- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford flubs daylight saving time advice: ‘Turn your clocks back’
- Americans don’t support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine
- Florida lawmakers move to wipe corrupt ‘Boss Hogg’ town from map
- N.C. math whiz to unveil secret of March Madness picks
- An appealing offer: Chiquita merges with Fyffes to make world’s largest banana firm
- Amnesty International says Syria guilty of war crimes for food blockade
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: ‘We are going to crush them’
- Adam Lanza’s dad: He would’ve killed me ‘in a heartbeat’
- North Korea holds election: 100% turnout, Kim Jong-un gets — 100% of vote
- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
Topic - John G. Roberts Jr.
Senators blocked President Obama's nominee to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division Wednesday in a bipartisan filibuster, with opponents saying his history defending a convicted cop-killer in the Supreme Court made him a poor choice.
Whenever we enter a new year, we are tempted to forget the hazards of prophecy, and try to see what may lie on the other side of this arbitrary division of time.
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.
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.
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 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.
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."