<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - U.S. Supreme Court - Most Recent Stories: News (Independent)</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 00:41:07 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://www.newstrust.net/topics/us_supreme_court/most_recent/news/independent</link>
    <description>NewsTrust helps people find good journalism online. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. Our social news network features top-rated stories from hundreds of mainstream and independent sources. Find out more at http://www.newstrust.net/</description>
    <item>
      <title>Judicial Activists in the Supreme Court</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8637898/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8637898/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;nationofchange.org - By E. J. Dionne Jr. - Mar. 29 (News Analysis) - Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8637898?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.2 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8637898?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8637898/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Health Care Case Reaches Supreme Court: The Constitutional Challenge (VIDEO)</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8622238/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8622238/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/huffington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Mike Sacks - Mar. 20 (News Report) - On Tuesday next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's &quot;individual mandate,&quot; which requires virtually all Americans to purchase minimum health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty. The individual mandate is undoubtedly the most controversial and unpopular aspect of President Barack Obama's health care reform.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8622238?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Not rated yet&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8622238?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Info&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8622238/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Players guide 2012 campaign</title>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8595359/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8595359/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/factcheck?ref=rss&quot;&gt;FactCheck&lt;/a&gt; - By Brooks Jackson, team - Mar. 04 (Fact Check) - The 2012 campaign cycle marks the first presidential election since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that allowed corporations and unions to spend more freely in federal elections. The loosened campaign finance rules, coupled with an intense competition between the two major parties, have served only to embolden independent political groups that hope to influence the 2012 races. Below is a list of most major groups that have been active or expect to be active in the 2012 federal elections. Many of these groups can accept unlimited donations. Others can accept unlimited donations and avoid disclosing their donors. There&#8217;s even a new breed of so-called independent groups that advocate solely for a single presidential candidate.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8595359?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8595359?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8595359/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Democrats</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Election Reform</category>
      <category>Lobbying</category>
      <category>Media and Politics</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Elections</category>
      <category>Money</category>
      <category>Campaign Finance</category>
      <category>Independent</category>
      <category>Presidential Election 2012</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Super PACs Overtaking Campaign Fundraising</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8575384/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8575384/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/huffington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Jack Gillum - Feb. 21 (News Analysis) - An unmistakable dynamic is playing out in the money game among Republican presidential candidates: New &quot;super&quot; political action committees are growing more powerful than the campaigns they support. For two of the GOP front-runners, their su&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8575384?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Not rated yet&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8575384?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Info&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8575384/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Mitt Romney</category>
      <category>Newt Gingrich</category>
      <category>Rick Santorum</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Occupy New Hampshire Member on His Exchange With Mitt Romney Over Support for Corporate Personhood</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8504289/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8504289/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/democracy_now?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Democracy Now&lt;/a&gt; - By Amy Goodman - Jan. 06 (News Report) - Occupy New Hampshire activist Mark Provost made national headlines Wednesday when he attended a town hall meeting hosted by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and asked about his past comment that &quot;corporations are people.&quot; Provost's question to Romney came Occupy New Hampshire is preparing for a series of events leading up to the state&#8217;s Republican primary to highlight the disproportionate impact corporations and wealthy donors have on the political process. We play an excerpt of the town-hall exchange and get Provost's response to Romney reply. &quot;I think his response, really, again is this denial that there's this class in the country, and that there are some people within the corporation &#8212; specifically, the workers &#8212; that are taking it on the chin so that the United States' executive management can make massive bonuses and serve their shareholders rather well too, because the profits largely go to capital gains and dividends.&quot; [Rush transcript to come. Check back soon.]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8504289?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8504289?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8504289/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Poverty</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Corporate Governance</category>
      <category>Wealth</category>
