A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Supreme Court overturns objection to cross on public land

Posted: Apr 29, 2010

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2010

A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court's prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land.

A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge's objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a stretch of the Mojave Desert to honor the dead of World War I.

Six justices explained their reasoning in writing, often using stirring rhetoric or emotional images of sacrifice and faith to describe how religion can both honor the nation's dead and divide a pluralistic nation.

The bottom line, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, is that "the Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society." Although joined in full only by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Kennedy's opinion will be closely parsed as courts across the country consider challenges to religious displays in public settings.

But it is a narrow ruling, offering less guidance for the future than a stark acknowledgment of the fundamental differences between the court's most consistent conservatives and its liberals in drawing the line between government accommodation of religion versus an endorsement of religion.

To Kennedy, the cross "is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs" but a symbol "often used to honor and respect" heroism.

He added: "Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens said: "The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice. It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith."

The remainder of the article can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042801949.html

**With the installation of Roberts and Alito, it won't be long before every American must be Christian. So much for big government and activist judges, no?**

;

Me thinks ye protest too much... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
Having a cross on public property is not a symbol indicating "requirement" of all US citizens to be of Christian faith. If you want, you can set up a little fat Buddha, a statue of the Virgin Mary or even the Star of Bethlehem. As a Christian, I won't be offended....so what is your problem??? Pretty soon Christians won't be allowed to wear a necklace shaped like a cross, pray out loud in public, or carry a Bible in public because of the radicals such as yourself. ;)

Please see message. - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

There are certain Christians who try to push their particular brand of Christianity down other peoples' unwilling throats.

With the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I believe we have a good chance of being a "Christian only" nation, and that would really disappoint me because freedom of religion is one of the things I like best about this country.

Christians can do anything they want, so I don't buy that statement that pretty soon they won't be allowed to do this or that.

All it takes is a nut case bringing a lawsuit to the Supreme Court, and the nut cases that are in the majority there will continue their allegiance to George W. Bush. (I'm especially talking about Alito and Roberts, who seem to be built in Scalia's image.)

And there are... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
certain "people" who push their particular brand of normality (homosexuality) down the majority's unwilling throats.

I believe in freedom of religion as in the freedom to disagree with sinful acts and behaviors. I also believe in the freedom from religion for those who wish to continue in sin.

Those who commit homosexuality can do pretty much anything they want as well and pretty soon we won't be allowed to even speak out to say it's wrong. Our religious freedoms will eventually be taken away if we don't take a stand (although I believe they will be anyway one day) so the statement that "Christians can do anything they want" is not true. True Christians will stand firm and deal with the persecution and prosecution which is coming. It is the homosexual community that is protected these days....not Christians.

Your definition of a "nutcase" is the exact opposite of mine. ;)

As long as - someone

[ In Reply To ..]
believes that all that keeps one from practicing homosexuality is willpower, i.e. following God's command, a strong desire to stay healthy both mind and body, etc. they will be threatened by homosexuality and probably have posess homosexual feelings, otherwise, they would know that choosing a lifelong partner of the same sex is not a casual choice.

It's okay not to approve, but to discriminate by law on the basis of religion is quite another thing.

That is all it takes.... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
Any sexual behavior is a choice. In fact, there are those who choose to have no sex at all. God wouldn't create humans who have no ability to make a choice in the matter and then tell them it's wrong. It is a casual choice. The law will discriminate against Christians because of their belief in God. How is that any different? I smell a hypocrite.

It's your upper lip. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
How will (or does) the law discriminate against Christians? Please explain.

With regard to your remark about people choosing to have no sex at all...there are plenty of legally married people who do not have sex, so..what does marriage have to do with it? Marriage is the issue, not sex.

Also, you should try and stop feeling threatened. Go to therapy for your own sake. It isn't your business how others conduct their sex lives. You can have an opinion, but making laws based on religious opinion is wrong.

