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.
What would have happened if a President McCain had appointed conservatives to the Supreme Court, instead of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, before the Court ruled on marriage equality in the Obergefell case?
Individual-candidate Super PACs are used to allow a candidate and the candidate's supporters to circumvent these candidate limits and to provide six and seven-figure contributions to directly support the candidate.
It is ironic, bordering on demagogic, how Republicans pick and choose what parts of the constitution they fetishize!
It is well beyond time that the lgbt community recognize and call out this ridiculous Kim Davis drama for what it is - merely a sideshow to cover up the fact that the overall case against marriage equality was nothing more than a pitiful delusion.
In a word, no. The judiciary is not an exceptional, deviant institution in an otherwise pure democracy. The Constitution is pervasively countermajoritarian. It protects Americans against majority tyranny by providing that the government may act only when it has the authority to do so and by explicitly protecting individual rights.
Perhaps nothing is more important to American politics than a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, far too many people are ill-informed to make such discussions possible.
There was no public debate or awareness of the issue because House and Senate leaders knew that it could never stand up to public scrutiny. This abuse of the legislative process has now come to full fruition.
The view that the constitution does not require birthrate citizenship is held by a handful of scholars and not "many," as Trump boasts.
Appearing on Hardball hosted by Chris Matthews immediately after the Republican debate, former Senator Rick Santorum revealed some strange contortions regarding his understanding of the constitution
When one looks at Roberts's overall record, it's clear that while John Roberts may not be the most conservative Justice on the current Court, he's nonetheless very conservative. But that probably won't stop Senator Cruz from saying otherwise. Why let the facts get in the way?
A look at the second nationally televised GOP debate demonstrates precisely why Cruz will hopefully stay away from the top tier candidates (not that Donald Trump is someone who is imminently better).