<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>National Senior Citizens Law Center &#187; Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/tag/supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nsclc.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:32:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Webinar: Social Security Benefits Now Based On Same Sex Marriage?</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/webinar-social-security-benefits-now-based-on-same-sex-marriage/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=webinar-social-security-benefits-now-based-on-same-sex-marriage</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/webinar-social-security-benefits-now-based-on-same-sex-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=5909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[December 12, 2012 Webinar. On December 12, some 200 advocates and others attended a webinar entitled “Social Security Benefits Now Based on Same Sex Marriage.” Directing Attorney Gerald McIntyre led viewers through why individuals who would qualify for Social Security or survivor benefits &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/webinar-social-security-benefits-now-based-on-same-sex-marriage/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/webinar-social-security-benefits-now-based-on-same-sex-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Individual Mandate Supported in Supreme Court Amicus Brief</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/individual-mandate-supported-in-supreme-court-amicus-brief/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=individual-mandate-supported-in-supreme-court-amicus-brief</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/individual-mandate-supported-in-supreme-court-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NSCLC Helps</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In a Supreme Court amicus brief submitted January 11, 2012, National Senior Citizens Law Center’s Rochelle Bobroff, acting as Counsel of Record, writes that that the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision or individual mandate “falls squarely within Congress’ authority to &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/individual-mandate-supported-in-supreme-court-amicus-brief/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/individual-mandate-supported-in-supreme-court-amicus-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hertz or Avis? Progressives&#8217; Quest to Reclaim the Constitution and the Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hertz-or-avis-progressives-quest-to-reclaim-the-constitution-and-the-courts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hertz-or-avis-progressives-quest-to-reclaim-the-constitution-and-the-courts</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hertz-or-avis-progressives-quest-to-reclaim-the-constitution-and-the-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NSCLC Helps</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this Ohio State Law Journal article, Simon Lazarus details the challenges posed by the “increasingly reactionary and radical conservative agenda” in relation to the role of the Constitution and the courts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hertz-or-avis-progressives-quest-to-reclaim-the-constitution-and-the-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hand Wringing on Health Care</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hand-wringing-on-health-care/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hand-wringing-on-health-care</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hand-wringing-on-health-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NSCLC Helps</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SLATE (1/9/2012). By Simon Lazarus. Hand Wringing on Health Care.  Republican appointees have concluded that upholding the ACA mandate is compelled by the text of the Commerce Clause and Supreme Court precedent, that it is no more “coercive” than other measures, &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hand-wringing-on-health-care/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/hand-wringing-on-health-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Medicaid Ambush</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/the-medicaid-ambush-the-supreme-courts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-medicaid-ambush-the-supreme-courts</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/the-medicaid-ambush-the-supreme-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NSCLC Helps</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affordable Care Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4028</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SLATE,  The Medicaid Ambush (11/14/11) The Supreme Court&#8217;s unexpected and astounding reasons for wanting to hear a challenge to Obamacare.  By Simon Lazarus and Dahlia Lithwick. The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/the-medicaid-ambush-the-supreme-courts/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/the-medicaid-ambush-the-supreme-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Refuses to Shut Courthouse Doors on the Poor</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/supreme-court-could-shut-courthouse-doors-to-the-poor/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-could-shut-courthouse-doors-to-the-poor</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/supreme-court-could-shut-courthouse-doors-to-the-poor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4042</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 22, 2012, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to eliminate a critical legal tool for protecting the rights of low-income individuals, including many elderly poor. Douglas v Independent Living Center is a significant victory for court access for &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/supreme-court-could-shut-courthouse-doors-to-the-poor/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/supreme-court-could-shut-courthouse-doors-to-the-poor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACS Blog: Liberal Justices Miss the Point</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-liberal-justices-miss-the-point/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=acs-blog-liberal-justices-miss-the-point</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-liberal-justices-miss-the-point/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:24:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NSCLC Helps</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=1099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Directing Attorney Rochelle Bobroff writes: &#8220;None of the present members of the Court have taken on his role of objecting to the conservative assault on court access to enforce civil rights, consumer protection, and safety net statutes. Their relative silence &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-liberal-justices-miss-the-point/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-liberal-justices-miss-the-point/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACS Blog: Supreme Court Ignores Federal Arbitration Act</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-supreme-court-ignores-federal-arbitration-act/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=acs-blog-supreme-court-ignores-federal-arbitration-act</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-supreme-court-ignores-federal-arbitration-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 03:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSCLC In The News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yerdomain.com/nsclc/?p=745</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[May 6, 2011 &#8212; Rochelle Bobroff criticizes majority option: &#8220;this mode of interpretation is totally contrary to the duty of judges to uphold the law.&#8221;  Read more.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/acs-blog-supreme-court-ignores-federal-arbitration-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>