Confirming Kavanaugh would be a disaster for workers and people in poverty

  By now, most of Supreme Court Justice Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s decisions and speeches have been pored over by both advocates and reporters. But comparatively little attention has been paid to a posture that has defined Kavanaugh’s legal career: a consistent willingness to side with the rich and the powerful over the most vulnerable members of society.

  While retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy generally has a pro-business voting record, he has often broken with the conservative wing of the Court on civil rights cases and issues of environmental law. At times, this led Kennedy to rule in favor of civil rights and against powerful interests.

Gene Policinski: Why protect speech we don’t want to hear? We need to hear it

  We periodically test and retest the limits of free speech — in effect, revisiting the legal and societal implications of that old childhood refrain, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

  Recently, free speech has been winning…even when it hurts, as surely it sometimes does.

  Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court said a Seattle rock band called “The Slants” had a right to register its name over the objections of the Patent and Trademark Office.

Supreme Court rules that trademark laws can’t discriminate based on viewpoint

  The most fundamental of all free-speech principles took center stage earlier this week when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled 8-0 in Matal v. Tam that a federal trademark law prohibiting disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. The fundamental principle is that the government should not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

  This principle trumped another concept in free-speech law – the government speech doctrine. Under this doctrine, the government has its own free-speech interests and can further its own viewpoints without having to support other viewpoints.

Charles C. Haynes: After gay marriage, can we move from battleground to common ground?

  In recent years, religious freedom — or, more precisely, religious freedom claims — have been front and center in the battle over same-sex marriage.

  From bitter debates in Arizona and Indiana to the grand compromise in Utah, proponents and opponents have shouted past one another about if and when to grant exemptions for conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage.

  The Supreme Court’s decision on June 26 in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing gay marriage as a constitutional right will not end this debate. But it might, just might, move people of goodwill on both sides from battleground to common ground on how best to balance competing visions of equality and liberty.

Charles C. Haynes: From the Supreme Court, prayer rules that won’t work

  Mixing prayer and state has always been a messy, contentious business – but earlier this month it got even messier and more contentious.

  In a close 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of prayers at legislative meetings, even when most prayers are prayed in the name of Jesus (Town of Greece v. Galloway).

  Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy reaffirmed the argument-from-history made by the Court 30 years ago in Marsh v. Chambers: Because legislative prayer dates back to the founding, it must be constitutional.

Marshall Yates: President Obama's politically selective Constitution

  Inside the Oval Office, President Obama is playing political games with the rule of law in America. While the Supreme Court has declared itself the final arbiter of the Constitution, the Constitution itself requires each branch of our federal government to act in accordance with our nation's highest document. However, President Obama has tried to have his constitutional cake and eat it too.