Below is my column in The Hill on the restoration of voting rights for D.C. residents without the need for a constitutional amendment. That path has always been open and has been used before. It is called retrocession. The problem is that Democrats have long opposed the change because it would deny them two additional Senate seats, even though it would give them at least one new House seat.
Here is the column:
Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz appears to be living through a remake of the Seinfeld Soup Nazi episode. However, Dershowitz is facing a new culinary menace in Martha’s Vineyard. Chef Krem Miskevich has barred the famed lawyer from buying pierogis because of his political views . . . and liberals are applauding him for it. Welcome to Pierogi Politics, it is the same distasteful politics that is tearing apart this country . . . only with an added carbo load.
The Tenth Circuit handed down a notable opinion this week in Poe v. Drummond, upholding Oklahoma’s law prohibiting gender transition procedures for anyone under eighteen. The opinion by Judge Joel Carson (joined by Judges Harris Hartz and Gregory Phillips) concluded that parental rights do not trump a state’s determination of what are safe treatments for minor patients. Continue reading “Tenth Circuit: Parents Do Not Have Right to Override Ban on Gender Transitioning of Minors”
I previously criticized the California law, called the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, as flagrantly unconstitutional. Signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the law would have gutted free speech protections for political parodies. Now, in Kohls v. Bonta, Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez has rebuked the state for a law that he concluded had to be rejected in its entirety as flawed to its core: “No parts of this statute are severable because the whole statute is preempted. No parts of A.B. 2655 can be salvaged.” Continue reading “Federal Judge Strikes Down California’s Unconstitutional Deepfake Law”
Democratic members are again claiming that they can demand access to any federal facilities without approval or even notice to a given agency. We saw previously how Rep. LaMonica McIver stormed an ICE facility and allegedly assaulted an officer. She and others claimed that they had the right of entry without the pre-approval of the agency. Now, after another attempted entry at an ICE facility in Baltimore, an array of Democratic members have sued over their denial. The lawsuit is, in my view, fundamentally flawed, but the members appear to be hoping for another obliging judge. Both sides could be adopting Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s position outside of the ICE facility that “This is BS, plain and simple.” Continue reading ““This is BS, Plain and Simple”: Democrats Sue to Gain Unlimited Access to Federal Facilities”
When President James Buchanan declared that the United States Senate is the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” he clearly had not envisioned Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.). In yet another tirade on the floor, Sen. Booker attacked not just President Donald Trump but his Democratic colleagues for voting for a bipartisan bill on law enforcement. Behind the “I am Spartacus” theatrics is a more troubling trend in the United States Senate as it devolves into a more populist, impulsive institution. Continue reading “The World’s Most Dysfunctional Body? Cory Booker Captures the Decline the United States Senate”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
On Tuesday the Justice Department petitioned for a writ of Quo Warranto against three individuals having served as board members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting who were fired by President Trump yet allegedly continued to hold and exercise their office.
The complaint states “[s]ince April 28, 2025, Defendants Laura G. Ross, Thomas E. Rothman, and Diane Kaplan have been usurping and purporting to exercise unlawfully the office of board member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the “CPB”)… President Donald J. Trump lawfully removed each Defendant from office on April 28, 2025. As recent Supreme Court orders have recognized, the President cannot meaningfully exercise his executive power under Article II of the Constitution without the power to select—and, when necessary, remove—those who hold federal office. Personnel is policy, after all.”
Dr. Kevin O’Connor appeared before the House Oversight Committee, but he had little to say about the investigation into the alleged cover-up of President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline. The former White House physician invoked his privilege against self-incrimination in refusing to answer any questions. His prescription for the Committee seems clear: take a Fifth and call me in the morning (with an immunity grant). The question is now whether Congress will move to compel his testimony. Continue reading “Biden’s Doctor: Take a Fifth and Call Me in the Morning (With Immunity)”
The Trump administration notched another victory this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington granted a motion to dismiss a case brought by five organizations to stop the cancellation of more than 360 grant awards by the Justice Department. However, in reaching this relatively straightforward conclusion, Judge Mehta opted to follow a pattern set by other judges in adding his own personal commentary on the wisdom of the policy change.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a relatively rare clarification of its earlier opinion, which lifted the injunction on the deportation of immigrants to third-party countries. In a surprising response, Judge Brian Murphy in Boston ruled that he considered his orders regarding the eight immigrants set for deportation to South Sudan to remain unchanged by the decision. The Court quickly disabused him of that notion by declaring that he was not in compliance with its order. What was most remarkable, however, was the sharp concurrence by Justice Elena Kagan who, despite voting against the original order, called out Murphy for defying the authority of the Court. It was a commendable and principled position that escaped her colleagues, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent. Continue reading “Justice Kagan Joins Colleagues in Rebuking Liberal Boston Judge Over His Defiance of the Court”
In Washington, D.C., District Court Judge Randolph Moss has issued a notable decision against the Trump Administration in Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal and Educational Services v. Noem. Judge Moss rejected the use of Trump’s January 20 “invasion” executive proclamation to block undocumented immigrants from pursuing asylum applications and other legal pathways. The court essentially rules that the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution is something of a paper tiger, finding that states are protected from “invasion,” but affording the President no additional powers to carry out that guarantee. Continue reading “Federal Judge Rules Against Trump on Use of “Invasion” Powers to Expedite Deportations”
The Justice Department is being asked to look into criminal charges against CNN after publishing a report about an app that allows users to track Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in their area. While critics may view the report as reckless and dangerous, it is not a crime. Continue reading “No, CNN Did Not Commit a Crime in Reporting on the ICE Tracking App”
Below is my column in The Hill on the ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor in favor of parents who want to withdraw their children from LGBTQ lessons in public schools. I agreed with the majority, but it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) that was the most striking in its apocalyptic take on allowing parents to remove their children from these classes. Despite the fact that various opt-outs have been allowed for parents, this one is deemed a threat to the very essence of public education.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in the New York Post on the controversial dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the injunction ruling in Trump v. CASA on Friday. The opinion seemed to fan the flames of “democracy is dying” claims of protesters, suggesting that basic limits on injunctive relief could result in the collapse of our core institutions. It was a hyperventilated opinion better suited to a cable program than a Court opinion. The response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a virtual pile driver of a rebuke. What was notable is that a majority of the justices signed off on the takedown. It could indicate a certain exasperation with histrionics coming from the left of the Court in recent years.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson”
The warning was stark. At issue was a privileged class that has long dictated policy despite countervailing public opinion. At issue, the luminary warned, is nothing short of democracy itself. No, it was not the continued rallies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., VT) to “fight oligarchy.” It was Justice Clarence Thomas rallying his colleagues to fight technocracy, or government by experts. He warned against allowing “elite sentiment” to “distort and stifle democratic debate.” Yet, the story is even more profound of an elite class which succumbed to the Icarian gene and fell to Earth due to hubris and excess.
Continue reading “The Icarian Gene: The Rise and Fall of the Expert Class”