A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in 2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it would have been better for public health to have this debate than to shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
Continue reading “Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality”
We have repeatedly discussed the virtual news blackout on the influence peddling by the Biden family, particularly Hunter Biden. Despite overwhelming evidence of millions given by foreign companies and officials, the media has preferred to cover literal scoops over a story of breathtaking levels of self-dealing and corruption by the Bidens. Now, however, the New York Times has sued to force the Biden Administration to turn over information on Hunter Biden’s Romanian dealings. The lawsuit comes after another report that, in 2019, the FBI subpoenaed JP Morgan for records on Hunter Biden’s Chinese dealings.
Continue reading “New York Times Sues To Get Hunter Biden Information”
We have previously discussed how the Biden Administration appears to be withholding the conclusions of investigations into Border Patrol agents that President Joe Biden accused of whipping migrants from horseback. Now, members of Congress are raising concern over an account from an anonymous DHS official that they now do not believe that they will release the report.
Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor is reportedly close to making a decision on whether to fire Ilya Shapiro as Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Shapiro is under fire for his opposition to the pledge by President Joe Biden to limit consideration for the next Supreme Court nominee to a black female. Shapiro sent out a horrendously badly worded tweet that supported a liberal Indian-American jurist as opposed to a “lesser black woman.” He later removed the tweet and repeatedly apologized. However, Georgetown University’s Black Law Students Association and others are demanding his termination. I entirely understand the outrage over the language used in the tweet, but it does not warrant termination in my view. The controversy raises a stark choice for Georgetown in supporting or discarding principles of free speech and academic freedom.
Continue reading “Free Speech Showdown at Georgetown Law School”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) this week opposed a model law being introduced in over a dozen states. That is not itself uncommon. The ACLU historically opposed laws that denied free speech and other rights under the Constitution, a legacy that I have long cherished and supported. However, this is a transparency law that simply requires teachers and schools to post the educational materials used in classes online. It is meant to assist parents in tracking the education of their students and the priorities of their school systems. Yet, the ACLU has declared the law to be so threatening and chilling that it has officially opposed its enactment in any state.
Below is my column the the Hill on the early controversies over President Joe Biden’s first nomination for the Supreme Court. Call it confirmation bias but the fighting has already begun before any nominee is even named. President Biden triggered a debate over the use of racial and gender criteria to limit consideration to black female candidates. Notably, a new ABC poll shows 76 percent of Americans oppose such an exclusionary process. While supported by Democratic senators, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) has objected to the rule as has others in Congress. In addition, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) has made controversial comments over her desire to have the next nominee rely not just on the law but the nominee’s life experiences to reach the right result in court cases.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Confirmation Bias: The Fighting Has Already Begun and Biden Hasn’t Even Named a Nominee”
We have been discussing the controversial pledge of President Joe Biden two years ago that he would only consider black women for the first vacancy to the Supreme Court. While past presidents have said that they wanted to appoint nominees who were female or black, they all considered a diverse set of candidates and had “short lists” that included different races and genders. Biden has promised that he will not consider males or non-black candidates. Now, an ABC News/Ipsos poll shows that 76 percent of Americans reject such a threshold exclusionary rule based on race or gender. Continue reading “ABC/Ipsos Poll: 76 Percent of Americans Oppose Biden’s Pledge Only To Consider Black Women for Court Vacancy”
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on President Joe Biden’s promise almost two years ago that he would only consider a black female for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. The column produced a significant response from commentators. However, in all of the commentary that followed the column, no one is contesting the primary point: that this type of exclusionary rule has been found unconstitutional or unlawful in schools or businesses. While there may be legitimate points of distinction with a Court appointment, there is little discussion of why we should use a threshold exclusionary rule for admission to the highest court that the Court would not allow in any admission to a school or business. It is worth discussing even if one believes that the Court membership is a type of bona fide occupational qualification or if one simply rejects the very premise of the Court’s barring such criteria in past cases. The benefit of having a diverse Court is obvious but, if we want to use an express exclusionary rule, we should be able to discuss why it is appropriate for the Court and those institutions or businesses barred in past case.
Instead, commentators suggested that I ignored that prior presidents made such preferential picks. That is not true. My point was that Biden’s pledge was entirely unnecessary since he could have stated that he wanted to appoint a black female without barring consideration of other candidates on the basis of their race or gender. It is the difference between a preferential and exclusionary process. Commentators insisted that Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and George H.W. Bush made the same pledge. That is also false. While seeking to appoint women and African Americans, none of the three excluded other races or genders from consideration and had diverse short lists. Yet, even if they did, the question remains: should admission to the Court be based on an exclusionary threshold qualification that the Court has rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful for schools and businesses?
Here is the column: Continue reading ““This the Constitution Forbids”: Biden’s Race and Gender Criteria for the Court Were Rejected By The Court in Past Cases”
We have previously discussed how universities have not only curtailed free speech but treated free speech as a threat to students. Nothing captures that trend as vividly as a sign (posted on the site Campus Reform) informing Colorado State University (CSU) students that there are 17 different departments or resources to help them if they are “affected by a free speech event.” Free speech is now treated like STDs and violence on campus with its own trauma-related or protective program. Despite the inherent message of the harmful effects of free speech, I still prefer such a program to a policy of speech censorship or curtailment. However, some of the “resources” appear to be ways to report “incidents of bias” and offenses for university action.
We previously discussed the treatment of Professor Jason Kilborn, who was put on indefinite administrative leave after using a censured version of the n-word in an exam question at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is now suing the school over his treatment, including the required participation in sensitivity training and denial of a standard pay increase for faculty. We discussed today another free speech controversy at University of Illinois (Urbana Champaign) over the student government seeking to bar former Attorney General Jeff Sessions from campus.
Continue reading “University of Illinois (Chicago) Law Professor Sues Over Exam Controversy”
The student government at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding that former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions be barred from campus. Sessions is schedule to speak on February 1, 2022. The “Safe Campus” resolution passed 21-5-1 and declared that the visit is “inappropriate and insensitive” and a “‘slap in the face’ to the university’s commitment to DEI,” particularly during Black History Month. Continue reading “University of Illinois Student Government Demands School Bar Jeff Sessions From Campus” 
World Health Organization (WHO) head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appears to be expanding the scope of his global effort from the pandemic to what he calls the “infodemic.” Tedros weighed into the conflict between musician Neil Young and podcaster Joe Rogan and streaming giant Spotify. Tedros supported Young’s demand that Rogan be censored by the company for his views on the virus and treatments. It was a particularly glaring position for Tedros after he and WHO have been repeatedly accused of supporting China in early efforts to scuttle investigations into the lab theory on the origin of this virus.
Continue reading “WHO Head Tedros Supports Corporate Censorship to Combat the “Infodemic””
On Wednesday, I ran a column in the Wall Street Journal noting that President Joe Biden was imposing a race and gender qualification for the Supreme Court that has been rejected as either unconstitutional or unlawful by the Court for schools and businesses. While I noted that Biden could have made diversity a preferential rather than an exclusionary rule, the response was furious as commentators claimed that other presidents made the same pledge. Specifically, they claimed that Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump also confined their choices for seats to women. In fairness, both presidents did make public comments on the expected gender of their possible nominees. However, as I wrote later, the underlying claims are false. Now commentators have claimed President George H.W. Bush did the same thing with the appointment of Clarence Thomas. That is also untrue. Indeed, it is an even weaker historical defense.
With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden was immediately challenged by Democratic members to make good on his pledge during the 2020 presidential campaign to only consider black females for his first vacancy on the Court. When he made that pledge, some of us raised concerns that he was adopting a threshold racial and gender qualification for the Court that the Court itself has found unconstitutional or unlawful for admissions to schools or private employment. I raised the same concern with Breyer’s announcement in a column that was immediately challenged by some (including the New York Times) who insisted that Ronald Reagan made the same pledge to only consider a woman for his first vacancy. While it is always interesting to watch liberals citing Reagan as authority, the claim is misleading and indeed the Reagan example shows why Biden’s pledge was both unprecedented and unnecessary. Continue reading “The Gipper Model? Biden’s Pledge to Appoint a Black Female Justice Has Liberals Citing Reagan”