ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Latest Headlines
The narrowly tailored bill, which would require the federal government to recognize a marriage if it was legal in the state in which it was performed, is meant to be a backstop if the Supreme Court acted against same-sex marriage. It would not bar states from blocking same-sex or interracial marriages if the Supreme Court allowed them to do so.
A New York Times report of a former anti-abortion leader's claim that he was told in advance about the outcome of a major 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case involving contraceptives.
Allowing the lower court decision to stand would "undermine the separation of powers and render the office of the Presidency vulnerable to invasive information demands from political opponents in the legislative branch," Trump's lawyers wrote.
The high court's take on the case is "very hard to predict," said Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who wrote a brief supporting Warhol with other copyright scholars.
From the commentary: The former president must surely be disappointed, but he has no one to blame but himself. The rule of law may be a fiction for him, but thankfully, it is a real bulwark of freedom and democracy for the men and women who hold his fate in their hands.
From the commentary: So, the ideological, political and legal war rages on. Welcome back, justices.

ADVERTISEMENT

From the editorial: In contrast, federal judges receive lifetime tenure, specifically to shield them from public pressure. Their job is to abide by the U.S. Constitution and laws passed by Congress, not impose their personal opinions. That’s the “rule of law.”
From the editorial: The right to marry whom you love should not be subject to the whims of an out-of-step conservative court or be left to a patchwork of state regulations. Congress must make the Respect for Marriage Act the law of the land.
Summary: What has progressives angriest about the court at the moment, though, is not that it is blocking democratically enacted policies but that, on abortion, it is refusing to do that. Their objection is not to overreaching but to underreaching. Even if they were right, there’s little they can do about it.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT