Tag: USSC

RINO Dipshit Wants To Give Obama’s Next USSC Pick A Chance – Hopes Nominee Will “Bridge Differences”

Mark Kirk Breaks With McConnell, Citing Duty To ‘Constitution’ Over ‘Party’ – National Review

.

.
After a week of silence on whether Republicans should refuse to consider President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Senator Mark Kirk is speaking out.

In a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed posted moments ago, Kirk argues that, in the spirit of honoring the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans should place the Constitution before their party.

“I recognize the right of the President, be it Republican or Democrat, to place before the Senate a nominee for the Supreme Court and I fully expect and look forward to President Obama advancing a nominee for the Senate to consider,” he writes.

“I also recognize my duty as a Senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information. The Senate’s role in providing advice and consent is as important and significant as the President’s role in proposing a nominee.”

By the same token, he urges the president to put forth a nominee who rejects partisanship and extremism.

“My sincerest hope is that President Obama nominates someone who captures the sentiment he spoke about before the Illinois General Assembly this month – a nominee who can bridge differences, a nominee that finds common ground and a nominee that does not speak or act in the extreme.”

Kirk’s words mark one of the more significant breaks from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s swift call to block consideration for the president’s nominee; though a handful of senators up for reelection, such as Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, have shied away from McConnell’s strategy, his conference is by and large standing behind him. But for Kirk, arguably the most vulnerable Republican in the 2016 Senate field, the stakes are high, and his team spent the last several days mulling his words carefully. In the interim, Illinois representative Tammy Duckworth, the Democrat who is likely to be Kirk’s opponent in November, blasted the senator’s silence, calling on Kirk to “immediately level with the people of Illinois, and let us know whether he supports the Constitution, or if he’ll be a rubber stamp for Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist and unconstitutional gambit.”

Kirk has spent his career crafting a moderate political profile in the upper chamber, and has angered Republicans for regularly crossing the aisle, such as when he voted to maintain funding for so-called sanctuary cities. A more tempered stance on the current SCOTUS fight, however, shields him from Duckworth’s criticisms, and could help him preserve his appeal to independents – who, in the battleground state of Illinois, will be key come November.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Hey GOP Senators, This Is It… No Hearings No Votes – Kurt Schlichter

GOP senators, if you give whichever Constitution-shredding libfascist Obama nominates a hearing, much less a vote, we are gone. Out of the GOP. Finished. And that means you’re finished too.

The “we” is us conservatives, and we are not in the mood for any pompous, delusional Senate-speak about how you can’t do what we elected you to do and defy Obama. You need to take a stand and shut him down. And we don’t care how much heat you have to take from the mainstream media and your distinguished commie colleagues across the aisle.

Man the hell up.

Our enemies keep blabbing about your alleged “duty” to act. Yeah, you have a Constitutional duty all right – to the freaking Constitution.

The reaction of Mitch McConnell was a pleasant surprise. After rolling over again and again, it seems to have dawned on Mitch that we conservatives are done with a submissive Senate going Gimp every time Obama demands something. Spending, Obamacare, illegal immigration – the GOP hasn’t been seemed to be able to draw a line, much less hold one, and we conservatives have been wondering why we even bothered to retake the Senate in 2014. But now our right to freely exercise our religion, our right to keep and bear arms, and even our right to criticize politicians like Hillary Clinton are at stake. There’s nowhere left to retreat to. Back, meet wall.

This is it. This is the moment you need to stop pretending the Senate is some sort of collegial debating society and realize that this is a life and death struggle for the future of our country. If the left gets its way, America is in serious trouble. And so are you, because if the GOP Senate can’t even stop the left from turning the Supreme Court over to the kind of people who run safe space universities, then what damn use is a GOP Senate?

We’ll be gone from your flailing party. We’ll check out, and then you’ll check out of the cloakroom for good. The revolt is already barreling down the highway; your weakness will only supercharge it. Do you think Donald Trump is some sort of accident? He’s the result of you and the rest of the GOP talking a big game about liberal abstinence and then getting to D.C. and giving it up to the first smooth talking establishmentarian you meet at the bus station.

You should be afraid, because this is about your careers. And remember, K Street’s not going to need you quite so much when there’s a big Democrat Senate majority after you betray us again – you might have to (gasp!) go get your sorry rears real jobs.

Supersize this, squishes. Are you feeling me?

But most of you are smart enough to understand that and to cultivate a healthy fear of losing your cushy sinecures – the majority of you seem to get that you don’t want to go home and run on not having stopped the SCOTUS nominee who just gave the thumbs up to trucks rumbling through your constituents’ neighborhoods with a speaker blaring, “Bring out your guns!”

