behind the hostility to the mild-mannered and decent Neil Gorsuch lies the same malevolence that lynched Clement Haynsworth.