Because the federal government - including the federal courts - is a creature of the people of the states, its opinion can never be the final word on what is constitutional or not.
Because the federal government - including the federal courts - is a creature of the people of the states, its opinion can never be the final word on what is constitutional or not.
The Court has made itself a political actor. It's naive to think that qualifications matter more than politics on today's court.
In this episode of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I talk about the absurd, fallacious concept of absolute judicial supremacy. Most Americans believe the Supreme Court enjoys absolute supremacy in the American political system. After all, the word “supreme” is right in the name. They believe when the Supreme Court offers an opinion, it carries the…
"On the matter of foreign law and the Constitution, I agree with Ed Whelan that this approach has been thoroughly discredited by Obergefell."
Two shocking rulings handed down by the Supreme Court recently – one, King V. Burwell, rewriting precise language in the Affordable Health Care Act, the other, Obergefell V. Hodges, assuming federal authority to define marriage, illuminate a central flaw in the American system of government – as it now exists. That flaw is the lack…
Speaking in Forth Worth, Texas on Sept 4, 2010, Tom Woods explains Jefferson’s view of the courts. “The federal government IS the problem …and last I checked, the federal courts are part of the federal government.”
“Judge Miller is an Old Granny and a miserable doughface. Be prepared to resist, even at the expense of life, the encroachment of this sum of all villainies.” This text is from a resolution passed by the city of Oakland Wisc. in 1855 after the jury found abolitionist Sherman Booth guilty of violating the Fugitive…
Eugene Volokh argues against Monday’s decision in Harris v. Quinn and “The bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person … may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support”: But what I don’t see is why there should be any First Amendment problem here…
First, congratulations to co-blogger Mike Rappaport for having two of his articles cited multiple times in yesterday’s recess appointments decision, NLRB v. Noel Canning. Second, my quick takeaway is that the case is a win for originalism. True, the majority opinion (Breyer, writing for Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan) is an ugly bit of non-originalism. But…