The last thing left-leaning feminists want is a constitutional amendment that would jeopardize such things as preferential treatment for woman-owned businesses.
I just started to listening to this a few months ago (late adopter), I know, and I'm totally hooked.
Is Maine so multicultural now that it can't bring itself to criminalize female genital mutilation within its borders? If the line on cross-cultural tolerance shouldn't be drawn there, where should it be drawn?
It was a rotten durian, and "the waste will be dealt with by Environment Protection Authority officers."
The right approach, in my view.
A law-nerd discussion, posted up at Lawfare.
TL;DR summary: No, it's pointless -- as the data shows -- and it can make you look bad.
Felons retain their free speech rights. Some recent court decisions conclude that some felons regain their Second Amendment rights. But the right to vote is different, according to the constitutional text.
Grilling in the yard, radioactive waste in the yard, and police drive onto the wrong yard.
It's never a dull moment at the Commission on Civil Rights.
As a recent Indiana Supreme Court case amply demonstrates, the term "website" is not nearly precise enough for use in our criminal law, and judges and legislators need to stop pretending that it is.
There is no reason not to release same-day audio for all oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
The ADL defames Canary Mission.
A remarkable story from The Chronicle of Higher Education (Dan Bauman & Chris Quintana)
Restricting guns-or vans, knives, or planes-won't make the world safer. The Toronto van attack reminds us peril lies in people with bad intent, not with how they get it done.
If domestic courts are to be a forum for these sorts of suits, five justices conclude, Congress must first say so.
Having failed to thwart crime with gun bans, British officials now want to restrict what may be the most useful tool ever invented.
The German economy depends on strong national unions and complex licensing and certifications to discourage apprentices from leaving their apprenticeships prematurely. Americans may not be so keen on that.
Cases like Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (2014) show how important it is appoint good judges to the federal courts.
Around the world, governments are trying to kill paper money. It's a terrible idea.
For partly understandable reasons, I often get confused with Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute. Here is the definitive guide to how to tell the two libertarian Ilyas apart.
Eight years ago, the Volokh Conspiracy pointed out that the Chair of the Vermont State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had made ridiculous, racially inflammatory statements. Today the Commission evidently decided that's just what Vermont needs and brought him back for a second stint as Chair.
Loafing about, fishing for a lighter, and standing on the porch.
National injunction upheld 2-1 in Chicago sanctuary city case
Apparently all carnivorans (not quite the same as carnivores) are either doggy or catty.
The Trump Administration loses its appeal in Chicago v. Sessions, but one judge dissents on the appropriateness of a nationwide injunction
Not an Onion headline (but maybe subconsciously influenced by one).
Capsule summary: "Vote the way we want you to, and maybe we'll have just a bit less contempt for you than we now do."
Is it they don't want to admit that females do so well relative to males in high school? They don't want appear to be defecting from the left-of-center coalition that supports race-preferential admissions policies? Or is something else driving this?
Americans have a poor sense of risk, and media panics don't help.
The Obama Administration's effort to federalize school discipline policy was not just wrongheaded, it was likely beyond the scope of its authority; Secretary DeVos should withdraw it.
One of several worthwhile reads in this year's Michigan Law Review book review issue.
This may be the first time Justice Gorsuch joined the Court's more liberal judges in a 5-4 decision, but it's unlikely to be the last.
Justice Gorsuch joins the four liberals in Sessions v. Dimaya, applying the void-for-vagueness doctrine to a particular deportation law.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks