On December 15, U.S. Federal Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that the line between gender and sexual orientation discrimination "does not exist." The ruling, addressing discrimination against a pair of lesbian basketball players at Pepperdine University, has the potential to put sexual orientation under the umbrella of established civil rights laws.
The American people won't elect a vulgar/bullying/blowhard for President even if the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party manages to nominate him. We have never before seen the kind of campaign we are seeing this year within the Republican Party.
Let's get on with the remaining 2016 best and worst awards. One warning: it's a very long column, so we encourage readers to pace themselves.
In recent weeks, two of the legal scholars I most admire -- Cass Sunstein and Eric Posner -- have independently called for possible limitations on the scope of First Amendment protection in light of the dangers posed to the United States by online radicalization messages directed at Americans. Although I certainly understand the concerns driving these suggestions, it is essential that we resist the temptation to restrict our most fundamental freedoms in moment of panic. This is not to say that our nation's security is not important or that preventing terrorist attacks is not a critical goal. But it is to say that this is not an appropriate way to protect ourselves.
Without fright, alarm, or vacillation, American Muslims are quietly 'suing the bastards" and asserting their civil liberties in courts - a quintessential American thing to do.
If the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to own a gun, we don't need to repeal or amend it in order to establish major gun control laws. We must remember that this tale is the NRA's doing, not the Founders of the Constitution, and that it is rooted in fear.
As we do every year, we are pre-empting our regular "Friday Talking Points" column, in order to bring you our "best and worst of 2015" list.
No matter what, the numbers don't lie, legal recognition of our relationships is paramount to having a healthy financial life now and a truly secure and happy retirement later.
I received this excellent piece from one of my colleagues at Success Academy. I am proud to work with her and the thousands of others who fight to pro...
This time the effort to undercut the economic and political power of working people is coming insidiously via the legal system in the form of a case called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear in January.
Is the value of diversity sufficient to warrant active interventions to ensure it in every sphere? The answer is unequivocally yes.
Although I often disagree with Justice Scalia, and although I emphatically disagree with him about the constitutionality of affirmative action, the outrage and condemnation sparked by this comment is completely unwarranted.
After years of advocacy, the federal government took significant steps to fulfill its obligation to end the criminalization of homelessness and to address the importance of location for low-income residents.
Apart from other issues in the upcoming election, the statements of Democratic and Republic candidates have made clear that they regard this issue as very important, and that the future direction of the Court will largely depend on which of them will become our next president.
African American students want to decide for themselves whether to attend that school if they are fortunate enough to be admitted. Expert research has long discredited the exclusionary idea driving Justice Scalia's comments. Over the past several days, much of the nation has rejected the idea as well.
There's always been this rhetoric that people of color who are accepted into these schools are accepted because of their skin color due to Affirmative Action.