Poor Mittens: Mitt Romney has a new book called "No Apology." I was not aware that people were demanding apologies from Mitt Romney, but apparently he will not give them the satisfaction. I first see the Mitt Romney book in the "New Releases" section with...
Author: Scott Lemieux
Speaking of moribund fourth-rate conservative sites, I decided to check out the Daily Tucker to see how their own recycled conservative hire is doing. The answer, apparently, is that Kaus.
As G.M.'s healthy profit makes clear, it's been a striking policy success that Republicans in Congress were wrong about. For a strikingly non-prescient column, your moment of Bobo from 2009..
As Lithwick says, the only problem with the Obama administration's actions is that it took too long.
...is just bog-standard reactionary Republican politics. It certainly has nothing to do with "small government."
It many have been withdrawn in South Dakota. But similar legislation is now being considered in Nebraska and Iowa. I'm so old I remember when legitimating terrorism was considered a.
The funniest reaction to the Obama administration's salutary decision to not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA comes, needless to say, from Jeff Goldtsein: Of course, he doesn’t get to determine that – it was passed by the legislature and signed into law...
The Obama administration is refusing to defend this constitutionality of DOMA as it applies to legally married same-sex couples. Sometimes, elections can have positive consequences!
Dahlia Lithwick and Adam Liptak have good articles about yesterday's oral argument in Bond v. U.S. The substantive issue of the case is whether a law implementing the 1993 Chemical.
D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler issued the latest ruling, reinforcing the partisan trend. Her opinion is a very solid piece of work, and provides a good account of the existing doctrine if you're interested in such things.
I like this Peter Beinart much better than the old one. Where the women writers at? Here. "Fiscal hawk," in Villager, means nothing more than "a willingness to attack programs.
In any discussion of draconian anti-choice policies that apply pre-viability, the probability of an anti-choice apologist using non-sequiturs about (already illegal) post-viability abortions in order to evade the underlying issue.