In the event Roe gets overturned, it won’t be the win for abortion abolition that pro-lifers claim. We must strategize accordingly.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ attempt to defend the independence of the judiciary, in light of President Trump’s comments that courts are politicized, did more harm than good.
Even if Brett Kavanaugh turns out to be a tremendous originalist justice, the courts still represent a major threat to the republic.
The idea that the Supreme Court might strike down Obamacare, and that a Justice Kavanaugh would cast the deciding vote to do so, ranges from implausible to ridiculous.
It’s not especially her political apostasy that’s the problem. It’s weakness of her arguments.
Which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will? Kavanaugh did both.
Striking down the law through legal fiat would represent judicial activism at its worst—asking unelected judges to do what elected members of Congress took great pains to avoid.
The proposal is simple: when Democrats next hold the presidency and Senate, they should pack the courts to ensure that the Left can achieve its goals.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a $135,000 fine against the owners of a local cake shop who declined to use their artistic skills to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
Judges—who typically lack military service and work in courtrooms far removed from its realities—are ill-positioned and ill-qualified to evaluate judgment calls by military leaders.
How increasingly letting states and citizens sue to stop laws and regulations they don’t like, such as President Trump’s immigration order, can politicize courts and end self-government.
If the Wyoming Supreme Court is permitted to insert an unstated requirement upon judges, what prevents some future court from reading pastors, priests, and bishops into the same decision?
Should pro-lifers who voted for the president because he promised to nominate a judge who would overturn Roe worry it won’t happen?
Chuck Schumer’s case against Neil Gorsuch relies on an argument that distorts the entire purpose of the Supreme Court.
Once I had the opportunity to serve in the Wisconsin legislature I realized just how severely flawed is the idea of looking to legislative history for guidance in statutory interpretation.
Today’s strong judicial activism goes against the purpose of the Supreme Court envisioned by the Founders, and defined in the Constitution.
The Federalist hosts a roundup of reactions to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage legalization in Friday’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
Charles Murray’s clarion call for civil disobedience is tempting, but it’s also something that will challenge conservative orthodoxy on the courts.
- Democrats Take Down Another Judicial Nominee Simply Because He’s A ChristianReligious tests are unacceptable––we should never lcontinue reading >
- The Pedophile Project: Your 7-Year-Old Is Next On The Sexual Revolution’s Hit ParadeWe cannot dismiss the campaign to legalize pedophilia acontinue reading >
- The 25th Amendment Talk Isn’t The Real Scandal. The Spygate Coup Attempt IsThe true scandal is not the swirling gossip that Rod Rocontinue reading >