Hugh Hewitt talks with President Trump about filling a potential SCOTUS vacancy, debating Joe Biden, college football, China, unmasking, John Bolton, and wiping out ISIS.Read More »
The decision handed down this week by the Supreme Court of the United States, expanding the sex discrimination clause of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include the categories now of LGBTQ, is going to be one of those decisions that will have massive and dangerous impact as a precedent.
It’s going to go down as one of those decisions in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States that will set the trajectory for our culture. And that is very lamentable.
To argue that sex discrimination in 1964 had anything to do with the letters LGBTQ is irrational and it is intellectually dishonest. It’s sad that two conservative justices joined the majority in this case, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion after all. Justice Samuel Alito in dissent got it exactly right when he said that what the court did this week is not to judge, but rather to “legislate.”
And that is not what the Constitution calls upon the court to do. It’s a sad day in American constitutional history, and it sets the stage for even more sad days in our future.Read More »
Townhall Review – July 14, 2018
Hugh Hewitt is joined by Leonard Leo, head of the Federalist Society, to look at the confirmation process for the newly-nominated U. S. Supreme Court Justice. Mike Gallagher turns to Wendy Long to examine the vicious partisanship expected during the confirmation process. CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joins Hugh Hewitt with his analysis of the nominee and the confirmation. Michael Medved speaks with economist Stephen Moore about the latest jobs report. Larry Elder’s guest, Walter Williams, author, columnist, and economics professor at George Mason University, explains why parenting is the number one problem facing education in our African-American urban areas. Mike Gallagher discusses NATO with Michael Desch, Director of the National Security Center at Notre Dame. Dennis Prager asks some questions about the growing “rudeness” phenomenon.Read More »
SCOTUS 2018 is shaping up as the “free speech” session of the court.
Masterpiece Cake ruling upheld the free speech rights of a cake decorator who did not want to decorate a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage.
The court sent a case back to a lower court involving a florist who did not want to create a floral display doing the same thing. Then there was the NIFLA decision—regarding the pro-life crisis pregnancy centers—where the court overturned a California law which compelled them to essentially advertise for abortion.
In Justice Kennedy’s opinion, the law forced them to “convey a message contrary to their deepest convictions.”
Each one of these cases was litigated by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has emerged as the most important First Amendment group in the nation.
It’s a banner session for the First Amendment.Read More »
An important case before the Supreme Court this week points back to 2015, when the legislature in California adopted a law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to articulate an explicitly pro-abortion message right down to how women could contact the state about financial assistance in obtaining an abortion.
In short: It’s a law compelling speech.
Ilya Shapiro, representing the CATO institute, points out that it’s extremely telling that California has no comparable law requiring abortion providers to post advertisements for adoption agencies, or any other alternative to abortion.
We’re about to find out in short order if the justices of the United States Supreme Court mean what they say when they pledge to uphold the constitution of the United States—a constitution that includes the right of a citizen not to have a government coerce speech against conviction.Read More »
Can Americans be financially coerced to underwrite labor unions when they are opposed to positions taken by unions?
That was the big issue this week before the nation’s highest court—whether workers can be coerced to financially underwrite and undergird labor unions when the positions taken by the union would be opposed to their own convictions.
The case is known as Janus v. AFSCME—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—and it challenges Supreme Court precedent that goes back four decades, requiring persons in certain categories of employment to contribute union dues and fees even when they do not want to be members of the union.
Today, with Justice Neil Gorsuch on the court, it is expected that the court will reverse its 40-year-plus precedent.
This may mean a big, big change on America’s political landscape.Read More »