Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Albert Mohler: A Law Compelling Speech

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 »

The Tragic Mistakes that Led to the Florida Shooting

Opioids Tariffs

Townhall Review — March 3, 2018

In the aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Michael Medved shares details on how the failure of Broward County Sherrif’s Office, in particular that of their leader, Sherriff Scott Israel, was years in the making. Dennis Prager examines the mindset behind the Left demanding gun legislation that would have stopped nothing. Mike Gallagher turns to National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy to make sense of why Democrates are comparing the Russians meddling in the 2016 election to the invasion of Pearl Harbor and even 9/11. Hugh Hewitt invites Peter Peterson, the dean of Pepperdine University Graduate School of Public Policy, to share about the shocking upset of Dianne Feinstein not being able to garner the support of her own Democratic party in California. Larry Elder exposes the lunacy of banning of semi-automatic rifles and ultimately the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Hugh Hewitt speaks with David Dewhirst, Chief Litigation Counsel for the Freedom Foundation, on the labor union case, Janus v. AFSCME, in the U.S. Supreme Court. Wrapping up the show, Dennis Prager returns to dismantle a piece from Bill Press of The Hill on letting highschool students direct policy on guns.

Read More »

Albert Mohler: Chance of Big Change on America’s Political Landscape

Billy Graham

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 »

Hugh Hewitt: Time to Extend the Reid-Rule Reforms

U.S. Senate

Whether the decline began with the sliming of Robert Bork or the segregationist filibusters of civil rights legislation, the modern U.S. Senate has been on a downward spiral for some time.

What the Senate needs now is an overhaul of its rules, one that preserves the rights of the minority in some cases—key legislation, for example, and perhaps appointments to the Supreme Court—while also reflecting the speed at which the world moves today. Simple majorities on appropriations and time limits on debate over minor nominees are two obvious reforms. They could be traded, for example, for agreement on the high court vacancies and how long those debates should last.

The Senate’s dysfunction is astonishing to Americans who have to make things actually run, who have to do their jobs to keep their jobs. Donald Trump has shrewdly taken aim at the Senate’s vulnerability as an issue. It would be best for both parties to head off change imposed from pressure from the outside with change organically orchestrated from within by those with care for the body and its original design.

It is time to extend what I call the “Reid-rule reforms,” and it’s time to do so now.

Read More »

Albert Mohler: Masterpiece Cake Shop And The Future Of Religious Liberty

Headlines

This past Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case formally known as “Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission.”

In terms of religious liberty, there has been no recent case before the Supreme Court more important than this one.

The backstory is that in 2012, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, denied a request made by two men to create a cake in order to celebrate their marriage.

Jack Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom argue that in requiring Jack Phillips to make a cake, and thus compelling him to use his artistic expression in support of same-sex marriage, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is violating his religious liberty and protection against forced speech.

What we are looking at here is basically the sexual revolutionaries bullying a baker. This baker and that profession will not be the last.

On religious liberty, there’s been no recent case before the Supreme Court nearly so important as this one on Masterpiece Cake Shop.

Read More »

Albert Mohler: SCOTUS Takes Up California’s Abortion Law

Headlines

The Supreme Court recently announced that it will take a very important case.

A California law requires crisis pregnancy centers to inform women who come to the centers of the availability of abortion, even requiring the use of specific language. Several of these centers have challenged the constitutionality of this California legislation, arguing that the bill violates their religious liberty, and their free speech, requiring them to state speech to the women who come into those clinics that violates their own convictions.

It is indeed the case that if a crisis pregnancy center in California can be required by law to use government mandated language about abortion, then free speech really doesn’t exist. If the government can mandate the use of language that violates the convictions of the very people who established and volunteer in these crisis pregnancy centers, then religious liberty doesn’t actually exist.

There is no greater moral issue faced by the generation of Americans now living than abortion, and the Supreme Court has decided to wade back into those waters.

Read More »