We have been discussing political figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioning the need for a Supreme Court or media figures calling for the Supreme Court to be abolished because it is not ruling the way that they demand. Such extremist views have always found a place in public discourse, but what is alarming is the degree to which legal academics have joined in this reckless rhetoric. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justices “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Now the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman is questioning the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Continue reading “Hastings Chancellor and Dean Questions the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court After Dobbs”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Having seen over the years protesters engaged in voicing their grievances in fashions ranging from the peaceful to the violent, I believe it is incumbent to provide guidelines in the hope of furthering a cause without the distractions that spill over into not only silencing important messages but preventing consequences that hurt others.
I propose the idea of Honorable Civil Disobedience.
Below is my column in USA Today on the reversal of Roe v. Wade. When Dobbs was accepts, I wrote that for thirty years as a television and print legal analyst I have annually downplayed claims of commentators that a given case before the Court was a true threat to Roe. However, with Dobbs, I saw a true existential threat to the decision for the first time. It has now played out as expected with a historic 6-3 ruling to overturn the case.
Yet, some coverage has clearly misrepresented the opinion and falsely claimed that it makes abortion illegal in the United States. Others falsely claim that the justices wrote an opinion opposing abortion. The decision focuses on who must decide this question, not what should be decided. The issue of abortion will now return to the states where abortion is expected to remain legal for most women in the country. Roughly 13 states, however, are moving to end abortion and the decision obviously represents a major change in the rejection of a federal constitutional right to abortion services.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Dobbs Decision and the Resumption of the State-By-State Abortion Debate”
In the aftermath of the historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, politicians and pundits have denounced the Supreme Court justices and the Court itself for holding opposing views on the interpretation of the Court. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the justices “right-wing politicians” and many journalists called the Court “activists.” Most concerning were legal analysts who fueled misleading accounts of the opinion or the record of this Court. Notably, it is precisely what the Court anticipated in condemning those who would make arguments “designed to stoke unfounded fear.” Continue reading “The Dobbs Decision Unleashes Rage and Revisionism”
Below is my column in The Hill on claims of Democratic members that they have established the case for a criminal conspiracy by former President Donald Trump. The search of the home of former justice official Jeffrey Clark shows a serious escalation of the investigation by the Justice Department. Probable cause of a federal crime had to be alleged as part of the Clark warrant. Yesterday’s hearing exposed Clark’s efforts to challenge the election, including a letter that was wildly inappropriate that he drafted for the top Justice officials to sign. His effort was very disturbing and was rightfully rejected by these officials. However, the claims of an established crime by Trump remain rather fluid and undefined. Making such a case is far more challenging than making the claim on national television. While castigating Trump counsel John Eastman for telling legislators to “just do it,” the same message seems to be coming from members and legal experts on some cable programs.
Here is the column:
Continue reading ““Just Do It”: Democrats Continue to Struggle to Find a Crime to fit the Offense”
The hearings on January 6th have had many riveting moments where former Trump officials detailed their efforts to convince former president Donald Trump that legal and factual claims of a stolen election were unfounded and unsupportable. From Vice President Michael Pence to Attorney General Bill Barr to an array of Justice and White House lawyers, there were many profiles of courage that emerged from the testimony. There have also been glaring disconnects like Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) chastising those who refused to accept the results of the 2020 elections and sought to challenge the certification in Congress. Thompson challenged the election of George W. Bush. (His fellow Committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016), However, one of the most glaring disconnects came yesterday when Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) cited former Attorney General Eric Holder as an example of the ideal of an apolitical and independent Attorney General. Holder was one of the most political attorneys general in history and Kinzinger previously denounced him for his abuse of office as a partisan. He was held in contempt over his obstruction of the Fast and Furious investigation.
