Obama's presidency was complicated because it appeared that the president and several of his close advisors genuinely believed that his election indicated that our nation had crossed the bridge from the 20th to the 21st century on the issue of race in America.
The majority party in the Senate is saying it doesn't acknowledge that Barack Obama is the legitimate, twice-elected U.S. president with the right and duty under the U.S. Constitution to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the high court.
Although there are liberals who are disappointed that President Obama did not nominate someone more in the spirit of a William Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall, Merrick Garland is an exceptional choice. But Senate Republicans, led by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley, refuse even to consider his nomination.
Do you work for wages? Do you report to some sort of boss? Do you pay taxes to the United States government (federal, state, local)? Do you underst...
One may regret that the Supreme Court has become a politicized institution but such strategic calculations do not come out of nowhere -- they reflect the growing ideological divide nationwide.
Garland seems destined for summary rejection, and what I call the court's "death watch" will continue -- with activists and others worrying that at any moment yet another justice's death (three are in their late 70s or their 80s) could intensify the partisan fight over the Supreme Court's future.
The Court is just one of the battle lines in what should be seen as a multifaceted program to weaken the voices of everyday people in favor of the powerful that is also taking place in statehouses and in Congress.
President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, is considered by Democrats and Republicans as brilliant and eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Garland's superb qualifications will not matter.
McConnell is the "Doctor No" of American politics. And he has a thirty-year Senate track record of obstructionism to prove it.
This time, the goal was not finding someone who could beat Trump to the 1,237 delegates needed for a first ballot victory in Cleveland in July, but instead simply to deny Trump a first ballot victory.
The Soviet Union seemed permanent and invincible, until it didn't. When it fell, far more suddenly than anyone thought it would or could, the festering rot of decades was exposed to the world. We're seeing this happen, in real time, with the Republican Party.
An insurrectionist presidential candidate stuns his party's establishment by pocketing the party's nomination. His views do not line up with mainstream figures in his party.
Alexander Hamilton, that visionary Founding Father and hip-hop phenomenon, thanks to Hamilton, the musical, has been celebrated of late on Broadway and at the Grammys. His face adorns the $10 bill. If only his thoughts about choosing Supreme Court justices were getting remotely as much respect from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, and most other GOP senators. We can discern from Hamilton's owns words what he probably would have thought of Senate Republicans' vow not to consider any Supreme Court nomination President Obama puts forward for Justice Antonin Scalia's successor. The best guess, based on the historical evidence, is that Hamilton and other of the Constitution's Framers would have been appalled by the confirmation antics of McConnell & Co.
Last week, I used GOP leadership skills to teach my Shakespeare class. I put myself in a Republican mindset and kicked out all but the male, white, Christian students.
Are we witnessing the end of the Republican Party? That's a pretty stunning question to ask, but we're living through a pretty stunning presidential nomination fight, so it can no longer be avoided or ignored.