The public has the right to know about any undertakings top public officials engage in that may influence how they conduct the people's business. Next year, I would encourage the Supreme Court to file their annual financial disclosure reports in a more open, consistent and timely manner.
It may be that no single race better exemplifies these developments, and foreshadows the shape of future federal elections, than Senator McConnell's competitive re-election contest against Alison Lundergan Grimes.
Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent last Wednesday, stating her growing exhaustion for constantly having to write such scathing dissents for recent decisions made in the court.
Without Medicaid, millions of Americans must delay getting care because they are afraid of incurring costs they cannot afford. In states that rejected expansion, low-income people often rely on hospitals for emergency and other needed care.
Is this a radical notion? Considering how male-dominated the Supreme Court has long been, yes. Is this an outlandish notion? It shouldn't be.
In the vast majority of constitutional cases, the playing field is tilted decisively in favor of one side: The government.
What's happening in my town makes me worry for the future of our democracy as well as our ability to deal with issues like climate and pollution at the local level.
The Supreme Court said Saturday that, for the first time, it is allowing a voting law to be used for an election even though a federal judge, after conducting a trial, found the law is racially discriminatory in both its intent and its impact, and is an unconstitutional poll tax.
Four FEC Commissioners last week provided yet another example of the urgent need to replace the FEC with a real campaign enforcement and oversight agency.
Somehow threatening to kill, rape or maim someone is different on a public forum than it would be in person and this particular case is important enough to go all the way to country's highest court for consideration.
Americans expect justices differ. But they also expect the Court to be the place those differences, particularly in cases that affect people's rights, are carefully explained in written opinions, and are reached only after extensive written and public oral argument. Recently, however, the Roberts Court has abandoned that principled process.
Many have identified the weaknesses in Deresiewicz's jeremiad. In his forthcoming novel, Supreme Ambitions, David Lat, founder of the legal blog Above the Law, takes a different approach. What happens, he asks, to all those excellent sheep after graduation? His answer won't surprise many: The sheep get herded to law school.
When we serve as jurors, we can literally take the law into our own hands. As Thomas Jefferson maintained, if citizen jurors "think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause," they can "take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact."
It appears that at least two same-sex couples have been married in Barrow, Alaska, according to Kristine Hilderbrand, who said state Magistrate Mary Treiber waived the three-day waiting period required after issuing of marriage licenses.
What would having more Justices achieve? Ideally, a Court with a greater plurality of perspectives, a greater depth and breadth of experiences, backgrounds, value systems and approaches to their duties.
As the U.S. Supreme Court rightfully makes way for same-sex marriage across the country, it simultaneously regresses policy on another civil liberty, voting rights.