I hate to break this to you.... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
but every law we have today is deeply seated in religous culture and views. If ENDA is passed, which is being considered right now, Christians will be discriminated against. Homosexuals are the ones who need the therapy. How you conduct your sex lives is NOT my business. If you try to insist I affirm and accept that behavior, then it is my business.

What makes you think anyone is trying to make you - affirm and accept

[ In Reply To ..]
Just turn one of your other cheeks. No one needs your affirmation or acceptance. Oh, btw, every law we have today is not seated in religious culture and views. Not by a longshot.

Affirmation and acceptance comes with passing laws... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
that tell me I have no right to discrimate based on even my religious beliefs. Yes, every law is founded on the concept of the 10 Commandments/Christian principles. You just do not realize that. However, times are changing. New laws by sinful men have come about which are not founded on Christian principles... abortion and any laws having to do with homosexuality as homosexual "marriage" are not founded on Christian principles. It is laws such as these that will cause persecution for the Christian as true Christians will not deny their Lord and accept sinful behaviors as right or good...no matter how angry people become.

Okay, so you want to be able to discriminate against others based on - your religious beliefs

[ In Reply To ..]
Not Christian at all. I would love to know what church you attend.

I want to discriminate against sinful behavior..sm - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
I will pray for you. :)

No thanks. You need all you can get for - yourself

[ In Reply To ..]
and quickly too.

I will pray for you... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
as I know what sin is and you apparently don't yet. :)

Okay, I won't infringe on your religious - rights

[ In Reply To ..]
Pray away. Maybe praying for me will count toward your own salvation a little bit. Maybe you should pray for lots and lots and lots of people. You need all the help you can get.

Yes, we all need help... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
the world is becoming a terrible place in which to live. Sin, war and earthquakes are rampant. I will pray a lot.

Do you have a daughter named Carrie? - hmmmm

[ In Reply To ..]
:P

Good one -- doubt nnn will get it, though. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
xxx

Agreed. Expectations can't be very high for that ever though lest we - be disappointed

[ In Reply To ..]
too frequently.

ROFL - that's exactly what I was thinking - Anony2 - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
I was keeping out of this conversation because I learned a long time ago you can't argue with people like them. Lived around them longer than I want to admit. The ignorance drove me nuts so I moved. I thank God every day I got away from people like that (like Carrie's mother).

Excellent response to that poster. I grew up in a religious family and town (before I moved closer to the nut cases I got away from), and this is not normal.

The difference is... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
those couples who are "legally" married (opposite sex) can actually engage in sexual intercourse. Persons of the same sex cannot. What they are doing is not having intercourse but committing a sin and it is an abomination. The biggest majority of people who marry have sex and the biggest majority do so to have a family. People of the same sex cannot and never will create a family together by their sexual contact. That is what makes the behavior so abnormal and wrong. That and the fact that God says it's wrong. The behavior is solely based on "pleasure" and nothing more. Sex is pleasurable for opposite sex couples also but if it weren't people would not want to procreate. Homosexuality is based solely and simply on a person's sinful urges and desires and not for procreation. Marriage was created for the the preservation of the family with children so that the mother and father would desire to stay together and raise those children. Not happening all the time any more but that's what it was all about. In response to your comment, "Marriage is the issue, not sex." If you can somehow prove to me that all people of the same sex who desire to "marry" and their desire is to ONLY marry but have no desire to commit abnormal sexual behavior, then you have won that argument...but I don't think you can. ;)

If you can somehow prove the reasons for every - marriage or civil union

[ In Reply To ..]
then you may have a point with regard to trending. But, it is no one's business. Frankly, your obsession with people's sex lives is abnormal.

