<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - U.S. Supreme Court - Most Recent Stories</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:38:17 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://www.newstrust.net/topics/us_supreme_court/top_stories</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>Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8552441/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8552441/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/los_angeles_times?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Los Angeles Times&lt;/a&gt; - By LA Times Staff - Feb. 07 (Breaking News) - A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8552441?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8552441?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8552441/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>Gay and Lesbian</category>
      <category>Culture Wars</category>
      <category>California</category>
      <category>Marriage</category>
      <category>Courts</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>Bob Edgar: 'Impartial' Supreme Court Justices Raise Money for Opponents of Health Care Law</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8435584/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8435584/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; - Nov. 15 (Opinion) - Suppose you were party to a lawsuit and you learned that the judge handling your case was hobnobbing with lawyers on the other side and helping to raise money for a group dedicated to defeating you in court?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8435584?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.4 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8435584?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8435584/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>
    </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>Supreme Court ponders constitutionality of 24/7 GPS tracking</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8396160?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8396160?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/ars_technica?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Ars Technica&lt;/a&gt; - Nov. 08 (Opinion) - On Tuesday, the government told the Supreme Court the Fourth Amendment allowed it to conduct 24/7 tracking of anyone's car&#8212;even those of Supreme Court Justices&#8212;without a warrant.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8396160?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.4 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8396160?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8396160?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>Privacy</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Justice Scalia: Americans 'should learn to love gridlock'</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8033382/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8033382/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/los_angeles_times?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Los Angeles Times&lt;/a&gt; - By David G. Savage - Oct. 06 (News Report) - Many Americans think badly of the government because of &#8220;gridlock&#8221; in Washington. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is not one of them.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8033382?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8033382?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/8033382/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>Government</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Appeals court strikes down health overhaul requirement that most Americans must buy insurance</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/7373823/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/7373823/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/washington_post?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Washington Post&lt;/a&gt; - Aug. 12 (Breaking News) - A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama&#8217;s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/7373823?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/7373823?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/7373823/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>Obama Administration</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Supreme Court closes the door to justice</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6916081/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6916081/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/los_angeles_times?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Los Angeles Times&lt;/a&gt; - By Erwin Chemerinsky - Jul. 06 (Opinion) - Has the Supreme Court lost faith in the American court system? That is a strange question to ask about the justices who sit at the top of the country's judicial hierarchy. But in case after case in the just-completed term, the court, usually in 5-4 decisions with the conservatives in the majority, denied access to the courts.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6916081?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6916081?ref=rss&quot;&gt;5&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6916081/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>Taxes</category>
      <category>Drugs</category>
      <category>Courts</category>
      <category>Consumer Issues</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>John Dean Knows How to Get Rid of Clarence Thomas</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6855919/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6855919/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/truthdig?ref=rss&quot;&gt;TruthDig&lt;/a&gt; - By John Dean - Jun. 28 (Opinion) - For good reason, there has been serious hand-wringing over what to do about the ethical lapses of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The fact that Supreme Court justices are exempt from the code of ethical conduct which applies to the rest of the federal judiciary; the problem of bringing a sitting justice before the Congress to question the conduct of a constitutional co-equal; the reality that justices cannot easily defend themselves against news media charges; the defiant, in-your-face posture of Thomas&#8212;the list goes on but it need not. There is clear precedent for how to deal with the justice. Thomas could be forced off the bench.

As the associate deputy attorney general in President Richard M. Nixon&#8217;s Department of Justice, I was there when Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist outlined how to remove a Supreme Court justice who had engaged in conduct not quite as troublesome as that of Thomas. Rehnquist, of course, would later become chief justice of the United States. His memorandum providing the process for the Department of Justice to proceed against then Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas remains solid precedent and the way to deal with Clarence Thomas. But before looking at the solution, I should explain the problem.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6855919?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6855919?ref=rss&quot;&gt;6&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6855919/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>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Violent video games, California and the ambiguity of freedom</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6825406/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6825406/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/the_guardian?ref=rss&quot;&gt;The Guardian&lt;/a&gt; - By Keith Stuart - Jun. 28 (Opinion) - The US Supreme Court has ruled that an attempt by California to ban the sale of violent games to children was unconstitutional. We look at the factors involved and why this isn't a clear-cut victory for free speech.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6825406?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6825406?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6825406/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>Freedom of Speech</category>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Culture Wars</category>
      <category>Games</category>
      <category>California</category>
      <category>Violence</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>California ban on sale of 'violent' video games to children rejected</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6811253/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6811253/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/cnn?ref=rss&quot;&gt;CNN&lt;/a&gt; - By Bill Mears - Jun. 28 (News Report) - The Supreme Court has struck down a California law that would have banned selling &quot;violent&quot; video games to children, a case balancing free speech rights with consumer protection.

The 7-2 ruling Monday is a victory for video game makers and sellers, who said the ban -- which had yet to go into effect -- would extend too far. They say the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer game content.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6811253?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.6 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6811253?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6811253/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>Family</category>
      <category>Parenting</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Calif. video game ban struck down by Supreme Court</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6821504/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6821504/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/san_francisco_chronicle?ref=rss&quot;&gt;San Francisco Chronicle&lt;/a&gt; - By Bob Egelko - Jun. 28 (News) - California's attempt to ban sales of violent video games to minors violates the constitutional guarantee of free expression, which allows young people access to creative works such as books, films and onscreen simulations about even the most extreme brutality, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6821504?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Not rated yet&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6821504?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Info&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6821504/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>Freedom of Speech</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Games</category>
      <category>California</category>
      <category>Violence</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court has given firms a stronger hand</title>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6785383/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6785383/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/los_angeles_times?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Los Angeles Times&lt;/a&gt; - By David G. Savage - Jun. 25 (News Report) - This year, it gave firms a stronger shield against class actions. But it also ruled for several individuals suing employers and made it easier for car crash victims to sue automakers.The Supreme Court, which winds up its term Monday, has once again shown itself to be highly skeptical of large lawsuits against big business, regardless of whether the suits are intended to protect workers, consumers or the environment.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6785383?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.4 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6785383?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6785383/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>Global Warming</category>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Energy</category>
      <category>Green Technology</category>
      <category>Climate Change</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>8 Reasons Justice Clarence Thomas Must Step Down</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6780249/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6780249/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 Adele M. Stan - Jun. 23 (Opinion) - No single justice has been more stalwart for the causes of the right -- indeed, even the far right -- than Justice Clarence Thomas, who, notes ThinkProgress, may just be the most ethically challenged justice since Abe Fortas was forced to step down from the court in 1969 for accepting tens of thousands of dollars from wealthy benefactors.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6780249?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6780249?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6780249/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>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>1.5 Million Female Walmart Employees Lose Historic Sex Discrimination Case Before Supreme Court</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6738987/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6738987/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 - Jun. 21 (Opinion) - The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the largest class action lawsuit in history filed by 1.5 million current and former female employees of Wal-Mart, who say they were allegedly paid less and promoted less often than their male counterparts. The Court found women who worked at Wal-Mart did not have enough in common to constitute a &#8220;class&#8221; in a class action lawsuit. It did not address whether Wal-Mart had discriminated against women, but in writing for the minority in part of the court&#8217;s ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the &#8220;plaintiffs&#8217; evidence, including class members&#8217; tales of their own experiences, suggests that gender bias suffused Wal-Mart&#8217;s company culture.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6738987?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6738987?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6738987/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>Women</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

