The Week: Most Recent Supreme Court:Supreme Court recent posts.en-usWed, 20 Feb 2013 11:20:00 -0500http://theweek.com Recent Supreme Court:Supreme Court from THE WEEKWed, 20 Feb 2013 11:20:00 -0500Are campaign contribution limits unconstitutional?<img src="" /></P><p>The Supreme Court has agreed to review what legal experts are billing as the most important campaign-finance case since <em>Citizens United</em>. That 2010 decision struck down limits on what individuals and groups can pump into election season messaging done independently of any candidate's campaign. The new case, <em>McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission</em>, goes after another pillar of federal campaign finance law &mdash; the limits on contributions people can make directly to political candidates and some political committees. The lawsuit &mdash; filed by Shaun McCutcheon, a GOP donor from Alabama, and...</p> <a href="">More</a>By <a href="/author/harold-maass" ><span class="byline">Harold Maass</span></a>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:20:00 -0500Justice Antonin Scalia compares homosexuality to murder<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">If Kanye West were to take a stab at Supreme Court editorializing, it might go something like this: Antonin Scalia does not care about gay people. Indeed, at a Princeton University seminar on Monday, the conservative justice compared homosexuality to murder when asked by a gay student about a 2003 opinion in which Scalia compared homosexuality to bestiality and incest. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?" the justice asked rhetorically. "Can we have it against other things?"&nbsp;</p><p class="p1">The point, in Scalia's view, is that the government has the right...</p> <a href="">More</a>By <a href="/author/ryu-spaeth" ><span class="byline">Ryu Spaeth</span></a>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:10:00 -0500Will the Supreme Court uphold same-sex marriage?<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">By accepting two cases on same-sex marriage &mdash; <em>Hollingsworth v. Perry</em> and <em>U.S. v. Windsor</em> &mdash; the <strong>Supreme Court has taken center stage in the ongoing debate over gay rights</strong>. In recent years, popular support for same-sex marriage has swelled with astonishing speed, upending the politics of gay rights so dramatically that President Obama "evolved" to support gay marriage before his first term was even up. "<strong>Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying</strong>," said conservative columnist George Will on ABC's <em>This Week</em>. "It's old people." Enter the nine justices of the Supreme Court,...</p> <a href="">More</a>By <a href="/author/ryu-spaeth" ><span class="byline">Ryu Spaeth</span></a>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:20:00 -0500The Supreme Court debates affirmative action: 3 takeaways<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for <em>Fisher v. Texas</em>, a case that is widely considered to be the most serious legal challenge to affirmative action in nearly a decade. The case had been brought by Abigail Fisher, who claims that she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin because she is white. Under the state's enrollment system, the top 10 percent of students in every Texan high school is automatically accepted into the state university of their choice. However, the universities consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, when they fill up the rest of...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffWed, 10 Oct 2012 16:08:00 -04003 cases to watch in the Supreme Court's new term<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">When the Supreme Court begins its 2012-13 term on Monday, few expect its docket to match the&nbsp;drama that accompanied its ruling on ObamaCare in June, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals to uphold President Obama's signature domestic achievement &mdash; a day that will undoubtedly live in infamy among conservatives. However, the court still has its fair share of politically divisive cases, and court watchers say it's probable that the justices will accept cases touching on gay marriage and voting rights. Here, three cases to watch in the court's upcoming term...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffFri, 28 Sep 2012 07:32:00 -0400The ObamaCare decision: 3 new behind-the-scenes revelations<img src="" /></P><p>When reporters were impatiently awaiting the Supreme Court's big decision on ObamaCare, former Solicitor General Paul Clement &mdash; who had argued the anti-ObamaCare side &mdash; smugly chided the political press: "The thing I've found most amusing is their complete inability to believe there will not be leaks," he told <em>The Washington Post</em>. "They are so used to covering the other two branches of government that they just assume leaks are absolutely inevitable." It turns out Clement was wrong. Just a few days after Chief Justice John Roberts shocked everyone by being the deciding vote to uphold...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffThu, 05 Jul 2012 11:15:00 -0400ObamaCare: A legacy-defining decision for John Roberts?<img src="" /></P><p>"Here's what we know about how the Supreme Court is going to rule on health care," says Ezra Klein at&nbsp;<em>The Washington Post</em>: "Nothing." But there is a consensus among court-watchers that Chief Justice John Roberts will write the fateful decision handed down on Thursday morning and that, whatever the outcome, it will be a big deal. The chief justice is a young 57, but "to a great extent, the decision will shape the way history views Roberts' stewardship of the high court," says Josh Gerstein at <em>Politico</em>. Will "Roberts' big moment" on Thursday really determine how the world remembers the Roberts...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffWed, 27 Jun 2012 07:05:00 -0400The Supreme Court's ruling on TV profanity: The fallout<img src="" /></P><p>The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously threw out fines and other penalties the Federal Communications Commission had imposed against Fox for airing isolated curse words during awards shows and ABC television stations for broadcasting a brief display of nudity during an episode of <em>NYPD Blue</em>. The justices said that the FCC's most recent policy did not adequately explain to networks that "a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent." Does this mean viewers should brace for an avalanche of butts and F-bombs? Here, a brief guide:<br /><br /><strong>What exactly did the court rule?