Loving v. Virginia was a unanimous Supreme Court decision that declared state anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws unconstitutional. It is simply not credible for any lawyer to claim ignorance about it.
In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is set to rule in the Citizens United vs. FEC case, which could potentially overturn 100 years of campaign fina...
Alaska's willingness to do business with Exxon was like having your parents rent the basement to the guy who date raped you on prom night. Now Palin is claiming victory for the people of Alaska? Reality Deficit Disorder, now in book form.
For Obama, the ability to showcase our justice system in a case involving one of the world's most reviled accused terrorists represents an important opportunity to define America before history and the world.
How the Supreme Court rules in two cases concerning juvenile incarceration could determine whether sentencing juveniles to life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.
Last week Tom Brokaw presented a human rights award to Gabriel Gonzalez. The thoughtful young man then flew home to Colombia, where he is charged with being a terrorist and faces seven years in prison.
A series of investigations could spell the beginning of the end for the billion dollar, taxpayer funded troubled teen industry.
Despite the great power of prosecutors, few are held accountable for violations of their ethical obligations.
Good intentions are not enough to preserve our liberty, and the current PATRIOT Act simply grants too much unchecked authority to our government.
We know that individuals can defy the law. Can a state legislature defy the law? When it comes to the gun issue, apparently it can. I refer to the ...
Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that killing prisoners acts as a deterrent or keeps police safe is indeed extraordinary.
In briefs, the battle lines have been drawn. On the one hand is the government, endorsing Bush-era policies. And for the Uighurs, there is a Boston-based attorney and his team.
Every day the U.S. government is forced to grapple with the consequences of harsh and sweeping immigration laws passed by Congress 13 years ago. And Jose Padilla is the latest senseless case.
Progressive Christians will never whole-heartedly embrace Democrats as long we feel the need to justify our faith during waves of Left-Right tensions over religious symbols.
In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has created the myth that deportation is not a form of criminal punishment but rather a civil remedy aimed at excluding unwanted aliens.
The litany of sectarian killings that has been such a grotesque piece of America's "hidden history" is the reason that some of the Framers thought the First Amendment was so necessary.
Lt. Col. David Frakt said Congress is still behaving unconstitutionally with regard to the right of the Executive branch and the Judiciary to order the release of prisoners from Guantanamo.
Justice Scalia takes umbrage at the suggestion that an eight-foot-high Christian cross, erected as a memorial to soldiers killed in military service, violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
And when it comes to television, everybody's apparently a programming expert -- from Wall Street titans to Supreme Court Justices.
Justice Scalia is right that it's intended to honor all the war dead. The problem is the assumption that you honor all war dead by putting up the religious symbols honored by some.
It's clear that Cameron Todd Willingham was (mis)tried by a kangaroo court, but will justice be better served by the media zoo that's ensued?
