
Kuwait has continued to remind the world that, despite its advances in the modern world, it remains a religiously orthodox government imposing medieval values on its population. That fact was on display this week as the government banned such works as “The Little Mermaid” and Michelangelo’s David as unIslamic or indecent. Sounds Orwellian? Perhaps but Kuwaiti’s would not know it . . . Orwell’s masterpiece “1984” was also banned.
Continue reading “Kuwait: We Are Not Orwellian . . . We Banned Orwell”
Last year, we experienced a national debate over the right of Colorado cake shop owner Jack Phillips can refuse to make a special cake for a same-sex marriage due to religious objections in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I 


In 2010, I (and others) criticized the Democratic leadership (including then Majority Leader Harry Reid and many of the continuing Democratic senators) for their use of the “nuclear option” in curtailing the power of the filibuster. 
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the growing pledges from House and Senate Democratic members to investigation and possibly impeach Brett Kavanaugh if he is confirmed this week. It would constitute a dangerous and reckless precedent for Democrats to pursue with any new majority.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper that looks beyond this immediate controversy over the Kavanaugh nomination toward three basic reforms of the confirmation process. With the FBI investigation interviewing witnesses on the first two allegations of sexual assault, it is not clear what new information may surface at the end of the week. In the interim, it would be useful to discuss the now obvious failure of our confirmation process. I have been a long critic of the process, but the Kavanaugh confirmation process has magnified these flaws to a grotesque degree.
Below is my Hill newspaper column on the unfolding controversy surrounding the allegations of sexual abuse brought against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As we wait for the week long FBI investigation to be completed, the question remains the same: what is the standard that should apply to such cases once all of the evidence laid before the Senate? As the FBI prepares to submit new evidence, the Senate still must articulate a standard of review for that evidence.
We have
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
With the addition of a second woman alleging sexual misconduct of Brett Kavanaugh, it is still not clear what factual disputes will have to be addressed before a final confirmation vote occurs in the Senate. Putting aside questions over late timing of the allegations, there is agreement that the Senate will have to consider both the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and the new allegations of Deborah Ramirez. What is far more troubling is the continued disagreement on the standard that Senators should use in considering the allegations. While objecting that their Republican colleagues are not prepared to give the women an “impartial hearing,” various Democratic senators have declared (before any testimony is heard) that they believe Dr. Ford – and thus do not believe Judge Kavanaugh. That is troubling enough, but Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) has introduced a far more troubling element in suggesting that she may decide the factual question on the basis of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential views.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper of the New York Times story alleging that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein spoke to this staff near the start of his tenure about secretly taping President Donald Trump and organizing a cabinet effort to oust Trump through the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Rosenstein denies the accuracy of the story and some have said that he discussed the possibility in jest. The New York Times has responded by saying that it was clear that the comments were made seriously and not in jest.