How the Court Inverted Constitutional Protections Against Discrimination
What was once constitutionally prohibited is now constitutionally required.
What was once constitutionally prohibited is now constitutionally required.
And the two parties—and the judges they have appointed—are on completely divergent legal paths.
The groundwork is now in place for major conservative wins in the years ahead.
In overturning the criminal convictions that resulted from the Bridgegate scandal, the Court is embracing a view of the world that is unbearably bleak.
The justices are forcing citizens to choose between voting and staying safe from the coronavirus. This fall’s election could be no different.
A case now before the Fifth Circuit threatens to upend the laws that enable Native self-governance.
By hearing this case about the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court is declaring itself the only appropriate forum for remedying constitutional violations.
No matter which path the court takes, the destination will likely be the same—the end of access to safe, legal abortion for many women.
And judges need to be the ones to make them pay.