National Review
The Supreme Court Should Take Another Crack at Limiting Runaway Agencies
Petitions to rein in the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management should take their place on the Supreme Court’s docket.
Center Right
The Hill News
What to know about the Voting Rights Act after historic Supreme Court decision
Center
In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district, ruling it an unconstitutional gerrymander. The ruling has significant implications for future applications of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which activists have long used to push for new electoral lines that protect the voting power of historically disenfranchised…
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
Washington Examiner
Trump administration appeals order to restore ‘inappropriate’ materials to historic sites
The Trump administration is asking a federal appeals court to block an order requiring it to restore historical exhibits and materials altered under an executive order ahead of America 250 and July 4. The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st […]
Center Right
Raw Story
Susan Collins says she has no regrets over Kavanaugh vote despite Roe reversal
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was confronted by reporters on Tuesday about her role in confirming Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the height of controversy over his allegations of sexual misconduct, with the hindsight of his role in overturning abortion rights for millions of women around the country — and she was unrepentant.The reason, she explained, is that she also voted to confirm a number of justices who opposed that opinion."This is the first reelection campaign that you're run since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade," asked a reporter from News Center Maine. "I was hoping you could talk to me a little bit about your vote to confirm Kavanaugh and whether you regret that?""I do not regret that vote," said Collins. "I do disagree with Justice Kavanaugh's vote. I would point out that in that decision, several Supreme Court justices whom I supported voted the other way. That includes Justice Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Jackson. So I have supported a great number of Supreme Court justices.""When I look at a justice, I look at their qualifications, their integrity, their background, their experience in reaching a decision," she added. "Obviously I'm disappointed in that decision, which turned abortion issues back to the states. It has not had an impact on the state of Maine, in that Maine actually expanded its law."Collins is facing a closely-watched re-election battle, with Democrats having nominated oyster farmer and harbormaster Graham Platner, who is touring the state on a progressive platform while facing questions about his drama-filled past.
Far Left
The Federalist
Court Docs: Alleged UFC Terror Attack Planner Parroted Democrats’ Trump-Epstein Conspiracies
An individual allegedly involved in a thwarted terrorist attack aimed at Sunday’s UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House parroted Democrat conspiracy theories about President Trump protecting child predators connected to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to federal court documents. The revelation came on Tuesday, when Fox News reported on how the FBI and […]
Far Right
Alternet.org
This Scalia dissent may save Trump in heated Supreme Court battle
In Trump v. Slaughter — a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — President Donald Trump is defending his right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case is pending, and according to Reason's Damon Root, he may have the late Justice Antonin Scalia to thank if Trump v. Slaughter goes his way."Sometime in the next two or three weeks," Root explains in the libertarian Reason, "the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case about the president's authority to fire independent federal agency heads 'at will,' rather than 'for cause,' as federal law currently requires. If President Donald Trump wins the case, as many legal observers think he probably will, a 1988 dissenting opinion by a famous conservative justice is likely to play a key supporting role."The 1988 dissent by Scalia was in the case Morrison v. Olson.In that ruling 38 years ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and eight other justices examined a president's ability to remove officers of the U.S. from office. Scalia was the lone dissenter, disagreeing with two fellow Ronald Reagan appointees — Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor — as well as Rehnquist and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William Brennan Jr."According to the Federal Trade Commission Act," Root notes, "FTC commissioners may only 'be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Trump, however, purported to fire Slaughter for purely political reasons, which the statute, as written, does not allow. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether that statutory requirement amounts to an unlawful restriction on executive power. A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to view the law in that unforgiving light and rule in Trump's favor."Root continues, "If the Court does so, among the legal authorities it is likely to cite is a solo dissent written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Morrison v. Olson (1988)…. At issue in Morrison v. Olson was whether the existence of the independent counsel violated the constitutional separation of powers because it placed certain executive authorities beyond the immediate reach of the chief executive."Morrison v. Olson, like Trump v. Slaughter 38 years later, is grappling with how much executive power a president enjoys under the Constitution. "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a judicial conservative who was first appointed to SCOTUS by none other than (President Richard) Nixon, readily affirmed the independent counsel law…. Writing alone in dissent, Scalia offered a very different view of the matter," according to Root. "The Constitution placed the executive power in the hands of the president alone, Scalia argued, and 'this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power'…. If Trump does prevail in his efforts to fire Slaughter from the FTC, don't be surprised when the long shadow cast by Scalia's nearly 40-year-old dissent is visible in the Court's decision."
Left
Bloomberg Politics
Senate Republicans Demand Details, Vote on Murky Trump-Iran Deal
Senate Republicans said they’re pressing the Trump administration for details on the US-Iran interim peace deal and signaled Congress will ultimately vote on the final agreement.
Center
Bloomberg Politics
Congress Demand Details, Vote on Trump-Iran Deal
Key lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, remained in the dark on Tuesday on the specifics of the so-called memorandum of understanding, a 14-point document that should lead to a two-month ceasefire extension and the start of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Several said they expect to see the document in the coming days as the two countries prepare to sign the agreement in Geneva on Friday. Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan, Democrat representing Virginia's 4th District joined Balance of Power to discuss. (Source: Bloomberg)
Center
Why the Supreme Court is fighting over deadly gas and firing squads
Last week, the Supreme Court handed an unusual — if temporary — victory to an Alabama man on death row. As Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor, writes, this is the first time in over five years that this Court refused to “un-block an execution that a lower court had put on hold,” at least […]
Left