Supreme Court

Even abortion enthusiasts know Roe v. Wade is a legal abomination

Charles Hurt, Washington Times

The fact of so many 5-4 decisions lays bare the truly shocking and stunning reality that the high court has become infected by at least four Supreme Court justices who have no idea what they are doing. They have never grasped the Constitution. They have no understanding of the Separation of Powers. They are totally unaware of the limitations of their own powers. They are, to be blunt, constitutionally illiterate. So many 5-4 decisions simply means that there are at least four justices now on the court who think that the court — not the elected legislature — makes law.

‘Don’t You Dare Touch Roe!’ — Judicial Confirmation Silly Season Begins

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

Regardless of a jurist’s legal position on substantive due process, or of the jurist’s moral or policy positions on what it has wrought, Roe is part of a doctrinal edifice. To reach out and try to overrule it, particularly in a case in which it is not necessary to do so, would be seen as an attack on the entire edifice. The Supreme Court is not going to take that on. A more conservative Court would reject the promiscuous language of Justice Kennedy’s “liberty” musings and admonish that the polling station, not the courthouse, is the place for working out most clashes between the individual and society. It is not going to turn back the cultural clock.

Why the Preemptive Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett?

David Catron, The American Spectator

President Trump would be wise to ignore the preemptive Borking to which Judge Barrett is being subjected and nominate her to replace Justice Kennedy this afternoon. This will force the Democrats to publicly slander a well-qualified female nominee just before the midterms, when many voters are deciding how to vote. And it will also force Democratic Senators like Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Heidi Heitkamp to support her confirmation in an effort to save their Senate seats. Amy Coney Barrett will be the justice that keeps on giving.

The Irony of the Left’s Opposition to Barrett

George Neumayr, The American Spectator

The left’s visceral opposition to Barrett as a possible Supreme Court nominee makes for a curious spectacle: liberals screaming at Senate Democrats to keep an opponent of the death penalty off the Supreme Court, while many conservatives urge Trump to put her on it. In another era, the sides would be reversed. The Democrats have gone so far to the left that they can’t even tolerate pro-lifers who oppose the death penalty.

Trump Narrows SCOTUS Choices To Three

The nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice may be the most important decision of the Trump presidency and will define President Trump’s legacy for generations to come. We urge President Trump to choose a nominee who will be not just good, but great in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, and the potential nominee who most fits that profile is Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Roe v. Wade and the Confusion of Sen. Collins

William Murchison, The American Spectator

How useful to note Sen. Collins’ confusion between the abiding principles of law and the politics of the moment. It is a very modern kind of confusion, making the stakes in Supreme Court confirmation hard to discern. It is enough to know the present stakes are altitudinous: far, far less about Roe vs. Wade than about prospects for the survival of American freedoms.

The inevitable search for the litmus test

Wesley Pruden, Washington Times

The size of the Republican majority in the Senate, such as it is — one vote, which the Republicans can afford to lose because Vice President Pence can break a tie — might tempt a senator such as Mzz Collins to hold a nomination hostage until she gets a nominee she thinks she can trust to vote her way. But there are several Democratic senators, on the run in the November elections, who could adjust their moral convictions in the interest of personal survival. That’s the genius of Mitch McConnell’s determination to hold a vote before the November elections.

The Supreme Court and the ‘Travel Ban’

Doug Bandow, The American Spectator

In Trump v. Hawaii the justices did their duty. I don’t like the policy result. But if our liberties are to be secure, the law and Constitution must mean something. They must be more than empty vessels into which the next Supreme Court appointee can pour his or her biases. Otherwise our liberties will be constantly at risk, dependent on the rule of men rather than of law.

Obama Minions Poised To Attack Iowa’s Conservative Senator Chuck Grassley

Obama has trained 40,000 Far Left agitators to disrupt Republican townhall meetings this summer. We encourage all our CHQ readers and friends in Iowa to attend Senator Grassley’s townhall meetings today and tomorrow to counter the Obama, Soros, Holder disruption planned by Indivisible Iowa.

