Last night, I was finalizing my column for USA Today when one of my editors flagged my reference to the roughly 30 election-year nominations to the Supreme Court as a possible error. The New York Times ran a story declaring that there “there have been 16 Supreme Court vacancies that occurred before Election Day.” I have previously discussed glaring misstatements of cases in major media, but this was unnerving because the New York Times was suggesting that the precedent for the current nomination was roughly half as previously thought. I decided to do another rough count and, if anything, it would seem that the 29 nomination figure is arguably too low and that there appears almost twice the number cited by the New York Times. The difference appears in part counting a calendar year rather than a year from election, but that approach causes problems in comparison given the earlier early election calendars.
Category: Politics
I was on CBS News today with my friend Kim Wehle on the replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There is a legitimate debate over whether a president should wait for the next election for such a nomination to move forward. However, I disagree with Wehle that a nomination would be unlikely given the roughly 40 days left before the election. The Senate could move this nomination in that time and, judging from some past nominations, even have time to spare without setting a record.
Continue reading “Yes, The Senate Can Confirm a New Nominee Before The Election”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We expect the nomination of her replacement this week and what could be the most heated confirmation process in history. We may look back at Bork and Kavanaugh as examples of bipartisan tranquility by comparison. As Washington returns to its favorite blood sport, many will continue to mourn the loss of an extraordinary jurist.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “A Kid Named Kiki: The Extraordinary Life and Legacy Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg”
A Michigan clerk appears to have taken a determined stand against lawn commode voting. The problem is not that Barb Byrum, the clerk of Ingham County is entirely humorless. Rather, she appears legally clueless in a complaint filed against a Mason, Michigan resident who put a toilet on their lawn with a sign that reads, “Place mail in ballots here.” Byrum could have denounced it as scatological, but instead declared it unlawful on the basis of an absurd theory that people would mistake the toilet for a polling place or mailbox. However, the Democratic clerk vowed to “quash” anyone mocking the election in this way.
We have been discussing how both parties in Washington have been spending wildly for years in pushing the country to unprecedented and crippling debt levels. We recently passed the “red line” of 106 percent of our GDP. The roughly $27 trillion debt has not however deterred members who continue to push proposals to tack on trillions. That was the case yesterday when Sen. Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren are calling on President Trump to cancel $50,000 in federal student loan debt next year. Some 43 million Americans hold more than $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. Such proposals may have merit but my concern is over the lack of any plan on dealing with the debt as well as the fact that this massive increase would be done by executive order.
I have been critical recently of remarks attributed to Attorney General Bill Barr, including the alleged consideration of criminal charges against a mayor for not acting against rioters and the use of sedition charges against some individuals. The latter allegation was reinforced by the Associated Press after it obtained a memo to United States attorneys. The memo suggests a more general use of sedition for anyone opposing government authority by force. Such a use of sedition laws directly threatens free speech values and would return to dark periods of the suppression of dissent in our country. It is also entirely unnecessary given the array of ample and severe laws available to punish looters and rioters.
Continue reading “The Use of Sedition Laws Against Rioters Would Be Wrong”
I recently testified on Antifa and the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with statements by Democrats denying that Antifa was playing a role in protests or, as House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler claimed, Antifa is a “myth.” This afternoon, FBI Director Chris Wray pushed back on similar claims and declared that “Antifa is a real thing” and that the FBI has various cases of self-identified Antifa members involved in criminal conduct.
Today I have the pleasure of speaking at the University of Michigan as part of a Constitution Day event. I will be joined by Professor Michael Gerhardt (UNC School of Law) in discussing the history of presidential impeachments from Johnson to Trump. Both Professor Gerhardt and I testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment. I also served as lead defense counsel in the last judicial impeachment of Judge Thomas Porteous. The event was switched to a virtual format and will be held from 4:10 to 5:30 pm ET today. You can join via Zoom at https://umich.zoom.us/j/97622039094
Continue reading “Turley To Speak At The University Of Michigan On Impeachment”
Many of us criticized statements attributed to Attorney General Bill Barr this week calling for the use of sedition laws against rioters. However, instead of raising constitutional or statutory objections, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe instead raised Barr’s Catholic faith in a completely unwarranted and unfounded tweet. The response to the reference was total silence. Not a single professor at Harvard or elsewhere chastised the use of a person’s religion in such commentary. This is not the first profane or prejudiced statement by Tribe.
