Over the next months, they will hear her platform and policy initiatives and realize that she is the right person to be president. Hillary will run a campaign that will reach out across party lines in the same way she did when she was in the Senate.
Every one of us is entitled to an honest, reasoned explanation when the government requires us to obey a law that we might not agree with, to ensure that that law preserves our liberty rather than depriving us of it. Three generations of judicial abdication are enough.
Please, Attorney General Eric Holder, tell us how the doctrine of "disparate impact" is supposed to help any court decipher the rights and wrongs of these exams?
This is exactly the same argument that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage, and it's essentially saying: "You're free to do whatever you want, as long as you actually do something else."
With all the political frenzy about both religious freedom and discrimination, the pundits always seem to come back to the same classic case: a baker contemplating whether to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
The Court has finally struck a blow for democracy. And it will be actualized because of one phrase: treble damages liability. Thank you, Justice Kennedy. Now we all have to clothe many naked and quite ugly kings. And we shall have to do it without the help of our media, who seem to believe they all remain in royal regalia.
One fall day in September 2001, I lost almost everything I held dear when I stumbled upon an email not intended for me. In it, I learned that my then-partner of six years, "Rob," had broken the commitments we'd made and that, in fact, I'd been lied to from the start of our relationship.
The current debate about religious freedom is already shaping laws and policies that will affect each one of us. Many of these laws and policies are harmful and will have far-reaching consequences that affect the everyday details of our lives that even the supporters of these laws are likely to regret.
When it comes to the fight for marriage equality, all eyes are on the Supreme Court and what it will do this June. But that doesn't mean there's nothing happening in the lower courts in the meantime.
Last week, I argued that the judicial restraint long advocated by conservatives has its roots in the Progressive era, drawing upon Professor John McGinnis' recent paper, The Duty of Clarity, in support of my arguments.
If you're straight and you need time off to care for a sick spouse, federal law requires that you get Family and Medical Leave. If you're gay, you could get denied that right, depending on what state you live in.
School officials banned the wearing of the American-flag clothing on only one day of the school year. What day was that? Cinco de Mayo -- a day to celebrate Mexican heritage. School officials did not ban American-flag clothing on any other school day -- just one.
I would not be here today if it wasn't for the free, quality health care I was given in the form of Medicaid. I support the ACA and I advocate for a single payer national health insurance system. This is what we all need in order to be a society in which our ideals are realized rather than sold off. We can't go backwards, there's just too much at stake.
Today the Supreme Court will hear polluter arguments against the EPA's vital Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, a long-overdue protection that will help guard our families, air, water, and wildlife from dangerous toxic pollution that comes from coal plants. These vital protections are critically important to public health, and the polluters challenging them are putting lives at risk.
Such restraint has led judges to rubber-stamp patently protectionist regulations, uphold the bulldozing of entire neighborhoods for private economic development, and rationalize their way into upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a "tax."
It seems clear that Texas cannot constitutionally forbid the display of the Confederate flag on a license plate because others might find it "offensive or disagreeable." But it is not so simple. Is the government discriminating among private speakers, or is it expressing only the messages it wishes to convey?