French journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan famously observed during the French Revolution that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.” It appears that the same can be said for censorship. We previously discussed how WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has supported censorship to combat what he calls the “infodemic.” Now Tedros has been reportedly censored by China for disinformation on its own pandemic measures.
Below is my column in the Hill on the call for the use of a federal law to arrest protesters outside of the homes of justices. The crushing irony is that many of these critics have spent years calling for the denial or curtailment of the free speech of others. Yet, these justices being targeted in their homes would likely narrowly construe or bar the use of this law.
Here is the column:
Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.” For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court. Continue reading ““When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices”
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) facing criticism over a tweet in which she issued a “call to arms” after the recent leaking of the abortion decision from the Supreme Court. In the aftermath of the firebombing of a pro-life office and the doxing of Supreme Court justices, the “call to arms” was alarming for many, particularly given the violent protests in Chicago in prior years. I do not believe that Lightfoot is encouraging anything other than peaceful advocacy. Yet, it is striking how virtually identical language has been used by Democrats to seek the disqualification of GOP members and criminal charges against figures like Donald Trump. Indeed, such rhetoric featured greatly in the second impeachment of Donald Trump. Continue reading “Insurrection or Advocacy? Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Issues “Call to Arms” After Leaked Abortion Ruling”
For two years, Democrats have been trying to disqualify dozens of Republicans from appearing on ballots for supporting the challenge to the certification of the 2020 election or declaring the election to be stolen. It is premised on a deeply flawed historical and legal view of a provision under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the name of democracy, these Democrats have demanded that courts prevent voters from being able to vote for incumbent members. Yet, scholars like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe have endorsed this sweeping interpretation. It has been rejected repeatedly in the courts. The latest such ruling comes from the Arizona Supreme Court which ruled that Democrats could not prevent Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) from appearing on the ballot in 2022.
Below is my column in the Hill on the leak and the refusal of President Joe Biden to denounce such conduct. It is a defining moment for his presidency that, even in the face of such a disgraceful and unethical act, the President cannot muster the courage to condemn it. He then magnified that failure by refusing to condemn the doxing and targeting of justices and their families at their homes.
Here is the column:
Recently, National Public Radio’s Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg was widely criticized for a false story about Justice Neil Gorsuch allegedly refusing to wear a mask during oral arguments despite a threat to the health of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She also suggested that Sotomayor had to watch the oral arguments virtually due to his conduct. Gorsuch and Sotomayor issued a joint statement that called Totenberg’s story “false.” Now, Totenberg has made another bombshell report that “the leading theory” is that it was a conservative law clerk who leaked the opinion. While most of us have discussed this as one of the possible scenarios, Totenberg reports that it is now the “leading theory” in the investigation. Totenberg’s reporting, however, did not suggest that she has any factual basis or evidence to make that claim. She simply says that it is “the only one that makes sense.” It may be the only “sensible” choice for some, but it is hardly the “most likely” theory based on the available evidence.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told USA Today this week that it is “possible” that Congress could pass a national ban on abortion if the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is finalized. In the interview, McConnell confirmed that there would be nothing standing in the way of such national legislation. McConnell did not say that he was calling or planning for such a vote. He was stating that it would be legally possible if Roe is overturned. However, such a vote would leave the position of the GOP in an incomprehensible morass on its views in the area. For decades, Republicans have insisted that this issue is a state, not a federal, matter. It could also raise some difficult constitutional questions under federalism.
Continue reading “McConnell: Federal Abortion Ban is “Possible” if Court Strikes Down Roe v. Wade”
Former President Donald Trump achieved mixed results in courts this week. He lost efforts to prevent a $10,000 per day fine for contempt in failing to turn over evidence on his assets in the civil investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James. He also lost his lawsuit against Twitter over his being banned from the site. However, in a case that we previously discussed, Trump prevailed in Chinese Americans Civil Rights Coalition, Inc. v. Trump. I previously wrote that I considered this case to be meritless, but it took a year to see it dismissed on the grounds discussed earlier.
Continue reading “Federal Court Dismisses “Kung Flu” Lawsuit Against Trump”
Below is my column in the Hill on the leaking of the draft opinion on abortion from the Supreme Court. While lionizing the leaker, media and political figures have ratcheted up their rhetoric to “burn down the Court” or to pack it with reliable liberal votes. Because these pundits disagree with the constitutional interpretation, they are now suggesting that the entire institution is illegitimate.
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick wrote “we need to be focusing on the legitimacy of the court itself” while CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger suggested that the Supreme Court Justices were “just a bunch of politicians in robes.” Historian Jon Meacham declared “If you had any reservations about the system’s capacity to deliver justice, they have just been affirmed.” Because the Court has adopted an opposing constitutional interpretation, we are once again deluged from calls ranging from packing the Court to burning it down. In this environment, the White House could not even muster enough courage to denounce protesters descending on the homes of justices to harass them. While the legitimacy of the Court is questioned, the targeting of justices and their families is not.
Here is the column:
According to reports, Elon Musk is now expected to take over as the temporary CEO of Twitter as soon as his financing of the purchase is finalized. It is good news because buying Twitter may prove a mere skirmish in comparison to the coming battle. Political forces in the United States and abroad are already aligning to resist his effort to restore free speech to social media.
If history has shown one thing, it is that it is easier to lose rights than to regain them. Musk has a product in demand but neither governments nor many of his own employees want to be sold. If Musk is to fulfill his pledge, he will need to take five specific steps to secure free speech protections. Given the interests allied against him, Musk must move quickly if he wants to not only reintroduce but to maintain free speech on Twitter. Continue reading “Five Steps to Save Free Speech on Twitter: A Musk Roadmap”
I previously wrote about Hillary Clinton’s call on European countries to pass censorship laws to force social media companies like Twitter to regulate speech even after Elon Musk’s pledge to restore free speech to Twitter. Now the Parliament has called on Musk to testify and to explain his alarming pledge to restore free speech.
Harvard’s The Crimson is reporting that a panel discussion on autism has been postponed after protests that the panel titled “Autism Awareness: Thinking Outside the Box” is “violently ableist.”
Continue reading ““Violently Ableist”: Harvard Postpones Panel on Autism After Protests”
Below is my column in USA Today on the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. I previously discussed the “stench” raised by Justice Sotomayor and how it smelled like mendacity to blame her three new colleagues. Now that stench is overwhelming not only due to the intentional leaking of the opinion but the defense of the leaker by many in the press. The leaker is being called “brave” and a “hero” by many on the left. While denouncing what they see as the Court abandoning its principles, they are celebrating someone who violated every ethical and professional principle in leaking this draft opinion.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Supreme “Stench”: How Politics Replaced Principle in the High Court”
The response to the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a torrent of outrage on the left. While many are calling for marches and sweeping new legislation, some are focused on calling out the justices in the majority for alleged “perjury” or “lying” in their confirmation hearings, particularly Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. In reality, they did not lie in testimony in referencing Roe as established precedent. The suggestion of perjury is utter nonsense. Continue reading “No, Justices Did Not Commit Perjury in Their Confirmation Hearings When Asked About Roe”