<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - U.S. Supreme Court - Most Recent Stories: News (Mainstream)</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:55:14 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://www.newstrust.net/topics/us_supreme_court/top_stories/news/mainstream</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>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>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>Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6657949/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6657949/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - By Patrick Marley, Don Walker - Jun. 15 (News Report) - Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the reinstatement of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial plan to end most collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6657949?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6657949?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6657949/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>Labor</category>
      <category>Wisconsin</category>
      <category>State</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Judge: Corporate donations ban unconstitutional</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6435297?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6435297?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/associated_press?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Associated Press&lt;/a&gt; - May. 27 (Breaking News) - A judge has ruled that the campaign finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of the indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6435297?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.6 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6435297?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6435297?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>Presidential Election 2008</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Hillary Clinton</category>
      <category>Campaign Finance</category>
      <category>Presidential Election 2012</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court gives police leeway in home searches</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6303100/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6303100/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 - May. 17 (News Report) - The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6303100?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.8 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6303100?ref=rss&quot;&gt;5&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6303100/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>Law Enforcement</category>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Obama administration fights to save healthcare law</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6218050?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6218050?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/reuters?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Reuters&lt;/a&gt; - By Jeremy Pelofsky, Lisa Lambert - May. 11 (Special Report) - An appeals court on Tuesday sharply questioned whether the state of Virginia could challenge President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, which requires Americans to buy insurance in a bid to slow healthcare costs. The Obama administration is trying to save the individual mandate after a Virginia federal judge agreed with the state it was unconstitutional and struck down that part of the law. The Obama administration has vigorously defended the measure, set to go into effect in 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6218050?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6218050?ref=rss&quot;&gt;5&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6218050?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>Democrats</category>
      <category>Republicans</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Obama Administration</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
      <category>Family</category>
      <category>Money</category>
      <category>Wellness</category>
      <category>Government</category>
      <category>Demographics</category>
      <category>State</category>
      <category>Courts</category>
      <category>Virginia</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Appeals court blasts VA mental health care system</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6222888?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6222888?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/associated_press?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Associated Press&lt;/a&gt; - By Paul Elias - May. 10 (Special Report) - Noting that an average of 18 veterans a day commit suicide, a federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to dramatically overhaul its mental health care system.

In the strongly worded ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it takes the department an average of four years to fully provide the mental health benefits owed veterans.

The court also said it often takes weeks for a suicidal vet to get a first appointment.

