Even given the policy analysis failures of Trump's positions, other leading Republican contenders for the presidency are far more clearly referring to mental health as an excuse to dodge gun control rather than develop a functional system.
The Supreme Court began its fall term this week. This seems like a good time to pause for a moment and revisit how decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his Supreme Court colleagues during the past five years have given the nation a system of legalized bribery.
The new Supreme Court term starts today, and sometime this fall the court will consider whether to hear challenges to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance provide coverage for contraception without a co-pay. Wait -- didn't that already happen, you ask?
As a country that presents itself as a leader among nations when it comes to rule of law, the corruption of the process of selecting judges in a partisan manner ought to be an international embarrassment.
Since Republicans gained control of Congress little has been done. The Arbitration Act, which would broadly void forced arbitration contracts, has languished in Congress for six years. A bill to prohibit any school receiving federal student aid from restricting students' ability to pursue legal claims in court likely will not come to a vote.
Time was, left-leaning legal scholars and commentators called for the courts to actively enforce individual rights against overbearing majorities. Today, some among them would prefer that judges largely stay out of the way--and they're worried that an increasing number of conservatives do not agree with them.
This week marks the anniversary of a decision that has stirred debate about the constitutional role of the judiciary for more than half a century. In a remarkable opinion signed by each of its nine members, the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958) stated that public officials in Little Rock, Arkansas, were required to implement a desegregation plan.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen appears to be headed toward issuing new IRS regulations that will continue to license section 501(c)(4) groups to improperly launder massive amounts of secret contributions into federal elections.
How many pope watchers and admirers, I wonder, noticed that only four of the high court's members -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor -- showed up to hear the pontiff address a joint session of Congress last week?
Apart from being the first two women on the Supreme Court, what did Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg really have in common? Was there any special bond between them? And did they create a synergy that advanced women's rights further than either could have alone?
The Supreme Court speaks not only through its rulings in cases argued before it, but also through its choice not to hear certain cases -- the ones denied certiorari, in legal lingo. By refusing to hear claims brought by victims of Bush-era torture and detention practices, and failing to decisively reject the government's array of bad excuses for denying them a modicum of justice, the Court in recent years has sent an appalling message of indifference and impunity. These missing cases constitute a profound stain on the court's record, and they are worth recalling on this week's tenth anniversary of John Roberts's swearing-in as Chief Justice.
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the day Chief Justice Roberts was sworn in to the Supreme Court. In that decade, he has led a Court that has radically reshaped vast swathes of the law, undermining constitutional protections for civil rights and voting rights, reproductive freedom, workplace fairness, the environment, gun violence, consumer fairness and representative democracy as a whole.
Technology has had a considerable impact on the judicial landscape in America. The discovery process once relied primarily on droves of lawyers sifting through documents looking for evidence.
There were many milestones in the march to marriage equality, but Kaplan has the right to crow about this one: she picked the right client, litigated the hell out of the case and established the precedent on which dozens of courts relied over the next two years in striking down marriage discrimination.
No one should be executed when there is serious doubt about the person's guilt. The problem is that the Supreme Court has imposed too difficult a standard.
Trying to identify those circumstances where an 18- to 25-year-old might fairly be treated as a juvenile, difficult though it may be, should be a priority for a modern society, particularly for non-violent offenders with a low outlook for recidivism.