The 60-vote requirement has become a political club not just preventing imprudent action but almost any serious action at all.
In a unanimous ruling Tuesday that splintered on its reasoning, the high court correctly held that the “disparagement clause” of federal trademark law violated the Constitution.
While it would have been better for President Trump to have divested control of his businesses before taking office, not doing so does not necessarily violate the Constitution.
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.
- Research Finds Parents Should Question Their Kids’ Gender Dysphoria Before It’s Too LateIt is one thing to compassionately treat those with gencontinue reading >
- Did LuLaRoe Transform Its Explosive Growth Into A Collapse?When the popularity of the well-made and comfortable mocontinue reading >
- California’s Travel Ban Messes With TexasLast week, California added four more states to its 'trcontinue reading >