August 11, 2026

Be Careful When You Ask Out SCOTUS

When you ask a girl to the prom and she says no, you have a pretty good idea she simply doesn’t like you. Now, maybe she has a legitimate excuse, but, let’s be honest, “I have to visit my grandma” really isn’t all that legitimate. She’s just not that into you, dude. Deal with it. […]

A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court [contributor]

Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.” The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly.

Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal.

The Obamacare saga encourages political dishonesty [Contributor]

Political dissemblance over the nature of taxes and regulatory architecture looms as an inevitably dark truth of post-Obamacare government. Through the tortuous legislative course of Obamacare’s genesis, Democrats continually denied that the individual mandate was a tax, the heaviest word in America’s political lexicon. Instead, the mandate was a “penalty,” or a “shared responsibility payment.” (A chillingly Orwellian turn-of-phrase). The Democrats knew that truth in taxation would slay Obamacare and scuttle their century-long obsession with state-directed flu shots and hip replacements. So they prevaricated. What do congressmen call a law that amends the Internal Revenue Code, is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, and forces families to pay up to 2.5% of their incomes into the federal treasury? Anything but a tax.

Unless you’re in court—there, any word will do. [cont…]

What is the role of the Supreme Court, anyway?

“The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens….”

Exaggerated Claims: Swallow at Supreme Court to “ensure” unconstitutionality of Obamacare?

In short, the email walks through a loose timeline for the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare” more colloquially), putting Swallow at each crossroad of the legal battle. But for him, and Utah, Obamacare might not have made it before the Supreme Court.

Except that isn’t quite how it happened. We’ve already learned that Idaho had passed a law that gave standing to challenge Obamacare, and that Utah jumped on board. Sincerely, of course, but not necessarily crucial to the fight against the Affordable Care Act. It was important politically, but not really legally.

Now, Swallow’s campaign is claiming that he was at the Supreme Court to “ensure” the law was found unconstitutional. It’s a claim that stretches the truth. [Cont…]

Obamacare before the Supreme Court: “The Emperor Has No Clothes!”

In a case of “the Emperor has no clothes,” the justices played the part of the skeptic to the Obama Administration’s protestations of Obamacare’s constitutionality. With the oral arguments on constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act over, let’s take a look back at the reactions to the arguments: [cont…]

And the funniest guy on the Supreme Court is…

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. And Chief Justice Roberts has taken that to heart. On Monday, while the Supreme Court was taking oral arguments and handing down opinions, the Chief took several opportunities to poke fun and to shoot off a witty question. After handing down a unanimous opinion rejecting […]