At first I thought it was really gross that people in South Korea were wiping out river rats for food. Then I found out that the rats are being sought for their bile. With bear bile in the short supply due to the overhunting of bears and new national protections, Koreans are turning to river rats as a source of ursodeoxycholic acid. Rats have an even greater amount of the acid than bears.
Continue reading “South Koreans Hunting River Rats As A Source Of Bile For Traditional Medicine”
I have been a long critic of Germany’s criminal speech laws, including its long criminalization of Nazi symbols. Now, Sven Pohl, 37, is facing charges in Germany for “heavy drug trafficking” after he triggered a raid due to his posting of a Nazi-themed breakfast. The police arrived being found with massive quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana.
Continue reading “Mein Meth: German Arrested After Posting Hitler Toast”
Just a day after Sen. Al Franken publicly accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of perjury, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) went public on CBS with a theory that appears to have been bothering him: “You can imagine a set of circumstances in which the Trump campaign gave him talking points [and] he was a message boy for them.” The purpose, Whitehouse suggested, was for Sessions to convey “Mission accomplished” after meeting with his Russian handlers. It is a curious notion that Sessions was a Manchurian senator but the Russian ambassador still met with him in the presence of staffers on the Hill or in public at the Republican National Convention. If this is a sequel to the Manchurian Candidate, I may have to pass.
We have been discussing the rollback of free speech on U.S. college campuses as well the adoption of de facto speech codes. Cardiff Metropolitan University has issued a list of phrases that are now deemed as inappropriate including “right-hand man” and “gentleman’s agreement” as well as “forefather” and “sportsmanship.”
With the rollout of the new GOP health care law, a new CNN/ORC poll shows that the nation remains deeply divided on the issue. Indeed, little has changed since Obamacare was first passed by a handful of votes. Some 50% of people oppose the removal mandatory health care coverage while 48% are in favor of such a change. While some have called the new plan “Obamacare-lite,” it is clearly a repeal and massive change in the existing law. The thumping heart of Obamacare is the individual mandate and this plan would drive a stake through it.
Continue reading “Poll: Americans Split Evenly Over Repeal Of Obamacare”
As often seems the case in Washington, the controversy surrounding the meetings of then Senator Jeff Sessions with the Russian Ambassador has quickly descended into a feeding frenzy. When interviewed shortly after the disclosure, I stated that Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself and clarify his testimony. Late this afternoon, Sessions promised to do precisely that. However, the over-hearted rhetoric has continued with calls for Sessions to resign or even be criminally charged. People are getting ahead of their skis on this issue, particularly in claiming that this is the same type of controversy that led to the criminal charges against former Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst.
Continue reading “Sessions Recuses Himself From Any Russian Investigation”
I recently discussed the ethics complaint filed against Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway by 15 ethics law professors. For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995). I criticized the complaint as highly political with little foundation. The only aspect of the complaint that was not frivolous was the allegation that Conway violated the federal rule against endorsing commercial products in light of her comments about Ivanka’s line of clothing and jewelry. As I stated, Conway did violate the rule though I viewed the violation as part of a tongue-in-cheek retort to the controversy. It still warranted a formal reprimand in my view but not an ethics charge or more serious action. The White House appears to have reached essentially the same conclusion though there is no indication of a formal reprimand as opposed to a public confirmation that Conway has been “counseled” and will not commit such a violation again.
Continue reading “White House: Kellyanne Conway Acted “Without Nefarious Motive””
There is an ongoing controversy over the new wrestling champion of Euless Trinity High School, Mack Beggs, 17. Beggs was born a girl but is now a transgender boy taking testosterone as part of his treatment. However, the UIL Wrestling State Tournament officials decided that Beggs would still compete as a girl despite the fact that he is taking steroids that have bulked him up in a way that would be normally a banning offense.
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
While I consider myself to be more of libertarian and believe individuals should be able to spend their money as they please, no matter how foolishly, there are times where conspicuous consumption is so insulting and demeaning to those who have little it can only be described as a bit immoral.
I read a review by Robert Frank of CNBC of a restaurant that serves a Five Thousand Dollar Hamburger created by Chef Hubert Keller’s “Fleur” restaurant at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. The articles author claims the burger was “absolutely worth it.”
