According to the Associated Press, President Joe Biden today will support changing the filibuster rule for voting rights legislation — a move widely viewed as effectively killing the rule. The report says that Biden will portray the choice starkly as one between democracy and autocracy. The AP, however, does not reference the third option of hypocrisy by failing to note that Biden vehemently opposed such moves for decades. He previously denounced killing the rule as “disastrous” for our democracy but now will declare the rule itself to be an existential threat to democracy. It is the latest example of President Biden’s embrace of “whatever it takes politics.” Continue reading “Democracy, Autocracy . . . or Hypocrisy? Biden Calls for Changing the Filibuster Rule”
After the argument over the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandates before the Supreme Court, many on the left condemned Justice Neil Gorsuch for spreading disinformation on flu fatalities. This criticism seemed to grow after the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court were themselves criticized for false or misleading statements about Covid-19. In reality, Gorsuch was correct in his statement on flu rates despite attacks that are continuing by liberal commentators and bloggers. (For full disclosure, I testified in favor of Gorsuch’s confirmation before the Senate). Continue reading “No, Justice Gorsuch Did Not Say Hundreds of Thousands Die From Flu Each Year”
Below is my column in the Hill on the vaccine mandate cases before the Supreme Court. Businesses and groups are still waiting to see if the Supreme Court will issue an injunction in the OSHA case. The mandate goes into effect today. The issue is not what the decision should be on mandates but who gets to make that decision. That question takes some justices to a place that they would prefer not to go …”Major-question-land.”
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Vaccine Mandate: The Supreme Court Considers a Trip To “Major-Questions-Land””
During the oral arguments over the Biden vaccine mandates last week, two largely disconnected views emerged from the right and left of the Supreme Court. Conservative justices hammered away at the underlying authority of the Biden Administration to issue these mandates, particularly after President Joe Biden’s own Chief of Staff admitted that the agency rules were “workarounds” of his constitutional limitations. Conversely, the liberal justices used the “equity” aspects of an injunction to raise more emotive, if not apocalyptic, arguments on the dangers of Covid-19. That led Justice Elena Sotomayor to make a claim about children with Covid that even the Washington Post called “absurdly high” and worthy of “four Pinocchios.”
Continue reading “Will Justice Sotomayor Be Banned On Twitter? Don’t Bet On It.”
There is a bizarre case unfolding in Las Vegas, Nevada where Eric Holland, 57, was arrested after police found a dismembered body in his truck. Holland is now arguing that it was a terrible coincidence. He stole a truck that just happened to have a dismembered body in the back. He was, in the words of his counsel, “a hapless car thief.’
Dominick David Black, the friend who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17, has been facing two felonies in Wisconsin. The hefty charges were clearly meant to force his cooperation in the prosecution of his friend. With Rittenhouse now acquitted, the prosecutors have thrown in the towel and agreed to a fine of $2000 in exchange for dropping the two counts. He pleaded no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation.
Continue reading “Rittenhouse Friend Reaches Plea Deal For Fine With Prosecutors”
For years, I have lamented how the Democratic party has embraced censorship and the criminalization of speech. I come from a liberal Democratic family in Chicago and the Democratic Party once championed free speech as the defining value of the party. Democratic politicians now lead calls for censorship to silence their opponents and corporate regulations to protect citizens from dangerous choices in reading material. The same concerns were raised this week after Washington Gov. Jay Inslee called for the criminalization of “lies” about election results. Inslee wants to convict people who raise election challenges or allegations. Such a law would threaten political speech and create a chilling effect for those who want to raise such concerns in contested elections.
Continue reading “Democratic Governor Calls For Criminalizing “Lying” About Election Results”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Our host on numerous occasions makes a strong case in labeling today’s zeitgeist as “The Age of Rage”. It would certainly seem to be so if one focuses on what stereotypically comes out of the news media and political figures we lend our ears to. Yet I would go a step further and suggest the root cause of some of this rage is composed of two elements: power-lust and simple human stupidity.
I believe many people fail to recognize how intertwined is the lust for power and the enabling forces of stupidity. Stupidity can be manipulated to achieve that power. It is said that money is the blood of the powerful. Yet, why spend money when too many can be so easily controlled or recruited for free simply by instead appealing to ignorant or stupid individuals.
