Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, handing a major victory to the Obama administration. The <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf" target="_blank">decision was 6-3</a>, with Chief Justice John Roberts delivering the court's majority opinion. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's liberals."Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in his opinion.The key question in the case centered on whether the federal government had the ability to provide subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance.The challengers in the case argued the way the <keyword id="6355470" type="CITY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Law">law</keyword> was written does not allow for subsidized insurance in states where the federal government had set up insurance exchanges. Instead, the challengers argued, insurance subsidies are allowed only in states that have set up their own exchanges. They pointed to a clause that they argued meant exchanges should be "established by the state," but members of Congress who were involved in writing the law disputed characterization. Thirty-four states currently rely on the federal marketplace.Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In a scathing dissent, he appeared to take a shot at Roberts."We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," Scalia wrote.If the court had invalidated that portion of the law, Obama and Congress would have had to scramble as more than 6 million people could have lost their subsidies - and potentially their coverage. It would have been left to congressional Republicans to come up with either a quick fix or to use the ruling as an opportunity to start moving away from the law known as Obamacare. But Republicans were, overall, disjointed in how they planned to fix the problem."Today Democrats, and my guess is Republicans, are breathing one gigantic sigh of relief," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York)."The Supreme Court decision ensures 6.4 million people will keep their coverage; it was legally the right decision and substantively the right outcome. Hopefully, our Republicans colleagues will now give up their quest to repeal Obamacare and move on to more productive activities for the middle class."With the decision in the Obama administration's favor, court observers and health watchers said it would cement the Affordable Care Act as a key pillar of the president's legacy."If the Court sides with the government, more people will continue to enroll and the ACA will likely ultimately be seen as a signature domestic achievement of historic proportions," Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Business Insider before the ruling was handed down."Obamacare will remain controversial and no doubt feature in the election, but it's hard to see it getting repealed outright at this point."MORE TO COME...Read the full decision below: <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-running-president-2015-6">Here are all the best moments from Donald Trump's presidential announcement</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="NudzFwdTo6LjJ5ItRE2VLJU84Dt1X3PZ" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

SUPREME COURT SAVES OBAMACARE

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The <keyword id="58853" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="US-Supreme-Court">US Supreme Court</keyword> asked lower courts on Monday to reconsider three climate change cases filed against oil and gas companies.</li><li>The request was made in the wake of the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>'s ruling on BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court sent three climate change cases filed against oil and gas companies back to lower courts on Monday.In an opinion <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1396823777288368129">shared by SCOTUS Blog</a>, the Supreme Court asked lower courts to reconsider the cases in the wake of its decision on BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.Last week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of BP and other oil and gas companies in a lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore that sought monetary damages for the cost global climate change, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-supreme-court-backs-energy-companies-over-baltimore-climate-case-2021-05-17/">Reuters reported.</a>This is a developing story. Please check back for more updates.

Supreme Court sends 3 climate change cases against oil and gas companies back to lower courts

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> ruled in favor of Facebook in a case about robocalls on Thursday. </li><li>The court ruled that Facebook's text alerts on suspicious logins do not qualify as robocalls.</li><li>The ruling could be seen as a major win for telemarketers.</li></ul>The <keyword id="58853" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="US-Supreme-Court">US Supreme Court</keyword> ruled in favor of Facebook on Thursday in a case about what counts as an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf">said in the ruling</a> that Facebook's text alerts about suspicious login attempts do not qualify as robocalls deemed illegal under that act.The ruling also shot down <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-facebook-text-message-notifications-suit-2020-7">a proposed class-action lawsuit</a> accusing the social media company of violating the law, which was originally put in place three decades ago in an attempt to curb telemarketing calls.Experts have previously warned that a ruling in favor of Facebook could be a major win for telemarketers, as billions of robocalls and robotexts already hit American cell phones every month.The lawsuit reviewed by the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-facebook-text-message-notifications-suit-2020-7">was first filed in 2015</a> in California federal court by Noah Duguid, a Montana resident who received automated text messages from Facebook without ever having an account. Duguid accused Facebook of violating the TCPA's ban on using an "automatic telephone dialing system" to send him the texts. Facebook says Duguid's phone number previously belonged to another user who the messages were meant for.A federal appeals court who reviewed the case in 2019 sided with Duguid, interpreting the robocall law to include all services that send out automated texts to non-randomized numbers - like the suspicious activity text that Duguid received and that Facebook and other companies send.Facebook appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing the automated text that Duguid received is a commonplace measure for websites to implement in 2021, often as an additional layer of security to prevent anyone from accessing a user's account and personal information.Facebook's legal argument in the case is that an automated telephone dialing system only calls numbers randomly or sequentially and that its use of a machine to call numbers doesn't count because it's calling from a list. Duguid's number was on the list because someone who previously had the number linked it to a Facebook account.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-facebook-text-message-notifications-suit-2020-7">Facebook also insisted</a> to SCOTUS that a ruling against them would put billions of dollars "at stake." Under the 1991 law, each American hit with the company's automated message could recieve up to $1,500 each.The court's decision on Thursday siding with Facebook will limit the scope of the robocall law, excluding companies like Facebook and others that send these type of automated texts.A consumer advocacy nonprofit, <a href="https://www.nclc.org/">National Consumer Law Center</a>, says Thursday's ruling could "leave cellphones used by small businesses completely unprotected from any automated live calls or texts.""Companies will use autodialers that are not covered by the Supreme Court's narrow definition to flood our cellphones with even more unwanted robocalls and automated texts," Margot Freeman Saunders, senior counsel at the consumer watchdog, said in a statement. "We call on Congress to act immediately to provide needed protection against unconsented-to automated calls and texts so that cellphones are not rendered useless due to the expected huge increase in unwanted robocalls and texts."The decision from the Supreme Court on Thursday was unanimous and authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.Walt Hickey contributed to the reporting for this story.

