Today the Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss seven petitions from five different states urging it to decide on the constitutionality of state laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage on a nationwide basis. No one knows if it will decide whether to take any of the cases at this time or defer its decision until a future conference this fall.
In perhaps a tiny but significant decision, an appeals court ruled federal authorities had shown "a profound lack of regard for the important limitations on the role of the military in our civilian society" when they allowed the U.S. Navy to scan the computers of every citizen in the state of Washington fishing for evidence.
A good deal of the growing lack of confidence in the Supreme Court these days is due precisely to the concern that the justices are increasingly voting in ways that reflect the political values and preferences of the presidents who appointed them. Americans, in other words, increasingly believe that the justices are voting as "Republicans and Democrats." If this is so, it is not because the justices are "repaying" the favor of their appointment, but because presidents have gotten better at selecting nominees whose judicial approaches are likely to lead them to vote in ways that more or less conform to the appointing president's own political values and preferences. But is any of this true? To test this possibility, I did a simple, back-of-the-envelope "study."
The sacramental side of marriage is quite significant, and when honored can be liberating in surprising ways. Women are still bearing a far greater share of responsibility for child-rearing. We need a female president to actualize the potential of the female gender.
Next Monday, September 29, the US Supreme Court will meet in closed session to decide whether to take a marriage case. They're expected to reveal their decision the following week, on October 6, but there's no way to predict what the court will announce
Senate Republicans voted unanimously last week for elections that are competitions of cash, with candidates who amass the most money empowered to shout down opponents. The GOP rejected elections that are contests of ideas won by candidates offering the best concepts.
What is Pay to Play? Commonly held, pay to play is a form of getting a special deal because you paid someone off.
I'm writing today on behalf of my 6-year-old son. He has two moms. He doesn't know that his parents are somehow less than in the eyes of many including, apparently, some of you.
The real purpose of an individual-candidate Super PAC is to circumvent candidate contribution limits. Wealthy donors, corporations and other contributors use these Super PACs as vehicles to make unlimited contributions to directly support the candidate backed by the Super PAC.
Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. Most people get that. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, political contributions by corporations and the richest Americans actually are free speech and entitled to special protection. Even when they're made in secret.
We wouldn't want to protect quackery as a matter of free speech, would we? Recently, these questions came to the forefront of legal and political debate in two sets of court decisions, involving legislation on two hot-button topics: gays and guns.
A man from Kentucky was arrested and tossed in jail late last month for allegedly making terroristic threats and supposedly threatening to kill students at a school when he posted lyrics by a metal band on his Facebook page.
Ever since three-judge panels on the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit issued conflicting rulings in July on the availability of tax credits under the ACA, opponents of the law have been trying to rush their case to the SCOTUS. Thanks to an Order just issued by the full D.C. Circuit, the chances of getting the case in getting there just got a lot lower.
"Unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever begin to live together." Justice Thurgood Marshall penned these words 40 years ago, as part of his stirring dissent in Milliken v. Bradley. As we head into another school year, and especially in light of recent events, it is worth pausing to consider his warning.
A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court makes it highly unlikely that celebrity victims in the leaked photos scandal can recover meaningful damages from anyone.