      <category>Presidential Election 2012</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Citizens United Backlash Grows From Cali. to NYC Urging Congress to Overturn Corporate Personhood</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8499990/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8499990/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/democracy_now?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Democracy Now&lt;/a&gt; - By Amy Goodman - Jan. 05 (News Report) - Adding to a growing nationwide backlash against the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, California lawmakers have introduced a resolution that calls on Congress to &quot;propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.&quot; The New York City Council has just passed a similar resolution, echoing measures passed in Los Angeles, Oakland, Albany and Boulder. We speak to Public Citizen President Robert Weissman; California Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski, who introduced the state's Citizens United resolution; and New York City Councilmember and measure co-sponsor Melissa Mark-Viverito. &quot;I think it taps into the sentiment we're seeing around the country regarding Occupy Wall Street, where people really feel that government is disconnected from the vast majority of the population... because of [corporate] influence,&quot; Mark-Viverito says. [Rush transcript to come. Check back soon.]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8499990?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8499990?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8499990/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Chief Justice Roberts' Defense Doesn't Persuade Court Critics</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498986/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498986/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/huffington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Mike Sacks - Jan. 05 (News Report) - Chief Justice John Roberts used his annual year-end report to defend his colleagues' integrity, but that defense did not move prominent critics clamoring for the justices to abide by the same ethical rules as other federal judges do.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498986?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.2 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498986?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498986/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Super PAC Disclosure Requirements Hot Topic Of Conversation Among GOP Candidates</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498985/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498985/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/huffington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Sam Stein - Jan. 05 (News Report) - The rapid rise and far-reaching impact of super PACs -- the well-financed non-party groups that helped carry former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to victory in the Iowa caucuses -- have persuaded some prominent Republicans that restrictions of some sort on the groups' activities may be in order.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498985?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498985?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8498985/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Elections</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Newt Gingrich's Campaign Resurgence Funded by Secretive Coterie of Super PACs, Wealthy Backers</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8480353/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8480353/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/democracy_now?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Democracy Now&lt;/a&gt; - By Amy Goodman - Dec. 23 (News Report) - the Center for Public Integrity has published new details on how Gingrich has the backing of two so-called super PACs that raise unlimited donations, but legally must operate independently of the campaign. We speak with Peter Stone, a reporter with Center for Public Integrity who has covered lobbying and campaign finance issues for the past two decades, and McClatchy investigative reporter Greg Gordon.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8480353?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.2 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8480353?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8480353/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
      <category>Wealth</category>
      <category>Presidential Election 2012</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sanders Files &quot;Saving American Democracy Amendment'</title>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8460758/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8460758/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/op_ed_news?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Op Ed News&lt;/a&gt; - Dec. 11 (News) - The first constitutional amendment ever proposed by Sanders during his two decades in Congress would reverse the narrow 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission. In that controversial decision almost two years ago, justices gave corporations the same First Amendment free-speech rights as people.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8460758?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8460758?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8460758/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Elections</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Real History of 'Corporate Personhood': Meet the Man to Blame for Corporations Having More Rights Than You |</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8457262/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8457262/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/alternet?ref=rss&quot;&gt;AlterNet&lt;/a&gt; - By Jeffrey Clement - Dec. 08 (Special Report) - In 1971, Lewis Powell, a mild-mannered, courtly, and shrewd corporate lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, soon to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court, wrote a memorandum to his client, the United States Chamber of Commerce. He outlined a critique and a plan that changed America.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8457262?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8457262?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8457262/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Corporate Governance</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Scalia and Thomas Dine With Healthcare Law Challengers</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8414353/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8414353/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;readersupportednews.org - By James Oliphant - Nov. 15 (News Report) - The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama's healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.' James Oliphant, Los Angeles Times&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8414353?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.3 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8414353?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8414353/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Corporate Governance</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>&quot;Corporations Are Not People&quot;: Activists Push Amendment to Revoke &quot;Corporate Personhood&quot;</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8404365/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8404365/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/democracy_now?