But we can feel how much you truly want to submit, to adopt that chin-stroking pose of thoughtful pseudo-wisdom on some Sunday morning show and disclaim about your solemn duties and how the president’s candidate deserves careful consideration and blah blah blah blah blah. You know you’re in for mainstream media hell if you take a stand, and there’s nothing you hate more than having to actually defend conservatism rather than basking in the warm glow of strange new respect by going along and getting along with the liberal narrative. But most of you are also canny enough to see that this time is different, that this time you won’t be able to walk some weaselly tightrope where you avoid liberal establishment hate while not alienating your conservative voting base quite enough for it to toss you out of office.

Everyone knows fussy little Lindsey Graham would love to reach across the aisle and hug some guy on the other side, but he knows that South Carolina voters can tolerate only so much cavorting with the enemy. John McCain’s got an election in November and Arizona voters are watching, so he’ll hold fast even though we can see he’s aching to maverick all over conservatives again.

But then there are fools like Dean Heller of Nevada, who decided to respond with a joke when failing to commit to blocking whoever Obama nominates:

‘The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process. That’s why I encourage the President to use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda on the nation’s highest court. But should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe it’ll be a Nevadan,’ said Senator Dean Heller.”

Hey Heller, you’re hella unfunny. Do you think attacks upon Nevadans’ First and Second Amendment rights are comedy gold? Let me help you, and every other spineless senatorial sissy, with what you need to say:

“President Obama has spent over seven years disrespecting and disregarding the Constitution. He and his liberal soulmates have expressed nothing but utter contempt for the separation of powers and for our most basic rights. I will not stand by and allow them any further opportunity to infringe upon our freedoms. So my advice to Obama is not to bother nominating anyone to replace Justice Scalia, but if he does so then I shall withhold my consent. I will not support hearings on, or a vote on, or confirmation of, any Obama Supreme Court nominee, ever. Period.”

That’s how you do it. And unless Heller does, in two years I and others will be supporting and donating to his primary opponent – who I hope will be Adam Laxalt, the current Nevada Attorney General and a real conservative. But here’s a little secret – I hope Heller doesn’t come out clearly for what Hugh Hewitt has hashtagged #NoHearingsNoVotes. I hope he keeps trying to please the liberal media instead of his constituents. Why? Because I want us conservatives to destroy the budding career of some RINO next cycle, to select one wavering weakling and boot him out of office for the crime of defying us. The British used to occasionally shoot one of their admirals in order to encourage the others to greater bravery and resolve. We GOP conservatives should adopt this innovative incentivization strategy and each cycle cull the weakest from the herd, just to make sure that these Capitol Hill cretins remain more afraid of our wrath than the Washington Post’s.

No hearings, no votes – or you’ll be hearing from us, and you won’t be getting our votes.

.

.

If The Republican-Controlled Senate Confirms Obama’s Next USSC Nominee, The GOP Is Finished


…………….

.
The Republican party has been attempting to commit suicide for as long as I can remember, yet, despite its best efforts, it has somehow managed to avoid shooting itself in the head. However, if its leaders decide to confirm Barack Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee, the GOP will bleed out all over the floor, and there’s nobody anywhere who will be able to stop the hemorrhaging.

Simply put, allowing the most corrupt and incompetent president in the history of the republic to replace the recently-departed Antonin Scalia with another Sonia Sotomayor would be criminally negligent on the part of Mitch McConnell and his crew, and even the moderate, Republican rump-swabs at Fox News know it.

The time has come for these go-along-to-get-along asshats to finally take a stand in defense of liberty, justice and the U.S. Contitution, and if they should fail to do so, they will prove once and for all that they never really did give half a shit about their country.

So, do the high mucky-mucks of the GOP have a death wish? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

.

.

64 Legal Scholars To All Public Officeholders: Reject USSC Same-Sex Marriage Opinion As Binding Precedent

Legal Scholars Urge Officeholders: Refuse To Accept Same-Sex Marriage Opinion As Binding Precedent – CNS

.
…………….

.
Editor’s Note: A group of more than 60 legal scholars released a statement last week calling on all federal and state officeholders not to accept the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision – declaring a national right to same-same sex marriage – as binding precedent.

One of the signers and authors of the statement was Robert. P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project and McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton.

“We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is,” said George. “We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.”

Below is the text of the statement in its entirety.