Supreme Court rules Facebook's automated text system doesn't count as robocalling, handing major win to people who want to spam your phone

Hello, everyone! Hope you had a good weekend. Welcome to the new edition of <keyword id="9095853" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="insider-today">Insider Today</keyword>. Please <a href="https://www.insider.com/insider-today">sign up here</a>.<h2>QUOTE OF THE DAY</h2>"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear…" — <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-rules-that-title-vii-applies-to-lgbtq-people-2020-6?_ga=2.98730589.230924880.1592217992-746452348.1587515977">Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion</a> holding that federal law protects LGBTQ workers from employment discrimination<h2>WHAT'S HAPPENING</h2><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-qualified-immunity-police-accountability-law-2020-6">The Supreme Court declined to hear cases challenging the doctrine of "qualified immunity,"</a> which protects police officers from suit even when they grossly screw up on the job. Ending qualified immunity is one of the reforms proposed by the Black Lives Matter movement.<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/killing-of-black-man-in-atlanta-puts-spotlight-anew-on-police-as-prosecutors-contemplate-charges-against-officer/2020/06/14/ad9cea20-ae60-11ea-856d-5054296735e5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_protestsatlanta-830pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&amp;itid=hp_hp-top-table-high_protestsatlanta-830pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans-ans">Atlanta's top prosecutor will decide this week whether to charge officers in the killing of Rayshard Brooks.</a> Garrett Rolfe, the officer who shot Brooks, was already fired by the police department.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mary-trump-presidents-niece-publishing-book-tax-docs-help-nyt-2020-6">Trump's niece Mary Trump was the person who leaked some of his tax returns to the New York Times. </a>She's revealing that fact, as well as other "salacious" stories about her uncle, in a book that will come out in August.<h2>BLODGET &amp; PLOTZ</h2>A <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> decision is never enough.Today, Americans should celebrate the overdue Supreme Court ruling — written by a conservative justice, no less — that civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers from employment discrimination. But tomorrow let's remember why a protest movement has claimed the streets of our cities and the attention of the world. Americans are protesting because a legal victory — even a Supreme Court victory — wins a battle but never ends a war. The Civil Rights movement achieved memorable Supreme Court triumphs and passed essential laws — including the law vindicated today for LGBTQ workers. But <keyword id="6358883" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="politics">politics</keyword>, inequality, tradition, and prejudice constantly eroded the legal conquests. The legal writs did not fix the problem, which is why George Floyd protesters are still fighting many of the same fights they did 50 years ago. — DPMore evidence that the coronavirus spreads most easily indoors with prolonged exposure and talking, singing, or heavy breathing...A new<a href="https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-2272_article"> "preprint" study </a>from Japan adds more insight into how and where the coronavirus spreads — and, therefore, where we should focus our mitigation measures. Researchers studied 3,184 cases in 61 "clusters" in Japan in which five or more people were infected. The findings increase evidence that the riskiest behavior involves prolonged exposure in crowded, confined indoor spaces with talking, singing, or heavy breathing. None of the clusters involved outdoor activities — something to remember when we see photos shaming people for going to parks. Only one of the clusters occurred on public transportation (an airplane).Nearly half of the "spreaders" were asymptomatic at the time of transmission. Also, nearly half of the spreaders were aged 20-39.The most common "venues" for cluster formation were healthcare (30%) and nursing and day-care facilities (18%). The rest included restaurants and bars (16%), workplaces (13%), music-related events like karaoke, concerts, and choruses (11%), gyms (8%), ceremonies (3%), and an airplane (2%). — HBTrump's upcoming rally seems like the perfect "super-spreader" event<div type="image" title="Trump rally" height="1000" width="2000" msid="76393838" hostid="261"></div>President Trump is diligent about protecting himself from the coronavirus: Everyone who meets with him must get tested. But when it comes to protecting normal Americans, he doesn't seem to care.Trump's planned rally in Oklahoma this weekend meets all the criteria of a "super-spreader" event. It will be held inside, for a prolonged period, with a big crowd, with lots of chanting. ("Lock her up!") And in the die-hard MAGA crowd, one imagines that there <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/masks-will-be-optional-at-trumps-oklahoma-rally-as-covid-19-spikes-2020-6">won't be much mask-wearing</a>. Trump understands the risks, which is why he's making everyone who attends the rally <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-requiring-people-to-sign-coronavirus-waiver-tulsa-rally-2020-6">sign a liability waiver</a> and promise that they won't sue him if they get sick. Unfortunately, Trump's rally will risk the health of many more people than those who attend — and none of the latter will have the chance to sign a liability waiver. Anyone exposed at the rally will then go back to their communities, potentially infecting their families, friends, colleagues, and the unsuspecting people who come into contact with them. Trump loves his rallies. But perhaps he could also consider the people he's putting at risk. — HBReopening won't fix all this… In parts of the US, you could almost pretend life was normal this weekend. But look away from the picnics and beaches and read <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/14/ripple-effects-downturn-show-pandemics-early-economic-toll-was-just-beginning/">an extraordinary Washington Post story</a> about how