There is a new free speech case out of Texas where a former history professor, Lora Burnett, is suing Collin College over her termination. Burnett alleges that the college fired her after she lashed out at former Vice President Mike Pence and tweeted that a moderator in his debate with now Vice President Kamala Harris should shut his “little demon mouth up.” While I disagree with Burnett’s rhetoric and tenor, the lawsuit has the makings of an important free speech challenge.
We have previously discussed “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” laws. The latest such case comes from Martindale, Texas where Terry Duane Turner, 65, is charged with the first-degree murder of Adil Dghoughi, 31. Dghoughi was sitting in his car in the driveway of Turner’s home before the confrontation leading to his death.
Below is my column on the President’s dismissal of any objections to the Covid vaccine and his call for mass firings of first responders who remain defiant. The comments reflect a growing call for states and the federal government to reject any religious exemptions for vaccination.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Biden’s “Come on, Man” Defense Will Not Fly on Religious Freedom”
As people venture out after the lock down in England, a man in Windsor, England has a cautionary tale. The man decided to take in the sun in his backyard when, according to news reports, he and his entire yard were covered in human waste dumped by a passing plane. That is not the end to this rather obnoxious situation.
We previously discussed criminal and civil liability for the tragic shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the movie set of the indie Western “Rust.” That has led to a number of inquiries on the specific liability of actor Alec Baldwin and whether he could be charged criminally. The answer in one word is “yes.” However, much depends on the still unfolding facts around this fatal mishap with the prop gun. Continue reading “Yes, Alec Baldwin Could Be Charged Criminally in the “Rust” Shooting But…”
Many observers are waiting for the United States Supreme Court to decide whether to delve again into college admissions with a pending case out of Harvard University in which Asian and white students claim discrimination. We have been following that case for a couple years. However, there is a new ruling out of North Carolina that could present another opportunity for the Court to revisit the issue. Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina just ruled that UNC can use race criteria to guarantee a “critical mass” of minority students in its classes. Both cases could offer the Court an opportunity to clarify its conflicted affirmative action rulings on college admissions. Continue reading “Federal Court Rules In Favor of UNC in Use of Race in Admissions”
We recently discussed the controversy following the letter of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) asking the Justice Department to investigate parents causing disruptions or making threats at school board meetings. The letter included a reference to using the Patriot Act against possible domestic terrorism. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded a few days later with an order to the entire Department of Justice to monitor school board meetings around the country and coordinate a response with local officials. Now the NSBA has issued an apology. The question is whether Garland will now rescind or amend his much criticized memo. It has the feel of an educational version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Should we reconsider our deployment in light of the false premise that triggered the escalation of hostilities? Continue reading “An Educational Tonkin Gulf? The NSBA Apologies for the Letter that Triggered the Controversial Federal Operation”
The fatal shooting at Bonanza Creek Ranch already has the makings of a blockbuster tort action. Within 24 hours of actor Alec Baldwin fatally shooting cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding the director, witnesses have raised serious questions of negligent and unsafe practice on the site for the low-budget film, “Rust.” The question is not whether but when the first torts lawsuit will be filed. There has already been speculation on the civil and criminal liability in the case, so it may be useful to explore what we know and what it might mean for the likely litigation ahead.
A Tufts student, Madelyn “Madie” Nicpon, 20, is the latest fatality in an eating or drinking contest. We have previously discussed (here, here, here, here, and here) such competitions from a liability standpoint. This was a charity contest but raises the question of whether it is reasonable to hold such contests that encourage rapid eating or drinking given the obvious danger of choking or other risks. Conversely, participation is voluntary and these individuals assume the risks of such contests. Continue reading “Tufts University Student Dies in Hot Dog Eating Contest”
In the 1946 move, “Terror by Night,” Sherlock Holmes assures Lady Margaret that, while he and Dr. Watson would be hanging around, “we’ll be as unobtrusive as possible.” Lady Margaret correctly responds “That would be a novelty from a policeman.” That scene came to mind when Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in Congress to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. He insists that there was nothing to be worried about because the FBI would simply be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings. Promises of such “unobtrusive” investigations or operations ignore the obvious: any national enforcement or monitoring effort is by definition obtrusive, particularly when it comes to free speech.
Below is my column in USA Today on the resignation of conservative members of President Joe Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
Internet progressives went into renewed outrage last week with objections to the “abomination” and “fixed” game being played in Washington. The subject of these attacks was not election fraud or infrastructure but the preliminary findings of the Biden Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, which warned that “the risks of court expansion are considerable.”
Despite being composed primarily of liberal members, the commission is now being attacked as a tool of the status quo. Ironically, much like the court itself, the commission is being declared invalid because it dared to reach conclusions different from these activists. Unlike on the court, activists apparently succeeded in getting two conservative members to resign because of the recommendations.
When the commission was formed, I wrote that it did not look like a serious effort to pack the court. Rather it looked like a standard “death by commission” move by President Joe Biden. The reason was not that it was too moderate but too liberal. If Biden seriously wanted to pack the court, this commission would hardly be credible with many Americans given the small number of members in the center or on the right. As the commission acknowledged, “A majority of the public does not support court expansion.”
