'Plaintiff States have standing'

The United States Supreme Court has been lauded by such diverse members as conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist and liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the “crown jewel” of the Constitution for its power of judicial review. The court should be venerated not because of the happenstance of personalities or ideological persuasion but because of its pivotal institutional role in the Constitution’s separation of powers in checking government abuses and saluting liberty as the glory of the United States. James Madison, father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, elaborated, “independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.” Unlike Congress or the White House, the justices are appointed, not elected on the back of opportunistic promises inspired by handsome campaign contributions. Justices serve for life. They come to the court without any voting commitments. As Abraham Lincoln noted, “We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it.” The media disserves the public and the court by creating the impression that cases are decided by results-driven ideological clashes: red versus blue with an occasional purple justice. In other words, the Supreme Court is the same old polarized politics by other means. But that picture is false. All the justices are sincere in their votes even if they disagree. That is because constitutional law is inherently more chiaroscuro than primary colors. It is not written with the details of the Internal Revenue Code. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously wrote in “The Common Law,” “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.” Moreover, accepted canons of constitutional or statutory interpretation commonly collide. Some Supreme Court precedents, for example, give primary weight to text. Others make the policy or purpose of a law decisive. The court thus wrote in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), “[A] thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers.” The Supreme Court is also reluctant to overturn a precedent inconsistent in principle with later decisions. The doctrine of stare decisis and predictability in the law militate in favor of letting inconsistencies endure. Read carefully the cases which divide the court. (They are a minority in the court’s docket). You will be amazed at how convincing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions are. They all marshal time-honored canons of interpretation and precedents in their favor. None are outside the constitutional mainstream. Take the recent Second Amendment case of United States v. Rahimi. The court ruled 8-1 that the amendment did not protect an individual who had been found after a hearing to pose a credible threat to the danger of another. The dissent came to the opposite conclusion, relying on the same standards of constitutional interpretation, including text and history. Despite differences in background and time-honored interpretive theories, the justices are amazingly collegial. None questions the intellectual sincerity of another. They do not huddle in separate quarters. Intellectual opposites Antonin Scalia and Ginsburg famously remained close friends despite dueling opinions. We are thankfully beyond the days when Justice James McReynolds refused to speak to Justice Louis D. Brandeis because the latter was Jewish. The Supreme Court is the least dangerous branch because it lacks the purse or the sword. To the extent the court is sincere in its judgments, to that extent it will enjoy public confidence and support. Disagreements among the justices surface not because of ulterior political motives but because constitutional interpretation is an art, not a science. Judge Learned Hand thus noted: I venture to believe that it is as important to a judge called upon to pass on a question of constitutional law, to have at least a bowing acquaintance with Acton and Maitland, with Thucydides, Gibbon and Carlyle, with Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and Milton, with Machiavelli, Montaigne and Rabelais, with Plato, Bacon, Hume and Kant, as with books that have been specifically written on the subject. A difference of opinion among the justices is not a difference in constitutional principles. The court itself should be celebrated by the media as one of the finest hours in statesmanship. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Supreme Court Is Not Red v. Blue appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A House Republican has introduced a bill designed to achieve tax fairness for ministries that share health care costs.  A member of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., is the sponsor of the Health Care Sharing Ministry Tax Parity Act, which he introduced last Monday. Kelly’s bill would allow members of these faith-based organizations and ministries to deduct “health care-related expenses from their taxes,” just as Americans who have conventional health insurance are able to do. Kelly’s bill also would make it explicit that these organizations don’t offer health insurance, averting misunderstandings about how the IRS should handle them—particularly regarding federal mandates that affect regular insurance.  Each year, about 1.3 million Americans partake in so-called HCSMs, sharing over $1 billion in medical expenses. Those who opt for Christian and other faith-based ministries instead of regular health insurance typically have moral and financial motivations, advocates say.  However, Kelly’s bill states that these Americans should have the same access to tax benefits as those who use traditional health insurance.  Brad Hahn, CEO of a health care ministry called Solidarity HealthShare, commended Kelly’s legislation for its “crucial and positive development” for millions of Americans who are part of what Hahn calls the health-sharing community.  “Solidarity HealthShare is grateful to Congressman Kelly for sponsoring this necessary legislation to ensure parity for those Americans who choose to share in faith-based ministries rather than health insurance to facilitate medical expenses,” Hahn said.  The post Pennsylvania Lawmaker Proposes Tax Fairness for Faith-Based Health Care Sharing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Whitmer Now Says Biden Can Win Michigan

June may be over, but we’re certainly not done talking about the nefarious ripple effects of Pride Month. Two summers ago, Alex Stein busted an event hosted by Mr. Misster, a gay bar in Dallas, Texas, for exposing children to sexually explicit content. To say the video footage is disturbing is an understatement. Viewer discretion is advised. EXPOSING Disturbing Child Drag Show In Dallas www.youtube.com The footage captures several drag queens dancing erotically in front of a neon sign that reads, “It’s not gonna lick itself,” while taking money out of children’s hands. Some of the kids even got to strut the catwalk alongside the performers. What’s even more disturbing is that several policemen were present at the event, and all of them were perfectly content to allow children to enter a bar where they would be exposed to sexually explicit content. At least none of them got away without facing some of Alex’s infamous trolling. Check it out for yourself in the clip above. Want more from Alex Stein?To enjoy more of Alex's culture jamming, comedic monologues, skits, and street segments, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Court was right that some presidential acts can’t be criminalized. But it pushed that principle too far, and its application not far enough.

Lawyer Says Biden Can Have the Military Execute Steve Bannon in the Prison Showers Tonight

Post-Debate Polling Should Have Biden Campaign Sweating Bullets

WATCH: Bill Barr Rips Through Justice Sotomayor's Hysteria Over the SCOTUS Presidential Immunity Ruling

How a North Dakota Truck Stop Brought the Federal Reserve and the Administrative State to Heel