Below is my latest column in USA Today on the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. I testified last week on the nomination before the Senate Judiciary hearing. I was particularly pleased that one of the other witnesses that day was a GW graduate: Karen Harned (Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center. Karen has quickly become a leader in Washington on legal and policy matters impacting businesses. Since the hearing (and publication of this column), the Democrats have indicated that they are preparing for a filibuster. (My colleague Dick Pierce has an interesting column opposing such a move).
As I stated at the hearing, I disagree with some of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions but I believe that he is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. I am particularly disturbed by some of the attacks on his writings on major issues of our time. While many lawyers in Washington pathologically avoid any statements or writings on controversial subjects in the hope for government appointments, Gorsuch actively participated in the national debate and contributed interesting perspectives on those questions. He refused to remain a pure pedestrian as others debated issues like euthanasia. He should not be penalized for doing so. One can disagree with his perspective but his analysis is uniformly probative and at times profound.
Continue reading “THE SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM JUDGE NEIL M. GORSUCH”
The Nova Scotia Registry of Motor Vehicles was adamant. The license plate reading “GRABHER” was deemed “misogynistic and promoting violence against women.” It was a surprise to Lorne Grabher who simply wanted a license plate with his family’s name.
In a 32-page opinion, United States District Judge Anthony Trenga has 
There is an interesting proposal in California where legislators are moving to punishing any companies who work with the federal government in the construction of the wall pledged by President Donald Trump between the United States and Mexico. The bill would force pension funds to divest from participating companies. It is a bill that would significantly raise the level of conflict between the Trump Administration and certain states. The Trump Administration is already moving to withdraw grants from cities and states barring assistance to federal immigration officials. To now have states retaliate against companies for simply contracting with the federal government would push the already bad situation to Def Con 1 over federal/state conflict. There is no way that the federal government could sit ideally by as states retaliated against federal contractors.
Iran this week celebrated its National Women’s and Mothers’ Day and Ayatollah Khamenei held forth on his demented view of the ideal Islamic women. Khamenei denounced the very concept of women’s rights and gender equality as a Western plot against all women.
Yesterday’s press conference by White House Spokesman Sean Spicer seemed uncomfortably close to a Saturday Night Live parody as Spicer spared with CNN and other news outlets over President Trump’s wiretapping allegations. I actually was sympathetic with Spicer on one point: the media continues to take a literal meaning of Trump’s reference to “wiretap.” Some after the first tweet, I stated on CNN that I did not believe that Trump was speaking literally and that he likely meant “surveillance.” I have written and litigated in the field of surveillance over the course of decades and the use of “wiretap” to mean surveillance is a common, if inartful, practice — particularly among older Americans. That does not mean that Trump’s allegation of surveillance is true or supportable. That should be the focus, not this recurring rhetorical point. However, there has been a truly shocking lack of discipline among high-ranking Trump staffers in their public comments, including comments that have undermined the immigration orders. A good example of that ongoing problem is the suggestion that British intelligence surveilled Trump for Obama. This allegation had no place in a White House briefing and led to a reported embarrassing apology from the Administration to the British and a promise not to repeat it. It appears that there was no James Bond contract to surveil and the Administration is again shaken not 
Despite a surprising lack of media attention, the Ninth Circuit saw a relatively rare filing of a dissent in the appeal of the first executive order. Critics of the order have celebrated the panel decision, though many of us (including opponents of the immigration order) criticized the opinion as poorly written and supported. Nevertheless, critics have said that four judges in that case ruled against the President. (That is not counting 
Last night, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson 
Below is my recent column about a type of new article of faith for lawyers in opposing President Donald Trump and his Administration. Here is the column:
The build up last night on MSNBC had my phone ringing off the hook. Rachel Maddow proclaimed 
