Malaysian Minister Shahidan Kassim has made international news by proclaiming that atheists should be “hunted down” and that constitutional rights do not apply to them. He is not alone in the heavily Islamic nation in this hateful view and many support such a crackdown.
Continue reading “Malaysian Minister Calls For Atheists To Be “Hunted Down””
In a remarkable departure from his own Chief Executive, the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Agency Chuck Rosenberg has repudiated the remarks of President Donald Trump that encouraged law enforcement officers to abuse criminal suspects. We previously discussed those irresponsible remarks. While the White House dismissed questions from reporters by saying that the President was just joking, it did not explain why the President would think it was funny to harm suspects or what message such a joke sends to law enforcement after assuring them that “we have your back.” Rosenberg told DEA officers that the President was condoning police misconduct and that he would not.
Continue reading “DEA Head Repudiates Trump’s Comments Encouraging The Abuse Of Suspects”
Controversial statements by President Donald Trump in the past have often been treated by his supporters as hyperbole or not to be taken strictly or even seriously. However, a speech last Friday had some particularly chilling elements for anyone who believes in the rule of the law. Trump was speaking to law enforcement officers and urged them not to be “too nice” to suspected criminals and gang members. He further seemed to encourage intentional acts of harm and abuse in the handling of prisoners. The comments were irresponsible and should be be corrected by the White House. We recently discussed Trump’s praise for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has bragged about extrajudicial killings and encouraged police abuse. This is obviously not that extreme but it is still highly disturbing in a speech where the President has pledged that “We have your backs 100 percent” while encouraging them to be rough in handling of suspects. His comments have led to police organizations publicly rejecting the comments and assuring the public that they will not engage in such conduct.
Below is my column in USA Today on the possibility of a “Doomsday scenario” where President Donald Trump first fired (or forces the resignation) of Jeff Sessions and then moves to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That scenario was reinforced yesterday with reports that Trump has discussed firing Sessions and giving a recess appointment to his successor — the very scenario laid out earlier in this column. In addition, Trump blasted Sessions again yesterday — this time criticizing him for not replacing Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife ran for office in Virginia in 2015 and received large contributions from the Democratic Party.
Trump’s unrelenting criticism of Sessions is occurring at the same time as new leaks about his discussing not just a replacement but a recess appointment — something the Democrats have vowed to prevent. The question is whether some Republicans might join in that effort to prevent the type of Doomsday scenario laid out in this earlier column.
I have previously discussed the legendary career of Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Widely viewed as the father of Law and Economics, Posner remains one of greatest influences on American jurisprudence in the history of this country. I have long been a great admirer of his work and teach his theories as part of my torts course. It is for that reason that I was delighted when my co-counsel sent me the interview below where Judge Posner expressed support for the proposal that I have advanced for many years to reform the Supreme Court. Posner agrees with the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to nineteen members.
Continue reading “Judge Richard Posner Declares Support For Supreme Court Expansion Proposal”
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the continuing debate over the constitutionality of self-pardons. While I view this question as a close one, I do not agree with commentators like Brookings Fellow Norman Eisen that any claim that a president can self-pardon is “absurd.” To the contrary, I believe that Trump would have a 50-50 chance in any challenge.
Of course, the first challenge to working out the merits of such arguments would be securing judicial view. In case like Ex Parte Garland (1866), the Supreme Court has previously treated the pardon power as largely unfettered and political in natural – a power that can be used for any federal offense before, during or after a prosecution. It is not something ordinarily subject to judicial review. It is possible that a federal prosecutor could seek to bring a charge and force a court to rule on a motion to quash an indictment based on a prior self-pardon. A decision could easily go either way on this type of close and intractable question.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Trump And The Epiphany of Clarity: The Case For And Against Self-Pardons”
Below is my column in the Washington Post on the controversy over the possible use of pardon authority by President Donald Trump to protect his family and aides involved in the Russian investigation. Trump’s tweet reference to his “complete power to pardon” fueled rumors that he is considering pardons, including a possible self-pardon.
This weekend my column on the Trump pardon controversy ran in the Washington Post. (Notably, while the first title referenced a President pardoning himself, the later title referenced pardoning aides which was the thrust of the column). As I have stated in the press, I consider this one of the most difficult questions in the Constitution. I wrote that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that a president cannot self-pardon and that this was a very close and unresolved question. The same day, a column ran that said conclusively that the self-pardon are clearly and textually barred by the Constitution. That column was written by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, Minnesota Professor Richard Painter, and Brookings Institution fellow Norman Eisen. I must respectfully disagree despite my respect for the prior work of all three of these men. While I believe that it would have been better for the Framers to expressly bar self-pardons, they did not do so. What is left is a difficult interpretive question that is not answered by the arguments made in the column. Indeed, some of the arguments are challengeable on either a historical or legal basis. This is an issue that could easily go either way in the courts. In the meantime, President Trump this morning fueled greater speculation with a tweet referring to his “complete power to pardon.”
Continue reading “Self-Pardons: A Response To Tribe, Painter, and Eisen”
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on how critics of Donald Trump have been calling for radical extensions or interpretations of criminal provisions against core figures. The implications for such interpretations of crimes like treason need to be considered by critics.
President Donald Trump gave a bombshell interview with the New York Times on Wednesday in which he said that he would not have appointed Jeff Sessions to be attorney general had he known Sessions would recuse himself from the Russian investigation. It was a highly disturbing interview since Sessions recused on the advice of ethics experts at the Justice Department and the overwhelming view of the bar.
Today the world lost one of its most inspiring and courageous figures. On Thursday, Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Prize recipient and Chinese intellectual, has died at 61 of cancer. The Chinese government defied the world in keeping Liu under custody as part of its authoritarian, one-party rule. Liu kept the memory of the Tiananmen Square massacre alive when the government has sought to wipe out any evidence that the protests even occurred. He was a tireless defender for civil liberties in a country that rejects the most basic principles of human rights and civil liberties. He declined numerous opportunities to leave the country and live in freedom. He was the ultimate Chinese patriots and the Chinese government has reaffirmed that it remains a blood-soaked dictatorship. Some day freedom will come to China and the Chinese people will learn of people like Liu who died for their liberty and their future.
Continue reading “Nobel Peace Prize Winner Liu Xiaobo Dies In Chinese Custody”
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the curious coverage surrounding James Comey and his leaking of his memos on meetings with President Donald Trump. With the confirmation hearings of Comey’s replacement, Chris Wray, today, the status of the memos may come up in the Senate.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Printing The Legend: The Growing Gap Between Comey’s Image and Actions”
Latham & Watkins partner Michelle Kelban-Carteron is in an intense litigation with the board of managers of her Chelsea Modern condo over what her counsel says is “dog racism” in a ban on pit bulls and “other potentially dangerous dogs.” The lawsuit by the board cites instances of Luna lunging at residents and barking at other dogs in an aggressive manner. As a result, they seek an injunction and declaration that Kelban-Carteron has breached her contract and violated the associational rules of the condo. It also alleges the creation of a nuisance.
Continue reading “Dog Racism: New York Partner Sues Condo Over Ban On Pit Bulls”
Judge Richard Posner may have just announced his own impending retirement from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner is arguing that federal judges should be subject to a mandatory retirement age of “probably 80.” The legendary jurist and writer is 78 years old. The interview may also add fuel to calls for Supreme Court justices to accept retirement. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84. Anthony Kennedy is 80. Stephen Breyer is 78.
Continue reading “Posner: All Judges Should Be Required To Retire At 80”