If you came of age before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, you're much more likely to think the Supreme Court made the right call.
From here on out, nominees from either party will be utterly predictable, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
See the Prospect's contributing editor not react to a caller's assertion of a particular sort of enagement by members of a political party with a moose appendage.
Be careful how you ask.
The balance the opinion strikes between the state's interest in protecting access to reproductive health clinics and First Amendment rights is not unreasonable, and should not unduly restrict states going forward.
Even if we establish clear policies restraining our own use of drones, other countries may not.
Since Republicans know impeaching the president would be political disaster, this is the best alternative they can come up with.
The precedent was in fact clear enough that all nine members of a Court with a notably dubious record on Fourth Amendment rights agreed with the judgment.
We sometimes believe that if a politician is ambitious, then she isn't sincere in the things she says about policy. But why can't she be both?
There is a great deal that the president could do by executive order without waiting for a deadlocked Congress to act.
The majority opinion by Scalia made it harder for the government to regulate polluters, but doesn't appear to impede the administration's new climate regs.
In an epic bit of television, Fox News' Megyn Kelly reads Waldman's critique of Cheney's Iraq record to the former vice president on the air—and demands a reaction.
That contentious Democratic coalition of the past, beset by infighting? It's nowhere to be seen.
Nothing about the chaos there is simple, and anyone who tells you different is a dangerous fool.
The reasoning behind Judge Rolf Treu's decision is based on the faulty assumption that if you treat everyone equally, then everyone is equal.