Cable news regular and Nation writer Elie Mystal declared on Twitter, “When you put no court reformers on your court reform commission, you end up with no court reform. This game was fixed from the moment @JoeBiden named the commission.” He denounced the whole effort as “designed to produce no change.”
In reality, the commission was divided, with some members supporting court packing and two of the few conservative members suddenly resigning Friday.
However, even if the backlash results in a purging of the report or the commission, Mystal could be partially right.
The “death by commission” tactic is a common substitute in Washington for actual political leadership. During the presidential campaign, Biden repeatedly refused to state whether he opposed packing the court. He said he would only answer the question after the election, a truly bizarre position that many in the news media then just shrugged off.
As a senator, Biden was eager to express his views when it was politically popular to oppose court packing. He denounced it as a “bonehead” and “terrible, terrible” idea. Now, however, those words would come at a cost. So Biden ordered up a commission to put space between his principles and his politics. To guarantee its placebo effect, the White House stressed that the commission would only make preliminary recommendations.
The strategy did not work in this case because Biden’s acquiescence had fueled a well-funded movement of groups like Demand Justice (which has run a billboard truck in Washington calling for the immediate retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer). For months, progressives have made court packing the litmus test for whether someone truly supports democracy. Now to their outrage, the commission wrote court expansion “could undermine the very goal of some of its proponents of restoring the court’s legitimacy. … The reform – at least if it were done in the near term and all at once – would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver.”
If the White House hoped that the commission would serve as a type of primal scream session to release rage, it didn’t work. That was evident in the response to the initial report. The “abomination” described by the Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern is that the commission suggested that “today’s Supreme Court is basically apolitical while fretting that reforms with any real teeth would politicize it, and potentially break democracy.”
In other words, this commission is itself in need for reform like the court itself. It was not stacked enough or simply ineffectual because it failed to reach the supposedly “right” conclusion.
The commission did appear to vaguely support term limits for Supreme Court justices. While the limits would raise some constitutional questions, there is an argument that federal judges are only guaranteed lifetime tenure, not tenure on a particular court. However, the resulting turnover would toss out liberals and conservatives alike when groups are demanding the instant addition of four liberal justices to force a new majority on the court.
What the commission did not want to address is the fundamental flaw in the court reform movement. Most of the calls to expand the court have been based on the view that the court is “broken” because it is reaching the wrong conclusions. In other words, the court would not function correctly until it ruled “correctly.” After all, when discussing the principle of judicial review, members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., asked, “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
Biden’s effort to use a commission to kill this “bonehead idea” was designed for a different time when you could let causes die from an abundance of time and talk. This is the age of rage. The commission was designed to placate radical demands for change, but it is now denounced as an “abomination” like the institution that it was tasked to study.
While the president is likely to promise to study the commission study, the calls for court packing are only likely to increase with this term as the court addresses major cases on abortion, free speech, gun rights and other issues. Biden cannot remain a pure pedestrian in this controversy.
It is not even clear that throwing the court under the bus would placate these activists. As French journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan famously observed about the French Revolution, “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its children.” That counts for courts, commissions and even presidents.
While the president is likely to promise to study the commission study, the calls for court packing are only likely to increase with this term as the court addresses major cases on abortion, free speech, gun rights and other issues. Biden cannot remain a pure pedestrian in this controversy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Theater professor Dr. Steven Earnest of Coastal Carolina University is the latest faculty member to face suspension for expressing a dissenting view on campus. What is notable about this case is that students are demanding his termination because he failed to show sufficient empathy over a mistaken racial incident. Continue reading “The Importance of Being Earnest: Professor Suspended for Dismissing a False Racial Incident”
Many of us have called for free speech alternatives to social media given the expanding censorship programs on Twitter, Facebook, and other sites. Former President Donald Trump announced this week that he was supporting the creation of such an alternative site in TRUTH Social. Any alternative to the regulated speech found on social media is welcomed from a free speech perspective, but TRUTH Social contains a fatal flaw as a free speech site: it reserves the right to censor any criticism of itself. The inclusion of this reservation in the “Terms of Service” was not just hypocritical given the free speech premise of the site but self-destructive as the creators seek to roll out the site. Continue reading “Trump Creates “Free Speech Site” While Barring Criticism of the Site or Its Creators”
Christopher Steele, the author of the Russian collusion dossier, gave an extraordinary interview to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos this week where he stood by claims long debunked by past investigations. What was most striking about the interview was Steele effectively claiming that Michael Cohen, one of Trump’s most fierce critics, is still covering for Trump in denying a critical conspiratorial meeting with Russian intelligence. Continue reading “Dossier Delusion: Christopher Steele Claims Michael Cohen is Covering for Trump”
We recently discussed the cancelling of Dorian Abbot, an associate professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, who was prevented from speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The reason was not the merits of his scientific work but his opposition to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Now, a climate physicist at Berkeley has resigned in protest of his colleagues also blocking Abbot from speaking. Professor David Romps said in a Twitter thread that he resigned as director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center rather than participate in such censorship of a fellow academic. With many academics fearful of the backlash over supporting free speech or academic freedom, Romps’ resignation was an increasingly rare profile in courage. Continue reading “Berkeley Physicist Resigns After Colleagues Block UChicago Professor from Speaking at Science Event”