Looking at Clinton's past statements should forestall skepticism about her social justice agenda.
There may be new life for the Equal Rights Amendment.
The political world now reacts to the long-awaited reaction by Hillary Clinton.
What was once a largely populist constituency predisposed to government's role turned into a conservative stronghold.
This is a tale of two race cards. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) insulted black males on right-wing radio by suggesting that inner-city folks, especially men (read black males) lack a culture of expecting or valuing work. I suspect Ryan's slander of...
What strikes me is the extraordinary juxtaposition between these examples of what we consider part of the “American experience.”
This week, there is a lot of focus on, and exposure for, the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, but will it really matter?
Both sides in this debate want an affirmation from the court, but let’s face it folks, the train has not only left the station on same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian rights, it is roaring down the tracks.
One has to either make enough money that income taxes do not matter, find loopholes so one does not have to pay taxes, or become so poor that the government will provide every program and benefit available in the system.
The far-left liberals in our society claim to have the best interest of everyone in mind, and yet they are the least tolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently made an important and wise comment
when he said that with gridlock plaguing our political system, “A
democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine
unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”
Considering the controversial history of recent Supreme Court decisions
regarding elections, and the pending case regarding the Voting Rights
Act, the nine unelected justices should uphold the Voting Rights Act,
which was not passed under gridlock but was passed by overwhelming
majorities of both parties, in both the House and Senate, including
those representing states covered by the act.
In my view the act should be upheld, period. For conservative justices who might be inclined to overturn the act or Section 5 of the act, I would suggest they consider that this would violate the conservative principle against extreme judicial activism. It would violate the conservative principle of avoiding political decisions. It would violate the conservative principle against the unelected judicial branch negating overwhelming agreement of the elected executive and legislative branches, which have substantially more expertise regarding free elections than those of “narrow legal background.”