This Supreme Court is quite clearly the enemy of progressivism. Soon it will move again (you would think Bush vs. Gore was enough) to frustrate fair and widespread voting in the United States. It will not only legitimize Indiana's blatant effort to minimize voting by the poor and minorities, but also it will bar challenges to other such red state initiatives.

What is to be done? Congress can launch legislative remedies against much, although not all, of what this Court does. It also can expand access to courts, use the Senate confirmation process to challenge anti-progressive nominations, couple judicial salaries with retirement so as to encourage a new and young generation of law professors to go to the bench.

Mostly, Congress can rise to the challenge posed by this Supreme Court to the American Dream. In an age of rising inequality and irresponsible governance, it is critical that Congress not tolerate the Court's roadblocks to progress.

Andrew Cuomo, attorney general of New York and Clinton supporter, used the phrase "shuck and jive" when referring to Obama.

If Cuomo were a talk show host or a commentator on the Golf Channel, he would be fired.

Is it possible that people like Cuomo wrongly think they are authorized to make these comments because they are only building on the Clintons' own claims that Obama is not experienced, is a "fairy tale," and is a mere "symbol"? If that is not what lures Cuomo, or Billy Shaheen, into the pernicious land of stereotypes, then what is going on here?

Endorse the Democratic candidate of his choice, and spend several hundred million dollars to elect Democrats at every level.

That would be serve to his country, and suit his principles.

Then he could tackle health care reform as the head of HHS, or otherwise serve in a complex, challenging job requiring his high competence.

If he ran for President himself, he would wrest away from Ralph Nader the title of Evilest Spoilsport Candidate ever in American history.

Read more »

"McCain tried to position himself as ...best able to face what he called "the transcendent challenge of the 21st Century, and that is radical Islamic extremists."

While 92 years is a long way to look into the future with any degree of clarity, there is no basis that to think that the well-being of Americans over the next four years, much less the next nine decades, is threatened primarily by "radical Islamic extremists."

My top list of "transcendent" challenges to the American standard of living and culture over the next two decades (nine is too hard to guess):

Read more »