Back in March, the Supreme Court argued the case Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., et al. v. Wisconsin Labor And Industry Review Commission et al. I reviewed those arguments in my article Are You Religious Enough? In June, the court released its decision, and thankfully, the court came to what I believe is the correct decision. That's not to say they came to the conclusion for the right reasons.

Which came first, the states or the federal government? A better question should be who created whom? Did the federal government create the states? No, the states created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. So if the states are the "parents" of the federal government, why are they not sovereign over it? One state legislature tried to pass legislation to reassert their position as sovereign over the federal government. Sadly, that measure did not pass... yet.

SCOTUS, supreme court, HHS, health insurance, obama care, health and human services, HHS, There is a quote pretty much sums up a recent Supreme Court decision regarding your healthcare. Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive -- Sir Walter Scott In the case Kennedy v Braidwood Management, inc. we see the tangled web the United States has woven when it practiced to deceive by claiming the power to regulate what is covered by your health insurance.

Earlier this year I wrote about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the case Mahmoud V. Taylor. The case had to do with a parent's right to opt their children out of content in public school they found objectionable, and the Supreme Court was asked if the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing the school from teaching their children objectionable content until the court had decided the case. On June 27, 2025, the court published its decision.

All of western culture is at war. The fundamental point of conflict is whether a person's "gender" is determined by biology or psychology, reality or wishes. One of the latest battles in this war is the Supreme Court case _United States v. Skrmetti._In this case Mr. Skrmetti, as Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, is defending the state's law that prohibits the use of so-called "gender-affirming" care for minors. The answer the court came to will surprise some and infuriate others.

In the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" of our federal government, who wins? Does a federal court always get what it wants, or are there limitations? While hearing cases on the question of "birthright citizenship", several District Courts claimed the power to rule over the President. I don't remember seeing that in the Constitution. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in, deciding in the case Trump v. Casa that lower courts are not all powerful after all.

There has been a lot of talk about due process lately, but little of it seems to be informed by proof or evidence. Five of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are called the “Due Process Amendments”. With a little bit of research, we can not only be sure of what due process is, but how the Constitution protects our rights to it.

Next year with be the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Over the next 365 days I expect to see plenty of opportunities to remember the date. I want to start by remembering the reason why we declared independence in the first place.

When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it’s used in an attempt to right some past wrong.

Imagine being awakened from a sound sleep by a group of armed men bashing in your door. Come to find out, it’s the FBI. Oh yeah, and they have the wrong house. After the trauma, not to mention the damage to your house, at the very least you can sue for a redress of these grievances, right? That is the question before the Supreme Court in the case Martin v. United States.