The misleading arguments being made by George Will, and the plaintiffs in Harris vs. Quinn, go well beyond established protections, and would cripple the system of public sector collective bargaining that has worked well for decades.
The death penalty is difficult justify in any modern civilized society. The issue is greater than partisan politics. A sober evaluation of the costs and benefits of state-sanctioned death clearly demonstrates that the death penalty is not viable.
Millions of women work for, go to school at or have spouses that work at or use Catholic social services, hospitals, universities and schools. It is these millions, not the dubious rights of institutions, that are intended by and should be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Massachusetts passed the 35-feet law in 2007. It applies to places where abortions are "offered or performed." Of course, the vast majority of people who stand outside of clinics to voice their constitutionally protected opinions are pro-lifers.
In an interview with me at the 2008 RNC, Sally Kern repeated a line she'd said before, that "we're becoming so open-minded that our brains are falling out." Well, Kern's brain must be toppling all over the sidewalk, after a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled yesterday that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
A case being argued at the United States Supreme Court next week, NLRB v. Noel Canning, threatens to do away with the chief executive's ability to use recess appointments to deal with senatorial stonewalling.
It has long been said there are two topics that should be avoided in "polite company," that is, at social gatherings, parties, service clubs, during i...
In my judgment the existing program is unconstitutional. As currently structured, it violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement of "reasonableness." On the other hand, it should be possible for the government to correct the deficiencies in the program in a manner that both preserves its legitimate value and substantially mitigates the risks to privacy that it currently poses.
The larger issue here, which most people are completely missing, is that the Utah case will likely climb its way up to the Supreme Court no matter the outcome in the 10th Circuit, and the Supreme Court's stay is a clue into how the highest court may rule on the broader question: Is it constitutional for states to ban gay marriage?
What the Duck Dynasty controversy illustrates most strongly is that we are more alike than different. Racism and homophobia and sexism all have things in common.
I had the opportunity to speak with Angelo Lobo, a dad who went through a divorce and custody battle. When Angelo saw what was happening in the courts, he decided to journal his findings.
The Utah case, Kitchen v. Herbert, is currently on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and briefing is on a fast-track.
It turns out Justice Scalia not only believes in the Devil, but meets with him at the end of every year. This meeting took place on Christmas Eve, 2013.
Two federal judges reached opposite conclusions in separate cases challenging NSA spying. One was thoughtful; the other reflected much of what is wrong with our courts. Ultimately, however, neither will matter. The NSA's dragnet continues unabated, and only Congress is poised to stop it.
The country won two major victories for marriage equality last month in Utah and New Mexico, but don't celebrate yet: Anti-gay groups could still find a way to undo that progress.
The phony alibis for marriage discrimination have fallen away, and the Court's decision in United States v. Windsor leaves no doubt: gay people have an equal right to marry in the United States of America.