In this age of do-nothing politics, it's easy to despair, but we must remember the intent behind the design. The same founding fathers who created a federal system that resists radical change also created a state system that encourages experimentation.
The dust has begun to settle about Donald Sterling and his strange (is there another word?) "girlfriend," V. Stiviano, although one is not sure we know more now than when this episode began. But what lessons can we learn from the spectacle they -- and it is they -- have caused?
Will a few states rule the United States? Or fundamentally change it? And if so, who are the winners and losers? Depending on your point of view, this "laboratory-of-the-states" business is good news today... or not.
To a lot of people, it may seem downright strange that a Supreme Court justice is asking how social scientists would project the impact of their potential ruling. As a social scientist myself, I find this an interesting phenomenon, of which there is quite a history.
While the stewardship of the U.S. economy, jobs, health care, immigration, and foreign policy are all important considerations in this year's election, the safeguarding of constitutional rights for all Americans is at least as critical.
When we look at the state of our union and the state of America's children in 2012, it's impossible to deny that our nation's economy, professed values of equal opportunity, future, and soul are all in danger right now.
The Progressive Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln is long dead and buried. For the past 40 years, their crude replacements have conducted an unrelenting assault on our nation's democracy, values, humanity and rights.
In spite of all the idiocies and unfairness, in spite of the impact of corporate wealth on campaigns and public opinion, elected leaders still have the capacity to translate mass movements into things that people can vote for.
Since Louis Brandeis was the 67th Supreme Court justice named court's history, one might argue it was not really statistically overdue -- Jews did not represent even 2.2 percent of the population until 1910.