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Democracy Now&lt;/a&gt; - By Amy Goodman - Nov. 09 (News Report) - After an Election Day that saw a number of wins for progressive causes nationwide, activists opposed to &quot;corporate personhood&quot; &#8212; the notion that corporations have equal rights to individuals &#8212; are pushing ahead with a campaign to add a twenty-eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would reject the idea that corporations are people and reverse the 2010 landmark case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, the Court ruled corporations have First Amendment rights and that the government cannot impose restrictions on their political speech &#8212; clearing the way for corporations and other special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. We speak to John Bonifaz, a constitutional attorney and co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. [Rush transcript to come. Please check back soon.]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8404365?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8404365?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8404365/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Human Rights</category>
      <category>Civil Liberties</category>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Corporate Governance</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Justices Rely On 'Standing' To Dismiss Church-State Disputes</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6846229/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6846229/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/huffington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Adelle M. Banks - Jun. 30 (News Analysis) - As the U.S. Supreme Court ends its 2010-2011 term this week, legal scholars say a decision issued two months ago is likely to resonate within church-state debates for years to come.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6846229?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6846229?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6846229/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Church and State</category>
      <category>Arizona</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court OK With Violent Video Games; Porn Still Illegal (for Minors)</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6835200/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6835200/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/alternet?ref=rss&quot;&gt;AlterNet&lt;/a&gt; - By Sarah Jaffe - Jun. 29 (News Analysis) - Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association isn't just about video games. Within the decision, concurring opinion, and two dissents lie a host of issues, from whether pornography is really worse than depictions of violence to whether minors have any free speech rights at all (Clarence Thomas says, essentially, no). There's a discussion of whether the inherent interactive nature of games makes them different from previous media, and an acknowledgement that every medium before has produced a similar panic.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6835200?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6835200?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6835200/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>War</category>
      <category>Civil Liberties</category>
      <category>U.S. Military</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Violence</category>
      <category>Sex</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court's Latest Sabotage of Democratic Process -- Are Only Wealthy Corporations Supposed to Have a Say in Our Government?</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6823118/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6823118/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/alternet?ref=rss&quot;&gt;AlterNet&lt;/a&gt; - By Steven Rosenfeld - Jun. 28 (News Analysis) - The idea behind public financing was to create a new way for ordinary people to run for office without spending two-thirds of their day on the phone begging for money from the small slice of Americans who donate to campaigns; and, if elected, to ensure that the candidate would not be unduly beholden or obligated to their donors&#185; priorities. In other words, public financing lessened the prospect for corruption and heightened the possibility elected officials might better-represent average Americans.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6823118?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6823118?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6823118/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Elections</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Restricting Choice</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596072/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596072/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;AU.org - By Sandhya Bathija - Jun. 09 (News Report) - In March, Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a measure that requires women to consult with a &#8220;crisis pregnancy center&#8221; (CPC) and wait at least 72 hours before going forward with a pregnancy termination.

According to Sedor and other reproductive justice and civil liberties groups, the law is the equivalent of an all-out state abortion ban. Already, access to the procedure was extremely limited within the state, she said.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596072?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.4 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596072?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596072/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Religion and Politics</category>
      <category>Abortion</category>
      <category>Church and State</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>More Than A Minor Hero</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596073/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596073/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;AU.org - By Rob Boston - Jun. 09 (Special Report) - Torcaso persisted, taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fifty years ago this month, his tenacity paid off when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Torcaso&#8217;s favor.

The decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, handed down on June 19, 1961, is short &#8211; it&#8217;s only 12 paragraphs &#8211; but Justice Hugo Black&#8217;s language is a ringing reaffirmation of religious liberty and church-state separation.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596073?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596073?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6596073/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Religion and Politics</category>
      <category>Church and State</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Denied</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6174941/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6174941/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;AU.org - By Sandhya Bathija - May. 06 (News Report) - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an opinion that will make it a lot easier for the government to subsidize religion.

