Advertisement
HomeCollectionsSupreme
IN THE NEWS

Supreme

FEATURED ARTICLES
NEWS
October 12, 2007
Step by step, the freedoms, the accountability and the confidence in justice that Americans used to take for granted are being shorn away, and that "What next?" feeling leads too often to shrugged shoulders rather than real outrage. This week, the Supreme Court colluded with the administration to give the government legal immunity even when it abducts and tortures innocent people. All the government lawyers have to do is utter the magic phrase "state secrets" and apparently even the most appalling cases of misconduct can be granted a free pass, and draped in a cloak of darkness.
ARTICLES BY DATE
NEWS
By Cal Thomas | October 11, 2014
Three points need to be made about Monday's  decision by the Supreme Court not to decide whether the equal protection clause of the Constitution grants people of the same sex the right to marry. Point 1: While the court's liberal wing probably wanted to accept cases banning same-sex marriage in five states that have been overturned by three different federal appeals courts in recent months, the conservative majority, along with swing Justice Anthony Kennedy, apparently wished to see states resolve the issue.
Advertisement
NEWS
February 1, 2006
Yesterday was a day of ceremony for Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was approved by the Senate, 58-42, and then sworn in as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was also proudly recognized by President Bush as he took his place among some of the other justices for last night's State of the Union speech. But the ceremonial now gives way to the practical business of deciding cases, and based on his judicial record and his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we still have serious doubts about Justice Alito's suitability for the court.
NEWS
By Leonard Pitts Jr and By Leonard Pitts Jr | October 9, 2014
Our topic du jour: the latest stunning milestone in the march toward gay equality. No, the other stunning milestone. We will get around to what the Supreme Court did (more accurately, declined to do) in a moment. But first: Have you seen the new Cheerios commercial? It broke out online a few days ago, a spot starring these two gay French Canadian men and their adopted daughter, a brown-skinned (African-Canadian?) toddler named Raphaelle. In the three-minute clip, Andre and Jonathan talk about the love at first sight blind date that brought them together and how they thought they could never be dads because they are gay. All the while, Raphaelle is squirming, eating Cheerios, leaning from one father to the other and otherwise committing shameless acts of cuteness.
NEWS
April 4, 2007
The Supreme Court's rebuke Monday of President Bush's policy on global warming appropriately rejected the administration's absurd argument that it doesn't have the authority to regulate greenhouse emissions. But the real impact of the high court's unexpectedly strong stand in support of carbon dioxide curbs to combat global warming will likely be in Congress, where lawmakers now have a powerful case for federal action. And affected industries should be newly motivated to cooperate, if only to avoid a patchwork of state legislation.
NEWS
By Mark Weisbrot | June 23, 2000
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's unanimous decision to strike down the Massachusetts Burma law says more about the pro-business bias of the present court than it does about the legal principles involved in the case. The Massachusetts selective purchasing law made it hard for companies that do business in Burma to win contracts from the state. It is difficult to see what is wrong with that. After all, our law respects the concept of consumer sovereignty: as individuals, we are free to vote with our dollars and refuse to buy anything from any company that we dislike.
NEWS
By CLARENCE PAGE | June 5, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Did you ever have the feeling that you might be getting the shaft at your workplace? That other people might be making more money than you for doing the same work? If anything unites liberals and conservatives, it is the fundamental view that everyone deserves equal pay for equal work. But if you think you have a federal discrimination complaint, you'd better move fast. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last week that you have only 180 days - not after you discover the offense, but after the employer committed it - to file a complaint.
NEWS
By Sun Washington Bureau | November 26, 2000
The Supreme Court's review of the presidential election case -- Bush vs. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board -- will test the usual leanings of the nine justices when issues of federal vs. state power are at stake. The justices may have to set those views aside, if they conclude that the Florida case does not fall neatly into either category. The Florida Supreme Court decision fashioning the method for completing the count of the presidential vote was based, that court insisted, on its interpretation of state law only.
FEATURES
By TANIKA WHITE and TANIKA WHITE,SUN REPORTER | March 1, 2006
Anna Nicole Smith wants the public to think she's a sexpot, but the U.S. Supreme Court to think she's a classy, grieving widow. Good luck with that. Smith, a former Playboy model, hasn't actually said that's what she's trying to accomplish, but her clothes say as much. Yesterday, Smith appeared outside the Supreme Court, prepared to battle over her late husband's fortune. She dressed like a Hollywood starlet headed to a funeral -- black overcoat, black dress, black hose, big black sunglasses.
