Is United States v. McDonnell going to be another Citizens Union disaster? The Supreme Court is poised to answer that question soon. For those persons who believe that public corruption, influence peddling, and pay-to-play are bad for democracy and bad for good government, they should be very worried.
Americans should not have to beg government officials' permission to speak peacefully to others. Reed ensures that they need not do so. If this be free-speech absolutism, make the most of it.
Judges who draw their power from Article III have a duty to exercise independent judgment in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and the meaning of subordinate enactments.
The divisiveness, the name calling, the infighting among party factions are turning friends into enemies. I refuse to engage in the adolescent theme of bashing Bernie Sanders or his supporters.
Face it, the Supreme Court is not a court of law; it is a political Court. Although Justices fall all over themselves saying that they function as Delphic oracles telling us what the law is, the Court, when it comes to constitutional or other ideological issues, is a partisan body.
It is hardly unusual to find government power in the hands of regulators who have the opportunity and the incentive to use that power solely to benefit themselves. But that doesn't mean that judges should rubber-stamp such arrangements when their constitutionality is challenged in court.
Serving as a reminder of just how much courts matter, the US Supreme Court ruling in Zubik may make a woman's ability to access birth control dependent on the religious views of her employer. No employers should be allowed to impose their personal religious views on their workers.
Having spent a decade now trying to understand the sickness degrading America's politics, I watch for developments that can help illuminate what's gone wrong. Here's one specific situation that crystallizes the larger problem.
The next U.S. President will appoint three, possibly four, Supreme Court Justices. If that person is Trump, those justices will be right-wing hardliners who believe in the supremacy of the corporate oligarchy.
Arizona and Kansas share much in common. Conservative Republican governance has crippled both states and the governors of both are trying to undermine the judicial branch so as to have no encumbrance on their radical conservative agenda.
The Supreme Court's recent decision to deny review of the Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. ruling was a blow not just to the suit's plaintiffs in the book industry but to all of us in the business of writing and publishing content.
The Chief Justice has led the Court's conservative majority in a counterrevolution against the fruits of the civil rights movement. This is not a matter of happenstance, but a defining feature of his legal career.
The Republican Party most loudly proclaims its deep allegiance to our founding document. Yet in recent years, the leaders of the GOP have engaged in an assault on our constitutional system in ways unprecedented in American history:
Anita Hill believed in the system and trusted the process, even though in the end it betrayed her. The Republican obstructionists today have disrespected the system, turned their back on the process, and taken the coward's way out.
What is remarkable about Bob McDonnell's case is not the technical arguments he makes, but the sheer brazenness with which he and many his supporters defend his conduct.
It is easy to be cynical about what has become an ugly partisan fight over Judge Garland's nomination. But the confirmation process can serve a valuable educational function.