While there is always a risk of reading too much into Supreme Court justices’ questions during oral argument, there is often much to be gleaned.
If I encountered an individual morally uncomfortable with participating in an activity with me and my boyfriend, it would be uncomfortable for me to force her.
Most justices first frame the issue by using judicial discretion of one kind or another to remove from consideration the nature of the product requested for a same-sex wedding.
The case involves sports betting in New Jersey, of all things, and it could have ramifications for the regulation of everything from marijuana and guns to immigration and health care.
Judges—who typically lack military service and work in courtrooms far removed from its realities—are ill-positioned and ill-qualified to evaluate judgment calls by military leaders.
Should government be able to seize your smartphone and other private digital information without a warrant and use it against you?
For moral reasons, individuals and organizations have sought for years to avoid funding contraceptives. Now states are suing so they also don’t have to pay for contraceptives.
Claiming that President Trump’s intemperate tone voids an entire legal proceeding is ludicrous, and in doing so Bowe Bergdahl’s legal team is questioning Anglo-American legal fundamendals.
The judges telegraphed pretty clearly their view that the government could force Harris Funeral Homes to allow Anthony Stevens to present as a woman at work.
SCOTUS is hearing a case today that involves the complex and often-misinterpreted Fourth Amendment: District of Columbia v. Wesby.
One might wonder why Jeff Sessions would take the time to say such obvious things, but to judge by the reactions it appears many Americans do indeed need a free speech 101 class.
There is a reason that mainstream pro-life supporters do not advocate prosecuting women, and for better or worse, it is because many do not think women know what they are doing.
In her claims this week that the Trump administration ‘has consistently tried to undermine the law that is the law of the land,’ Kathleen Sebelius knows of which she speaks.
While pro-life Americans should be pressing Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, they are instead focusing on inside-the-court-room strategizing.
The question Obergefell has raised across that land is: can we craft laws that permit mutually exclusive views to peacefully coexist? Or must the disfavored view be driven out of public life?
Carter’s case has been widely discussed because of the shocking content of her emails, the prosecution’s successful argument that words can kill, and its implications for free speech under the First Amendment.
A federal court judge just rejected Richard Prince’s claim that his use of another artist’s work was so patently innovative, he shouldn’t have to go to trial for charges of infringement.
John Compton’s book ‘The Evangelical Origins of the Living Constitution’ argues that some of the worst political excesses of modern liberals were created and enabled by the progenitors of the religious right.
- Can We Be Honest About Women?Here’s a little secret we have to say out loud: Womencontinue reading >
- 8 Worst Defenses Of FBI Agent’s Anti-Trump ‘Insurance Policy’ TextsHow do the media handle dramatic updates that counter tcontinue reading >
- Why Criminalizing Sexual Harassment Fosters Witch HuntsSexual harassment digests a degenerate thug like Harveycontinue reading >