Court Decisions Provide GOP With Midterm Rallying Cry

Caitlin Huey-Burns, Real Clear Politics

The high court's ruling upholding the travel ban, along with another equally narrow decision overturning a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to provide patients with abortion literature, underscored the consequences of elections. And given recent voting patterns, Republicans feel they’ve been given a rallying cry for the November elections. Tuesday’s focus on the Supreme Court also highlighted for voters the large number of federal judge vacancies, and the impact party control of the presidency and Congress can have on lower courts across the country.

Justice Kennedy Retires: Beware The Souter Mistake

Justice Scalia was noted for upholding the rule of law, respecting the proper role of the judiciary, and acknowledging the separation of powers. Unlike Justice Souter, he was never sidetracked by trying to appease or please his progressive colleagues in their pursuit of political correctness over the constitutional rule of law.

Supreme Court teaches the Resistance how government works

Editors, Washington Examiner

If Congress gave the president too much power over immigration, Congress has to take it back. Contrary to the impression left by decades of liberal judicial activism, there is no shortcut for winning the power to govern one's fellow men. Courts cannot settle the question of how immigration policy should work without trampling on all kinds of political questions that rightly belong to the elected branches. When presidents faithfully execute laws to the letter that all parties agree are constitutional, as in this case, courts have no place second-guessing their judgment.

What The Supreme Court Said And Didn’t Say About The Travel Ban

The majority of the Supreme Court rejected the claim that Trump's Executive Order illegally discriminated against Muslims, concurring with Chief Justice John Roberts that, “The sole prerequisite set forth in federal law is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here.”

NFIB v. Sebelius Comes Back to Bite Obamacare

David Catron, The American Spectator

Obamacare advocates claim that the failure to defend the ACA in Texas v. United States is an unprecedented dereliction of duty by the Department of Justice (DOJ). This is hysterical nonsense. It is indeed unusual, but the DOJ is by no means obligated to defend a law deemed unconstitutional by the President. If these provisions are struck down, Obamacare will have been all but nullified. This is why the Democrats and the media have so shamelessly misrepresented the decision not to fight Texas v. United States.

The gay times roll, but the Supremes stop the music

Wesley Pruden, Washington Times

This is not the end of the affair. Other cases are percolating through the legal system, one or two of them up to the Supreme Court. These cases, too, are not about wedding cakes, or public accommodation, or even about being left out of wedded bliss. Gays want the larger culture to say that their “lifestyle” demands celebration by all. Dissenters must be broken on the wheel. Religious faith can be no excuse. Justice Kennedy sees that, in spite of his new self. The three percent must rule, whatever the cost.

The High Court and Religious Freedom

William McGurn, Wall Street Journal

The more religious freedom, the better, I’m telling you. Such is the point that matters amid reverberations from the high court’s reversal of a Colorado Civil Rights Commission ukase green-lighting the punishment of baker Jack Phillips. No great American thinker has suggested that freedom of religion fixes everything. The contention that it fixes nothing — just stirs up bigots and hate-mongers — is among the craziest propositions on display anywhere.

Masterpiece Cake: Supreme Court Emancipates Christian Slave

After Masterpiece Cake, religious persons who have been persecuted by state and local enforcers of the Left’s anti-religious agenda now have the right to introduce evidence of bias and to obtain relief when a government’s demand for tolerance becomes merely a cover for the Far-Left to persecute those who wish to live according to Biblical principles.

SCOTUS Deals Blow to Planned Parenthood

David Catron, The American Spectator

SCOTUS found Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley lying on its doorstep. But the justices declined to take this legal orphan in, rejecting it without comment. That may be a harbinger of worse things to come for the abortion industry. The Court is expected to rule soon on a high profile case whereby the petitioners have challenged a California law that requires crisis pregnancy centers to post information about the availability of free abortions. The basic mission of the centers is to discourage abortions, so they believe the law violates their First Amendment free speech rights.

Trump’s tweets are temporary, the rule of law is permanent

Editors, Washington Examiner

If a president without Trump’s Twitter account had attempted the same action, no judge would entertain legal opposition to it. The #Resistance may think they’re saving the country and democracy by overstepping their bounds. In fact, they’re trivializing and politicizing the legal system to achieve political ends they will deeply regret later.