Below is my column in USA Today on the continuing push to seize the yachts and other property of Russian oligarchs. While enormously popular, it is easy to take a yacht. It is far more difficult to keep it. Indeed, the public could end up footing the bill for not just litigation but possible repairs to these opulent vessels.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Yacht or Not? It is Easier to Seize an Oligarch’s Than it is to Keep it.”
This week, I was in my old stomping grounds of New Orleans. I still hold a huge amount of affection for the city where I lived and taught as a member of the Tulane Law School. No matter how short a trip is, I always make it over to the World War II museum. As many on this blog know, I am a military history buff and the museum is nothing short of a pilgrimage. I consider it not just a must-see destination in New Orleans, but the finest military museum in the world. Every time I visit, there is a new exhibit or an entirely new building. Continue reading “Historical Pilgrimage: The World War II Museum in 2022”
Below is my column on the calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a wide range of cases. I have previously discussed the meritless calls for his impeachment over the controversy related to his wife’s emails to the White House after the 2020 election. There are legitimate concerns that Thomas should have recused himself from a January case if he knew that his wife’s messages were included in the material sought by the House investigation. However, experts have gone further to claim that he must recuse himself from a wide array of other cases, including any touching on the 2020 election. I do not agree with that assessment. In the meantime, Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) is calling for an “investigation” into Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself, though he is vague on who would conduct such an investigation.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Justice Thomas Faces Calls for Investigation and Sweeping Recusals”
We have now reached the six-month anniversary of the investigation into border patrol agents that President Joe Biden declared guilty of whipping migrants at the border. Biden and the media spread a false story based on a misleading picture of mounted agents using a whip to guide his horse. While the Administration promised a conclusion to the investigation within days or weeks, it has continued to refuse to release any results and insists that it remains “under investigation.” The concern is that the Administration does not want to contradict the President who proclaimed the guilt of the agents and promised that they would be punished before they were investigated, let alone adjudicated. Six months ago, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas promised that the investigation would be “completed in a matter of days, not weeks.”
It is often said that “if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” In modern American politics, it often seems like the only tool is impeachment and every controversy instantly becomes a high crime and misdemeanor. Donald Trump was impeached not once but twice. Not long after Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, Democrats like then-Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren demanded his impeachment. Others demanded the impeachment of Attorney General Bill Barr and cabinet members.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is only the latest addition to that ever-lengthening list. In reality, the calls for his impeachment are entirely disconnected from any constitutional or logical foundation. Rather, the Thomas controversy shows how the impeachment mantra has become a raging impeachment addiction. Continue reading “No, Justice Thomas Did Not Commit an Impeachable Offense”
Below is my column in The Hill on the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and the death of the confirmation process as a meaningful and substantive process of review. The confirmation hearings continued a long trend towards superficiality and jingoism when it comes to the discussion judicial philosophy and doctrine. Nominees have long been prepped to refuse to answer substantive questions and evade direct responses on judicial philosophy. This did not start with Judge Jackson but it is clear now that our confirmation process is a scripted and shallow exercise for all parties.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Jackson Hearings and the Death of the Confirmation Process”
We have previously discussed the disconnect between the rhetoric for court packing and the reality of the court itself. As senators like Elizabeth Warren have called to pack the Court with a liberal majority and others have described it as hopelessly and ideologically divided, the Court itself continues to crank out unanimous or nearly unanimous decisions. This week saw two major cases touching on free exercise and free speech with only one dissenting vote. While justices have publicly condemned the Democratic court packing efforts, the court seems to be again speaking through its opinions. The cases are Ramirez v. Collier and Houston Community College System v. David Buren Wilson.
With the completion of her two days of confirmation testimony, one fact is now clear: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson insists that she has no judicial philosophy other than a judicial methodology that is essentially identical to her oath of office. Putting aside the legal and linguistic problems with that position, most of the media and legal experts have simply shrugged and moved on. That is curious because just a week ago, many of these same figures went ballistic when I noted that we have little evidence of a judicial philosophy in past decisions by Judge Jackson and it would be one of the key issues in her confirmation hearings. Continue reading “Is it Okay Now to Say There is a Thin Record on Jackson’s Judicial Philosophy?”
We previously discussed concerns over free speech on the campus of the University of North Texas, including the canceling of an event on child gender transitioning. Students and faculty were not content to protest such events but acted to prevent others from hearing opposing views. Now, the university itself has lost a critical motion in a free speech case brought by Mathematics Professor Nathaniel Hiers after his contract was not renewed due to his criticism of the school’s microaggression policies. Judge Sean Jordan ruled that Professor Hiers may proceed to trial on his free speech claim.
Below is my column in USA Today on the confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. For the most part, the hearings remained respectful and civil. I criticized some of the questioning from Republican senators on relevance or tone, but the difference with the prior three nominations was striking in a number of respects. Judge Jackson faced tough questioning on her prior decisions, but there were no giant pictures of alleged future victims or attacks on her religion or family that we saw two years ago. Indeed, as Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.), stated “This is not a normal day for America. We have never had this moment before.”
Here is the column: Continue reading ““We Have Never Had This Moment Before”: The Jackson Confirmation Shows Striking Differences From Prior Confirmations”
Before the start of the confirmation of hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of greatest outstanding questions concerned Jackson’s approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. “Judicial philosophy” was the very basis that Democratic senators cited in voting against Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. However, within minutes of the start of the hearing, it was clear that Jackson would not discuss her views. Instead, when asked about “judicial philosophy” she responded with descriptions of her “judicial methodology.” It is not the same thing but that evasion was shrugged off by members and commentators alike. Continue reading “No, Judicial Methodology is Not the Same as Judicial Philosophy”
I previously wrote about deep concerns over the FBI investigation of Project Veritas over the missing diary of Ashley Biden, daughter of President Joe Biden. The use of the FBI in a case involving a missing diary is itself difficult to square with its priorities, let alone the different treatment given the New York Times. Now, counsel for Project Veritas has filed a motion detailing what could be a very serious violation of court orders as well as an attack on free speech and free press.
“In passing on this nomination to the Supreme Court, we must also pass judgment on whether or not your particular philosophy is an appropriate one at this time in our history.” Those words in 1987 were a game changer in American confirmations when Democratic senators opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert Bork by President Ronald Reagan. While the Senate had long maintained that a qualified nominee would be confirmed despite his judicial philosophy, that changed with Bork. The man who uttered those words was the senator from Delaware: Joe Biden. Continue reading ““Passing Judgment … on Your Particular Philosophy”: Biden’s First Nominee Versus Biden’s Bork Standard”
We have been discussing Russian artists and athletes blackballed for failing to publicly denounce Putin of his invasion of Russia. Despite the support that most of us have expressed for Ukraine against this unprovoked and savage attack, there is a danger that we are losing a war at home against free speech. The Russian invasion has added new allies in a growing anti-free-speech movement to censor and blackball dissenting voices. The latest such controversy involves Sergey Karjakin, a Russian grandmaster who supports the Russian invasion. He has been banned from competitions for six months by the International Chess Federation (FIDE). He has been banned due to the unpopularity of his political views — an act that should be denounced by anyone who values free speech.
