HARRY REID: GOP Not Budging On SCOTUS Nomination, “Will Wait And See What President Trump Will Do”

Senate leaders met with Barack Obama on Tuesday to discuss the vacancy on the Supreme Court after Justice Scalia’s death. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley stuck to their position that the next president should fill the vacancy.
Read more at Gateway Pundit Read More......

Scalia’s Death May Turn 6 SCOTUS Cases From Conservative Wins To Ties

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may have set off a political battle over who and when to replace him, but, while that is happening, the business of the Supreme Court goes on. There are six key cases on this year’s SCOTUS docket that probable 5-4 conservative wins may now be 4-4 ties. The cases involve important issues; one man one vote, abortion, religious freedom, Constitutionally defined separation of powers, affirmative action, and right to work. Read more at Lid Blog.com Read More......

Texas Governor Defends Religious Liberties…And It’s HARDCORE!

Today marks what could be considered one of the most controversial days in the history of the United States of America. If you haven’t heard, the Supreme Court has decided that same-sex marriage is now a Constitutional right and that traditional marriage between one man and one woman is no longer the definition of marriage.
There is one state (and if you have read my articles before, you know which one I’m talking about) that is already leading the way, in essence combating SCOTUS and their disastrous decision. Of course, I’m talking about the Lone Star State.


Read more at YoungCons.com Read More......

Fox Nation: Scalia Blasts ‘High-Handed’ Justices in Scathing Dissent of DOMA Ruling

Dissenting from [Wednesday's] opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back. ✧ In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race." See Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA.

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

Source: Fox Nation Read More......

Will there be a Supreme Court vs. Obama smackdown?

EXAMINER.COM, 7/9/2010 by Anthony G. Martin (Hat tip: Stella Gunether via email) - According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. Read more at the Examiner...

(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic). Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court. Read More......

Take action to protect 2nd Amendment Rights

Action Item: NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT - Ask Your U.S. Senators and Representatives to Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Rights in the States!

As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief by Members of Congress. And we need your support for this important effort next week.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states-as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments. This brief is an opportunity for today's Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment's importance to all Americans-not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories. (Call MON-THU)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) - DC (202) 224-3753, Salem (503) 362-8102
Sen. Ron Wyden (D) - DC (202) 224-5244, Salem (503) 589-4555
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D), Oregon, 4th - DC (202) 225-6416, Eugene (541) 465-6732
Rep. Kurt Schrader (D), Oregon, 5th - DC (202) 225-5711, Salem (503) 588-9100

Read More......

Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states. Read more at FOX News... Read More......

WSJ: The 'Unseen' Deserve Empathy, Too

Judges can do the most good by following the law. - Opinion writer, John Hasnas, uses examples to show that feelings such as sympathy or empathy could hamper a judge from considering the long range effects of a decision by focusing too narrowly on the current situation. "One can empathize with innocent children born with birth defects. Such children and the adversity they face can be seen. One cannot empathize with as-yet-unborn children in rural communities who may not have access to pediatricians if a judicial decision based on compassion raises the cost of medical malpractice insurance. These children are unseen." Read more at WSJ... Read More......

Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, selecting a woman who would be the court's first Hispanic justice and a liberal who is unlikely to change its ideological balance. ∴ Sotomayor, 54, is a U.S. appeals court judge who grew up in a public housing project in New York City and is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents. She would replace retiring Justice David Souter, who was part of the court's liberal wing. Read more at Reuters...

A Case Against Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice
NFRW, POLITICAL BRIEFING, 5/25/2009 - President Obama announced his nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Souter. He named a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor. While we applaud the President for nominating a woman with such an impressive personal history, NFRW does not support this nomination. Obama claims that she is a great constitutionalist, does not let her personal opinions affect her decisions, and that she understands her role and the oath of a Supreme Court justice. Obama's claims could not be further from the truth. Read more at NFRW...

Related
Telegraph: Barack Obama nominates Hispanic woman for Supreme Court Read More......