The justices, in a 5-4 decision on April 4, ruled that taxpayers have no inherent right to go to court to challenge tax credits that support religious schools.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6174941?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6174941?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6174941/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Religion and Politics</category>
      <category>Church and State</category>
      <category>Tea Party</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Koch Brothers Caught Telling 50,000 Employees How to Vote</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6004781/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6004781/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;readersupportednews.org - Apr. 21 (News Report) - The Nation magazine has revealed that Koch Industries sent a letter to most of its 50,000 employees on the eve of the November elections, advising them on whom to vote for and warning them of the dire consequences should they choose to vote otherwise. As a result of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling last year, Koch Industries and other corporations are now legally allowed to pressure their workers to adopt their political views. Koch Industries is run by the billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch, who have helped bankroll the Tea Party movement and dozens of other right-wing causes, including the recent attacks on public sector employees and unions going on in many states.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6004781?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.4 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6004781?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6004781/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Civil Liberties</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Labor</category>
      <category>Wealth</category>
      <category>Tea Party</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Big Three secret funders of the $75 million campaign to trash Democratic candidates</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5924814/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5924814/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/hightower_lowdown?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Hightower Lowdown&lt;/a&gt; - By Jim Hightower - Apr. 15 (Investigative Report) - It's unlikely that you have heard of a novel entitled Alpaca, but it was a remarkably portentous piece of political writing by one of America's first billionaires, Dallas oilman H. L. Hunt. Self-published in 1960, the 191-page book laid out his vision of&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5924814?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.2 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5924814?ref=rss&quot;&gt;7&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5924814/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Wealth</category>
      <category>Tea Party</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Justice for Betty Dukes and the Women of Wal-Mart?</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5722674/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5722674/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/the_nation?ref=rss&quot;&gt;The Nation&lt;/a&gt; - By Liza Featherstone - Mar. 31 (News Report) - Dukes, who still works at Wal-Mart, is the lead plaintiff in Betty Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, the largest civil rights class action suit in history, which accuses the retail giant of sex discrimination in pay, promotions and hiring. The potential class has at times included more than a million women (recently, though, estimates have run closer to the hundreds of thousands). Dukes and her colleagues have yet to have their day in court, all these years later, and if an army of right-wing opponents has its way, they never will.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5722674?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Not rated yet&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5722674?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Info&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5722674/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Labor</category>
      <category>Wal-Mart</category>
      <category>Women</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Will the Supreme Court Prevent Citizens United From Being Fixed?</title>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5665636/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5665636/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/huffington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Huffington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Doug Kendall - Mar. 26 (News Analysis) - Will the Court that permitted the injection of unlimited corporate expenditures into our election process now prevent one of the best ways to ensure candidates without corporate backing have a fighting chance? We'll soon know.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5665636?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.8 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5665636?ref=rss&quot;&gt;8&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5665636/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Big Oil Lobby Will Donate Directly to Candidates</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5322422/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5322422/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;readersupportednews.org - By Pat Garofalo - Feb. 25 (News Report) - The American Petroleum Institute, the Big Oil industry&#8217;s chief lobbying organization, will start directly backing political candidates in the second quarter of this year. API, whose membership includes oil giants like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, already spends tens of millions of dollars every year on lobbying, advertisements and Astroturf campaigns to support the the oil industry agenda.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5322422?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.2 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5322422?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5322422/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Elections</category>
      <category>Oil and Gas</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Clarence Thomas Is Trying to Get Away With a Felony</title>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5195849/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5195849/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;readersupportednews.org - By RogerShuler - Feb. 14 (News Analysis) - 'Many news outlets that have reported on US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's income are portraying the allegations as, at most, a misdemeanor. But new reports suggest that Thomas' actions would amount to a felony if proven in a court of law.' Roger Shuler, Firedoglake&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5195849?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Not rated yet&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5195849?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Info&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5195849/toolbar?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Crime</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