the pandemic has rocked the town of Whitehall, Michigan. COVID-19 devastated airline travel, which smashed airlines, which canceled orders for new planes, which whacked Boeing, which stunned parts suppliers like Howmet, the largest employer in Whitehall; which ended the jobs of 700 people in Whitehall, which slashed demand at John Dillivan's sandwich shop, which stopped him from hiring any waiters. And all of this is ravaging local tax revenues, which will shatter local government services….Now multiply this times most towns in America. And now multiply it times the world. Consider this<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/health/coronavirus-vaccines-measles.html?action=click&amp;module=Top%20Stories&amp;pgtype=HomepageHomepage"> New York Times report </a>on how the pandemic curtailed vaccine programs in the developing world, which has caused outbreaks of diphtheria, cholera, polio, and measles.But that's not all! The vaccine programs are operating again, but huge numbers of parents in Francophone Africa are opting their kids out. That's because they fear being secretly subjected to COVID-19 experiments, because French researchers were widely quoted proposing to test COVID-19 vaccines in Africa. What took decades to build — supply chains, trained workforces, vaccine delivery networks, public trust — fell apart in a moment. That's why "reopening" is such a measly, insufficient word for what needs to happen. We need to recover, rebuild, and restore, and it will take years. — DPA vendetta against the world's bravest journalist. <div type="image" title="maria ressa" height="1000" width="2000" msid="76393846" hostid="261"></div>Today's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/philippines-journalist-maria-ressa-guilty-cyber-libel-2020-6">conviction of Maria Ressa</a> on a charge of cyber libel in the Philippines is appalling news for press freedom globally.The founder of the investigative news site Rappler, Ressa has fearlessly tried to hold the Duterte government to account. For years, Duterte and his cronies have been squeezing press freedom in a country that used to have a lot of it. Convicting Ressa, who faces a prison sentence of up to six years, will help limit criticism of his authoritarian tactics and brutish drug war. Everything about this case is chilling, not least the fact that the supposed libel occurred in an article published before there even was a cyber libel law, and the government trumped up a criminal charge by saying Rappler republished the article when it corrected the misspelling of a word. This kind of warping of law to punish enemies is the hallmark of authoritarianism. — DPRead this bookJohn Dickerson's <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/604093/the-hardest-job-in-the-world-by-john-dickerson/">The Hardest Job in the World: The American Presidency</a> comes out this week, and you should read it if you want to understand what the presidency should and should not be. Dickerson (a close friend!) brilliantly explains how the presidency grew and evolved and accumulated power, how Trump has warped it, and how it can be fixed. —DPIf you're enjoying this story, <a href="https://www.insider.com/insider-today">sign up now for the Insider Today newsletter</a>, to receive more of these insights from Henry Blodget and David Plotz<h2>PHOTO OF THE DAY</h2><div type="image" title="Patrick Hutchinson rescues counterprotester london" height="983" width="1311" msid="76393850" hostid="261"></div>Black Lives Matter protester Patrick Hutchinson carries an anti-Black Lives Matter counterprotester to <a href="https://www.insider.com/powerful-image-black-man-helping-far-right-activist-london-clash-2020-6">safety after he was injured</a> during Saturday clashes in London.<h2>OTHER NEWS</h2><a href="https://cbs12.com/news/local/entire-swat-team-at-hallandale-beach-police-dept-resigns">Another SWAT team resigned</a>. The ten members of the Hallandale Beach, Florida, SWAT team resigned because they were criticized by the 22-year-old vice mayor of the town, who took part in BLM protests. This follows the resignation of all 57 members Buffalo's Emergency Response team after two of them were punished for assaulting a peaceful protester. This seems like a great opportunity for an experiment! It's not clear why a town of 37,000 people needs a 10-person militarized police unit. Hallandale should see what happens when it no longer has a SWAT team: Is the town safer or more dangerous? Is there more crime or less? — DP<h2>BUSINESS &amp; ECONOMY</h2><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/weekly-boost-unemployment-benefits-late-july-expire-kudlow-trump-2020-6">The $600 per week unemployment boost will end in late July. </a>Top Trump economic official Larry Kudlow told CNN it should stop because "the jobs are coming back and we don't want to interfere with that process." The administration may propose replacing it with a hiring bonus.<h2>LIFE</h2><div type="image" title="dining out eating at restaurant pandemic coronavirus mask waiter cocktails" height="1250" width="2500" msid="76393855" hostid="261"></div><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-eat-at-a-restaurant-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-6">What it's like to eat at a socially distanced restaurant. </a>Insider's Irene Jiang went out for dinner in Seattle and lots of hand sanitizer, a shorter menu, and 25% capacity. <h2>THE BIG 3*</h2><div type="image" title="melania ivanka trump" height="512" width="1024" msid="76393858" hostid="261"></div><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-white-house-power-grab-blocked-melania-trump-book-2020-6">Melania Trump blocked Ivanka from renaming the First Lady's Office the "First Family Office."</a> That's according to a new book about the First Lady. <a href="https://www.insider.com/atlanta-police-footage-show-moments-officer-shot-dead-black-man-2020-6">Atlanta police release the body cam footage showing the struggle before Rayshard Brooks' killing. </a><a href="https://www.insider.com/shocking-age-gaps-between-actors-in-famous-movies">The shocking age gaps between actors in famous movies. </a>Those two above from Love Actually are only five years apart. Also Colin Firth played the love interest of Emma Stone, 28 years his junior. *The most popular stories on Insider today.

