Will the Supreme Court Tell Pro-Lifers What to Say?

By |2018-03-15T23:35:12-05:00March 15th, 2018|Categories: Abortion, Free Speech, Supreme Court|

By state law, the state of California is now forcing pregnancy-support centers, whose sole purpose for existence is to offer alternatives to abortion, to “conspicuously” notify pregnant women of where they can receive abortions. The centers have objected that the law violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by compelling them to [...]

Going Rogue: When Our Courts Join the Democratic Opposition

By |2018-02-01T22:10:16-06:00February 1st, 2018|Categories: Constitution, Supreme Court, Thomas R. Ascik|

With a “clear, plain, and palpable” eagerness to seize control of the Pennsylvania congressional map in time for the 2018 mid-term elections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has gone beyond judicial activism and joined with the Democrats in their attempt to win control of the U.S. Congress. The details of how this came about and [...]

Of Cakes, Coercion, and the Constitution

By |2018-01-22T09:28:52-06:00December 3rd, 2017|Categories: Homosexual Unions, Supreme Court, Thomas R. Ascik|

If governments can directly instruct families about what to believe concerning homosexuality and about the correct frame of mind to have in conducting daily business, it is hard think that the policies and practices of religious schools and other institutions, like hospitals, will be left alone... In Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision of the [...]

Making Political Gerrymandering a Constitutional Issue?

By |2018-01-22T09:36:34-06:00October 10th, 2017|Categories: Constitution, Supreme Court, Thomas R. Ascik|

In the potentially momentous case considering the issue of “political gerrymandering,” the Supreme Court last week spent almost no time discussing and demanding that the litigating parties address the language of the Constitution. In Gill v. Whitford, Wisconsin Democrats had won a 2-1 ruling of a three-judge federal district court that the 2010 re-apportionment [...]

Why Do We Have Confirmation Hearings?

By |2017-04-02T22:55:50-05:00April 2nd, 2017|Categories: Bruce Frohnen, Constitution, Politics, Supreme Court|

It is understandable that confirmation hearings should sometimes become contentious and even partisan. But the past half-century has seen the infection of the process by serious contentions that go to the heart of constitutional governance itself… Confirmation hearings have a noble place in the American political tradition. They are necessary so that Senators may see [...]

Are “Hate” and “Racist’’ Speech Protected by the Constitution?

By |2019-11-12T15:10:52-06:00March 26th, 2017|Categories: Constitution, Featured, First Amendment, Free Speech, Supreme Court|

Freedom of speech and press is the lifeblood of a free society. And the abuse of free speech, however outrageous, is the price we must pay for this freedom... Recently, I was asked by a federal judge to appear on a panel of three at an Inns of Court in Houston on the topic, “Free [...]

Restoring Popular Self-Government

By |2019-07-09T10:45:30-05:00February 22nd, 2017|Categories: American Founding, Featured, Federalist Papers, George W. Carey, Supreme Court|Tags: |

Only with a conservatism anchored in the presumptions and principles of the Founders, in their understanding of constitutionalism and in the proper functions of each of the branches, are we prepared to do battle with the children of the Enlightenment… The most notable change in the American Republic over the last forty years has [...]

Time to Clip the Courts’ Wings?

By |2017-04-06T01:15:47-05:00February 10th, 2017|Categories: Donald Trump, Featured, Pat Buchanan, Presidency, Supreme Court|

That a district judge would overrule the President of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd. And only someone ignorant of history can view President Trump’s disparagement of the judge blocking his travel ban as frightening… “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about [...]

Judge Gorsuch and the Loss of Our Common Mind

By |2017-02-06T22:00:29-06:00February 6th, 2017|Categories: Bruce Frohnen, Constitution, Rule of Law, Supreme Court|

Textualism is a compromise, or rather a lowest common denominator, that can allow for a renewal of the rule of law. Still, it rests on a great loss—that of the common mind of our people… Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill late Justice Antonin Scalia’s spot on the Supreme Court, might follow other [...]

The Trump Victory & the Coming Hysteria of the Abortionists

By |2016-12-11T23:29:03-06:00December 11th, 2016|Categories: Abortion, Bruce Frohnen, Donald Trump, Ethics, Feminism, Senior Contributors, Supreme Court|

If President Trump performs on his promise to appoint sensible Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and should Roe v. Wade thus fall, this will only be the beginning of a veritable war by the abortionists on the courts, legislatures, and public... A friend of mine, who enjoys irritating me, recently handed me a book review [...]

The Sad Career of Justice Stephen Breyer

By |2016-04-19T17:21:51-05:00April 4th, 2016|Categories: Books, Featured, Freedom, Supreme Court|

It is an unfortunate truism that the longer one remains in the legal profession, the less educated he becomes. The law, as the saying goes, is a jealous mistress: She does not permit solicitors to invest time in rival passions—e.g., philosophy, history, and literature—let alone cultivate the niceties and nuances of expression that distinguish [...]

The Little Sisters’ Last Stand for Religious Liberty

By |2016-05-05T10:13:47-05:00April 3rd, 2016|Categories: Abortion, Bruce Frohnen, Catholicism, Featured, Religion, Supreme Court|

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell. This is a case in which a small order of nuns is seeking exemption from an Obama Administration requirement that they help distribute free contraceptives and abortifacients (drugs that cause abortions) through their government-mandated healthcare plan. [...]

Understanding Antonin Scalia’s Jurisprudence

By |2016-03-07T12:31:43-06:00February 23rd, 2016|Categories: American Republic, Constitution, Featured, Supreme Court|

Antonin Scalia’s defense of the Constitution was rooted in a determination to let the law speak for itself. His “textualism” took its motive force from the simple idea that a judge’s job is to apply the law (or adjudicate under the law) rather than to change it to mean what it “should” mean, or [...]

Go to Top