"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Exploring the American Idea since 1857. Run by Chris Heller and Alessandra Ram The Atlantic Twitter In Focus From the Archives
Ask
Submit
December 11, 2012
October 26, 2012
![The Court Crasher
The typical Supreme Court litigator does not have a Ferrari, and even if he did, he would not send it to Las Vegas for a drag race against a poker buddy. That’s because most Supreme Court lawyers studiously avoid making a spectacle of themselves. At first glance, you might mistake [Tom] Goldstein for one of his colleagues: he wears the same dark suits they do, and he is deceptively bland-looking—physically slight, with slender fingers and thinning hair. In one crucial sense, he is one of them: he is personally involved in about 10 percent of the cases on the Court’s docket in any given year.
Read more. [Image: John Cuneo]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcgirrhuoM1qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
The typical Supreme Court litigator does not have a Ferrari, and even if he did, he would not send it to Las Vegas for a drag race against a poker buddy. That’s because most Supreme Court lawyers studiously avoid making a spectacle of themselves. At first glance, you might mistake [Tom] Goldstein for one of his colleagues: he wears the same dark suits they do, and he is deceptively bland-looking—physically slight, with slender fingers and thinning hair. In one crucial sense, he is one of them: he is personally involved in about 10 percent of the cases on the Court’s docket in any given year.
Read more. [Image: John Cuneo]
August 9, 2012
![Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Toughest Supreme Court Justice, Ever
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg survived cancer twice, so we already knew she was tough, but now it turns out she broke two ribs early in June and didn’t even think the injury was serious enough to take time off work.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8hzeh0jQk1qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Toughest Supreme Court Justice, Ever
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg survived cancer twice, so we already knew she was tough, but now it turns out she broke two ribs early in June and didn’t even think the injury was serious enough to take time off work.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]
August 8, 2012
"At 6:26 p.m local time last night, an hour or so after the last appeal was denied, Texas executed a mentally retarded black man named Marvin Wilson, a man who could not handle money or navigate a phone book, a man who sucked his thumb and could not always tell the difference between left and right, a man who, as a child, could not match his socks, tie his shoes or button his clothes, a 54-year-old man with an IQ of 61 which, his attorneys were quick to point out, is ‘below the first percentile of human intelligence.’"
— Andrew Cohen, on how Texas ignored a Supreme Court decision to execute Marvin Wilson.
June 28, 2012
"Massachusetts, Congress was told, solved the adverse selection problem. By requiring most residents to obtain insurance … the Commonwealth ensured that insurers would not be left with only the sick as customers. As a result, federal lawmakers observed, Massachusetts succeeded where other States had failed."
June 28, 2012
"I don’t know, we rotate."
— Chief Justice John Roberts, on how the Supreme Court decides swing votes.
June 28, 2012
June 8, 2012
![If You’ve Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law
The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad — or almost anything else — without needing to get permission from a dozen “copyright holders.” Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:
1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.
2. Sold your dad’s used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.
3. Sold an “import CD” of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.
4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5bdrvIPQ51qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
If You’ve Ever Sold a Used iPod, You May Have Violated Copyright Law
The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will affect whether you can sell your iPad — or almost anything else — without needing to get permission from a dozen “copyright holders.” Here are some things you might have recently done that will be rendered illegal if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court decision:
1. Sold your first-generation iPad on Craigslist to a willing buyer, even if you bought the iPad lawfully at the Apple Store.
2. Sold your dad’s used Omega watch on eBay to buy him a fancier (used or new) Rolex at a local jewelry store.
3. Sold an “import CD” of your favorite band that was only released abroad but legally purchased there. Ditto for a copy of a French or Spanish novel not released in the U.S.
4. Sold your house to a willing buyer, so long as you sell your house along with the fixtures manufactured in China, a chandelier made in Thailand or Paris, support beams produced in Canada that carry the imprint of a copyrighted logo, or a bricks or a marble countertop made in Italy with any copyrighted features or insignia.
Read more. [Image: Reuters]
May 15, 2012
![Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man
At 11 p.m Monday, the Columbia University Human Rights Review published and posted its Spring 2012 issue — devoted entirely to a single piece of work about the life and death of two troubled and troublesome South Texas men. In explaining to their readers why an entire issue would be devoted to just one story, the editors of the Review said straightly that the “gravity of the subject matter of the Article and the possible far-reaching policy ramifications of its publication necessitated this decision.” […]
The Review article is an astonishing blend of narrative journalism, legal research, and gumshoe detective work. And it ought to end all reasonable debate in this country about whether an innocent man or woman has yet been executed in America since the modern capital punishment regime was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1976. The article is also a clear and powerful retort to Justice Scalia in Kansas v. Marsh: Our capital cases don’t have nearly the procedural safeguards he wants to pretend they do.
Read more. [Image: Corpus Christi Police Department]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m42illHuOP1qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man
At 11 p.m Monday, the Columbia University Human Rights Review published and posted its Spring 2012 issue — devoted entirely to a single piece of work about the life and death of two troubled and troublesome South Texas men. In explaining to their readers why an entire issue would be devoted to just one story, the editors of the Review said straightly that the “gravity of the subject matter of the Article and the possible far-reaching policy ramifications of its publication necessitated this decision.” […]
The Review article is an astonishing blend of narrative journalism, legal research, and gumshoe detective work. And it ought to end all reasonable debate in this country about whether an innocent man or woman has yet been executed in America since the modern capital punishment regime was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1976. The article is also a clear and powerful retort to Justice Scalia in Kansas v. Marsh: Our capital cases don’t have nearly the procedural safeguards he wants to pretend they do.
Read more. [Image: Corpus Christi Police Department]
April 10, 2012
![Why the Supreme Court Thinks Strip Searches Are Constitutional
Only a few days after conferring on health care, the judges issued their opinion on Florence, 5-4 allowing detention officers to strip-search for minor violations such as traffic stops and failing to leash a dog. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion (Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito — broadly considered to be the conservative wing — joined in the decision). A broccoli mandate? Not in my America. Jay walking? Drop those trousers.
The proximity of the two cases only underscores the apparent contradiction in logic. In a telephone conversation, University of Chicago Political Science Chair and Law Professor Bernard Harcourt addressed the inconsistency head on. “I think it is totally coherent in its paradoxical way — but goes to the difference between economic and political liberty.”
Harcourt, who is the author of The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order, calls it the “Great American Paradox” — a constitutional duality dating back to the 18th century, in which “they actually believed that you didn’t need a legislative branch, you only needed an executive branch. Because in economics, any man-made law would actually get in the way of natural order … because there was natural law — the markets — that already governed people.” In turn, lawmakers hypothesized, “There was only one thing we need legislation for. And that was criminal law. And you see it today.”
Read more. [Image: Shutterstock]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m29z7ccp4i1qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
Why the Supreme Court Thinks Strip Searches Are Constitutional
Only a few days after conferring on health care, the judges issued their opinion on Florence, 5-4 allowing detention officers to strip-search for minor violations such as traffic stops and failing to leash a dog. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion (Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito — broadly considered to be the conservative wing — joined in the decision). A broccoli mandate? Not in my America. Jay walking? Drop those trousers.
The proximity of the two cases only underscores the apparent contradiction in logic. In a telephone conversation, University of Chicago Political Science Chair and Law Professor Bernard Harcourt addressed the inconsistency head on. “I think it is totally coherent in its paradoxical way — but goes to the difference between economic and political liberty.”
Harcourt, who is the author of The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order, calls it the “Great American Paradox” — a constitutional duality dating back to the 18th century, in which “they actually believed that you didn’t need a legislative branch, you only needed an executive branch. Because in economics, any man-made law would actually get in the way of natural order … because there was natural law — the markets — that already governed people.” In turn, lawmakers hypothesized, “There was only one thing we need legislation for. And that was criminal law. And you see it today.”
Read more. [Image: Shutterstock]
RSS feed: http://theatlantic.tumblr.com/rss
1 of 3
Next page
-
Why removing the queerness of Gatsby matters
In one of the film’s stupidest choices, Nick ends up in a sanitarium after Gatsby’s death. His pure...
-
an autobiography
-
Attention All Photography Enthusiasts
Voting for our annual photo contest ends today! Browse through 50 stunning finalists and pick your...
-
-
The loss of the Fung Wah bus service between Boston and New York inspired this parody: http://nyr.kr/XGaaWx
Lyrics and performance by Marc...
-
Cinemas.
-
In Nairobi Slum, Finding Safety In A Public Bathroom
by Julienne Gage“Step into Nairobi’s sprawling Kibera slum and it’s...
-
Here’s today’s Daily GIF!
