Jump to navigation
Supreme Court confirmation hearings are often national civics lessons. This one comes at a moment when we’re in need of just that.
The Supreme Court nominee comes from a long line of lawyers, the most prominent of whom was a compassionate, empathetic leader.
The next justice's pen, not the president's tweets, could redefine your right to vote.
Kellyanne Conway earlier this week was right to raise concerns about the security of “smart” devices connected to the Internet, even if it was an attempt to distract from Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that Obama had “wiretapped” Trump Tower.
This year's political climate demands nothing short of supercharging our democracy.
Residents with past criminal convictions are suing the state, arguing that a ban on voting for people on probation and parole goes farther than the state Constitution intended.
A Senate proposal for creating a commission on criminal justice is not only a great idea, it will put lawmakers to the test whether they’re serious about reform.
If 140 characters designed to plunge the Obama administration into scandal can instead generate a long-overdue national conversation about surveillance authorities, we could all be better off for it.
Don’t say we didn’t warn you about this one: your “smart” TV may be spying on you. Really.
Democrats should require Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to respond to basic questions about his judicial philosophy and views on past cases.
Found this useful?
Signup to receive updates from us.