The &quot;unchecked incompetence&quot; in handling the flood of post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health claims is unconstitutional, the court said.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6222888?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.3 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6222888?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6222888?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. Military</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>War in Iraq</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
      <category>Psychology</category>
      <category>Wellness</category>
      <category>California</category>
      <category>Insurance</category>
      <category>Alcohol</category>
      <category>Retirement</category>
      <category>Courts</category>
      <category>Adults</category>
      <category>County</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>High court rejects quick review of health care law</title>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6033490?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6033490?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/associated_press?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Associated Press&lt;/a&gt; - By Mark Sherman - Apr. 25 (News) - The Supreme Court rejected a call Monday from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the health care law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6033490?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6033490?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6033490?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>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Obama Administration</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court won't jump into health care fray -- for now</title>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6037176/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6037176/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 - Apr. 25 (News Report) - The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to jump into the controversial national debate over health care reform at this stage, rejecting a plea from Virginia for a judicial end-around -- an expedited review over whether the sweeping federal law is constitutional.
As expected, the justices without comment on Monday declined the state's &quot;petition for certiorari before judgment.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6037176?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Not rated yet&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6037176?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Info&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/6037176/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>Pair of Supreme Court rulings deal blows to business</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5628596/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5628596/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 - Mar. 23 (News Report) - Decisions make it easier to sue drug makers over alleged stock fraud and allow workers to sue their employers if they suffer retaliation after making an oral complaint.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5628596?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5628596?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5628596/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>Pharmaceuticals</category>
      <category>Wal-Mart</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Justices have been siding with workers, underdogs</title>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5511798/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5511798/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 - Mar. 13 (News Report) - Although the Supreme Court is often viewed as pro-business and conservative, it has taken the other side in several recent cases. Observers call it a useful reminder that the court isn't predictable.The Supreme Court, often described as conservative, divided and pro-corporate, has been sounding different notes in recent weeks.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5511798?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5511798?ref=rss&quot;&gt;5&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5511798/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>Culture Wars</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>High court rules vs. gov't in open records case</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5442950/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5442950/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/seattle_times?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Seattle Times&lt;/a&gt; - By Nancy Bartley - Mar. 08 (News Report) - The Supreme Court has rejected the government's broad use of an exemption in the federal Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents from the public, ruling for a Washington state resident who wants Navy maps relating to its main West Coast ammunition dump.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5442950?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.6 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5442950?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5442950/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>Nuclear Weapons</category>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Peace</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court Rules For Military Funeral Protesters</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5395060?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5395060?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/associated_press?ref=rss&quot;&gt;Associated Press&lt;/a&gt; - Mar. 03 (News) - Some may think their words are hateful but Wednesday the highest court in the land decided a Kansas church has every right to protest US soldiers' funerals.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5395060?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5395060?ref=rss&quot;&gt;51&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5395060?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. Military</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Religion and Politics</category>
      <category>Gay and Lesbian</category>
      <category>Christianity</category>
      <category>Courts</category>
      <category>Maryland</category>
      <category>Baltimore</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5383814?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5383814?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/new_york_times?ref=rss&quot;&gt;New York Times&lt;/a&gt; - By Adam Liptak - Mar. 02 (News) - The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-1 decision.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5383814?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.8 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5383814?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5383814?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. Military</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Religion and Politics</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Defiant Clarence Thomas fires back</title>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5347804/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5347804/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/politico?ref=rss&quot;&gt;The Politico&lt;/a&gt; - By Kenneth P. Vogel - Feb. 27 (News) - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas &#8211; his impartiality under attack from liberals because of his attendance at a meeting of conservative donors sponsored by the Koch brothers and his wife&#8217;s tea party activism &#8211; struck a defiant tone in a Saturday night speech in Charlottesville, Va., telling a friendly audience that he and his wife &#8220;believe in the same things&#8221; and &#8220;are focused on defending liberty.&#8221;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5347804?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.3 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5347804?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5347804/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>Conservative</category>
      <category>Corruption</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court rules vaccine makers protected from lawsuits</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5291976/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5291976/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; - By Robert Barnes - Feb. 23 (News Report) - Federal law protects pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by parents who claim that vaccines harmed their children, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5291976?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5291976?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5291976/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. Congress</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
      <category>Pharmaceuticals</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Lawmakers press Supreme Court for verdict on healthcare law</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5053323/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5053323/toolbar?ref=rss</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/sources/the_hill?ref=rss&quot;&gt;The Hill&lt;/a&gt; - By Alexander Bolton - Feb. 02 (News) - Democratic and Republican lawmakers believe the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of President Obama&#8217;s healthcare law, and some of them are already exerting pressure on the justices.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5053323?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.8 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5053323?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5053323/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. Senate</category>
      <category>U.S. Supreme Court</category>
      <category>Lobbying</category>
      <category>Obama Administration</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What the Vinson ruling means</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5041542/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5041542/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; - By Ezra Klein - Feb. 01 (News Analysis) - Wonkbook today has plenty of analysis -- both political and legal -- of Judge Vinson's ruling against the Affordable Care Act. The bottom line of much of it is that the fate of the legislation is now, as it was last week, in the hands of Anthony Kennedy.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5041542?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5041542?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/5041542/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>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>Obama Administration</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight</title>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4976506/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4976506/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; - By John Miller - Jan. 26 (News Report) - Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama's health care overhaul.

They are introducing measures that hinge on &quot;nullification,&quot; Thomas Jefferson's late 18th-century doctrine that purported to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4976506?ref=rss&quot;&gt;4.0 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4976506?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4976506/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>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Scalia to address Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill</title>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4919014/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4919014/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 - Jan. 22 (News Report) - Justice Antonin Scalia, a popular and entertaining speaker at various forums around the world, has one of the busiest schedules off the bench. But a closed-door address the conservative justice is scheduled to give Monday afternoon has attracted controversy, partly because of who is sponsoring the event.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4919014?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4919014?ref=rss&quot;&gt;9&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4919014/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>Republicans</category>
      <category>Culture Wars</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly failed to report wife's income from conservative think tank</title>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4921591/toolbar?ref=rss</guid>
      <link>http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4921591/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 Kim Geiger - Jan. 22 (News Report) - Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over 5 years, a group says. But the Supreme Court justice did not include it on financial disclosure forms.Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4921591?ref=rss&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4921591?ref=rss&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newstrust.net/stories/4921591/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>Taxes</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

