Something is wrong when Supreme Court Justices wrestle this way with legal concepts. The problem is clearly not they. The law, regulations, and policies are the problem, as is the inertia that keeps them that way.
The Constitution is being abused. Attention must be paid.
Pretty much every pundit in the mainstream media got down on their knees and thanked a recent poll which showed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton neck-and-neck in three key swing states this week, because they truly want this gravy train to continue.
With Sen. Chuck Grassley's refusal to hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee and his recent statement that Donald Trump would nominate the "right type of people," state senator Hogg has galvanized a cross-section of support with his issues-focused campaign.
Whatever additional consequences the upcoming presidential election may have, the vote will determine the future of the Supreme Court. You probably heard this admonition in 2008 and again in 2012, but this time you really should pay attention.
When it comes to choosing between children who need schools that will prepare them for a successful future and help stabilize our country's economy or policies that benefit adults only and special interests, the choice is clear. We must choose Justice and Children every time!
In August 2015, for the first time, the federal government issued regulations on carbon emissions from power plants. The rules included an interim goal and a final goal for each state of allowable CO2 emissions with the overarching goal of cutting carbon pollution by 32 percent by 2030.
Is United States v. McDonnell going to be another Citizens Union disaster? The Supreme Court is poised to answer that question soon. For those persons who believe that public corruption, influence peddling, and pay-to-play are bad for democracy and bad for good government, they should be very worried.
Americans should not have to beg government officials' permission to speak peacefully to others. Reed ensures that they need not do so. If this be free-speech absolutism, make the most of it.
Judges who draw their power from Article III have a duty to exercise independent judgment in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and the meaning of subordinate enactments.
The divisiveness, the name calling, the infighting among party factions are turning friends into enemies. I refuse to engage in the adolescent theme of bashing Bernie Sanders or his supporters.
Face it, the Supreme Court is not a court of law; it is a political Court. Although Justices fall all over themselves saying that they function as Delphic oracles telling us what the law is, the Court, when it comes to constitutional or other ideological issues, is a partisan body.
It is hardly unusual to find government power in the hands of regulators who have the opportunity and the incentive to use that power solely to benefit themselves. But that doesn't mean that judges should rubber-stamp such arrangements when their constitutionality is challenged in court.
Serving as a reminder of just how much courts matter, the US Supreme Court ruling in Zubik may make a woman's ability to access birth control dependent on the religious views of her employer. No employers should be allowed to impose their personal religious views on their workers.
Having spent a decade now trying to understand the sickness degrading America's politics, I watch for developments that can help illuminate what's gone wrong. Here's one specific situation that crystallizes the larger problem.
The next U.S. President will appoint three, possibly four, Supreme Court Justices. If that person is Trump, those justices will be right-wing hardliners who believe in the supremacy of the corporate oligarchy.