Interesting (or eerily) Chief Justice Roberts spoke these words 10 days before Scalia's death -- he couldn't have predicted how aptly he would describe Republican senators' refusal to consider Merrick Garland under the current political moment.
Lately, Ed Blum's name has been everywhere. At least, when it comes to Supreme Court cases. Whether it is affirmative action, voting rights, or redistricting, Blum has been leading a well-funded effort to limit who has representation in our democracy.
While public attention has been (deservedly) focused on the empty seat now waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court for the last two months, almost a hundred...
Whatever your differences, on the crucial question of the direction of the Court for years to come, you are essentially the same. That should be reason enough for you to refrain from undercutting each other and sowing division in Democratic ranks.
Clearly, the Supreme Court nomination process has become hopelessly political. Reform is in order. But until that happens, the choice is left to us, the voters. This time, our vote is not just for the next four years, it is for the next generation.
There's been a lot of back and forth over "constitutional duties" lately.
An op/ed column in Saturday's Washington Post proposes a most interesting idea. The essence of the idea is suggested by its own title, "Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing."
If Justice Roberts were to change his views on standing in this case, it would do exactly what he laments: make it seem like the Justices' votes are driven by politics, not the law.
There is one refrain we've heard ad nauseam from Senator Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators, "The people should decide." I have bad news for these Senators.
I don't know how to combat fanaticism. But I am certain it is not through repression. Even in totalitarian states individuals willing to forfeit their lives can blow up complacency.
Hillary Clinton's or Sanders' election as president might well ensure a left of center bent on the Supreme Court. But even a flip of the Senate into Democratic hands would not unshackle residents in many states from regressive laws enacted by state legislatures and signed by doctrinaire conservative governors.
It would probably delight the late Justice Antonin Scalia to know that the fight over his successor was generating constitutional controversy. Indeed, like many controversies that Justice Scalia fueled, this one concerns not only the implications of particular clauses, but the very nature of constitutional law.
Whether you support Bernie or Hillary, how many of you want Republicans to abolish freedom of reproductive choice? I thought so. But here's the kicker -- in much of the country, the GOP already has.
Score the Evenwel ruling as a win for liberals, albeit one by which they largely dodged a bullet, but by no means put to rest the dangers of future discriminatory gerrymandering or other forms of voter suppression.
In a sense, Donald Trump is correct that women who have abortions if the procedure is banned should face "some sort of punishment." Before you misconstrue my opinion, please note that I have always been an advocate of pro-choice.
It is hard to believe that on this very day 48 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on a balcony in Memphis, Tennessee.