“VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.” — VOA Charter
Once again, Texas loses at the U.S. Supreme Court over abortion.
In 1973, Texas’ ban on abortion was overturned in the landmark Roe v. Wade case.
And Monday, the state’s restrictions on abortion clinics was struck down, deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s right to an abortion.
While Americans’ deeply divided opinions about abortion have not changed much in the past 20 years, the debate still rages over a woman’s right to what she can and cannot do to her body versus the rights of the unborn.
Few issues are as emotional—and call upon America’s collective morality—as immigration.
“It makes us special, it makes us strong, it’s makes us Americans.”
The words of a visibly frustrated President Barack Obama in 2014, during his announcement that he had used his executive authority to shield illegal immigrants from deportation after failing to pass a reform bill in Congress. Two years later, the United States Supreme Court takes up the battle again in The United States versus Texas, which challenges the president’s decision (via executive action) to make four million illegal immigrants legal. For border states like Texas, the reality of undocumented Mexican children showing up alone with no resources is felt daily. So it is no coincidence that Texas led the charge all the way to the Supreme Court against Obama’s solution to the country’s growing and ever more complex immigration situation.
And with Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump threatening to send immigrants back home and “build a wall” around U.S. borders, the inevitable tensions around illegal immigration have been stoked to feverish levels.
All eyes are on the court.
Any reasonable person would conclude that objections to Chief Judge Garland’s appointment are entirely partisan. Indeed, Chief Judge Garland is the best-prepared Supreme Court nominee since I graduated from law school in 1980.
Merrick Garland, a longtime Washington lawyer, is considered a moderate jurist. He currently serves as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If approved by Congress, he will fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Last term saw vindication of the long liberal fight for gay rights. This time the victors in a long war are much more likely to be conservative.
As the court winds up its term, decisions on controversial cases such as Obamacare and same-sex marriage have provoked heated debate. Supporters are hailing the constitutional inclusiveness of the rulings, while more conservative observers are decrying a court that they argue has overstepped its boundaries.
Last week’s landmark 5 to 4 decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is a watershed moment. To supporters, it was the culmination of decades of court petitions and a non-stop activist movement. Opponents largely blasted the justices for imposing their judicial will inappropriately, and trampling on states rights. Either way, gay marriage now has the blessing of the highest court in the land.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Slam of Donald Trump
Like all the justices, Ginsburg is expected to render decisions in line with her judicial ideology, that is, her understanding of how the Constitution should be interpreted. This matter of interpretive style is as much a political judgment as a legal one. But electoral politics have long been off-limits for sitting judges, including justices.