One of the best shows in the town of Washington, D.C. is not on television. It is an oral argument in before the United States Supreme Court. The nine justices are appointed by the President and confirmed after they assure the U.S. Senate they will be dispassionate "umpires.
I finally sat down to read a recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion on an important issue: are all prisoners serving mandatory sentences of life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles entitled to new sentences based on an earlier ruling that such sentences constitute unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment?
Let's step back for a moment and consider what a Christian Nation with Christian Laws based on a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible would mean for LGBT people.
The Supreme Court's seeming willingness to dismantle diversity initiatives and, more specifically, affirmative action, on the basis of anecdotal information is infinitely disturbing.
Muslims and atheists have nothing in common theologically, but they do share some unenviable commonalities. Since 1937, Gallup has been asking people if they would vote for a generally well-qualified presidential candidate nominated by their party if the nominee belonged to various minorities.
Assuming the next president gets to replace all four of the oldest justices (Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer), we're in for a big shift. A Democrat could transform the Court's somewhat reliable 5-4 conservative majority into a solid 6-3 liberal majority.
It's not enough for individual believers to worship God as they see fit -- a right which I and most Americans are happy to acknowledge and protect. According to Scalia, the government must place its thumb on the scale and promote and advance religion over non-religion.
Scalia's views are precisely what our forefathers feared so terribly and worked so diligently to avoid. In addition to ignoring our Bill of Rights, Scalia has abandoned any pretense of logic to support his faith.
Attention, fans of law and celebrity culture: It's that time of year when--in keeping with the grand Truthdig tradition inaugurated last December--we hand out our annual SCOTUS Awards to the men and women who staff our nation's most powerful judicial tribunal.
On December 15, U.S. Federal Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that the line between gender and sexual orientation discrimination "does not exist." The ruling, addressing discrimination against a pair of lesbian basketball players at Pepperdine University, has the potential to put sexual orientation under the umbrella of established civil rights laws.
The successful minority students I know chose these elite universities because of the challenging and demanding curriculum they knew they could handle. So, no Justice Scalia, we weren't meeting some quota. We belonged there.
I received this excellent piece from one of my colleagues at Success Academy. I am proud to work with her and the thousands of others who fight to pro...
Although I often disagree with Justice Scalia, and although I emphatically disagree with him about the constitutionality of affirmative action, the outrage and condemnation sparked by this comment is completely unwarranted.
African American students want to decide for themselves whether to attend that school if they are fortunate enough to be admitted. Expert research has long discredited the exclusionary idea driving Justice Scalia's comments. Over the past several days, much of the nation has rejected the idea as well.
Since the time of the Founding Fathers, people have debated who America's representative democracy should represent. It was a pretty radical idea for American colonists to advance the idea that those who were elected to our government should represent all of We the People.
There's always been this rhetoric that people of color who are accepted into these schools are accepted because of their skin color due to Affirmative Action.