Editor Brian Harrod Provides Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, with aggregated news from sources all over the world from the Roundup Newswires Network
In this Feb. 13, 2016 file photo, the Supreme Court building at seen sunset in Washington. The Supreme Court's order blocking a transgender male from using the boys' restroom at his Virginia school underscores how the presidential election results will shape the high court.
A photo provided by Dallas police shows open-carry activist Mark Hughes at a rally against excessive use of force by police, Thursday, July 7, 2016, in Dallas. Hughes told a television station that he was A defamedA by the Dallas Police Department, which tweeted the photo of him and described him as a suspect in the shootings of police officers.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she doesn't want to think about the possibility of Donald Trump winning the White House, and she predicts the next president - "whoever she will be" - will have a few appointments to make to the Supreme Court.
Litigation over abortion threatens to go on forever, and it probably will. Feminists see abortion almost as a rite of female passage; others as an offense against nature, if not against God.
Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin were operating in a "fact-free cocoon" of partisan prejudice when they claimed that voter fraud was a major problem in their state, wrote federal judge Richard Posner in 2014. "If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?" Posner is a conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Liberals talk a great deal about "diversity" these days, so it is ironic that so many have lined up in favor of President Barack Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. On important measures, Garland would render the Court less diverse than it is now.
The progressive drive to broadly define and thoroughly eradicate political "corruption" has corrupted politics. But discord is not altogether pandemic in Washington, and last week a unanimous Supreme Court, in this term's most important decision, limited the discretion prosecutors have to criminalize politics.
In a 5-3 vote June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on Texas abortion clinics that required them to comply with standards of ambulatory surgical centers and required their doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
Handing down its second major abortion action in as many days, the U.S. Supreme Court refused Tuesday to rescue a Wisconsin law restricting abortion clinics and doctors in the state, leaving in place lower court rulings that had struck it down. The unsigned order ends a three-year legal fight and was accompanied Tuesday by another rejection of an appeal by Mississippi that sought to reinstate a similar law requiring abortion doctors to be able to admit patients to nearby hospitals.
The Supreme Court issued its strongest defense of abortion rights in a quarter-century Monday, striking down Texas' widely replicated rules that sharply reduced abortion clinics in the nation's second-most-populous state. By a 5-3 vote, the justices rejected the state's arguments that its 2013 law and follow-up regulations were needed to protect women's health.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder of Whole Woman's Health, a Texas women's health clinic that provides abortions, rejoices as she leaves the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 27, 2016, as the justices struck down the ... .
Amy Hagstrom Miller, second from right, founder of Whole Woman's Health, a Texas women's health clinic that provides abortions, leaves the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 27, 2016, with Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup, far right, as the justices struck down the strict Texas anti-abortion restriction law known as HB2. The justices voted 5-3 in favor of Texas clinics that had argued the regulations were a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder of Whole Woman's Health, a Texas women's health clinic that provides abortions, rejoices as she leaves the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 27, 2016, as the justices struck down the ... . Lucy Ceballos, center, and Isabella Soto, left, members of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Texas' abortion restrictions in front of Whole Woman's Hea... AUSTIN, Texas - The Latest on the Supreme Court's decision striking down Texas' strict regulation of abortion clinics : At the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices' decision in the Texas abortion clinic case provoked a strong response from Justice Samuel Alito.
The Supreme Court struck down Texas' widely replicated regulation of abortion clinics Monday in the court's biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century. The justices voted 5-3 in favor of Texas clinics that had argued the regulations were only a veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions in the nation's second-most populous state.
The Supreme Court is set to close out its current term with opinions Monday in three remaining cases after a flurry of decisions last week. It's expected to be the justices' final meeting before they disperse on their summer breaks.
The Supreme Court is set to close out its current term with opinions Monday in three remaining cases after a flurry of decisions last week. The last three cases concern regulation of Texas abortion clinics, the public corruption conviction of former Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and a federal law that seeks to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of domestic violence.
Regulation of Texas abortion clinics, race in college admissions, protections for people living in the U.S. illegally and the public corruption conviction of Virginia's former governor are among the big issues yet to be decided by the Supreme Court. The eight-justice court has eight cases to resolve in the waning days of a trying and mournful term since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it. The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah.