Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who wrote the memorandum firing James Comey is back in the news today. Various news organizations are reporting that he allegedly threatened to quit after the White House represented that Comey was fired based on his recommendation. Both the Washington Post and ABC News are reporting that Rosenstein was sufficiently outraged by the White House statements that he was prepared to walk. The reporting is highly disturbing on a number of levels. The White House made a notable change in its account of the decision yesterday — admitting that Trump decided that he wanted Comey gone over a week earlier. Of course, this does not change the fact that Rosenstein recommended the firing of Comey in the memo but it raises serious questions of the veracity of the White House. UPDATE: The White House is categorically denying that Rosenstein threatened to resign. More importantly, Rosenstein has denied that he threatened to resign though it is not clear if he denied calling the White House to object to its portrayal of the facts leading to the termination.
Category: Constitutional Law
Below is my USA Today column on the testimony of Sally Yates, former acting Attorney General, on her unprecedented order to the Justice Department not to assist President Donald Trump in the defense of his immigration executive order. While the hearing was focused on her warning with regard to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, some of us were more interested in how she would respond to criticism over the order that led to her being fired. Both Democratic and Republican lawyers have raised serious ethical misgivings over her decision. The hearing however only magnified the questions over the basis for her actions. Here is the column.
We have previously discussed how some of our closest allies like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt routinely deny both free speech and free exercise of religion to citizens through the application of Sharia law or Islamic moral codes. The latest outrage comes from Indonesia where a court convicted Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, the Christian governor of the country’s capital, Jakarta, of blasphemy for challenging Islamic extremists. He was sentenced to two years in prison in a disgraceful assault on basic civil liberties and principles of both religious tolerance and free speech.
Continue reading “Indonesian Court Unanimously Convicts Christian Governor of Jakarta Of Blasphemy”
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the implications of a rumored retirement by Justice Anthony Kennedy. If nothing else, it allowed me to discuss the anniversary of the Ypres Salient explosion in World War I — the mining of the German line with massive bombs. While we often discuss how a nominee could change the Court on issues like Roe v. Wade, the replacement of either Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would potentially collapse the long static lines on the Court. Like trench warfare, the 4-4 split on the Court has moved little in areas like abortion. It could now evaporate in the flash of a confirmation (assuming that Chief Justice John Roberts does not step into the role of swing vote on the Court).
Here is the column:
The Red Sox management is moving aggressively in the wake of the allegation by Baltimore Orioles outfielder Adam Jones of racist taunts at Fenway Park , including the banning for life of a fan who made a racist comment to another fan during a recent game. Boston police are also looking into any possible criminal conduct, including the throwing of peanuts at Jones and others. Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the proposal for a new federal crime for prosecuting racist fans. Putting aside the serious constitutional issues, it is entirely unnecessary. The problem with both rowdy and racist fans is the inaction of ballparks, not the insufficiency of criminal laws.
Continue reading “Calling Out Foul Fans: It Is Time For An Unsportsmanlike Conduct Rule For Fans”
When he played Gordon Deitrich in V For Vendetta, the television personality who challenged an authoritarian state, Stephen Fry exposed the terror of living in a state that reserved to itself the right to determine what speech was considered criminal. He now faces a criminal prosecution over a statement in Ireland that would be entirely protected in the United States as an exercise of free speech. Irish police are investigating him under the country’s infamous blasphemy law for asking why he should “respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world…. full of injustice.” Ireland allies itself with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in prosecuting free speech deemed insulting or offensive to any religion. The law is a disgrace to all freedom-loving people and the Irish demean themselves in keeping blasphemy in the criminal code. The only thing missing is some menacing Irish Chancellor saying “Ireland Prevails.” Continue reading “B for Blasphemy: Stephen Fry Under Investigation For Sharing His Views Of Religion”
There is an important lawsuit that has been filed in California after four high school students were suspended for simply “liking” Instagram posts deemed racist. The lawsuit could force reconsideration of the erosion of free speech rights for students, including the widening scope of discipline for student speech outside of schools. School officials now believe that they have full license to punish students if their personal views outside of school do not conform with accepted values. This case did have troubling aspects that raised legitimate concerns (though these students were not the author of the posting). The question is one of authority to regulate speech outside of schools if they do not involve criminal threats.
Below is my Hill column this week on the confirmation from both Trump’s Chief of Staff and the White House Spokesperson that the Administration is working on possible changes in our libel laws — changes that by definition would require altering the First Amendment. The decision in New York Times v. Sullivan is decades old and celebrated as one of the Court’s greatest decisions. It has never been challenged by a president . . . until now. The case clearly states that the libel standard is a constitutional rule and thus the Court would have to overturned the decision or the President would have to amend the First Amendment. Whatever must be shown under the “actual malice” standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, it pales in comparison to the actual malice shown by this Administration toward the free press. Here is the column:
Continue reading “A SHOWING OF ACTUAL MALICE: THE WHITE HOUSE “TIRES” OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT”
We recently discussed the scandal in Iran where a young girl was barred from an international competition for failing to adhere to Islamic rules requiring the covering of a girl’s hair. We now have another outrageous decision barring a girl under medieval Islamic principles. The head judge (and director) of the competition in Putrajaya, Malaysia forced a female competitor to withdraw after declaring her knee length skirt be “seductive.” Pretty sensitive for a sport with such term as
“exposed King”, “loose position,” and “flash the Queen.”
In a week, the first appellate hearing will occur in the review of the second Trump immigration order. In the meantime, the Administration is appealing the latest legal setback with the injunction of Trump’s sanctuary city order. Below is my column from the Hill Newspaper on the decision of District Court Judge William Orrick.
We have been discussing (and lamenting) the rollback of free speech in France where writers and speakers are now routinely prosecuted for what would be protected political or religious speech in the United States. The latest case involves Robert Menard, mayor of Beziers and a top adviser to Marine Le Pen, who has been found guilty of inciting hatred against Muslims.
I am a notorious news junky who prides himself on keeping abreast of news and issues around the world, particularly stories dealing with free speech and human rights. It was therefore with some shame that I listened to presentations yesterday at the ABA’s program on the horrific treatment of Myanmar’s Muslims. I was asked to moderate a panel on Rohingya by the Hon. Delissa A. Ridgway, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, who remains one of the most influential figures globally in bringing together legal, political, and academic figures to discuss pressing problems in our world. Judge Ridgway is not just a friend but an inspiration for her tireless work for the rule of law around the world. You do not say no to Delissa Ridgway if you want to have any shot at the afterlife. However, I was not prepared for the heart wrenching account of the killings, rapes, and beatings of Muslims by extremist Buddhists in Myanmar. It is an on-going crime against humanity being committed on a daily basis in plain sight. The panel entitled “While the World Stands Idly By: Myanmar and the Threat of 21st Century Genocide” met at the Capital Hilton and was sponsored by the ABA Section on International Law. Below is a videotape on their worsening conditions in government camps.
Continue reading “ABA Holds Panel On The Plight of Myanmar’s Muslims”
I recently posted a blog column on the troubling image of President Donald Trump calling Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to congratulate him on his success in securing what are viewed as near dictatorial powers in the close recent referendum. Erdogan did not waste any time in using the powers. Turkish police have arrested 1,000 people suspected of being supporters of Erdogan’s main opponent, US-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen.
Continue reading “Erdogan Quickly Uses New Sweeping Powers To Round Up His Opponents”