Former colleagues have penned a glowing tribute from lofty perches in business, law, and academia. You'll be amazed at what they left out.
The man who touted the Iraq War and Sarah Palin says Republicans are in danger of being too self-critical. How would he know?
The president's words elided inconvenient realities and too often lacked rigor.
The president and his underlings refuse to be bound even by secret rules they invented and believe to be prudent.
Aaron Swartz was mistreated by the criminal-justice system, but no more than the countless less-famous defendants who'd benefit from these reforms.
The question is at the core of what may be the most remote political dispute on earth.
An absurd outbreak of moral panic and needless paternalism decades before "Nanny Bloomberg" took over
The restrictionists don't like it, but rising stars of the GOP are lining up behind "comprehensive reform." But must we have "guest workers"?
Further proof that the easiest way to discredit him is to quote him verbatim and in context
He says the conservative movement has an "unhealthy share" of them. So why not call them out?
President Obama failed to anticipate the consequences of intervening in Libya and has made no effort to involve Congress in what may be his next war.
They express discomfort at the indefensible, then talk as if it can't be reformed without giving up on targeted killing entirely.
Is a tax credit that benefits "scholarship organizations" really a threat to religious liberty?
The Washington establishment has blundered badly in foreign policy over the last decade. Do we really want any more of its groupthink?
Ron Wyden is entitled to know the rules that surround targeted killing and all the countries where America is killing people. But no one will tell him.
A single prosecution can easily run more than $1 million -- all to send an empty message about federal drug laws and hand the market share over to a less savory purveyor.
Gun enthusiasts want to build it in the mountains of Idaho. They've already drawn up plans and are taking applications.
The fact that he'd be less physically intimidated by 100 whinnying, duck-sized horses hardly matters.
That's the latest argument offered by a prominent critic of legal cannabis. And it fails even if you accept the need for paternalism.
He's reportedly proposed making drone strikes less objectionable in much the same way Bush Administration official Steven Bradbury made torture less objectionable.