I disagree with you... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
As stated before, what people do in their own lives is no one else's business; however, stating that something is sinful is not interferring in the lives of those who commit said sins. It is merely stating a fact. If I told my neighbor, Joe Blow, that cheating on his wife was wrong, I am not interfering with his actions and it is certainly not my business. It is his, his wife's, his mistress's and God's. That does not exempt me from stating my opinion and belief. It is not that difficult to understand. People state their opinions and beliefs on these boards every single day. Those opinions and beliefs are, to quote you, "NO ONE's BUSINESS," yet they continue on a daily basis to continue to state them. The fact remains, people still have a right to speak their mind about different subjects. There is nothing abnormal about believing in God and what He teaches, no matter who says differently. Your obsession with abnormal sex acts is abnormal. ;)

The issue is whether they should be allowed to be - married

[ In Reply To ..]
is it not? I am merely stating that whether they have sex or not or how they have sex or not is NO ONE's BUSINESS. Your obsession with whether or not they have sex and in what fashion is highly abnormal.

The issue is.... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
that homosexual acts are abnormal and sinful in the first place whether it is anyone's business or not. Marriage was intended by God to be between 2 people who would have sexual contact that wouldn't be considered an abomination. That is the issue and there is nothing abnormal about defending God's teachings.

There you go with the religion again. Guess - you will

[ In Reply To ..]
just have to face the fact that you can't keep people from getting legally married, no matter what their persuasion and you'll just have to hope and pray that you don't lose your willpower, or you'll be standing at the alter right along with them.

Legal doesn't mean anything to God... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
and it doesn't mean anything to me either. If someone tries to change the definition of a dog to a cat, it would still be a dog, no matter how many papers and lawyers were involved. I don't need very much willpower where something as disgusting and sinful is concerned. The choice is very easy to make. :)

It really doesn't matter what anyone - thinks

[ In Reply To ..]
Oh, and by the way, it isn't a change in species...just thought I'd throw that in for ya.

The fact that you call it a choice says a lot about you. Those of us who do not have those tendencies know it is not a choice to us. I will pray for you to continue to have the willpower to resist acting upon your tendencies. Possibly you are fighting a past behavior.

Take care of yourself. :)

It's a change in the definition of marriage... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
All sin is a choice. What it says about me is that I believe what God tells me. Thank you for realizing that. I suppose you would also think that the tendency to want be with children is also not a choice or are you going to change the definition of "tendency" now to suit you? ;)

I did not say, nor do I think the tendency is - natural

[ In Reply To ..]
and I feel badly for those who suffer with it and the attitudes that narrow-minded judgemental people have about them.

The fact is, we are talking about adults of legal age and it is not anyone's business but their own.

The attitudes are about the behavior.. - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
ONLY. The attitude is no different than the one I have about myself when I sin and we all do. I don't try to justify it, however. I know when I sin and I am sorry for it and can admit when I do wrong. The fact is....adult or not...it is still sinful, legal or not.

If you want to split hairs, just change my wording - to

[ In Reply To ..]
the attitudes that narrow-minded judgemental people have about their behavior.

By "narrow-minded".... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
I am going assume you are referring to those who believe what God tells them and those who just happen to think that that behavior is disgusting period. Everyone else is "open-minded." LOL

You know what they say about people who assume - Choosing

[ In Reply To ..]
to be narrow-minded and judgemental is unfortunate because that is not what God wants.

So you can keep doing it no - doubt

[ In Reply To ..]
Just get forgiven til next time. LOL!

Why don't you let God decide that - It is not your place

[ In Reply To ..]
no message

That is like saying... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
that having a strong desire to resist sin (any type of sin) means a person feels threatened by that sin and probably has the desire to commit that sin, whatever it may be. NO... Knowing that something is wrong is deterrent enough for some. Those who are weak will give into sin if sin is what they desire in the first place. If you truly love God, you have no desire to sin. That's like telling me that, because I know it's wrong to steal, I must feel threatened by the the act of stealing and therefore possess the desire to want to steal things. And, since I possess the desire to want to steal, it can't possibly be wrong. LOL How misguided you are. LOL

If you truly don't feel the urge to commit the "sin" - then there is no problem

[ In Reply To ..]
To have to talk yourself out of it....now that's a personal issue.

