Appellate Analysis

Understanding King v. Burwell

Sometime, either today, tomorrow, or Monday, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling for the case of King v. Burwell. If you have heard of the case, you likely know that it is primarily about President Obama’s Affordable Care Act–”Obamacare.”

Upon hearing this, most people might immediately assume that the case is determining the law’s constitutionality. This assumption is understandable, seeing that he Supreme Court often rules on issues pertaining to Constitutional law. However, it is crucial to comprehend that the Burwell case is regarding statutory interpretation, which means the Supreme Court is deciding on how the law was meant to be interpreted, not whether or not the law is constitutional. Continue reading

Standard
Policymaking

Colorado’s “Pro-Life” Republicans are not Pro-Life

For the past six years, Colorado has had a program in the state that gave women free Intrauterine devices (IUDs). This state-sponsored contraception plan lowered the teen pregnancy rate by 40% from 2009-2013. At the same time, the program reduced abortions by 35%.

You would think that such a venture would be expensive for the state (and you’d be right). The program originally began as a result of a $23 million private donation. However, it saved the state $42 million in health care costs. This basically means the program could pay for itself if Colorado wanted it to do so. Continue reading

Standard
Depthhub

Assorted Information: 5/8/15

Here’s a weekly roundup of interesting, miscellaneous, or otherwise thought-provoking links I came across this week.

  • Jonathan Sherman has a great op-ed in the New York Times, focusing on why it is time for the Supreme Court to end its ban on cameras.

Continue reading

Standard
Decision 2016, Political Lunacy

Hilary Clinton Is Not Declaring War Against Christians

Several fundamentalist leaders, including HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris have opted to warn their devoted followers of Hilary Clinton’s “declaration of war” against Christianity.

Bear in mind, of course, that Ms. Clinton did not actually say those exact words. Rather, Mr. Farris relies on a quote taken extraordinarily out of context in order to persuade his followers that “Hillary Clinton has taken off the gloves and is coming after [Christians] with bare knuckles.” Continue reading

Standard
Depthhub

Assorted Information: 5/1/15

Here’s a weekly roundup of interesting, miscellaneous, or otherwise thought-provoking links I came across this week.

Continue reading

Standard
LGBTQ Advocacy

10 Thoughts from Obergefell v. Hodges

This past week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges on two questions regarding same-sex marriage. The court was tasked with determining (1) whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to let same-sex couples marry and (2) whether states must recognize lawful marriages of same-sex couples from other states. Although a ruling is not expected until June or July, I felt it would be appropriate to share a few of the thoughts I had from listening to the oral arguments.

All quotes are taken from the transcript of the argument found here. If you prefer to listening to the argument in audio format, the Supreme Court has published audio here. Continue reading

Standard
Appellate Analysis, LGBTQ Advocacy

Christian Colleges Should Not Fear Same-Sex Marriage

Patrick Henry College Chancellor Michael Farris is currently remarkably concerned that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. This is evidenced by a mass email (and Facebook post) he sent out to those subscribed to Patrick Henry’s email list, in which he deliberately misled his recipients, presumably to create a sense of financial urgency and to beg for more money (His precise words: “Please consider making a gift to the College to ensure that our country will never be bereft of the excellent, effective Christian leaders in politics and culture it so desperately needs”).

There are quite a few problems with his electronic correspondence, primarily with his misrepresentation of the Obergefell v. Hodges oral argument the Supreme Court heard this past Tuesday. Farris misrepresented a crucial part of this oral argument in order to advance his Judeo-Christian fundamentalist and strict constructionist agenda. Continue reading

Standard