Obviously, I don’t doubt the quality or the hype–reportedly twenty-eight of these burgers have been reportedly sold so far–congratulations to them for being such a good business model and their windfall but what is the social cost to this level of arrogant consumption given that ordinary people must work to pay for basics.
Continue reading “$5,000 Hamburger: One Claims It Was ‘Absolutely Worth It’. No, It Was Not.”
A group of 15 ethics law professors from around the country has filed bar charges against White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995). The letter from 15 professors alleged ethical violations of government rules as well as “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Most of the allegations in the letter are, in my view, without merit and seem overtly political. The one issue that has already been raised in Congress and has a legal foundation is the alleged endorsement of Conway of the product line of Ivanka Trump. That is a technical violation of federal rules, but the question is whether it was a venial rather than mortal sin. The “violation” was the result of a side comment by Conway on television criticizing the decision of Nordstrom to drop the line. The White House Counsel’s office let it be known that Conway had been “counseled” over the infraction. However, ethics charges should not be a form of politics by other means and, with all due respect to these accomplished academics, this letter strikes me as raising largely political objections to Conway’s work as a spokesperson for the Administration.
Continue reading “Law Professors File Ethics Complaint Against Kellyanne Conway”
A new CBS poll shows considerable opposition to the Trump Administration’s approach to immigration. The poll confirms that immigration is the top issue in the minds of voters. However, it also shows 60 percent of voters support the right of illegal immigrants being allowed to stay and achieve citizenship. Some 58 percent oppose the building of the wall.
There is an appeal filed in Dallas by a teacher, Resa Woodward, 38, who was fired because of her prior work in the adult film industry almost two decades ago. We have previously discussed such cases, which I find troubling because these are people who worked in a lawful industry. It is even more concerning when, as here, the individual claims that she was forced into the industry as a form of “sex slavery.”
Continue reading “Texas Teacher Fired Due To Prior Work In Adult Films”
Today the Supreme Court will hear Hernandez v. Mesa, a case with potentially significant impact on the current immigration debate. The case involves the shooting and killing of Sergio A. Hernandez Guereca, 15, at the border on June 7, 2010. The family argues that Hernandez was simply playing a game with his friends in running to touch the U.S. border fence when Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. shot and killed him. The agents insist that Hernandez was a known illegal alien smuggler with two prior arrests and was throwing rocks at the agents. Since the government prevailed below before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Court will only consider the facts asserted by the family in determining if dismissal was appropriate. At issue will be the right of a foreign national to assert constitutional rights — an issue that could have bearing on the ongoing debate over the Trump immigration executive order.
We previously discussed the controversy over a painting by a constituent of Democratic Rep. William Lacy Clay that depicted police as pigs in Ferguson, Missouri. As we discussed, the House had a right to remove the art and eventually did precisely that. However, before that decision from the House, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Cal.) took down the painting. Clay called for criminal charges. When the painting was rehung, another Republican member removed it. At the time, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said “We may just have to kick somebody’s ass and stop them. Then the architect stepped in and barred the hanging of the picture. Now Clay has announced that he will file a lawsuit challenging the actions of the House of Representatives. It is hard to see a strong legal basis for such a challenge. The odds heavily favor the House of Representatives in the action.
Word on the street is that the Trump Administration is prepared to issue a new executive order on immigration. While I have maintained that the law favors President Trump on this issue and I have been critical of the decision by the Ninth Circuit, I have also maintained that the original executive order was poorly written, poorly executed, and poorly defended. A second executive order could reset the litigation and cut away a key (and in my view questionable) component of the Ninth Circuit opinion in expressly exempting green card holders. The new order reportedly does precisely what many of us have suggested while keeping the majority of the prior order. By retaining the same countries and imposing the same conditions, the new order would protect the Administration politically from allegations that the President has backtracked. It would also leave the core basis for challenges on the merits of such travel limitations. I will be speaking on Capitol Hill on Tuesday about the President’s executive order authority at the US Capitol Visitors Center at noon.
Continue reading “Executive Redux: Administration Set To Issue New Order On Immigration”
