Based on mere speculation about corporate expenditures, Montana's Supreme Court decision would have denied fundamental rights.
In an attempt to support minority groups, CUNY has proposed a new diversity plan that relies on the very stereotyping it hopes to discourage.
How should voters assess a candidate's integrity? Inconsistency and double-talk on policy questions would be a good place to start.
Plaintiffs in a Tennessee lawsuit want to deny local Muslims the right to build a mosque. Why? They claim it's not a legitimate faith and shouldn't be allowed First Amendment rights.
In office, the president has only increased the power of the police state. Segments of the left may struggle to stay with him.
The misconception that the Supreme Court case enabled independent campaign supporters to indulge in political expenditures is pervasive and probably un-correctable.
A declaration for or against gay marriage would have symbolic -- not legal -- value.
Scott Brown's attack against Elizabeth Warren's 'elitism' is illogical, but -- alas -- will play well on the campaign trail.
Three girls in Indiana were expelled for joking on Facebook about classmates they would like to kill. Should districts have the authority to intervene?
Obama issued an order permitting sanctions against those who use new technologies to abuse human rights. But what about our own government's spying programs?
The masses don't seem to mind public espionage when it's someone else who is being tracked.
If the case does go to court, the trial may have to take place on another planet.
A bill that was designed to rectify gender discrimination tips the balance too far, putting accused men at an unfair disadvantage.
All students are free not to say them, but plaintiffs in a state case argue that the words "under God" deny non-religious students their "right of inclusion" in a patriotic ceremony.
The paper is promoting the misconception that the ruling allowed for unlimited campaign contributions from super-rich individuals. It didn't.
A school suspended a teacher for using the racial epithet in an educational context. Now he's suing his district. Why is this considered hate speech?
Let's get this clear, mandated birth control coverage is not an outright attack on religious freedom, and it is not unprecedented either.
The question of whether employees in church-affiliated organizations should receive contraceptive benefits is not a moral issue. It's a civil rights issue.
When it's an expression of a student's free speech, it is protected. When it's endorsed by officials, it's illegal. But a Supreme Court ruling muddies this boundary.
The opposing senatorial candidates are asking for no third-party advertisements in the upcoming race. But are they going too far in trying to silence the electorate?