FROM Jonathan H. Adler
The Supreme Court’s New Term At yesterday’s opening session, the US Supreme Court declined to take up cases involving same-sex marriage. Was that a surprise—or not? First, today’s arguments in the case of a notorious prisoner in Arkansas—a self-proclaimed Muslim jihadist who stabbed his ex-girlfriend. He says his religion requires him to wear a half-inch beard—contrary to the rules in state prison.
The Supreme Court: Big Business and the First Amendment As the US Supreme Court recessed this week until next October, John Roberts completed his sixth term as Chief Justice of the United States. He continued to lead the court in a conservative direction, and this was a good term for big business, including Wal-Mart, AT&T and power companies. It was also a term dominated by the First Amendment. Is the Court more business-friendly under Roberts and the conservative majority? Is it liberal when it comes to the First Amendment?
The Supreme Court: Big Business and the First Amendment As the US Supreme Court recessed this week until next October, John Roberts completed his sixth term as Chief Justice of the United States. He continued to lead the court in a conservative direction. The US Chamber of Commerce openly claims more influence with the US Supreme Court than any litigator except the US Solicitor General . Sure enough, big business has been winning 61 percent of its cases. Does it have better lawyers? Are the justices on its side ideologically? They often recognized the free-speech rights of business. Is that because they're dedicated to defending the First Amendment? What did the Wal-Mart case mean for women's employment rights? Why don't Supreme Court justices use the same ethics rules as other federal judges?
Courts at Odds over Healthcare Law's Individual Mandate President Obama's healthcare reform requires that healthy Americans buy insurance even if they don't want to. Two federal judges, appointed by Bill Clinton, have ruled that the so-called "mandate" is constitutional. This week a third, appointed by George W. Bush, r uled that it's not .
Healthcare, Politics and the Law President Obama's healthcare reform is being implemented nationwide, even though federal judges disagree on a major provision. Two federal judges, appointed by Bill Clinton, have ruled that the so-called "mandate" is constitutional. This week a third, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that it's not . Is it constitutional to require healthy people to buy insurance even if they don't want to? The issue probably will be resolved by a single justice of the US Supreme Court, but will it make any difference? Would healthcare reform still go into effect without the "mandate" Republicans hate? Would support grow for the "public option" Democrats love?
First Immigration, Now Energy The energy bills now being debated in the House and the Senate are at least as politically challenging as immigration reform. An extraordinary collection of powerful special interests could be effected by efforts to deal with skyrocketing gasoline prices, cut dependence on Middle East oil and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. One target is mileage standards for cars, trucks and SUV’s, which haven't been lowered in more two decades, largely because of opposition from America's auto industry. Does comprehensive energy policy have a chance against a vast range of special interests and political partisanship?
What is Trump's plan for Middle East peace? On his first foreign tour, President Trump has promised "peace" between Israel and the Palestinians. Are there any details for re-starting talks that have been stalled for the past three years?
Healthcare debate now shifts to the Senate Both parties are celebrating yesterday's House bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. House Republicans are cheering because they were able to pass it. Democrats are happy because they think it's so bad. We look at the details… and the politics.