————————————————————————————————–

We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional – and sound – methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity – one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.

Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative… power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action.

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”

Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out:

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care.

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union – the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman – will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.” If a decision “had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.” If, however, a decision is “wanting in all these claims to the public confidence,” it is “not factious” to resist it.

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.

Therefore:

We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.

We call on all federal and state officeholders:

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as “settled” and “the law of the land” the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do.

Signatories

(Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only)

Bradley C. S. Watson, Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Thought and Professor of Politics, Saint Vincent College

John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University

George W. Dent, Jr., Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, Founder of American Principles Project

Matthew J. Franck, Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center for Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute

Daniel J. Mahoney, Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship, Assumption College

Stephen H. Balch, Director, Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, Texas Tech University

Mickey G. Craig, William & Berniece Grewcock Professor of Politics, Hillsdale College

Paul Moreno, William and Berniece Chair in US Constitutional History, Hillsdale College

Lucas E. Morel, Class of 1960 Professor of Ethics and Politics, Washington and Lee University

Joseph M. Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University

Susan Hanssen, Associate Professor of History, University of Dallas

Wm. Barclay Allen, Dean Emeritus, Michigan State University

Daniel C. Palm, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Azusa Pacific University

Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School

Stephen Casey, Casey Law Office, P.C.

James C. Phillips, J.D.

Joshua W. Schulz, Associate Professor of Philosophy, DeSales University

John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Law, Louisiana State University Law Center

Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

Walter Schumm, Professor of Family Studies, Kansas State University

Anne Hendershott, Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Michael D. Breidenbach, Assistant Professor of History, Ave Maria University

Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

Stephen M. Krason, Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville; President, Society of Catholic Social Scientists

Micah J. Watson, William-Spoelhof Teacher-Chair in Political Science, Calvin College

Daniel Robinson, Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

David Novak, J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies and Professor of Religion and Philosophy, University of Toronto

Adam J. MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Robert Lowry Clinton, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Peter W. Wood, President, National Association of Scholars

Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University

John Agresto, Former president of St. John’s College, Santa Fe, and the American University of Iraq

Mark T. Mitchell, Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College

Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University

Nathan Schlueter, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hillsdale College

J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar, John Jay Institute

Ted McAllister, Edward L. Gaylord Chair and Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

David R. Upham, Associate Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Thomas D’Andrea, Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge; Director, Institute for the Study of Philosophy, Politics, and Religion

Daniel Mark, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus, Amherst College; Director, James Wilson Institute on Naturals Right and the American Founding

Philip Bess, Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame

Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of Student Training and Development, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Jay Bergman, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Robert L. McFarland, Associate Dean of External Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Carson Holloway, Associate Professor Political Science, University of Nebraska, Omaha

Gary D. Glenn, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus, Northern Illinois University

Paul A. Rahe, Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage, Hillsdale College

Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus, Boston University

Bradley P. Jacob, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Raymond B. Marcin, Professor of Law Emeritus, The Catholic University of America

Matthew Spalding, Associate Vice President and Dean, Allen P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Hillsdale College

James A. Davids, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Ken Masugi, Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute

Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino

James W. (Jim) Richardson, Board of Directors, Christian Legal Society

Robert F. Sasseen, President and Professor of Politics Emeritus, University of Dallas

Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Development and External Affairs, Regent University School of Law

.

.

USSC Shuts Down Obama’s Attempt To Force Christian Groups To Pay For Their Employees’ Abortion-Inducing Drugs

The Supreme Court Just Gave Obama Some Very Bad News – Tell Me Now

.

.
The Supreme Court just ruled against a major Obama agenda in a decision that is sure to leave the president devastated.

The highest court in the land just ruled against Obama’s attempt to force Christian organizations to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees. This is the fifth time the Supreme Court has ruled against President Obama.

Christians everywhere rejoiced at the decision and were thankful that their religious freedoms were being protected.

“How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?” asked Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not ‘religious employers’ worthy of an exemption.”

“That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the Court has protected them,” she added. “That’s what happened to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Wheaton College, Notre Dame, and Hobby Lobby.”

“The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate,” Windham concluded. “The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives–they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”

The Supreme Court has told Obama no time and time again, yet he just can’t seem to get the message. Hopefully, this time he finally will.

.

.

Another Win For Walker – Wisconsin Voter ID Law Stands As USSC Rejects Appeal

Wisconsin Voter-ID Law Stands As Supreme Court Rejects Appeal – Bloomberg

.

.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Wisconsin to implement a voter-identification law that opponents say is one of the strictest in the nation.