As predicted, the Supreme Court handed down a momentous opinion in favor of Second Amendment rights today in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In what will likely prove one of the most important decisions in his illustrious career as a conservative jurist, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 majority opinion that brought greater clarity to this and future challenges under the Second Amendment. Continue reading “The Supreme Court Hands Down Major Gun Rights Victory”
Yesterday, a Manhattan jury found Richard Rojas, 31, “not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect” in the killing of an 18-year-old tourist in the rampage that also left 22 others injured in Times Square on May 18, 2017. Rojas plowed into the victims with his car, but his counsel successfully argued that he was “actively psychotic” during the crime. Notably, Nicholas Roske, 26, has pleaded not guilty in the alleged attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a move that may foreshadow an insanity defense.
As we wait for the release of the most significant Second Amendment case in over a decade from the Supreme Court (as early as tomorrow), CBS featured Ibram X. Kendi on Face the Nation on gun rights. Host Margaret Brennan discussed with the Boston University professor how “freedom to enslave” was linked to the “freedom to have guns.” There was no push back on that controversial claim or the underlying suggestion that gun ownership is largely a white impulse or practice. Continue reading “Boston University Professor: Second Amendment is Based on “Freedom to Enslave””
I have often balked at declarations that we are facing a “constitutional crisis,” a term thrown around by politicians as a type of exclamation point for a political cause or claim. The Constitution was built for bad times, not good times. It often borders on constitutional defamation to claim a constitutional crisis. Until today… Continue reading “Constitutional Crisis: My Dog Hates James Madison”
Eric Greitens, the former governor of Missouri, is under fire this week for his ad featuring himself, a former Navy Seal, storming a house looking for “RINOs” (or Republicans In Name Only). The ad, in my view, was inflammatory and irresponsible. At a time of rising politically-motivated violence, this type of ad, even if meant in jest, is reckless. However, Greitens has now been blocked on the ad by Facebook and tagged by Twitter, a continuation of robust censorship and “content modification” policies at these companies. This is news and there is a worthy discussion on the use of such imagery. However, we have seen how such censorship leads to ridiculous outcomes like YouTube censoring the Jan. 6th Committee because it had video clips of former President Donald Trump. Greitens has lashed out at the companies. Continue reading “Facebook Blocks Greitens’ “Hunting RINOS” Ad”
As Hillary Clinton advises Democrats to move away from the discussion of trans rights, one student government is taking a different approach in seeking to ban others from speaking against such rights. The students are pushing for a ban on any “transphobic” clubs from campus. The student government at the University of North Texas became the latest student body to seek to curtail free speech rights of other students by declaring opposing views to be harmful. It is a new example of the growing “speechphobic” movement on our campuses. Continue reading “Speechphobia: University of North Texas Students Seek to Ban “Transphobic” Group”
Below is a slightly augmented version of my Hill column on the report that the Biden Administration will go forward with administrative punishment for border agents who were falsely accused of “whipping” Haitian migrants in Texas.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Biden’s Red Queen Justice: Long After the Sentence, the Biden Administration is About to Render a Verdict on the Border Agents”
There is an interesting case out of Chico State University in California on the criminalization of violent speech. Custodian Kerry Thao pleaded “no contest” last week to hate crimes after he advocated Asians “kill whites and blacks.” What was striking was the reports that the police fully investigated his past contacts and actions and found “no evidence that showed there could be any further threat to the public.” The question is why Thao pleaded guilty if that was the case since his views, while hateful and disturbing, would be arguably protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, professors have been making analogous statements for years without investigation, let alone criminal charges.
We have previously discussed the increasing censorship at YouTube where conservative and dissenting viewpoints are now increasingly blocked, including U.S. senators and physicians with opposing views of Covid. It has also banned videotapes of former President Don Trump. Other social media companies have banned others from posting the voice of Trump. The problem with censorship is that it becomes an insatiable appetite. As you censor opposing views, it demands more and more censorship. It becomes increasingly ridiculous as was the case this week. According to a New York Post report YouTube censored the Democratic-controlled Select Committee for a video that included a clip of Trump. It was being posted to implicate Trump in the January 6th riot but YouTube has continued to blindly follow its “he-who-must-not-be-heard” policy.