America's need to showcase her indomitable spirit of heroism this July 4th celebration arrives mired by the two recent Supreme Court -- both highlighting a "war against women."
Linda Fairstein needs no introduction. For more than two decades, this former prosecutor was Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's office.
As president of Princess Cruises, Jan Swartz heads one of the best-known brands in the cruise industry, overseeing a worldwide cruise and tour company...
We are in a fun-house mirror period with respect to race. It has been a sobering reminder of the persistence of not only racism, but of those in power who massage its ailing limbs.
As we approach the Supreme Court of the Unites States (SCOTUS) one-year anniversary of Windsor v. United States ruling, do we celebrate or mourn thi...
America has focused on Bundy and Sterling, while the Supreme Court's ruling on Affirmative Action has faded from the public consciousness. What Sterling and Bundy said is reprehensible, however, it has little actual effect on Blacks in America.
Affirmative action seemed destined to fare poorly before the Supreme Court in Schuette, but let's fairly inform the public on this important matter.
Mainstream Media, like Time Magazine, needs to be called out for how they continue to represent women, even as we enter the positions of greatest power.
The moves the mayor is making can get people thinking about a term called disaster capitalism. Disaster capitalism occurs when profits are generated based on the occurrence of a disaster.
The Supreme Court's Schuette and Shelby decisions send a disturbing signal that ensuring unimpeded minority access to the processes that decide minority interests is not worthy of federal judicial intervention.
With three best-sellers saying markets are rigged --Piketty, Warren, Lewis -- Shrum & Lowry debate economic and then racial inequality. Can tax policies mitigate a 400-1 ratio of top to average pay? 4000-1? Does bias against blacks = against whites, per Roberts?
Of course, the National Review has every right under the First Amendment to say all of these things, and I would defend to the death, in Voltaire's words, its right to say them. But that does not make them any less offensive -- or ignorant of the law.
A pair of stories on the front page of Wednesday's New York Times together tell a tale that ought to serve as an epitaph for one era in our national life and the prologue to its successor.
With two deeply divided parties, the next president has a crucial influence on the future of the Supreme Court that is rarely discussed as we get closer to the 2016 election.
Right now, far too many kids are still receiving a haphazard education that doesn't allow kids to enter the larger civic and cultural conversation. That is bad for all kids, but it puts a barrier in front of any kid whose family is unable to fill in the gaps.
Millions of women work for, go to school at or have spouses that work at or use Catholic social services, hospitals, universities and schools. It is these millions, not the dubious rights of institutions, that are intended by and should be upheld by the Supreme Court.