Denying confirmation to qualified nominees violates one of the "rules" of the game -- the rule that each president will have the chance to reshape the bench to reflect his or her vision of justice. But it is not a game.
The FHA wasn't passed to promote "separate but equal" as a second-best solution in housing policy; it was passed to end segregation, meaning that low-income housing opportunities must be created outside of segregated neighborhoods to provide more options for segregated residents.
Last week, Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern advanced an alarming proposal with apparent seriousness: The Supreme Court should be abolished, or, at the very least, ignored.
I continue to worry about what I have referred to in past posts as "the age of insanity." Recently I met with R.H. Flutes, my old friend from the Lying Institute of America. Dr. R.H. Flutes was in a jubilant mood because his former student, Ted Cruz, was on the presidential campaign trail.
There is a more present death awaiting Americans, and it, too, involves entropy and ultimate hopelessness.
In my 20s, candidate Obama was right for me. Now, in my 30s, candidate Clinton will get my vote.
Over the next months, they will hear her platform and policy initiatives and realize that she is the right person to be president. Hillary will run a campaign that will reach out across party lines in the same way she did when she was in the Senate.
Every one of us is entitled to an honest, reasoned explanation when the government requires us to obey a law that we might not agree with, to ensure that that law preserves our liberty rather than depriving us of it. Three generations of judicial abdication are enough.
Please, Attorney General Eric Holder, tell us how the doctrine of "disparate impact" is supposed to help any court decipher the rights and wrongs of these exams?
This is exactly the same argument that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage, and it's essentially saying: "You're free to do whatever you want, as long as you actually do something else."
With all the political frenzy about both religious freedom and discrimination, the pundits always seem to come back to the same classic case: a baker contemplating whether to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
The Court has finally struck a blow for democracy. And it will be actualized because of one phrase: treble damages liability. Thank you, Justice Kennedy. Now we all have to clothe many naked and quite ugly kings. And we shall have to do it without the help of our media, who seem to believe they all remain in royal regalia.
One fall day in September 2001, I lost almost everything I held dear when I stumbled upon an email not intended for me. In it, I learned that my then-partner of six years, "Rob," had broken the commitments we'd made and that, in fact, I'd been lied to from the start of our relationship.
The current debate about religious freedom is already shaping laws and policies that will affect each one of us. Many of these laws and policies are harmful and will have far-reaching consequences that affect the everyday details of our lives that even the supporters of these laws are likely to regret.
When it comes to the fight for marriage equality, all eyes are on the Supreme Court and what it will do this June. But that doesn't mean there's nothing happening in the lower courts in the meantime.
Last week, I argued that the judicial restraint long advocated by conservatives has its roots in the Progressive era, drawing upon Professor John McGinnis' recent paper, The Duty of Clarity, in support of my arguments.