The Supreme Court's LGBTQ ruling is marvelous, and not enough

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday declined to entertain a plea by e-commerce giants <keyword id="18635" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon">Amazon</keyword> and <keyword id="6354742" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Flipkart">Flipkart</keyword>, saying they must face inquiry by Competition Commission of India (CCI) for anti-competitive practices. A bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="2797471" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="N-V-Ramana">N.V. Ramana</keyword> and comprising justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant said: "Big organizations like you ( Flipkart and Amazon) should volunteer for inquiry... Inquiry has to be conducted." The bench declined to interfere with the orders of the <keyword id="6371973" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</keyword>, which refused to interfere with the preliminary enquiry ordered by the CCI into their alleged anti-competitive practices. The top court emphasized that the CCI inquiry must go on. However, the court accepted the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for extending the time for the companies to reply to CCI. The e-commerce companies had moved the apex court challenging the Karnataka High Court order. The bench said it sees no reason to interfere in the high court order, and seeing that time granted is expiring on 9 August, "we extend it by 4 weeks". On July 23, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the plea by Amazon and Flipkart against a probe initiated by CCI for the alleged violation of competition law. A division bench comprising justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Natraj Rangaswamy passed the order on a batch of appeals moved by the e-commerce companies challenging a June 11 order passed by a single judge of the high court. The bench noted that by no stretch of imagination the inquiry can be quashed at this stage and the appellants shouldn't be afraid of investigation by CCI. The bench said: "In the considered opinion of the court, appeals filed by appellants are devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed..." Amazon had moved Karnataka High Court against a CCI order which had called for a director general (DG) level investigation into allegations of anti-competitive conduct in the online sale of smartphones on its platform. The Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM), the informant before the CCI, had alleged predatory pricing, deep discounting, preferential seller listing, and exclusive partnerships, among others, against Amazon and Flipkart. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/amazon-great-freedom-festival-get-last-day-deals-and-discounts/articleshow/85173017.cms">Amazon Great Freedom Festival 2021: Best last day tech deals and offers</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/gadgets/news/vivo-launched-its-y53s-with-64mp-rear-camera-in-india-on-monday/articleshow/85173234.cms">Vivo launched its Y53s with 64MP rear camera in India on Monday</a>

