King v. Burwell and its potential aftermath represent the last stand for those looking to kill the ACA. Democrats must go on offense to shut down those efforts, and that offensive must begin immediately.
The Supreme Court is entering the final stretch of its 2014-15 term, and there are enough momentous decisions on the way to give everyone something to look forward to. This June, the Court will hand down decisions in a number of high-profile cases.
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a man of many accomplishments, comes across as a man of few regrets. The latter might be summed up in two words: Ci...
On Monday, Abercrombie & Fitch faced a major defeat in its interpretation of religious discrimination law and employees of faith, especially visibly religious minorities, breathed a collective sigh of relief.
Maybe you missed it. Fox News host Neil Cavuto broke the news of Jenner's Vanity Fair photos in a "Business Alert" segment on Monday afternoon. LOL! That business show just cracks me up, let me tell you! I always look for the best comedy (as well as the most sensitive updates about the LGBT community) on Fox's business report, don't you?
To say that the judiciary is duty-bound to say "what the law is" and should not simply rubber-stamp the actions of the other branches is not to say that the other branches have a duty to obey its decisions. But holding the contrary position would make the judiciary an inferior branch and risk creating an uncertain and dangerous state of affairs.
The Elonis v. United States opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, and joined by all others except Justice Clarence Thomas, sidestepped issues of both the Internet and the First Amendment, focusing instead on criminal intent.
The same conservatives who succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act last year are now attacking the principle of one person, one vote. The purpose of both maneuvers is the same, to help Republicans win elections by diluting or suppressing Democratic votes, in particular the votes of black and brown people.
The Illinois Supreme Court is the latest to confirm that retirement security is an essential part of our social fabric, and one that merits constitutional protection. When people work hard and spend their entire professional lives paying into a system that guarantees them financial security in retirement, we can't pull back on that promise.
During his 10-and-a-half hour filibuster in opposition to the Patriot Act, Senator Paul boldly asserted that the Constitution protects individual rights not expressly listed in its text, including the "right to privacy." As Senator Paul put it, "Few and limited [are] the powers given to the government. But it's the opposite with your rights. Your rights are many and infinite."
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Tibble v. Edison International. On its face, the court's holding is unremarkable. In a rare 9-0 decision, it ruled that plan sponsors have a continuing duty to review investments in retirement plans and to decide whether or not to keep or sell them.
While most Republicans think there is no role for government in job creation, some of our best Presidents have proven otherwise. FDR knew the importance of government when he created the New Deal that brought America out of a deep depression.
Anti-equality groups love to claim that religious officials will be punished for speaking out against marriage equality. But for some reason, they don't seem to want to talk about Anne DePrizio, a Unitarian minister in Alabama who was sentenced to 30 days in jail last month for her stance on marriage.
Does the Constitution require states to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples? Should states be required to recognize gay and lesbian marriages performed in other states in which it is legal?
And as long as the Supreme Court interprets "free speech" to include spending untold fortunes in elections, it seems fair to also define free speech as a peaceful protest on public grounds, or even public airspace.
What can be done to ensure that police officers are held accountable for Fourth Amendment violations? The only way to ensure police officers are appropriately sanctioned for violating people's rights and victims are made whole is consistent judicial engagement.