Alan Dershowitz just filed a whale of a lawsuit against CNN, though it could end up beached in short order under controlling case law. The Harvard Law professor emeritus is demanding $300,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from CNN for misrepresenting his legal arguments in the Trump impeachment trial. In fairness to Dershowitz, the coverage of the trial by CNN was dreadful with intentionally and consistently slanted coverage of the evidence, standards, and arguments. However, the objections raised by Dershowitz are likely to be treated as part of the peril for high-profile figures operating in the public domain. In other words, you can complain about the weather but you cannot sue the storm. Continue reading “Dershowitz Sues CNN For $300,000,000 In Defamation Action”
There was an awkward moment this morning on Fox when President Donald Trump announced that he would have a regular appearance on Fox and Friends every week at this time. That came as obvious news to the hosts who repeatedly told the President that there is no such understanding. The exchange, however, raises a legal question of whether such a regular show with the President would run afoul of federal laws requiring equal time for political candidates. The answer is likely no but it is not clear if Joe Biden would relish a regular segment on Fox since he has largely avoided such interviews. Continue reading “Trump’s Weekly Fox Show? It Could Present Some Interesting Political and Legal Issues”
For four years, I have written about the alarming loss of neutrality and objectivity in journalism — a trend that is reflected by many polls showing that the majority of the public no longer trusts the media for fair and honest reporting. While I have regularly criticized President Donald Trump, I have also objected to unrelentingly biased reporting as well as embarrassingly soft coverage of former Vice President Joe Biden. Now, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.”
Continue reading “Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the anti-racism demonstrations from the NFL displays to corporate campaigns to academic confessions. What is most striking about these campaigns is how little they are likely to impact opinions on racism. Indeed, the NFL displays were not only booed by fans but denounced by figures like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick as meaningless propaganda. Most people are unwilling to discuss racism honestly. Booing is a form of anonymous speech and many of those individuals would not want to speak publicly about countervailing views of racial justice or the role of the NFL in such causes. Unless we can have that honest (and mutually tolerant) discussion, few minds will be changed in these campaigns. That requires a real interest in discussing different views of racial justice and its underlying issues for social reform, not just repeating affirmations or offering confessions. Otherwise, many are tuning out these demonstrations. There is clearly a view of many that corporations “doth protest too much” and mean too little in terms of real change in attitudes on racism.
Here is the column:
Several GOP leaders are calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate and take legal action against Netflix for its promotion of the “Cuties” film. The film has been denounced for its “sexualization of children.” I have seen the clip of the most controversial scene of young girls dancing which I found deeply disturbing and offensive. However, there is no criminal act alleged of child abuse. What is left is a strong and widely shared revulsion with the film, but that should not be an invitation for governmental action. The threat to free speech of such action is considerable, including the return to a long and detestable period of film censorship in the this country.
Continue reading “No, The Justice Department Should Not Investigate Netflix’s “Cuties””
Facebook is under fire this week after it was discovered that the company has allowed Rose City Antifa, a violent group associated with riots for many years, to maintain a Facebook page despite the company’s controversial program to take down certain sites. As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I would not have the page taken down on free speech grounds. My greatest fear is not Antifa (which I have criticized for years) but the growing censorship of the Internet. While I recently testified about Antifa, and specifically Rose City Antifa, as part of a violent anti-free speech movement, I have opposed declaring them terrorist organizations and believe that their speech should be protected. While Facebook is a private company not subject to the First Amendment’s limits, it should adhere to free speech values on the Internet.
Continue reading “Facebook Under Fire For Keeping Antifa Page While Eliminating Far-Right Groups”