A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total amount donors can give to federal candidates and parties, dealing a fresh blow to efforts to curb the role of money in American politics.
Lillian McEwen Breaks Her 19-year Silence About Justice Clarence Thomas By Michael A. Fletcher Oct. 22 (Washington Post) -- For nearly two decades, Lillian McEwen has been silent -- a part of history, yet absent from it. When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his explosive 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Thomas vehemently denied the allegations and his handlers cited his steady relationship with another woman in an effort to deflect Hill's allegations. Lillian McEwen was that woman. At the time, she was on good terms with Thomas. The former assistant U.S. attorney and Senate Judiciary Committee counsel had dated him for years, even attending a March 1985 White House state dinner as his guest. She had worked on the Hill and was wary of entering the political cauldron of the hearings. She was never asked to testify, as then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who headed the committee, limited witnesses to women who had a
Victims of R. Allen Stanford’s $7 billion Ponzi scheme can sue outside companies and law firms alleged to have played a role in the fraud, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, dealing a setback to the securities industry.
Criminal defendants whose assets are frozen before trial aren’t entitled to a hearing at which they can challenge a grand jury’s finding that they probably committed a crime, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled.
“Originalism” is an influential theory of constitutional interpretation. In the 1960s, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a prominent liberal, marched proudly under the originalist banner. In the modern era, originalism is championed by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the court’s most conservative members.
If the regulation is found "content-neutral" and narrowly tailored to protect the exercise of the constitutional right to abortion, it will survive. If not, an increasingly pro-free-speech court may strike it down.