We are all tempted by some sin... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
Having to "talk yourself out of it" doesn't in any way mean that sinning is normal or good. LOL

No, it doesn't. It is very sad that you have to talk - yourself out

[ In Reply To ..]
of performing homosexual acts which undoubtedly is leading to your frustration and angry attitude.

We commend your strength; however, you have a step further to go and that is to let others be and leave it to God.

I'm far from frustrated. - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
I know the difference between right and wrong. If you buy a Bible and read it, you'll know it too. ;)

If you don't have those tendencies, you don't even have to know the - difference

[ In Reply To ..]
Sad for you.

Homosexuals do not go door to door to try to - convert straights. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Homosexuals do not approach people on the street and ask them if they have been "saved". My son had a pastor approach him a some other kids with bibles and told them that they need to change their "sinful ways" and when my son said "no, thank you" his reward was to have that pastor grab him and try to shove a bible into his hands!! You want to talk about having it shoved down your throat??!! That is a ridiculous and not remotely valid "comparison" and you know it. If you were truly a real "Christian" yourself, you would understand this and accept them as equals and stop trying to justify the hatred. There is no justification.

And how are Christians not protected???!!!

All we ask that we stick 100% to the concept of separation of church and state. You can carry your bibles, you can wear your crosses, you can go to your church and talk god with anyone in your church or home or who wants to engage in the discussion. Just keep it away from those who do not want to hear it and off of government property, functions, etc. I personally would like it if I could keep people from banging on my door trying to sell it like it is a box of girl scout cookies, but I would put up with that if necessary. This is a seriously slippery slope and we need to avoid it.

BRAVO! Excellent post. (nm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]
NM

Agree, it is an excellent post; - however

[ In Reply To ..]
these people believe they are on a mission from God and believe they are justified in their behavior no matter how vile and disgusting it may be.

Reasoning is wasted on these people.

Yes, I noticed. Reason is not in their - vocabulary. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

I have just really got to say this - anonymoose

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm not commenting on the OP's post, but on all the replies above.

Please leave the religion talk to the faith board. Someone here keeps professing to know what God wants and what sin is, and which way people have sex in their own homes is normal, blah, blah, blah. They feel they always have to come back with a reply and each time it's getting worse and worse.

The truth is that person is putting their opinions down as though they are fact. If someone is so biggoted and hateful towards a group of people then keep it to yourself. Haven't you ever heard the saying "If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all". I don't need anyone telling me which lifestyle is normal and which way to have sex is normal or "abnormal" all because of someone's opinion. If you are going to be claiming to know what God wants and talk about sin, please take it to the faith board. This is a political board.

Great post, Anonymoose!!! (nm) - Nikki

[ In Reply To ..]

I couldn't agree more! - Charo

[ In Reply To ..]
Thank for stating it so eloquently.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! - Great post, anonymoose

[ In Reply To ..]
and I for one am exceedingly happy you posted it! Every single time the subject of separation of church and state comes up, it ends up being bombarded with so-called "Christians" who want to debate that homosexuality is not something some are born with and just a terrible, vile and "sinful lifestyle" (I really HATE the words sinful or sin-used so freely to do nothing but inflict guilt and manipulate people-and not in a good way) and using "God" to try and justify this. Please, please keep it on the faith board. It does NOT belong here and just destroys any chance of civil discussion. No one is going to be converted here, so take it to the faith board and discuss it all you want there.

I've seen this discussion here too many times - anonymoose - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
I seen it so many times it's getting very very tiring. A few people who think they know God and what he wants and doesn't want. They think they are speaking his words, blah, blah, blah. I grew up going to church and Sunday school. Belonged to episcopalian, methodist, and catholic church. This is not what they taught us. People like to come on here and stir up trouble. All they are interested in is being able to tell others they are abnormal and sinful. They interpret things into the way they want it to be and then come on here professing this is what God wants. Well the simple truth is they don't know. In my years I've learned that God is not hate, yet that is exactly what they do.