</strong><br />The...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffFri, 22 Jun 2012 10:41:00 -0400The ObamaCare ruling: A lose-lose proposition for the Supreme Court?<img src="" /></P><p>Washington, and much of the rest of the country, is waiting nervously for the Supreme Court to hand down its big decision on the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. But you might as well "save yourself the bother and just get ticked off now," says Mark Z. Barabak at <em>The</em> <em>Los Angeles Times</em>.&nbsp;According to a new poll from Pew Research Center, Americans will be unhappy no matter how the court rules: Striking down the whole law will dissatisfy 48 percent of people, versus 44 percent who'll be happy; throwing out just the individual mandate bombs, 51 percent to 40 percent; and upholding the whole law...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffTue, 19 Jun 2012 07:00:00 -0400Would upholding ObamaCare improve the Supreme Court's image?<img src="" /></P><p>A recent poll from <em>The New York Times</em> and CBS News shows public support for the Supreme Court has drooped to a dauntingly low 44 percent, down from 50 percent in 2000 and 66 percent in the late 1980s. Seventy-six percent of respondents said the justices sometimes base their decisions on personal and political views. This "disdain" for the Supreme Court as just another biased institution is heard in both Democrat and Republican camps, and it's "deeply dangerous for the court, and for our system of government," says Robert Reich in<em> The Christian Science Monitor</em>. It might also save ObamaCare. If Chief...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffWed, 13 Jun 2012 10:48:00 -0400The real story behind the Supreme Court's campaign finance showdown: 6 takeaways<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">When <em>Citizens United</em> was first argued before the Supreme Court, in March 2009, "it seemed like a case of modest importance," says Jeffrey Toobin at <em>The New Yorker</em>. Less than a year later, in January 2010, the court handed down one of the most consequential decisions in its history, allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts to support their candidates of choice. The ruling wiped out more than a century of legal precedent, and made the court a central force in the controversial dynamic between big business and government. Here, six takeaways from Toobin's report on the "behind-the-scenes struggle...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffWed, 16 May 2012 08:00:00 -0400The Supreme Court's historically low approval ratings: 4 theories<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">The Supreme Court's favorability rating is at a 25-year low, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center. The survey shows that only 52 percent of Americans view the court favorably, and while Congress can only dream of such a stratospheric number, the court enjoyed an 80 percent approval rating as recently as 1994. Remarkably, a roughly equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans approve of the court, a rare show of agreement in this age of hyper-partisanship. Here, four theories about why the Supreme Court's popularity is waning:</p><p class="p1"><strong>1. The court has become increasingly politicized</strong> <br />The...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffThu, 03 May 2012 08:00:00 -0400Would striking down ObamaCare hurt the Supreme Court's credibility?<img src="" /></P><p class="p1">After three days of intense debate, President Obama's sweeping overhaul of the health-care system is now in the hands of nine black-robed justices. The Supreme Court's conservative judges clearly expressed their doubts about the law's constitutionality, leaving Obama's supporters fretting about ObamaCare's fate and the president's re-election chances. Meanwhile, liberals are warning that a decision by a conservative court to strike down a Democratic president's top domestic priority would hurt the court's credibility, cementing the perception that the law's scales are being tipped by politics,...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffThu, 29 Mar 2012 11:50:00 -0400Do 14-year-old murderers deserve life in prison without parole?<img src="" /></P><p>This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case featuring two convicted murderers who committed their crimes when they were just 14 years old. Sentenced to life in prison without parole, the killers argue that the sentences amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. The case is just the latest to showcase the court's evolution on juvenile punishment &mdash; the Supreme Court abolished the juvenile death penalty in 2005, and barred life without parole for crimes other than murder in 2010. Here, a guide to the latest debate:</p><p><strong>How many teen convicts...</strong></p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffThu, 22 Mar 2012 17:35:00 -0400Will affirmative action survive the Supreme Court?<img src="" /></P><p>In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a landmark decision upholding the use of race in picking whom to admit to universities and graduate programs, and predicted that the ruling would stand for at least 25 years. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court cast doubt on O'Connor's forecast by&nbsp;accepting an affirmative action case from a white student at the University of Texas at Austin. The Roberts Court will probably hear college student Abigail Fisher's discrimination claim in October, just a few weeks before a heated presidential election &mdash; and the outlook is somewhat grim for affirmative...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffWed, 22 Feb 2012 16:19:00 -0500The Supreme Court ruling on warrantless GPS tracking: 'Simply wrong'?<img src="" /></P><p>On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant before using a GPS device to track a vehicle &mdash; a major victory for privacy rights supporters. "The government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search,'" said Justice Antonin Scalia, representing the five-justice majority. (The other four arrived at the same decision but wrote other, concurring opinions). The ruling has some Americans outraged, since the extra steps police must take to get a warrant might allow lawbreakers...</p> <a href="">More</a>By The Week StaffTue, 24 Jan 2012 18:02:00 -0500