Both sadly and obviously however, ignorance and stupidity is not limited to the news or politics, it is manifest in human society generally. The trick is to recognize and extricate it from our lives whenever possible. So in a mostly cynical and possibly comical study of the problem, I propose there are levels and flavors of both ignorance and stupidity and to apply such a study is a first step toward minimizing its damaging potential.
Continue reading “The Eight Degrees of Ignorance and Stupidity”
As many of you know, I have a certain fascination with early mugshots, particularly those from the Victorian period. These photos give an insight into life in the 19th Century with striking and often haunting realism. I recently stumbled across a cache of American mugshots from the Nebraska State Historical Society. I wanted to share a few. This picture is Goldie Williams who was arrested for vagrancy on Jan. 29, 1898. Continue reading “Midwest Mugshots: Police Records in Nebraska Yield Arresting Images of 19th Century Criminals”
In the day long events commemorating January 6th, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a telling statement to her fellow members and the public at large. Pelosi declared “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.” Part of that narrative is that this was not a riot but an “insurrection,” an actual “rebellion” against our country. Pelosi’s concern over the viability of that narrative is well-based as shown by a recent CBS News poll. The majority of the public does not believe that this was an “insurrection” despite the mantra-like repetition of members of Congress and the media. The public saw that terrible day unfold a year ago and saw it for what it was: a protest that became a riot. (For full disclosure, I previously worked as a legal analyst for CBS News). Continue reading ““Preserve the Narrative”: The Public Rejects the “Insurrection” Claim in New Polling”
Below is my column in USA Today on the lingering questions in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. These questions are likely to grow if the court overturns the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell due to what appears to be exceptionally serious allegations of juror misconduct. Maxwell could end up with a second trial while various powerful men appear to have escaped any serious investigation, let alone a trial, on their alleged roles in such abuse.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Maxwell May Get A Second Trial, But What About the Rest of Epstein’s “Significant Others”?”
This is the one year anniversary of the disgraceful rioting in the Capitol building. The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots. However, I have long maintained that there was no evidence to support a criminal charge against Trump for incitement. Yet, a year ago, various legal experts declared that Trump should be charged based on his speech and his delay in calling for protesters to leave Capitol Hill. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging him with incitement. So, a year later, what ever happened to the prosecution of Donald Trump?
Continue reading “What Ever Happened to the Prosecution of Donald Trump for Incitement?”
Below is my column in The Hill on the continued calls to disqualify Republican members of Congress to prevent them from running for reelection. What is maddening is that Democratic groups and commentators are seeking to remove as many as 120 Republicans from the ballots in the name of democracy. It is like burning books in the name of literacy. Yet, on this anniversary of the January 6th riot, members of Congress and Democratic groups want to block voters from reelecting their preferred representatives. Like villages in Vietnam, it appears that some members and activists believe that you have to destroy democracy to save it from itself.
Here is the column:
Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction has been widely celebrated as bringing some justice to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. However, that moment may prove fleeting in light of a startling disclosure made by one of the jurors to Reuters this week. A juror identified only by his first two names (“Scotty David”) admitted that he was able to sway fellow jurors by discussing his own experience with abuse. It is not clear if he disclosed that prior abuse on the juror questionnaire as part of the voir dire process. The disclosure could give Maxwell a strong argument for reversal if the prior abuse was not revealed and was then used in the jury room to pursue the jury after it deadlocked in its proceedings. Update: Both defense counsel and the government are now calling for a formal inquiry into the allegations on this juror.
Continue reading “Could the Maxwell Conviction Be Thrown Out Over Juror Misconduct?”
There is a major controversy brewing over free speech and censorship at Emory Law Journal this month after the student editors refused to publish an essay by San Diego’s Warren Distinguished Professor of Law Larry Alexander. The publication was a Festschrift (or a publication honoring the work) of Emory Professor Michael Perry. (For full disclosure, Perry was my professor at Northwestern University and I edited a prior article by him on the law review. I have also been published by Emory Law Journal). Alexander was solicited for the publication but the editors later demanded that he make extensive deletions (including an entire section) in his essay on systemic racism because they found his “words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” He refused and they removed his essay from the issue. In response, two professors withdrew their essays in protest.