Almost immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its pro-free speech decision in the campaign finance case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, liberals rushed to denounce the decision as one of the “worst decisions of all time,” and the end of democracy as we know it. Who knew political speech during an election could be such a terrible thing for the democratic process.
Mike is a practicing attorney in Washington, DC and is a former law clerk at the Republican National Committee. He is Red Alert Politics' Senior Legal Correspondent. He holds a B.S. in Finance and a J.D. from the University of Virginia.
Articles From Mike
Liberals love to hit Republicans hard over their so called “war on women” or their alleged “war on the poor,” but they tend to give themselves a pass on their own, much broader, war on the young. Growing generational inequality in the form of massive, unfunded economic subsidies supporting the old, and paid for by the young, has led many commentators to predict a future “generational showdown.”
Although the Supreme Court announced today that it will refuse to hear a challenge to Texas’s ban on the public carrying of firearms by 18-20 year-olds, the Justices are expected to soon take-up the broader issue of overly restrictive gun-carry laws in another series of cases that have been working their way through the judicial system.
In what he framed as the “defining project of our generation,” President Barack Obama vowed last night in his annual State of the Union address to aggressively address economic inequality in America, with or without support from Congress.
But instead of focusing on areas designed only to create wedge issues for the 2014 election, the President could have focused on proposals with bipartisan support that effectively address the issue of economic inequality.
The Supreme Court agreed late last week to hear a First Amendment case involving the government’s threatened prosecution of political speakers who allegedly mislead their listeners.
Adding to the growing body of pro-Second Amendment judicial precedent, a Federal Judge Monday overturned Chicago’s ban on retail gun sales. Judge Edmond Chang also overturned the city’s ban on private gun transfers between individuals.
The legal victory is a bigger win for gun-rights activists than it appears at face value.
A Federal Judge in New York handed the Obama administration a legal victory for its controversial phone data collection program last week, concluding that the program was a legal and vital “counter-punch” against increasingly sophisticated terrorism networks.
Ever since the revelation this June that the National Security Agency has been silently collecting data on millions of Americans, civil libertarians have become increasingly alarmed by additional specifics that have slowly come to light. And now, the NSA programs are being pitted against Americans’ Constitutional rights in a case that could drastically impact United States surveillance in the future.
In a 12-3 ruling, a Florida District Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday that public universities may not prohibit college students from keeping guns in their cars when permitted by state law.
Filibuster ‘nuclear option’ is about locking in Obama’s social policy, not Republican obstructionism
With the confirmation bar for judges now set dramatically lower, Obama’s legacy will not be Obamacare, assuming it survives — it will be the Obama judiciary.
“God save the United States and this honorable court,” intoned the Supreme Court marshal yesterday to formally begin the Court’s oral arguments in a case arising from a New York town’s decade-old tradition of opening its town council meetings with a prayer.
The health exchange “glitch” that should really worry Democrats: Judge allows Obamacare challenge to continue
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that a legal challenge to Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies may proceed, but denied the challengers’ request to block the subsidies before he makes his final ruling on the case next February.
President Barack Obama summed up the left’s current Obamacare talking points in a Rose Garden speech last week: “The Affordable Care Act is a law that passed the House, that passed the Senate, the Supreme Court ruled constitutional. It was a central issue in last year’s election. It is settled, and it is here to stay.”
In other words, “I won. Obamacare won. Get over it.” Yeah right.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming term will not feature the same blockbuster, hyper-political issues like same-sex marriage or the Voting Rights Act, but Americans should be aware of several important cases on the docket for oral arguments beginning in October. Here are three cases particularly likely to make news and have significant political implications.
“I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work,” actor Ashton Kutcher said during his acceptance speech at the 2013 Nickelodeon Teen Choice Awards Sunday night.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday a new legal tactic to combat voting laws he views as racially discriminatory. Texas, which has indicated that it plans to go ahead with its broadly popular voter ID law, will apparently be Holder’s first target.
Both sides of the same-sex marriage debate can claim temporary victories in the Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision on Wednesday in United States v. Windsor, which overturned the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In the long-term, however, the decision is without a doubt a lopsided win for advocates of gay rights.
Here are the three most important takeaways from the case
The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the landmark Voting Rights Act yesterday — and Americans should celebrate.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, passed 228-196 by the House of Representatives yesterday, resulted in an immediate firestorm of critical hyperbole. President Obama’s Organizing for Action asserted in an email that the bill is one of the “most unbelievable, unconstitutional attacks on women’s health in a long time.”