A society that has refused to regulate guns is now punishing parents for not doing so on their own at home.
And that should theoretically appeal to the Supreme Court’s conservative justices.
The former president’s testimony in a New York courtroom was a sad spectacle for the country.
No-fault divorce has improved the lives of millions. Now some extreme Republicans want to abandon it.
And worse
The ubiquitous question posed during the Trump presidency—“Can he do that?”—continues to be the wrong question.
Unless—perhaps—Special Counsel Jack Smith indicts Trump for his role in the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.
Whatever conservative ethos of restraint there once was has vanished.
In West Virginia v. EPA, the conservative justices acted like they were handing power to the people, but in reality they were giving it to themselves.
It’s not legislation.
Liberty requires restraints on government power.
For years, the conservative majority has worked to cement a system where entrenched leaders pick their voters in a bid to stay in power indefinitely.
The conservative justices say that vaccine policy is Congress’s or the states’ job, but in practice they’re the ones calling the shots now.
This could be the start of a major dismantling of the federal government.
The logic being used against Roe could weaken the legal foundations of many rights Americans value deeply.
Carson v. Makin could set a new precedent for how taxpayer dollars are used to fund religious education.
Democrats have strong constitutional arguments on their side.
Two recent decisions capture perfectly just how distorted the Court’s approach is.
America is inching closer to a possibility it has never seen before: the indictment and trial of a former president.
What’s astonishing is that presidential criminal immunity has no grounding in actual law. It’s not in the Constitution or any federal statute, regulation, or judicial decision. It is not law at all.