A trio of terrible rulings has impeded large segments of the public, mainly those leaning Democratic, from meaningful participation in elections.
Candidate Joe Biden promised that, if elected, his first nomination for a vacancy on that court would be a Black woman jurist, the first of her kind on that bench.
Among its likely reasons for suing in D.C. are Minnesota’s standard of proof in such cases, the state’s attitude toward damages, and other practical issues.
There are a number of alternative approaches libraries could use, rather than flat-out eliminating fees.
The president-elect owes youthful voters, those between 18-29, who turned out in historically large numbers.
Pardoning himself could be the crowning blow in Donald Trump’s tainting of the presidency.
Expanding the number of Supreme Court justices makes sense for wholly apolitical reasons. The main one is the favorable effect it would have on the court’s productivity.
The death last week of a Minnesota congressional candidate may propel the state into a pivotal role in the election of the president.
The landmark litigation, Near v. Minnesota, began in the Roaring Twenties. It concerned Minnesota’s Public Nuisance law, a measure known as the “Gag Law.”
Minnesota courts infrequently hear, and usually refuse, pleas for changing venue.
Whistleblowers have caught plenty of flak from the Trump administration, but the government has not been alone in its censorial impulses and punitive sanctions.
President Lincoln attributed his 1864 victory, following a number of major advances and triumphs by the Union army, to the aversion of the voters “to change horses in the middle of the stream.”
The ratification in mid-January by the Virginia state legislature of the longstanding but inert Equal Rights Amendment has focused attention on the measure’s viability in the nation’s capital.
The decision involved people who are partners or principals. But the reasoning of the ruling is not restricted to big law firms or to compulsory retirement programs at them or other enterprises.
Minnesota law says illegal harassment consists of unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that is “severe or pervasive.”
The case, a combination of three separate lawsuits, addresses whether the federal anti-discrimination employment laws extend to lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender individuals.
Judicial rulings often do reflect the ideology and even partisan leanings of those who appoint them to the bench.
The lack of empirical basis connecting violent videos and anti-social behavior has been noted in court cases around the country, including landmark litigation here in Minnesota.
The no-indictment-while-in-office opinion has minimal legal footing and even less factual foundation. Rather than being revered, it should be reversed.
The St. Louis Park brouhaha over the Pledge recalls its colorful, somewhat checkered past — including turbulence here in Minnesota during the governorship nearly two decades ago of Jesse Ventura.