For some time now the indistinction of left and right has been understood as banal enough to render my hypothesis quite logical and straightforward: if “we” lack flag-positions of “left” or “right” on the basis of which to argue this or that, then decision-making and “political” expression deform, and they do so in a state or manner of what could be called general indecision. This is not to say that decisions are not made-and indeed by individuals or (in)corporated personas who may claim or counterclaim to have decided on this or that from a perspective of “the left” or “the right”-even if invisible hands on their shoulders have displaced their decidability. It is to say, rather, that for some time now, decisions have been made through the rule of general indecision and this has changed everything that used to be called politics (as well as anything we may understand as “teaching law through/and politics” and vice versa). This transformation, well-evident today, can be described as a move away from the multiverse of restricted economies (micro-politics) to a general economy (politics “as such”).
Scholars discuss the most significant immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, their ramifications, and what to expect in 2020.
Experts discuss legal developments and related ramifications one year after President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S. Southern Border with Mexico in order to build a wall.
"It's important to note that scholars have long observed that political discourse and political events can contribute to the frequency of bias incidents. In fact, this phenomenon has a name today. It's called the Trump Effect."
Do new domestic terrorism laws put Black Lives Matter supporters, anti-war protestors, and/or animal rights activists at risk? Do they presently incorporate sufficient safeguards against such misuse and abuse?