In all the bad days that opponents of same-sex marriage have had lately, few compare with the one they had this past week in a courtroom in Chicago.
In fighting disease, aggressive action is not always advisable. Two years ago a federal panel recommended against routine use of a test for prostate cancer because it carries "a very small potential benefit and significant potential harms." Some men get false positives, and many true positives lead to risky surgery for cancers that grow so slowly as to pose no threat.
The shooting of Michael Brown and its turbulent aftermath have renewed an old question: Why does the black community raise a ruckus when a white person kills a black person, which is rare, but not when a black person kills a black person, which is far less rare?
Fifty years ago this summer, President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But if they mass behind Clinton's presidential candidacy, liberals will be making a Faustian deal.
Congressional Democrats are lining up behind a constitutional amendment to allow restrictions on campaign contributions and spending, and Republicans, to their everlasting credit, are opposed.
A diplomat was once defined as someone whose job is to lie for his country. That's apparently what makes them different from intelligence officers, whose function is to lie to their country.
Gun control advocates are learning the downside of getting their way. Last week, a federal judge struck down the District of Columbia's ban on the carrying of concealed handguns. Anti-gun forces have been losing in legislatures for a long time. Now they are finding that even where they win, they lose.
Gun-control advocates are learning the downside of getting their way. Recently, a federal judge struck down the District of Columbia's ban on the carrying of concealed handguns.
Newspaper editorials rarely make news -- I've been writing them for a long time, and, believe me, I know -- but one did the other day, when The New York Times came out for legalization of marijuana. It was an agreeable development for anyone who, like me, believes in letting people live their own lives, even if they do it badly. But its significance is much bigger than that.
The world is a hot mess. Pro-Russian separatists shot down a passenger jet over Ukraine. Iraq is under siege from Islamic radicals, the Taliban is rebounding in Afghanistan and civil war grinds on in Syria.
In 1952, Sen. Patrick McCarran of Nevada took the Senate floor to warn of the dangers posed by foreigners. The immigration system, he said, is a stream that flows into our society, and "if that stream is polluted our institutions and our way of life becomes infected." He was not the last person to see those migrating here as a terrifying source of contamination.
Living in a city that had 82 shootings over the Fourth of July weekend, Chicagoans could be forgiven for envying the residents of Indianapolis.
There is a point at which firmness of conviction becomes obstinacy, and there is a point at which obstinacy becomes comedy. The latter was on spectacular view the other day when a prominent inflation hawk self-destructed on national TV.
In the eyes of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and others, the crisis on our southern border demonstrates the failure of our immigration policy. They are correct, though not in the way they think. The failure in our immigration policy comes from the persistent belief that we can make rivers run uphill.
It's a classic Orwellian nightmare: The government decides to deny you a right it extends to other people, but it won't tell you why and it won't tell you what you can do about it.
There has indeed been a tide of arrivals that badly strain the government's ability to handle them. Republicans blame it on President Barack Obama.
Organizations concerned with public policy have a habit of hyping developments that relate to their concerns. When the Supreme Court ruled that some corporations are exempt from paying for employees' contraceptive coverage under Obamacare, both sides loudly trumpeted its importance.
The surprising thing about the Supreme Court's decision on police searches of cellphones was its unanimity. Aligned on the same side of a major law enforcement issue were liberal and conservative justices who normally fight like cats and dogs. All agreed that it's intolerable to let cops ransack the voluminous contents of mobile phones.
New Tenants: Islamist Militia Secures A U.S. Embassy Residential Compound In Libya UPDATE: They Had A Pool Party | Matt Vespa