There are many competitions in our society, in our country, and in our world. Children, adults, colleges, corporations, etc. are constantly striving to be ranked at the top.
Does a law that burdens Americans' right to self-defense at times when they are most vulnerable violate the Second Amendment? On Monday, the Supreme Court took a pass on that vital question.
By the end of June, the U. S. Supreme Court will deliver its decisions regarding same-sex marriage and, as well, the healthcare law whose controversial provisions include some contraception and abortion coverage.
It's one of the Supreme Court's most famous, controversial and consequential decisions. On June 7, 1965, the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut struck down legislation prohibiting the use of contraceptives, relying in part upon a "right of privacy" that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.
As our nine Supreme Court justices wrestle with a decision in the consolidated same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, one of the central arguments they will weigh is the role of marriage in raising children.
For political wonks, June is not the month to celebrate grads, dads, and brides, but instead the biggest SCOTUS month of the year. This year, the biggest two (or the two with the biggest political overtones, at any rate) will likely be held back until the very end of the month.
As the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage bans looms, the right wing has begun their assault on reason and intellect with the standard dire warnings, threats, and fear mongering in the form of corporate boycotts and revolt. As usual, their claims include flagrant misinterpretations of their favorite documents, the Constitution and the Bible.
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).