10. U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

1995 decision that denied the peoples of the states the right to set term limits on their congressional representatives even though the Constitution is silent on term limits and the 10th Amendment leaves to the states and the people powers that the Constitution does not explicitly give to the federal government or expressly deny to the states.


9. Baker v. Carr

1962 decision that laid the groundwork for the “one man, one vote” standard ending county representation in state legislatures and forcing states, unlike the U.S. Senate, to redistrict based solely on population.


8. Plyer v. Doe

1982 decision that said that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires state governments to provide public education to illegal aliens.


7. Grutter v. Bollinger

2003 decision that said the University of Michigan Law School could use race as a factor in admissions so it could achieve a “critical mass” of a particular racial group.


6. Wickard v. Filburn

1942 decision that said Congress could regulate a farmer’s growing of wheat for his own use on his own property under the constitutional language that authorizes Congress to regulate commerce “among the several states.”


5. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

2003 decision that upheld the McCain-Feingold law’s prohibitions on political speech.


4. Berman v. Parker

1954 case that said the District of Columbia could seize a department store and hand it over to a private developer to redevelop a “blighted” neighborhood, even though the department store itself wasn’t “blighted.” Decision set the stage for the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision allowing government to take property other than for direct “public use.”


3. Everson v. Board of Education

1947 decision that said 1st Amendment Establishment Clause erected a “wall of separation” between church and state. Precursor to the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision that created a three-pronged test for when “wall of separation” was breached and led to cases such as McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which prohibited the posting of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse.


2. Lawrence v. Texas

2003 decision that declared same-sex sodomy a constitutional right, creating the rationale for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to declare a right to same-sex marriage.


1. Roe v. Wade

1973 decision that declared abortion-on-demand a constitutional right, overturning the abortion laws of the states, and led to further abominations such as Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared partial birth abortion a constitutional right.

Acquitting a Germantown man who exposed his buttocks during an argument with a neighbor, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled yesterday that mooning, while distasteful, is not illegal in Maryland.

“If exposure of half of the buttock constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty.”

Wow! 350K against Alito — can we reach half a million?

Yesterday more than 350,000 Americans signed the petition to stop Alito. Now we're shooting for half million signatures by tomorrow, so we can publish the total in the newspaper that Congress reads. Can you help us get there?

[. . .]

So today we're aiming to boost the total to half a million signatures, and do it by tomorrow. If we can get there, we'll run an ad in Roll Call, the newspaper that Congress reads, to show them the new total.

(Emphases in original.)

I fired up the plasma television and turned to the Fox News Channel for news of the nomination. There on the screen was Bob Beckel, foaming at the mouth (literally), railing against Judge Alito.

I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with, Rush.

I would take exception with the notion that somehow this was an effort to appease the left. That's not been George Bush's stock-in-trade. I've sat side by side with him now for nearly five years and seen him take on and fight some very tough fights.

You'll be proud of Harriet's record, Rush. Trust me.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988 — and 12 years later contributed to the effort to end Gore's chance of winning the White House.

Is Miers a “safe” choice? Perhaps, in the sense that her record, at least at first glance, does not give the Democrats a clear ideological target. Her views on abortion, gay rights and the death penalty may not be deeply held and, for now, remain unknown.

And even stalwart liberal Democratic senators have remarked over the past few months that they like and respect Miers, but they usually voiced their praise in terms of how quickly she returned their phone calls.

The President responded swiftly to the attacks on September 11th. He has our country on the offensive against terrorism. American is waging a global war on terrorism with the help of many friends and allies from around the globe. The President believed it important to confront regimes that harbored or supported terrorists as well as the terrorists. And he is also confronting outlaw regimes that pursue weapons of mass destruction, and he is committed to ensuring that the terrorists do not obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons. At the same time, the President led in the creation of the Homeland Security Department and strengthening our defenses here at home. Although I am sure the President would be the first to say more needs to be done, we are a safer Nation today than we were four years ago.

Sam

[. . .]

I hope this doesn't disappoint you too much, but I understand that the real Camp David was not used to film episodes of the West Wing. Camp David is a beautiful, serene place. It provides a perfect backdrop for the President to meet with and entertain foreign and other visitors. It is a real asset for the United States Government.

Alba — Hello to a fellow Texan!

[. . .]

I hope you agree! And I hope I have answered your question. Thanks for writing!

[. . .]

Bob, thanks for the kudos.

[. . .]

Hi Andrea.

[. . .]

And a Happy Halloween to you too. You should check out our Halloween page

[. . .]

I appreciate all of those who wrote in today and you for being with us also. Hearing from Americans across the country is inspiring and interesting. I hope everyone has a great weekend.....and don't forget to reset your clocks Saturday night. Harriet

Eric — You ask a timely question about our borders because the President recently signed an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which includes more money to protect our borders. Since taking office, the President has tripled funding for homeland security.

With respect to securing our borders, it's important to take a step back and see how far we've come since September 11. Three years ago, there were inspectors from three different Federal agencies at our ports of entry. Today, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) consolidates all port inspection activities into a single workforce to create “one face at the border.” The Border Patrol is also part of CBP. More than 18,000 CBP Officers, 1,400 CBP Agriculture Specialists, and 11,000 Border Patrol Agents now guard our Nation's borders.

Another initiative that is doing a great job to protect our borders is the US- VISIT program. The US-VISIT entry-exit system uses biometric technology to help ensure that our borders remain open to legitimate travelers but closed to terrorists. US-VISIT was launched at 116 airports and 16 seaports across the country, and the program is expanding to land ports of entry. This program has been very successful, processing more than 8.5 million travelers since January.

You can learn more about these initiatives on our Website at this link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/

A senior administration official said the name of Miers came up in consultations with both Republican and Democratic senators as someone who could win bipartisan support.

[i]...[/i] There weren't enough discussions about science fiction. Technologies that are science fiction today will become constitutional questions before Roberts retires from the bench. The same goes for technologies that cannot even be conceived of now. And many of these questions involve privacy.

[. . .]

Recent advances in technology have already had profound privacy implications, and there's every reason to believe that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. Roberts is 50 years old. If confirmed, he could be chief justice for the next 30 years.

[. . .]

Advances in genetic mapping continue, and someday it will be easy, cheap and detailed — and will be able to be performed without the subject's knowledge. What privacy protections do people have for their genetic map, given that they leave copies of their genome in every dead skin cell that they leave behind? What protections do people have against government actions based on this data? Against private actions?

Should a customer's genetics be considered when granting a mortgage, or determining its interest rate?

[. . .]

New technologies will be able to peer through walls, under clothing, beneath skin, perhaps even into the activity of the brain.