While ‘total inclusion in the community’ may sound good as a fundamental moral principle, running it through the logic machine yields some problematic results.
This seems to be all just one more episode of Trumpian signaling or, as the court narrated, using a ‘bully pulpit to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement’ in the future.
Is there a way to say ‘abortion is murder’ without committing oneself to punishing mothers who abort with the punishments we reserve for murderers? The short answer is yes.
If President Trump wants to truly lead the United States and world into the exploration and settlement of the solar system, he needs to do something different and game-changing.
How increasingly letting states and citizens sue to stop laws and regulations they don’t like, such as President Trump’s immigration order, can politicize courts and end self-government.
It may well be the Platonic Ideal of Butter. But folks in Wisconsin will never know because some apparatchik on the sixth floor of the Department of Agriculture has not yet spoken.
Eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees was the natural culmination of a tit-for-tat escalation by both parties. The brinksmanship is all symptomatic of a much larger problem.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown says the FBI is functioning as a ‘national vice squad,’ arresting more adults on charges stemming from prostitution activities than finding underage trafficking victims.
If the Wyoming Supreme Court is permitted to insert an unstated requirement upon judges, what prevents some future court from reading pastors, priests, and bishops into the same decision?
Should pro-lifers who voted for the president because he promised to nominate a judge who would overturn Roe worry it won’t happen?
If The Slants’ suit prevails in the Supreme Court, it could benefit other entities such as the Washington Redskins, who are likewise fighting for their constitutional right to free speech.
In the first two days of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, senators pressed nominee Neil Gorsuch on a variety of issues that may be before the court, from antitrust to campaign finance.
Cosmopolitan’s Jill Filipovic has constructed an argument against originalism that should embarrass even the most disinterested of history students.
During Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings senators and commenters are batting around words like ‘textualist,’ ‘originalist,’ and ‘evolutionist.’ Here’s an illustration.
Instead of doing the serious work they were elected to do, congressional Democrats spent the day virtue-signaling to their base.
Even a cursory look at Neil Gorsuch’s opinions shows his disdain for a conventional wisdom that has unfortunately guided the style of countless writers.
An umpire would (or should) throw Cork’s case out. Like it or not, the rule of law demands that President Trump and his organization be treated like all others that are similarly situated.
The 3-2 decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court says holding mainstream Christian beliefs undermines Judge Ruth Neely’s impartiality even though marriages aren’t part of her duties.
Only by holding nominees’ feet to the substantive constitutional fire can we make confirmation hearings great again.
- Dartmouth Study Finds Democrats Are The Least Tolerant Students On CampusA new survey of students at Dartmouth College found thacontinue reading >
- ‘Rick And Morty’ Is Incredibly Depressing And Doesn’t Deserve Its PopularityThe television show proclaims the insignificance of allcontinue reading >
- Why Transgenderism Is Progressive TotemFeminism is nothing more than a war against nature, andcontinue reading >