Supreme Court asks Amazon, Flipkart to volunteer for CCI probe

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The reputation of the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> is sinking.</li><li>After decisions like the Texas abortion case, the impartiality of the Court is in doubt.</li><li>The hyper-partisanship both at and around the Court is to blame.</li><li>Michael Gordon is a longtime Democratic strategist, a former spokesman for the Justice Department, and the principal for the strategic-communications firm Group Gordon.</li><li>This is an <keyword id="11905565" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="opinion" source="Orion">opinion</keyword> column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.</li></ul>Supreme Court Justice <keyword id="11922324" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="amy-coney-barrett" source="Orion">Amy Coney Barrett</keyword> admitted that the Supreme Court is crumbling as an institution. Earlier this month, the newest justice <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/12/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-511603">gave a speech lamenting</a> how the Court is viewed as partisan and warning that her fellow justices must be "hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decisions." She must know something we don't.These remarks may seem like a surprise. After all, Barrett was confirmed to the Court in a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amy-coney-barrett-set-be-confirmed-supreme-court-monday-n1244748">hyper-partisan process</a> and gave the aforementioned speech at an event celebrating Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the architect of the judicial system's rightward turn. Despite the hypocrisy, or perhaps because of it, the comments struck a chord. In an age of Republicans challenging legitimate election results because they lose or <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/larry-elder-predicts-recall-election-defeat-voter-fraud-before-starts-1628783">might lose</a>, the credibility of the Court is the next hammer to fall in our democracy, the last bastion of hope for nonpartisan decision making. But now the Court <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-approval-all-time-low-abortion-37-quinnipiac-poll-2021-9">is rightfully losing public support</a> as the veneer of impartiality slips, and the hyper-partisanship both at and around the Court is to blame. <h2>Partisan justice</h2>Even as recently as a few years ago, the Supreme Court wasn't as partisan as it is now. Support certainly started eroding when McConnell and Senate Republicans <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now">refused to seat</a> President Obama's final nominee, current Attorney General Merrick Garland. But there have been recent decisions that were, for lack of a better term, bipartisan. Justice Gorsuch <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/7/10/21318796/supreme-court-mcgirt-oklahoma-native-american-neil-gorsuch">joined four liberal justices to support Native American land claims</a> in Oklahoma.<a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-again-leaves-affordable-care-act-in-place/"> In a 7-2 opinion</a>, the Supreme Court kept the Affordable Care Act intact. As recently as a few months ago, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts helped <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/6/30/22556498/supreme-court-alabama-association-realtors-hhs-brett-kavanaugh-eviction-moratorium-housing-covid">keep the eviction moratorium in place</a> in a 5-4 ruling (though this was overturned a few months later in a separate case). Roberts, the Chief Justice who many believe <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/roberts-will-struggle-to-hold-center-as-courts-makeup-shifts">is trying to keep the court as nonpartisan as possible</a>, has often found himself siding with the liberal justices. But, on issues important to many Americans, this facade of bipartisanship seems to be disappearing. First, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/eviction-moratorium-ends.html">threw out the eviction moratorium</a> they had so recently upheld, throwing millions of struggling Americans into uncertainty. Then the death knell came a few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court blatantly signaled a willingness to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/01/politics/roe-v-wade-future-supreme-court/index.html">overturn Roe vs. Wade</a> by allowing a strict Texas anti-abortion law to go into effect. Though Roberts voted with the liberals in this decision, the other Republican-appointed justices essentially overturned nearly 50 years of legal precedent. Given the 6-3 Republican majority, it's safe to assume we will see more decisions like this in the coming years. Though Roberts can play nonpartisan as much as he wants, the conservatives have a five-justice majority even without him and can rule on cases as they wish. <h2>Votes, not words</h2>The Republican strategy over many decades to focus on the court has paid off. They have turned to the court to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court">legitimize gerrymandering</a> and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/998758022/the-supreme-court-upheld-upholds-arizona-measures-that-restrict-voting">gut the Voting Rights Act</a>, and justices like Barrett and Roberts have supported them. Both of those justices are right to worry about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. They just need to realize they're part of the problem of the legitimacy crisis. Democrats have proposed many solutions to this problem, from <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132">expanding the court</a> to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/09/03/democrats-introduce-bill-creating-18-year-supreme-court-term-limits-nominations-every-two-years/">adding term limits</a>. But with those ideas stalled, once unthinkable national changes emanating from the Court are very much in play. The Texas abortion decision is just the beginning. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/us/politics/mississippi-abortion-supreme-court.html">Roe could be overturned in full later this year.</a> Even if Democrats passed many of the landmark bills they are currently debating, there is nothing stopping the conservative court from simply striking them down, declaring them "unconstitutional" under the pretenses of their choice. Maybe Barrett will join Roberts in making a real effort to strike a more bipartisan tone. If she's truly worried about the perception of the Court and how some of her colleagues consider matters, she has the opportunity to do something about it. But she needs to follow Roberts with her actions and join him in crossing party lines.It's her votes, not her words, that count. I'm not holding my breath.