Rejecting without comment an appeal by civil rights groups, the justices Monday gave a victory to Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who have championed voter-ID laws around the country. Wisconsin is one of 30 states with ID laws and one of 17 that enacted measures since the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana statute in 2008.

Civil rights groups say ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters while doing little if anything to protect against fraud. The organizations pressing the Wisconsin appeal said 300,000 registered voters in that state lack a qualifying ID.

“The right to vote is the foundational element of American democracy,” the groups argued. “Increasingly restrictive voter ID laws like Wisconsin’s Act 23 unjustifiably burden the voting rights of millions of registered voters, particularly African-Americans and Latinos.”

Wisconsin officials led by Walker, a potential presidential candidate, defended the law. They argued that it will impose a minimal burden on voters while providing more assurance of a fraud-free election.

‘Overwhelming Majority’

“In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of voters already have qualifying ID,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel argued. “For those who lack ID, obtaining one and bringing it to the polling place is generally no more of a burden than the process of voting itself.”

In a statement Monday, Schimel said the voter-ID law won’t take effect for an April 7 election for judicial offices because absentee ballots already have been sent to voters.

“The voter-ID law will be in place for future elections,” he said.

In October the Supreme Court blocked the Wisconsin law from applying to the Nov. 4 election. A lower court had revived the law weeks earlier, and civil rights groups told the high court at the time that hasty implementation would mean widespread confusion.

Lower courts have largely backed voter-ID laws. In a notable exception, a federal trial judge said Texas’s statute was the product of intentional discrimination. That case is now before a federal appeals court and could make its way to the Supreme Court before the 2016 election.

2014 Election

Unlike with Wisconsin, the Supreme Court let the Texas law take effect for the 2014 election.

In the latest Wisconsin appeal, groups led by the League of United Latin American Citizens argued that the 2011 state law violated the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Wisconsin’s law lets voters use any of eight forms of identification, including in-state driver’s licenses, state-issued photo IDs for non-drivers and military IDs. The state also accepts some student identification cards, though not those from the University of Wisconsin campuses.

A federal trial judge invalidated the measure, saying it would deter many residents from voting. The judge also said the state hadn’t pointed to any recent instances of voter impersonation in Wisconsin.

A three-judge federal appeals panel in Chicago reversed that decision, pointing to new rules the state issued to help people obtain the documentation they need to get IDs. Officials took that step after the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a separate case, said people must be able to get IDs without having to pay a fee for documents.

‘Fig Leaf’

The panel’s ruling drew a rebuke from Judge Richard Posner, who argued unsuccessfully for reconsideration by a larger group of judges. Posner said voter-impersonation fraud was “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters.”

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter-ID law on a 6-3 vote. Writing the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said voter fraud was a real risk that “could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Stevens said the record in the Indiana case “does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.”

The Wisconsin civil rights groups say the trial in their case produced that type of evidence. State officials say the two laws are indistinguishable after the changes required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The case is Frank v. Walker, 14-803.

.

.

Win For Little Sisters Of The Poor As USSC Issues Injunction Against Contraception Mandate

Supreme Court Issues Injunction Against Contraception Mandate – Townhall

This afternoon, the Supreme Court issued an order for an injunction against forcing private businesses to apply for an exemption to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

.

.
The Little Sisters of the Poor – a Catholic group that cares for the old and infirm – have challenged Obamacare’s contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates religious liberty. The Supreme Court is considering the case, and while the case is under consideration, it has issued a temporary order that businesses will not have to provide contraception coverage, or to follow the Obama Administration’s “guidelines” to fill out the paperwork required to provide contraception coverage indirectly.

As Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner reported:

The unsigned order of the court “should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits” of the case, currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she referred the request to the entire court. She had issued a temporary injunction on Dec. 31 while considering the nuns’ request for an injunction during the appeal. There were no filed dissents to the continued injunction.

There’s no timeline for when SCOTUS will issue its final ruling.

As Fox News detailed, the Little Sisters of the Poor case represents a nightmare for the Obama Administration:

For an administration seeking to win a skeptical public over to ObamaCare, the Justice Department could not have picked a more sympathetic foe for a Supreme Court fight than The Little Sisters of the Poor.

The administration is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by the non-profit, which does not meet ObamaCare’s classification of a “religious employer” because it hires and tends to people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds.

Supporters say The Little Sisters of the Poor epitomize service by caring for the elderly poor and those deemed “worthless” by society. In the United States, it runs 30 homes where hundreds of its employees provide nursing and end of life care.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.