LyrArc Article Gist
Efforts to lift the tone of arguments at the Supreme Court by Chief Jusice Roberts by using the term "brothers" and "sisters" for lawyers before the court.

LyrArc Article Gist
"Empathy" was a word not used by Obama but was an idea that was persistent in his selection. From the East Room Obama told the American public- "experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardhip and misfortune; experience insisting, perisisting and ultimately overcoming those barriers; is necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court." Sotomayor responded- "This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped meappreciate the variety of perspectivs that present themselves in every case that I hear." While empathy and astory line similar to the President's is clear in this case; for a Latina whose mother struggled like Obama's to get her through school, and who did well at Princeton and Yale Law School; there is also the same degree of excellence in rigorous study of the law and sharp intellect, and good judgement. This was Obama's first criteria before empathy. And even though Justice Roberts is quoted here as saying in his confirmation hearings that he saw the role of a judge as an umpire, calling balls and strikes, Roberts is still going to see the balls and the strikes through his own set of experiences. Which in this case he generalizes without knowing it or consciously realizing it, as the set of experiences common to all. His is an aspiration to impartiality no more than Sotomayor's, except that Sotomayor is conscious of her experiences, because she has as she says spent a large part of her life looking over her shoulder as an outsider Newyorkican does; and Roberts the insider isn't. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jodi Kantor provides insights into U.S. president Obama's thinking about the law, how it affects society, and the areas in which it falls short of what is intended. Obama is looking at a number of possible candidates to replace Judge Souter on the Supreme Court, including Elena Kagan at Harvard Law School. He is described by professors and students who know him as a minimalist who does not want to see the Court appointees to go ahead of their times. Minimalist refers to a view which is skeptical of court led change far out ahead of where society is. He is also described as a structuralist, referring to a view that seeks to learn how the law affects people in their real lives, aside from abstractions and theory.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a blow to public employee unions the U.S. Supreme court rules that unions cannot collect dues from non members. Doing so would violate worker's free speech rights said the court in 5-4 decision. The addition of Justice Gorsuch has created a Supreme court voting 5-4 on party lines. Justices Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch give Republicans a five vote majority on many issues. 

LyrArc Article Gist
In proposing the constitutional amendment called "No One Is Above the Law Amendment,"  Biden says in today's Wash Post op-ed “This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.”

LyrArc Article Gist
US Supreme Court decision to allow migrants to be deported to third countries, June 23, 2025.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US Supreme Court reinstates a DJT administration decision to fire 16 thousand federal workers. It says groups harmed by reduction of public services from the firings have no legal standing.

LyrArc Article Gist
SCOTUS decision on Voting Rights Act by knocking down gerrymandered district in Louisiana April 2026. US Supreme Court says it is time to decide on this and leans in favor of the Constitution and limits tampering with a election map to create districts on the basis of race or gender.

LyrArc Article Gist
What did the Justices say about US Birthright Citizenship? Here are the words of what the Justices said in the June 27 decision of the US Supreme Court 6-3 blocking the district courts from overruling the Executive Order of the US president. From the outset the Justices sought to decide - was the district court in a state deciding on a case with individual circumstances for the plaintiffs, even by a stretch of the imagination going to decide over the judgement of the Executive Branch what the law of the land should be? SC went though British law, and US law during its history and found no such understanding of the courts. "In each case, the District Court entered a “universal injunction”—an injunction barring executive officials from applying the Executive Order to anyone, not just the plaintiffs. And in each case, the Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request to stay the sweeping relief. The Government argues that the District Courts lacked equitable authority to impose universal relief and has filed three nearly identical emergency applications seeking partial stays to limit the preliminary injunctions to the plaintiffs in each case." The Court held- "Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ezra Klein on the three questions on which the Supreme Court will decide after three days of hearings on March 26-28, 2012- the Anti-Injunction act, The Individual Mandate, and Medicaid Expansion. Related to the Individual Mandate question are Severability issues.

LyrArc Article Gist
Justice Alito's majority US Supreme Court ruling on DJT ending program that allowed 350000 immigrants from war zones Haiti and Syria as implemented by the DJT administration. SCOTUS majority did not consider the president's statements instead focusing on president's authority to conduct migrant and immigration policy in the national interest.

LyrArc Article Gist
Supreme Court nominee Kavanuagh has shown a pro-business tilt on many issues. On net neutrality he favored telecom and IT companies. On a ruling on the Consumer Protection Bureau he empowered the president to fire the director on the legal reasoning that there should be several commissioners running the agency. The Net Neutrality ruling from the Obama years was overturned by president Trump, the Consumer Protection Bureau continues to have a Director. On other issues such as Clean Air Act he overturned a ruling. He also defended the rights of pharmaceutical companies vs. the FDA.

LyrArc Article Gist
Walter Mead of WSJ offers this view- expect more action from DJT in 2026 not less, than 2025. The president took the US Supreme Court's decision in stride, noting that it lets him do the same thing on tariffs- charge tariffs on countries doing unfair trade with the US- with other tools in trade legislation, just not IIEP rules. On the practical side every country wants to keep its trade agreement with the US said the president- Britain, Japan, South Korea, Germany, China, India. China and India have increased exports in 2025 even with tariffs rules that allow some exemptions. Large trading nations do not want the uncertainty that comes with renegotiating agreements arrived at with much difficulty with the US. This is not mentioned much in the media such as WSJ and NYT which instead  focus on the tariff revenue already collected of $130 billion and its use or refunding. What is relevant is that the purpose of splitting powers beteen the executive branch and the Supreme Court and Congress is preceded to a great extent by the public's ideas about what is fair, of rights of the US to fair trade, and preventing the deindustrialization of US and Europe. Which is why the Supreme Court has tried to tread warily on issue of illegal migrants by millions entering the country, and is trying to tread warily on issue of rebuilding American industry and infrastructure using tariffs to reduce concentration in China and act to restore a fair trading system for the US and the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Venezuelan illegal immigrant lawsuit reaches US Supreme Court for birthright citizenship. What did the US Supreme Court rule? Alongside we provide the summary of the US Supreme Court landmark decision which is coming in two parts, this being just the first. Simply stated the US SC ruled that district courts can give the plaintiffs relief in their individual circumstances but do not have the authority to extend this to into a "universal injunction." Three states and a Venezuelan illegal immigrant allowed into the US under the asylum policy make the case. And each case may have individual merits but does it apply to a whole geopolitical event? Yet the sheer numbers, the scale running into millions of people, amounting to it being an invasion, a geopolitical event resulting from Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden failures to assert the Monroe Doctrine and prevent intervention by foreign, specifically European powers in the affairs of the American continent. Yet at no point in the administration of the last 9 years has this situation been anticipated or this situation been singled out as one that no asylum policy of any nation is designed to tackle. The efforts to fix things as far away as the mountains of the Hindu Kush have frittered away the important resources of the US military to maintain the Monroe Doctrine. It can be said that the basic error was not to see president Monroe's policy for what it was - an effort to prevent the French, the Spanish or some other European power to bring back colonial rule or in some ways unsettle the affairs on this continent. The US Supreme Court is aware of the surroundings of this event as it takes up the issues of immigration and efforts by foreign powers to unsettle the fabric of the Nation. ...