We're watching the implosion of the Supreme Court in real time

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Justice Thomas has been released from the hospital, the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> said.</li><li>Thomas was hospitalized last week with "flu-like symptoms" that were not related to COVID-19.</li></ul>Justice Thomas <keyword id="12074000" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="clarence-thomas" source="Orion">Clarence Thomas</keyword> was discharged from the hospital, the Supreme Court announced on Friday.The court's brief statement only announced that Thomas was discharged after being hospitalized last Friday <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-hospitalized-2022-3">with "flu-like" symptoms.</a>Thomas, 73, is currently the longest-serving justice on the nation's highest court. He missed oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this week. The court has said that Thomas did not contract COVID-19. Like the other justices, he is fully vaccinated and has received a booster shot.Outside of his health, Thomas has been in the news due to his wife Virginia Thomas' role in pressuring senior White House officials to find a way to keep Trump in office. The Washington Post and CBS broke a blockbuster report Thursday that Thomas, who goes by Ginni, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/january-6-committee-texts-between-mark-meadows-ginni-thomas-reports-2022-3">frequently texted with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.</a>"Do not concede. It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back," she wrote to Meadows, on Nov. 6, when news organizations began calling the race for President Joe Biden.Thomas has not recused himself from any cases related to the January 6 insurrection. <keyword id="13232449" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ginni-thomas" source="Orion">Ginni Thomas</keyword> has said she was at the January 6 rally but went home before the riot broke out.

Justice Clarence Thomas is out of the hospital, Supreme Court announces

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A man died after setting himself on fire on the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> steps on Friday, police said.</li><li>Officials said the man was airlifted to a hospital, where he died the following day.</li></ul>A man who set himself on fire on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Friday has died, authorities said."At approximately 6:30 p.m., an individual went on to the plaza in front of the Supreme Court building and set themselves on fire. Supreme Court Police, U.S. Capitol Police, and MPD responded to the incident," a public information officer for the Supreme Court said in a statement Friday, according to <a href="https://twitter.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1517651757807116294?s=20&amp;t=0betinFhWUutsWT-u5I6nA">NewsNation's Kellie Meyer</a>.The man was airlifted by helicopter to a hospital, where he died of his injuries on Saturday, the DC Metropolitan Police Department told <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/23/politics/supreme-court-man-dies-fire/index.html">CNN</a>.He was identified as Wynn Bruce of Boulder, Colorado, MPD said.MPD and a Supreme Court representative did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.The Supreme Court is housed in the Supreme Court Building, also known as "The Marble Palace," which is located just east of the US Capitol grounds.<a href="https://twitter.com/CapitolPolice/status/1517634789188292608?s=20&amp;t=mcSUvD64AsuT7XDHi4DVKg">Capitol Police</a> confirmed on Friday a helicopter landed near the Capitol for a medical emergency but said it was "not a public safety issue."

A man who set himself on fire on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, has died

<keyword id="7160701" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-year-2018">The year 2018</keyword> saw the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> pass some pivotal judgements that have borne in favour of equality. Under the umbrella of Justice Dipak Misra, the judgements have sparked debate, joy and also anger. The Supreme Court verdict on decriminalising homosexuality allowing the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple in the year 2018, while appreciated, were also judgements that were widely debated. The controversy surrounding the Aadhaar Act was also put to rest with Sections 33(2), 47 and 57 being struck down. The primary concern of citizens was abated with private entities no longer being allowed to demand Aadhaar data and the national security exception being revoked. Here are the some of the major verdicts passed down by the <keyword id="7160700" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-in-the-year-2018">Supreme Court in the year 2018</keyword>:

