Whatever the outcome of this week's historic Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage, one thing has become crystal clear: there is no longer, if there ever was, a rational argument to ban it. Are there any grounds for holding that position beyond simple prejudice?
The new media were ablaze on the evening of February 22 after U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief in United States v. Windsor asking the Supreme Court to overturn Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
With rulings on gay marriage from two federal appellate courts in the past week, it is now more likely that the Supreme Court will finally grapple with the key civil rights issue of our time. We are in a stage where timing, litigation strategy, and judicial politics will all be critical.
The Supreme Court shouldn't buy S.B. 1070 supporters' claims when it hears arguments tomorrow. The Constitution doesn't allow states to set immigration and foreign policy, and it certainly doesn't allow them to do so in a manner that discriminates against people of color.
The Supreme Court turns its attention this week to the emotional subject of immigration controls. At issue is the constitutionality of a 2010 Arizona law so widely known that its very title -- S.B. 1070 -- seems enough to start a political argument.
Lost in the arguments of conservatives and right-wing activists was the fact that the individual mandate -- the essential element that would bring tyranny to our homes -- was initially raised as the preferred strategy for health care reform by the right.
Paul D. Clement, legal icon of the conservative movement, found himself suggesting a tax hike that violates every fiber in the political body of congressional Republicans as well as the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes in any way or for any reason -- ever.
When the Justices hear the six hours of argument on the constitutionality of healthcare reform this week, there will no doubt be much talk about "states' rights." But it is important to remember that the one arguing doesn't truly represent "the states" v. the federal government.
On Friday the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be the epicenter of the two-year battle between the NFL and its players. Both sides appreciate the gravity of this proceeding, filing lengthy legal briefs championing their respective positions.