- U.N.: Afghanistan slow to enforce law protecting women
- Heart cancels SeaWorld concert after ‘Blackfish’ documentary
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
- Former Reagan aide James Baker: President regretted apartheid veto
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Topic - John G. Roberts Jr.
The U.S. Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., went to extraordinary lengths to find a way to uphold Obamacare as a tax, despite the oft-cited claims by the administration that the penalties were not a tax. Where is Chief Justice Roberts and his far-left associate justice cohorts now, when the very foundations of our constitutional government and the nation are being shaken to the core by doctrine foreign to the governance of this country?
The courts have given us little relief from the regulatory state
In 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved an amendment that establishes equal treatment in college admissions. That amendment is now being challenged in court, and therefore on Tuesday, I will go before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the Michigan Constitution.
Supreme Court justices signaled Tuesday that they aren't sold on current campaign finance laws that limit how much Americans can contribute directly to candidates and political parties, as the court met for the first major oral argument of its new term.
The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Tuesday of the web of campaign finance regulations they and Congress have left in place, as the justices heard a case that legal analysts said could end up erasing one of the remaining campaign finance limits on individuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court is beginning a new term with controversial topics that offer the court's conservative majority the chance to move aggressively to undo limits on campaign contributions, undermine claims of discrimination in housing and mortgage lending, and allow for more government-sanctioned prayer.
A small town in upstate New York is at the center of what legal scholars say could be one of the biggest religious freedom cases in decades, as the Supreme Court prepares to open its 2013-14 term next week.
The American people have made it abundantly clear that they do not want Obamacare. In fact, a majority of elected officials, the same officials that voted to implement this health care mandate, do not want it, either.
Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Nina Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That party-line vote followed the committee's hearing earlier this month on District Judge Robert Wilkins' nomination to the D.C. Circuit, the committee's party-line vote in favor of Patty Millett's nomination in August, and the Senate's confirmation of the D.C. Circuit's newest judge, Sri Srinivasan, in May. If this sounds like an unusual flurry of activity for one tiny court, that's because President Obama has made tilting the court's political balance a high priority for his second term.
Sen. Rand Paul said federal workers shouldn't get a pass from joining Obamacare — and that means Justice John G. Roberts Jr., too.
In the 5-4 majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the mandate was not a requirement to purchase insurance, but rather a tax.
As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."