Do we have three co-equal branches of government, or does the judiciary occupy second-class status?
June is Gay Pride Month. It is a time for parades and for festivals, for rainbow flags and for dance tents. It is a time to recognize the amazing progress that has been made on LGBT equality as we recommit ourselves to continuing the struggle until liberty and justice for all really means "all."
For those birthing presidential campaigns and those conceiving runs for legislative power and those lusting for criminal court judgeships, The Cider House Rules and Griswold v. Connecticut should be required reading.
Yesterday, in a speech in Texas on the importance of voting rights, Hillary Clinton made one of the most important remarks of her campaign so far: "We need a Supreme Court who cares more about the right to vote of a person than the right to buy an election of a corporation."
When people say a Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality would be the end of America, or the worst thing since slavery, or the ultimate calamity, what do they really mean? That their spouses will leave them? Their houses will collapse? Nuclear warheads will be launched?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church -- with a more than century-long track record of defending religious freedom and the rights of religious minorities -- early on recognized the critical religious liberty implications central to this case.
Pat Robertson? Rick Santorum? The "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church? Nope. It's our own complacency. We haven't won yet, not even on marriage, let alone on equal employment, housing and access to public accommodations. Yet most of our leaders and well-meaning allies have proclaimed our "inevitable" victory.
The Mount Everest revenue growth in the private-prison industry unequivocally represents everything that's wrong with our pay-to-play government.
In an 8-1 decision the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a hijab-clad woman who had been denied a job by Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) based on its "look policy" (which has since been redefined by the company).
King v. Burwell and its potential aftermath represent the last stand for those looking to kill the ACA. Democrats must go on offense to shut down those efforts, and that offensive must begin immediately.
The Supreme Court is entering the final stretch of its 2014-15 term, and there are enough momentous decisions on the way to give everyone something to look forward to. This June, the Court will hand down decisions in a number of high-profile cases.
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a man of many accomplishments, comes across as a man of few regrets. The latter might be summed up in two words: Ci...
On Monday, Abercrombie & Fitch faced a major defeat in its interpretation of religious discrimination law and employees of faith, especially visibly religious minorities, breathed a collective sigh of relief.
Maybe you missed it. Fox News host Neil Cavuto broke the news of Jenner's Vanity Fair photos in a "Business Alert" segment on Monday afternoon. LOL! That business show just cracks me up, let me tell you! I always look for the best comedy (as well as the most sensitive updates about the LGBT community) on Fox's business report, don't you?
To say that the judiciary is duty-bound to say "what the law is" and should not simply rubber-stamp the actions of the other branches is not to say that the other branches have a duty to obey its decisions. But holding the contrary position would make the judiciary an inferior branch and risk creating an uncertain and dangerous state of affairs.
The Elonis v. United States opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, and joined by all others except Justice Clarence Thomas, sidestepped issues of both the Internet and the First Amendment, focusing instead on criminal intent.