Set aside the fact that an article encouraging male lawyers to train their female colleagues into dominatrix-like submission could only be found in the deep recesses of 4chan.
Whether someone is a ‘target’ as opposed to a ‘subject’ of an investigation is a distinction without a difference.
On Thursday, a federal district court judge upheld Massachusetts’ ‘assault-weapon’ ban.
Law professor Helen Alvaré’s new book, ‘Putting Children’s Interests First in US Family Law and Policy,’ details the alarming number of ways the law privileges ‘consensual adult sexual expression,’ regardless of the consequences.
What is more in accord with the rule of law: four justices usurping the power of a co-equal branch of government, or a legislature doing exactly what the state constitution allows?
Texts revealed a relationship between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Judge Rudolph Contreras. Does that cast suspicion on Contreras’ recusal from the Flynn case Strzok investigated?
Author Ryan Holiday examines the nearly unbelievable conspiracy of how Hulk Hogan and few secret individuals were able to dismantle the infamous Gawker.
Did Robert Mueller’s office withhold other evidence in Michael Flynn’s prosecution, either from the FISA court or from Flynn’s attorneys? There is reason to believe so.
Eric Swalwell’s bill would limit a universal freedom to a discrete class, and place the government—either through bureaucracy or through the courts—in charge of defining that class.
The Trump dossier allegations came from unnamed Russian sources — not Christopher Steele or other known informants. That’s a big problem.
Kyle Duncan had nothing to do with John Thompson’s criminal case. Duncan also had nothing to do with the prosecutors who withheld evidence from Thompson’s attorneys.
The justices shouldn’t extend law enforcement’s reach beyond our borders. More importantly, Congress needs to update a 30-year-old law for the digital age.
Chicago’s ‘sanctuary’ cities case offers an important opportunity to challenge a dangerous practice of relatively recent advent: granting a nationwide injunction in a local dispute.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a $135,000 fine against the owners of a local cake shop who declined to use their artistic skills to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
We have divergent interpretive theories that map onto ideologically sorted parties, so is it any surprise that elections are high-stakes for judges?
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards is right: Courts matter. They matter because liberal judges long ago stopped interpreting the law and started inventing it.
The judge crystalized not just that elections have consequences but that so does the reach of government, legislative abandonment, and the ideology-imposing of unelected judges.
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.
- Comey’s Memos Indicate Dossier Briefing Of Trump Was A SetupNew memos suggest Comey briefing of Trump was a setup tcontinue reading >
- Poor Andrew Cuomo Struggles With Life Of Zero Intersectionality Points'As a New Yorker, I am a Muslim. As a New Yorker, I am continue reading >
- Revealed: Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial DiscretionEstablishment DC types who reflexively defend Mueller hcontinue reading >