This morning, our blog hit 31,000,000 views. We have had an increase in visitors and our new voices are heartily welcomed to our little band of commentators. We try to offer a place for civil but passionate discourse on legal and policy issues of our time (and perhaps a few wacky stories). We continue to rank in the top legal blogs in the world and we are continuing to see a growing international readership. We often use these milestones to look at the current profile of the blog and its supporters around the world.
As always, I want to offer special thanks for our weekend contributors: Mike Appleton, Larry Rafferty, Darren Smith, Kimberly Dienes, and Cara Gallagher. I particularly want to thank Darren who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems.
I also want to thank our regular commentators and readers. We try to keep this blog as an open forum with as little interference or monitoring of the comments as possible. Given our free speech orientation, we try not to delete comments and, for that reason, we are deeply appreciative of how most people avoid personal or offensive comments in debating these issues. The success of this blog is due to the fact that we offer something more than the all-too-common troll-driven, angry, and insulting commentary of the Internet. Thank you for voluntarily assuming restraint over the tenor and content of your comments. Continue reading “RES IPSA REACHES 31,000,000”
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 
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reappearance of Obama officials in the contemporary debates over surveillance and health care. Here is the column.
The United States Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, appears to believe that he is working for a different branch of government. After Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked for the resignations of all U.S. Attorneys, a standard change of political appointees in a new Administration, 
I have great respect for Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who remains one of the iconic figures in constitutional law and someone with whom I have had exchanges for years on legal controversies affecting this country. While I was not surprised to see that we disagreed on a constitutional issue related to President Donald Trump, 
