I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues. I wanted to briefly respond to Reddington’s criticisms. Continue reading “The Secret to “Sleeping Well”: A Response to Kevin Reddington”
Category: Courts
Some of us have been closely following challenges to A1765, New Jersey’s gun industry liability law. In my view, the law is facially invalid and preempted under federal law, and we may now find out after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit greenlit a challenge from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) yesterday. The court found that the NSSF has standing to bring the lawsuit, which could reach the United States Supreme Court. Continue reading “Lock and [Re-]Loaded: Third Circuit Greenlights Major Challenge to New Jersey Gun Liability Law”
Below is my column on the attack unleashed by defense counsel Kevin Reddington on the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. As I said immediately during the coverage, I considered the attack utterly reprehensible and worthy of intervention by Judge William Sullivan. Reddington went out of his way to fuel the anger against this one juror, a dangerous and unprofessional play to the mob.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Clancy Trial: When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man”
Congressional Democrats blocked an effort to introduce a constitutional amendment to bar the Court’s expansion, with many members reiterating their demand to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court. Ironically, the vote came with the release of the latest Harvard-Harris polling showing that Congress itself is still the least respected institution, while the Supreme Court holds higher approval than either the White House or Congress. Continue reading “Supreme Irony: Congressional Democrats Seek to Reform Institution That is More Popular Than They Are”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted. In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites. Continue reading “Clyburn Calls for Packing the Court with “Baker’s Dozen” to Flip Cases”
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest controversy from the chambers of Judge Indira Talwani. While the court could be upheld in halting the executive order on mail-in balloting in this case, Talwani is one of a number of jurists who have been habitual blockers of executive reforms and policies. Talwani has been criticized in the past as something of a one-stop option for forum-shoppers. Her record reaffirms the rationale for justices in using the emergency docket, or so-called “shadow docket,” to deter gaming the system.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Long Shadow of Judge Indira Talwani”
University of Pennsylvania Professor Michael Mann is the Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action and has pushed candidates to commit to major environmental reforms. Notably, he seemed to pivot in an interview with Peter Dominick on a podcast last week, calling for all Democratic candidates to face a litmus test on committing to pack the Supreme Court: promise to pack or get the sack. It is only the latest example of how the hostile takeover of the Court is now the priority for many Democrats in removing a barrier to a radical agenda.
Below is my column in Fox.com on the interview last night of Michigan Democratic Senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed with Fox host Jesse Watters. (An earlier version appeared on the blog, but I have replaced it with this shorter version).
Here is the column:
This week, the Fourth Circuit issued a major ruling striking down South Carolina’s limits on absentee ballots. The relatively novel basis of this opinion (by Judges Roger Gregory, Judge Pamela Harris, and Judge Julius Richardson) was that it violated the 26th Amendment as discrimination on the basis of age for voters. The opinion conflicts with rulings in other circuits and, in my view, is challengeable.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides. With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob. This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. Continue reading “Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take a Baseball Bat to the Supreme Court”
Below is my column in The Hill on the announcement from Justice Samuel Alito that he is sticking around. Even a cursory review of the docket explains why Alito is not eager to depart despite the wishful thinking of folks at National Public Radio.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Sam Alito is Locked and Loaded . . . and He is Not Going Anywhere”
Kamala Harris is again promising the radical wing of her party that she will pack the Supreme Court. Pete Buttigieg and others have done the same to pander to the extreme left. These calls are increasing among Democratic leaders despite a recent poll showing that the Court remains the more popular institution vis-à-vis Congress, and that the majority of Americans agree with its major decisions. Continue reading “Harris Renews Calls to Pack the Court Despite Poll Showing Most Americans Agree with Court’s Decisions”
Below is my column on Fox.com on the most recent controversial decision from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. While accusing President Trump of a sweeping view of his power, the court seems to have an equally expansive view of its own power.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Boasberg’s Law: Chief District Court Judge Under Renewed Scrutiny Over Pattern of Unilateral Actions”
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest spin from the left to convince Americans to abandon core constitutional institutions and values as part of a radical agenda in the upcoming elections. Those who defend our traditions, on the 250th anniversary of our Republic, are now being accused of being “nostalgic” rather than progressive. It is a nostalgia that will take on a truly tragic element if professors, pundits and politicians are successful in this effort.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Democrats Dismiss Our Constitutional Traditions as ‘Nostalgia’”
This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists. The opinion by Justice Todd W. Eddins is devoid of judicial restraint and decorum. The fact that other justices would join in such an unhinged screed is a disgrace to the court and the Hawaii bar. Continue reading “No Mahalo for You: Hawaii Supreme Court Issues Unhinged Screed Denouncing the U.S. Supreme Court”