- Elton John blasts Russia’s anti-gay laws during Moscow concert
- U.N.: Afghanistan slow to enforce law protecting women
- Heart cancels SeaWorld concert after ‘Blackfish’ documentary
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
By Brahma Chellaney
Beijing's creeping aggression signals a challenge to U.S. presence in the Asian Pacific
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Topic - Paul Clement
The U.S. Supreme Court is beginning a new term with controversial topics that offer the court's conservative majority the chance to move aggressively to undo limits on campaign contributions, undermine claims of discrimination in housing and mortgage lending, and allow for more government-sanctioned prayer.
The Supreme Court is trying to sort out a wrenching adoption case involving a American Indian child, a biological father who first renounced any interest in her, and adoptive parents who eventually were ordered to hand her over to the father.
Players' lawyer David Frederick also called the NFL's brain-injury committee "a sham" that spread misinformation. Frederick's remarks came in a pivotal hearing Tuesday in Philadelphia on lawsuits filed by about 4,200 former players and their families.
Gay marriage is on trial but it was the Obama administration facing the heat as the Supreme Court began the second of two days of landmark oral arguments on the constitutionality of gay marriage.
A divided federal appeals court in New York struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
It would be hard to top the historic significance of the term that just ended, but Supreme Court watchers say the justices will confront some momentous questions once again when their next term officially begins Monday.
Obamacare is doomed - all of it. Does that seem like a strong statement? Consider: What a few months ago was widely dismissed as impossible is now regarded as likely: a Supreme Court decision that overturns the law's central provision, the mandate to purchase health insurance.
A three-judge federal appellate court heard arguments Wednesday on whether a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman - thus denies marital benefits to gay couples married under state law - is constitutional.
Wrapping up a three-day marathon of oral arguments about President Obama's health care overhaul, the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether the rest of the law can stand on its own if the justices were to strike down the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase insurance.
Getting to the crux of challenges to President Obama's health care overhaul Tuesday, the Supreme Court spent the second day of oral arguments grappling over whether the government can require Americans to buy coverage — and making clear that they want the government to show limits to the newfound power it seeks.
The Obama administration is withholding medical and other benefits from same-sex spouses of military members, but Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says he can no longer defend the law that authorizes the practice.
Minnesota Timberwolves forward Anthony Tolliver was watching back in March, when pro football players such as Tom Brady and Drew Brees announced they were disbanding their union and suing the NFL under antitrust law.
Thanks to the rule of law, Americans are not subject to the capricious rule of men. Instead, the laws apply equally to the high and the low alike. To achieve this end, the Founders separated powers and responsibilities within government, giving Congress the authority to make the laws and charging the president with the constitutionally imposed duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Gene Balas and Carlos Morales were facing health problems and crushing financial pressures plaguing many U.S. households when they decided to file bankruptcy as a married couple.
Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties.
But Mr. Clement said each case also offers the court "an off-ramp," a narrower outcome that may be more in keeping with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s stated desire for incremental decision-making that bridges the court's ideological divide.