All I say is if you are going to spew your bigoted hateful words about what you feel is right and wrong based on your religious opinion take it to the faith board.

Amen to that, sister. - Totally agree. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Similar Messages:

Jun 26, 2013
A huge step in the right direction. The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83. She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer - a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man. "Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling. "Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, ...

Jul 17, 2013
A third federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Obama violated the Constitution last year when he made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, adding more weight to the case as it goes before the Supreme Court in the justices’ next session. That ruling rejects Mr. Obama’s own interpretation that he can make appointments whenever he deems the Senate to be unable to give him “advice and consent” on his nominees. Full article ...

Jun 03, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html What are your opinions on this ruling? Is this constitutional or a 4th amendment violation? ...

Mar 26, 2012
Before the decision even comes down from the Supreme Court on Obama's health care law I have to admit I have no confidence in them. It's all political. Giving the election to bush over Gore and allowing corporations to fund elections makes me think the court is not bipartisan. When the highest court in the land is partisan I have no hope. I feel sad for our country. Do you trust them? ...

Apr 06, 2012
By Peter Ferrara Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added). President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare heal ...

Jan 27, 2011
Where is the outrage? Corruption at the highest levels--I hope they impeach this guy. Source: Los Angeles Times\"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife\'s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the fou ...

Apr 11, 2010
Ever since Barack Obama's election as president, there has been anticipation among scholars at the University of Chicago's Law School that one of their own could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court bench in the next few years.That anticipation was heightened late last week with news that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the school from 1992 to 2004, soon will be making his first Supreme Court pick.Almost every short list of possible nominees to succeed Justice David Souter inclu ...

Sep 17, 2013
In many states, police can rifle through your smart phone—even if you've just been arrested for not putting on your seat belt. —By Dana Liebelson | Tue Sep. 17, 2013 3:00 AM PDT 8 Rich Siegel/Flickr If you're like many Americans, your cell phone is overflowing with personal information—text messages, emails, photos of your friends and family, an organized history of who you've been calling, private notes, automatic logi ...

Jan 13, 2015
but apparently there is another attack in March to try to deny people the tax-credit subsidies offered by the law. ...

May 20, 2015
guts Obamacare. I don't think they will rule that way; but, if they do, there will be big trouble if all those people lose their insurance. ...

Mar 27, 2012
Lets hope they vote on the side of the law and vote it down. If they do the right thing and vote against it, my trust in them may rise, but unsure. Just unsure if they will do the right thing. My take on the health care is this. Those that want it should be able to get it. Those that don't should not be forced to buy a product we don't wish to purchase every month. And on top of that be told the product has to meet certain circumstances, whiich for m ...

Mar 26, 2012
There are so many good things about the Affordable Health Care Act. It's hard for me to understand why someone would even think about going without insurance. Cain and the TBs are full of hot air.Two years ago, thousands of members of the tea party descended on Capitol Hill to protest the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care law.On Saturday, just two days before the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law, hundreds of tea party supporters ...

Jul 25, 2014
Should Obamacare be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and should the SCOTUS actually decide to hear it, the 4 dissenters when the ACA was upheld by the court previously have already made clear in their dissent what they believed Congress' intent was in setting up the exchanges. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (joint dissenting opinion of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) "...because Congress thought that some States might decline federal fu ...

Nov 13, 2014
More than 800,000 Floridians would see their monthly insurance premiums rise, from an average of around $70 to an average of around $350, or roughly a factor of five. More than 600,000 people in Texas, about 325,000 in North Carolina, and another 275,000 in Georgia would see insurance premiums soar by similar amounts. Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these. Most would have no way to pay the higher bills, forcing them to drop insurance covera ...