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

<ul><li>The apex court said that status of those who have already taken benefits of the 2018 law shall not be disturbed.</li><li>The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 was enacted to grant reservation to people of Maratha community in Maharashtra in jobs and admissions. </li></ul> The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> Wednesday stayed the implementation of 2018 Maharashtra law granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs but made it clear that the status of those who have availed of the benefits will not be disturbed. A three-judge bench headed by Justice L N Rao referred to a larger constitution bench, to be set up by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, the batch of pleas questioning the validity of the law granting reservation to Marathas in education and jobs. The apex court said that status of those who have already taken benefits of the 2018 law shall not be disturbed. The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 was enacted to grant reservation to people of Maratha community in Maharashtra in jobs and admissions. The Bombay High Court, while upholding the law in June last year, had held that 16 per cent reservation was not justifiable and said that quota should not exceed 12 per cent in employment and 13 per cent in admissions. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/why-the-latest-surge-in-covid-19-infections-in-india-may-cause-more-deaths/articleshow/78011731.cms">What India’s rising COVID-19 infections don’t⁠ reveal — the lack of health infrastructure in remote areas</a>

Supreme Court stays Maratha reservation in UG admissions and government jobs in Maharashtra

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Psaki reiterated Biden's pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword>.</li><li>Justice <keyword id="11964180" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="stephen-breyer" source="Orion">Stephen Breyer</keyword> is retiring from the Supreme Court, according to multiple <keyword id="11893589" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="news" source="Orion">news</keyword> outlets.</li></ul><keyword id="11896084" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="white-house" source="Orion">White House</keyword> press secretary <keyword id="11910489" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="jen-psaki" source="Orion">Jen Psaki</keyword> on Wednesday declined to expand <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-retiring-2021-6">on the news of Justice Stephen Breyer's retirement</a> but reiterated President <keyword id="99719" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="joe-biden" source="Orion">Joe Biden</keyword>'s promise to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court."It's always been the decision of any Supreme Court justice, if and when they decide to retire, how they want to announce it, and that remains the case today," Psaki said at the start of her daily press briefing. "So we're not going to have additional details."But reporters pressed her on the topic."So let's say hypothetically, a Supreme Court justice was to retire and announce it on his or her own terms, does President Biden plan to honor his pledge to nominate a Black woman to the court?" Associated Press reporter Josh Boak asked.Biden has been committed to nominating a Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court and "certainly stands by that," Psaki replied."For today, again, I'm just not going to be able to say anything about any specifics until of course Justice Breyer makes any announcement, should he decide to make an announcement," she added.Hours before the briefing, multiple news outlets <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-retiring-2021-6">reported</a> that Breyer, 83, is set to step down from the bench at the end of the current Supreme Court term this summer. Breyer and the White House are reportedly expected to make a formal announcement as early as Thursday.Breyer, who was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, is the oldest justice and the most senior of the court's three-member liberal wing. His retirement clears the way for Biden to appoint a replacement while the Senate is still under Democratic control. Progressive groups had urged Breyer to step down before the 2022 midterm elections as Republicans could win back control of the Senate and potentially block a future Biden Supreme Court nominee.On the 2020 campaign trail, Biden vowed to nominate the first Black woman to the nation's highest court. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-supreme-court-shortlist-names-first-black-woman-2022-1">Possible contenders for the spot</a> include DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California state Supreme Court justice Leondra Kruger, and South Carolina federal district judge J. Michelle Childs. Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday swiftly reacted to the news of Breyer's retirement and said the Senate will act quickly to confirm a Biden nominee to the Supreme Court."President Biden's Supreme Court nominee will receive a prompt hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and be considered and confirmed by the full United States Senate with all deliberate speed," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-schumer-scotus-nominee-will-be-confirmed-with-all-deliberate-speed-2022-1">said in a statement.</a>