NEWS
By Jack Fruchtman Jr | November 30, 2000
MOST LEGAL ANALYSTS were astounded when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Florida Supreme Court violated federal law and the Constitution when it unanimously ruled that manual recounts in three Florida counties could continue until Nov. 26. After all, this is the court that has tried to return political authority to state and local government at the expense of federal law. Make no mistake about it: This is an activist Supreme Court,...
NEWS
October 6, 2014
Marriage equality took one of its biggest leaps forward today without anything happening at all. By deciding not to hear any of the same-sex marriage cases appealed to it, the Supreme Court immediately voided bans on gay marriage in five more states - Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin - and likely did so in six others that are part of the same appellate circuits. It was the largest number of states to realize marriage equality on one day, topping the three (including Maryland)
FEATURES
By Kevin Rector, The Baltimore Sun | September 26, 2014
The U.S. Supreme Court is meeting on Monday for the first time since June, and could make a decision to hear a new same-sex marriage case. On the justices' agenda for the closed-door conference are appeals to cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, won by gay couples that favor a Supreme Court decision on their lower court victories. Four out of nine justices would have to vote to take up any particular case , and they are under no obligation to do so and could hold off on deciding whether to consider one of the cases until a later conference.
NEWS
September 4, 2014
The air of seeming inevitability that had developed around the idea of a successful constitutional challenge to state bans on gay marriage was punctured Wednesday by a federal judge in Louisiana. After 21 consecutive decisions favoring marriage equality in federal district and appellate courts since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman upheld the ban on same-sex marriage that Louisiana voters overwhelmingly supported in 2004.
NEWS
July 22, 2014
In a letter in the Sun, Kelli Kirchner of Cumberland expresses her happiness with the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision and seems to believe no one should question or try to change it ( "Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court decision?" July 20). Well, I have news for her. As long as we have freedom of speech (as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution), we will always be free to question and try to change (via legislation or constitutional amendment) any decision of any court.
NEWS
July 20, 2014
On her website, Sen. Barbara Mikulski proclaims that she is joining other senators to introduce a "legislative fix to protect women's health" following the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, whether you think your employer should cover all birth control or not, whether you are a women or a man, this bill should bother you. Why? Because our Founding Fathers created three branches of government to check and balance each other.
NEWS
July 9, 2014
Jenny Black, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, has condemned the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision and another case striking down a Massachusetts law barring protesters from coming within 30 feet of an abortion clinic ( "In 2014, why are women still struggling to get basic health care?" July 2). Yet both rulings are small steps in the recognition and restoration of the inalienable rights of religious freedom and peaceful protest. Neither decision extends rights nor abrogates the rights of others.
NEWS
By STEVE CHAPMAN | November 30, 2005
CHICAGO -- Anyone who's seen the film Fantastic Four has wondered what it would be like to have the supernatural power of Jessica Alba's character to become invisible. At least one person actually knows the answer: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. One day, he's on national TV for hours, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The next, he's vanished from sight. Unless you make a trip to Washington and attend an oral argument, you may never get a glimpse of Chief Justice Roberts doing the job the nation has entrusted to him. This is a weird country: We can watch Paris Hilton having sex, but we can't see our justices deliberating.
NEWS
By DAVID G. SAVAGE and DAVID G. SAVAGE,LOS ANGELES TIMES | November 8, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would hear a challenge to the Bush administration's plan to try foreign terrorism suspects in special military courts, setting the stage for a ruling on whether the Geneva Conventions trump the president's go-it-alone policy in the war on terrorism. The case, to be heard in the spring, will set the rules for the first war-crimes trials for foreign prisoners since World War II. The legal battle will take place against a backdrop of growing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of foreign prisoners.
NEWS
By Jenny Black | July 2, 2014
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a troubling ruling in favor of two corporations that argued that they should not have to provide insurance coverage for their employees' birth control because of the business owners' personal religious beliefs. Effectively, employers now have the power to deny women the new birth-control benefits of the Affordable Care Act - allowing bosses to force their personal beliefs on employees and placing women in a dire position. The Hobby Lobby decision comes just days after another blow to women's health.
NEWS
Susan Reimer | July 2, 2014
The Greens, the evangelical Christians who own 500 craft shops called Hobby Lobby, aren't the people on whom we should be focusing our anger this week. Neither is the Mennonite Hahn family, owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties They aren't the bad guys. The five male justices on the Supreme Court who supported the companies' refusal to provide contraceptive care to their female employees on religious grounds aren't the enemy here, either, although many might dispute that point.
Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.