Oct 14, 2013
Adam H. Rosenzweig from the Washington University School of Law proposes a different approach to ending the debt ceiling crisis: Let the Supreme Court resolve it as a Constitutional matter. What should happen when Congress and the President find themselves in a fiscal policy showdown resulting in a Constitutional violation? This question has risen to the fore in light of the recent political showdowns over the so-called “debt ceiling” crisis. Some scholars have argued that there ar ...

May 09, 2014
In this case, a family sued on the grounds that having the Pledge Allegiance recited in school everyday discriminated against their children because they did not follow/worship the Christian God. While their children (and all U.S. children) are free to not recite it, it was argued that non-pledgers were discriminated against, treated as un-American, and un-patriotic, and ridiculed as such. Additionally, even if they wanted to demonstrate their patriotism, these students could not because "Under ...

Jan 26, 2017
This is the strangest vaccine story I have ever come across. Several scientists proved successfully in Germany that measles is NOT caused by a virus. The case was heard before the German Federal Supreme Court (equivalent of our U.S. SupremeCourt). The plaintiff was a biologist, and he was awarded monetary damages. Reseachers in the past decades committed a critical mistake: They used no controls. As a result, components of regular cells were misidentified as vira ...

Feb 17, 2016
he would shift the balance of the court. What hypocrites they are and they get away with it. Apparently Harry Reid has forgotten his own role in trying to do so. Payback is a ....... Just two years ago Harry Reid went for the nuclear option eliminated the filibuster rule of 60-40 votes required to override one so he could pack the super-important DC Circuit Court with extreme leftist. The cool thing about having no moral values and no accountability is that you can lie without a guilty ...

Jun 10, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/supreme-courts-majority-s_n_607714.html ...

Aug 19, 2016
Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros’ stated vehicle for progressive social change, orchestrated a well-funded attempt to secure a desired outcome in a U.S. Supreme Court case on illegal immigration enforcement, according to a newly discovered memo between the organization’s top U.S. officials and board members. Members of the advisory board include Soros family members, left-wing activists, Ivy League professors and columnists for The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. The ...

Aug 19, 2013
"the state wants to “wave a magic wand” and read the broad anti-sodomy law as protecting minors. But the law “does not mention the word ‘minor,’ " From The Washington Post The High Court It is not the headline that Ken Cuccinelli II would have written, of course. But considering the flak Virginia’s attorney general has received for pressing his defense of the commonwealth’s “crimes against nature” law to the Supreme Court, C ...

Mar 25, 2014
Maybe there is hope after all... ...

Nov 18, 2014
On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court said it would entertain the latest legal assault on President Obama’s health-reform program. Leading liberal analysts worry—reasonably—that the justices will cripple Obamacare. Unfortunately, these defenders of the program are making their case by preemptively accusing right-leaning members of the high court of bad faith and rank partisanship. Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times has has called the argument that a sy ...

Apr 20, 2015
A big victory for voting rights and against gerrymandering of voting districts! ...

Jan 21, 2010
Well, back to square 1. Wonder how many judges are in the pockets of corporations? Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns Video High court rolls back campaign spending limits The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns. » LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER ...

Jun 11, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit.The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers alleg ...

Jul 01, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/ ...

Feb 23, 2016
Gotta love that man! LOL ...

Jan 09, 2015
January 8, 2015: As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could prove to be a fatal blow against the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a new study has concluded that the consequences of striking down the law's subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals will result in a sharp drop in the number of Americans with health insurance, as well as a steep rise in premiums. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/study- ...

Jan 22, 2010
By Ron BrynaertThursday, January 21st, 2010 -- 12:17 pm Republicans say 'freedom won,' liberal jokes real winner is Satan Update: Obama vows 'forceful response' The US Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a 20-year ruling which had set limits on campaign financing by US businesses, and critics, including nonpartisan watchdogs and Congressional Democrats, are up in arms about the decision, which most had feared for a long time. Meanwhile, aside from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), ...