Psaki says Biden stands by his pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Chief Justice <keyword id="12074001" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="john-roberts" source="Orion">John Roberts</keyword> has ordered an internal investigation into the leak of a draft opinion that would gut Roe v. Wade.</li><li>Roberts has long warned <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> clerks and staff not to divulge details of deliberations.</li></ul>At the beginning of a Supreme Court term, Chief Justice John Roberts is known to sprinkle an admonition into an otherwise warm welcome to the latest class of generally young, frequently Ivy League-educated clerks.Leak information about the high court's inner workings, he warns, and prepare to face career consequences. His message, recounted to Insider by past clerks and others familiar with the Supreme Court, is meant to underscore the need to prevent any leak that could spur insider trading or breach the customary confidentiality around the justices' deliberations.Now, Roberts' nightmare scenario is playing out in perhaps the most consequential Supreme Court case in decades.Late Monday, Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> a <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000" target="_blank" rel="noopener">draft 98-page opinion</a> in which a majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that has guaranteed the federal right to an abortion for nearly a half-century.According to Politico, Justice <keyword id="12073999" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="samuel-alito" source="Orion">Samuel Alito</keyword> wrote in the draft opinion that "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start" and that it must be "overruled" along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe and established that states cannot impose an "undue burden" on abortion rights.If the decision holds, it would have seismic consequences for the future of abortion rights in the US while exacerbating existing racial and socioeconomic inequities as it relates to abortion access.But legal experts were also stunned by the leak itself, with one calling it "highly disturbing" and an <a href="https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672?s=20&amp;t=H3tDJ7_2aFriX6URa2k1Nw">almost unprecedented</a> breach of Supreme Court protocol.Politico described the source of the draft opinion as a person familiar with the legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, leaving unclear whether it was a clerk, a justice, or anyone affiliated with the Supreme Court. And so the leak immediately gave rise to a game of whodunit among conservatives and the right-wing media, many of whom suggested the source of the draft had violated the law. But experts said it was difficult to identify any criminal violation.On Tuesday, the chief justice joined in on the effort to investigate the source of the leak. Calling it a "betrayal of the confidences of the court," Roberts ordered the marshal of the Supreme Court to launch an investigation into the matter. In doing so, Roberts has essentially ordered an administrative inquiry akin to an internal investigation at a company, legal experts said."The fact that the marshal is doing it suggests they are treating it like an ethical and employment issue," said David Lat, the author of the Original Jurisdiction newsletter and a close Supreme Court observer.Roberts' introduction to the Supreme Court came at a point when concerns about leaks were reaching a fever pitch. In 1979, a year before he began clerking for the late Justice William Rehnquist, journalists Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong published "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court," a "behind the scenes" account of Warren Burger's early years as chief justice.The book reportedly infuriated justices by detailing the deliberations that led to some of the Supreme Court's most controversial decisions in the 1970s.At the high court, justices, clerks, and staff view the confidentiality of deliberations as key to preserving open lines of argument and collaboration in reviewing cases. That culture "facilitates a kind of lawyerly work and dialogue that is hugely productive," a former clerk told Insider. But it isn't possible if people are "looking over their shoulders," they added.As chief justice, Roberts is the face of the Supreme Court, and "it is viewed as his job to protect the integrity of the court as an institution," Lat said. "And this leak strikes a blow right to the heart of that."But Roberts is not alone in cautioning against leaks. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, for instance, also warned new clerks on their first day about leaking."If I ever discover that you have betrayed the confidences of what goes on in these chambers, I will do everything in my power to ruin your career," Scalia would say, <a href="https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1004938541825187840?s=20&amp;t=2qVoxiplNLf4GbwOgprjzg">according to a former clerk</a>.In 2012, Roberts himself became the subject of a rare report on the Supreme Court's internal deliberations. CBS reported in July of that year that he had initially sided with the court's four conservative justices to strike down then-President Barack Obama's signature health care law, the Affordable Care Act, but <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/">later changed his position</a> and voted with the four Democratic-appointed justices.But that leak paled in comparison to the release of an entire draft opinion, former clerks and others familiar with the Supreme Court told Insider."The court can't operate if that happens. This is a major, major leak," a former Supreme Court clerk said. "It's hard to imagine a bigger leak."In his statement Tuesday, Roberts said the Supreme Court's work would "not be affected" by the leak. He also called it a "singular and egregious breach of the trust that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here."For some, the mere fact that the Supreme Court issued a statement reflected how seriously it is taking the leak. Oftentimes, Lat said, the court prefers to "just keep plugging ahead and pretend unfortunate things did not happen." "I think this situation right now," he added, "is Chief Justice Roberts' worst nightmare."

You Searched For "supreme court" and got 12 results

SUPREME COURT SAVES OBAMACARE

Brett LoGiurato

Supreme Court sends 3 climate change cases against oil and gas companies back to lower courts

Kelly McLaughlin

Supreme Court rules Facebook's automated text system doesn't count as robocalling, handing major win to people who want to spam your phone

Kelly McLaughlin,Walt Hickey

The Supreme Court's LGBTQ ruling is marvelous, and not enough

David Plotz,Henry Blodget

Supreme Court asks Amazon, Flipkart to volunteer for CCI probe

IANS

We're watching the implosion of the Supreme Court in real time

Michael Gordon

Justice Clarence Thomas is out of the hospital, Supreme Court announces

Brent D. Griffiths

A man who set himself on fire on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, has died

Kelsey Vlamis,Erin Snodgrass

10 landmark judgements India’s Supreme Court passed in 2018

Prabhjote Gill

Supreme Court stays Maratha reservation in UG admissions and government jobs in Maharashtra

PTI

Psaki says Biden stands by his pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court

Oma Seddiq

John Roberts' worst 'nightmare' is playing out as the Supreme Court stands poised to gut abortion rights in the US

C. Ryan Barber,Sonam Sheth

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides