The firestorm over Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s question on adoption during Wednesday’s oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization continues to rage in the media. For example, in the New York Times, Democratic strategist Elizabeth Spiers wrote a piece that paraphrased the question as “Why was abortion necessary, when women who do not want to be mothers can simply give their babies up for adoption?” That is not what Barrett was asking in the oral argument but it did not matter to the New York Times any more than it mattered to the Washington Post to run a clearly erroneous column on originalist support for abortion. Continue reading “Barrett’s Adoption Question Causes Ongoing Firestorm in the Media”
Category: Constitutional Law
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else. The “else” varies from promises to pack the Court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of “revolution.” It is the latest demand that the justices yield to popular demand or any countervailing interpretation of the Constitution. Or else. Continue reading “So You Say You Want a Revolution? Sen. Jeanne Shaheen Issues a Warning to the Supreme Court”
The Washington Post has been criticized for running a column by Aaron Tang, professor of law at the University of California at Davis, claiming an originalist basis for the right to abortion. The column makes highly dubious claims over the legality of early stage abortions and the likely understanding of the Framers of such a right. The suggestion is that, at least as to early abortions, the Framers and early legal commentators may have been technically pro-choice. I recently wrote a column on how abortions were treated as crimes at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The assertions made by Professor Tang have been refuted by scholars like John Finnis, professor emeritus of Law and Legal Philosophy at Oxford University, and Robert P. George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University. The Supreme Court will hear one of the most important abortion cases in decades this week in in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Continue reading “Were the Framers Really Pro-Choice? Not Likely”
Below is my column in The Hill on the argument in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court’s most watched case this term on abortion rights. The oral argument is scheduled for December 1st, the same week that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear an expedited appeal over the even more stringent Texas abortion law.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Roe Redux: Is The Viability Test Still Viable as a Constitutional Doctrine?”
Below is my column in USA Today on the collapse of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial due to a series of prosecutorial blunders. What is worrisome is the highly slanted coverage over the last year, particularly during the trial itself. Many in the media have not focused on the countervailing facts in the case.
Today the jury will get the case following closing arguments and jury instructions. One issue to watch is how Judge Bruce Schroeder handles the gun count, which is based on what I believe is a flawed legal interpretation by the prosecution.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Rittenhouse Goes To Jury After Case Collapses in Court”
In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. The statement could effectively knock out the misdemeanor gun possession count — the one count that could still be in play for the jury after the prosecution’s case on the more serious offense appeared to collapse in court. A close examination of that provision reveals ample reason to question not just its meaning but its application to this case.
Continue reading “Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?”
Michael Flynn, former national security advisor in the Trump administration, is back in the news this weekend with another startling declaration. While speaking at the “Rewaken America” rally, Flynn declared “If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion.” It is a deeply offensive and frankly unAmerican viewpoint. This country was founded (and has been defended) by people of many religions. Arlington cemetery has Christian, Jews, Muslim, and other faiths represented on the tombstones of those who gave the final measure of devotion to this country and its freedoms, including the freedom of religion. Thomas Jefferson famously declared “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.” Continue reading “Michael Flynn: “We Must Have One Religion””
I recently wrote a column on the legal challenges to President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate issued through OSHA. Not only is the use of OSHA regulations unprecedented for imposing a national vaccine mandate, I noted that Chief of Staff Ron Klain went to Twitter to herald the use of OSHA as a “work around” the constitutional limitations placed on President Biden. I asked how a court would respond to such an admission. We have to wonder no more. Late Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cited Klain’s comment in its decision enjoining the mandate. Continue reading “When “Work Arounds” Don’t Work: The Fifth Circuit Cites Biden’s Chief of Staff In Rejecting Vaccine Mandate”
Below is my column in the Hill on the review of the OSHA vaccine mandate imposed by the Biden Administration. Courts like the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit are facing a novel use of workplace regulations in an admitted effort to circumvent constitutional limitations. The question is whether it will work.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Will Biden’s Vaccine-Mandate “Work-Around” Work with the Supreme Court?”
We have been discussing (here and here and here) the Supreme Court challenge in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, the first Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over ten years. Yesterday’s oral argument appeared to confirm the expectations in those columns on the likely reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a reinforcement of Second Amendment rights. Continue reading “Locked and Loaded: The Supreme Court Argument Appears To Confirm A Major Gun Rights Victory in the Making”
There is an interesting constitutional fight brewing in Florida. I have a column out today on the “Let’s Go, Brandon” movement. Marvin Peavy is part of that movement and displayed a banner with the chant (with a pro Trump banner) from his home in Seagrove Beach, Florida. He is now facing a $50 a day fine for violating an ordinance against such banners. He has pledged to continue to fight the enforcement. The question is whether the ordinance is constitutional. Continue reading “Florida Homeowner Fined For Displaying “Let’s Go Brandon” and Pro-Trump Banners on Home”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will take up arguably the oldest and most controversial right in our history. New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen is the first major gun rights case in over ten years to come before the Supreme Court and it has the makings of a major gun rights victory in the making. Continue reading “The Supreme Showdown: Bruen Has The Makings of a Major Second Amendment Victory”
Below is my column in the Hill on today’s argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas on the request for an emergency injunction in Texas to block the state’s controversial abortion law. The merits of the law are not at issue in the questions presented today but the decision to push for an injunction comes with some risks for the Biden Administration. [Update: Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested in oral argument that he might be open to changing existing precedent to allow for injunctions of court clerks to block the Texas law].
Here is the column: Continue reading “Roe Roulette: Biden Administration Takes a Gamble with Emergency Appeal of Texas Abortion Law”
There is a troubling report in The New York Times of another free speech fight on one of our campuses. Three University of Florida political science professors have told a federal court that the university barred them from assisting plaintiffs in a challenge to the state’s new voting laws. As state employees, they were told that litigating against a state law would be “adverse to U.F.’s interests.” That is a departure from long-standing practices at state universities. It constitutes an obvious attack on the free speech and associational rights of these faculty members as well as academic freedom. The plaintiffs in the challenge wanted to retain Daniel Smith (the chair of the university’s political science department), Michael McDonald, and Sharon Wright Austin. Continue reading “University of Florida Bars Professors From Testifying Against New State Voting Rules”
Below is my column in the Hill on the renewed effort to pass a wealth tax by the Biden Administration. The effort to tax “unrealized capital gains” has been growing for months as an alternative to Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax. However, it raises similar constitutional questions. What was most notable is that the new tax was simply put into the Senate bill with the support of the Biden Administration without a single hearing or debate. That led to objections from figures like the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Richard Neal who noted that it was not vetted or studied. It is not part of the House bill. However, many are still pushing the concept despite the significant questions over its constitutionality.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Warning: Joe Biden’s ‘Eat the Rich’ Pitch May Come Back to Bite You”