Among the various shenanigans employed by the Trump administration to circumvent the law is the firing of United States Attorneys appointed by the judges of a district after the 120-day period of an interim appointee lapsed without Senate confirmation of the interim appointee or anyone else to the position. When that happens, 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) kicks in, authorizing the judges to appoint the United States Attorney.

Trump hasn’t taken the law well.

What is happening is that Trump names someone to the position, the clock runs out, the judges replace the prosecutor with their own selection, and within minutes to hours, Trump fires the court-appointed prosecutor. Continue reading →

One of the hardest things to swallow for people who are friendly toward Free Speech is that the people you dislike are entitled to it as much as you are. Sure, they may be wrong, even lie, whereas of course you would never do such a thing, and yet, within the normal legal parameters, they still get to speak without suffering any governmental penalty for it. That’s the position taken by three prawfs, Eugene Volokh, Rebecca Roiphe and Nadine Strossen, in an amicus brief in support of John Eastman in support of cert before the Supreme Court.

The last ten years have seen many attempts to punish or compel professionals’ speech in the service of broader ideological goals. This Court rejected two such attempts, in NIFLA v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), and in Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026). It should likewise consider the constitutionality of the punishment in this case—a punishment that, if left unreviewed, portends still more such attempts. Continue reading →

Much as I may think it best for the nation for the Democrats to take Congress, I don’t think I could vote for New York Democratic congressional candidate socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. But that doesn’t mean she won’t win her seat, no matter what I think of her. And if she does, despite what I think of her, she will become a representative because that’s how democracy works. Republican Tennessee representative Tim Burchett doesn’t agree.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) plans to try to block Democratic nominee and New York socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier from taking her seat in Congress if she wins the Nov. 3 election — over her saying she used the American flag as a napkin.

Burchett told The Post he intends to make the unusual parliamentary move when the new Congress convenes in January — using a simple majority to prevent newly elected lawmakers from being seated before they take the oath of office. Continue reading →

One of the first things I read in the morning is the op-eds in the New York Times. Most are interesting and informative, whether or not I agree with them. Others, not so much. Some are just stunningly shallow and, sadly, factually wrong, which is surprising given the vetting done before publication. Then again, editing is only as good as the editors, and some are better than others even if the Times has the wherewithal to hire the best staff available.

But I read them. What I do not do is listen to them, which has become the new Times’ gimmick to appeal to people who find reading too challenging. These are the same people who prefer to listen to a podcast rather than read a blog post, willing to dedicate the time needed to listen without the burden of actually having to think about the topic. I am not willing. More importantly, when I read the transcript of Times’ videos, I am appalled at their superficial content, their rambling, often incoherent words that could never survive thoughtful scrutiny. Continue reading →

George Santayana reminded us that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” And at stunning speed, it’s happening as Trump’s MAGA flailing has emboldened the left to return to the bad old days of rape hysteria. One day’s string of New York Times headlines tells the tale.

Hochul Names Letitia James as Special Prosecutor in Cornell Case

Cornell Students Call for Change at Fiery Public Meeting

Men Accused in Cornell Sex Assault Suit Give Varying Accounts of Night

How a Cornell Student Went From Shame to Action

N.Y. Lawmakers and Victims Push to Change Rape Law in Intoxication Cases

Parents Are Talking About Consent After Cornell Rape Allegations

Continue reading →

The Department of Justice filed a grievance against all two named and, bizarrely, the rest anonymous judges in the District of Minnesota with the Judicial Council for the Eighth Circuit, complaining of judges giving an interview to the New York Times on September 17, 2026, about the Department of Justice failing to comply with court orders. The complaint is that these judges violated the Canon of Judicial Conduct by engaging in political speech by condemning the DoJ’s disregard of court orders and discussing cases that had not as yet been concluded.

Ironically, Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, Attorney General Todd Blanche, went on to admit that his department disregarded the orders of the court.

“I’m allowed to get really fired up when, for example, judges in Minnesota complain about us violating court orders but the reason why, that we are, quote, violating court orders is because these judges are violating Supreme Court law, OK, in allowing these cases to be filed,” he said, apparently referring to a case that clarifies which courts have jurisdiction to hear detention challenges.

Continue reading →

Trump signed an Executive Order “officially” renaming Artificial Intelligence. Notwithstanding the fact that AI is the ubiquitous worldwide term to describe the technology, including its definition under 15 USC § 9401(3), Trump felt compelled to change it. Perhaps this was an assertion of his power and authority to prove his dominance.

Perhaps this was his way of changing the narrative, to make the bad rap of its potential as an existential threat to humanity disappear, by making the name more positive than the implication of artificiality, as if the extermination of mankind would somehow go down easier if it was called “super.” Perhaps the word “artificial” had too many syllables for his liking, which would explain why, during his polling of his Truth Social followers, the term “superior” intelligence was rejected as too hard to say. Continue reading →

The backstory is convoluted. What happened at Chi Phi Fraternity at Cornell University on the night of October 19, 2024 is unclear. It could have been a gang rape. It could have been a woman who voluntarily engaged in drug- and alcohol-fueled sexual conduct with multiple male students, who subsequently regretted her actions and either wants to get money out of Cornell or exact revenge on the men.

What is known is that the woman, proceeding pseudonymously, has sued Cornell under Title IX for failing to pursue her claims, which prompted the Tompkins County prosecutor to reopen a case that had been dropped at the time. The woman went to the Cornell Police Department to make a complaint. Her statement failed to allege that she was forced to ingest drugs or engage in nonconsensual sex. In other words, it didn’t allege anything criminal. When it was forwarded to the district attorney, there was no basis to proceed. Continue reading →

Perhaps it was on college football? Maybe Saturday Night Live? Or it could have been Fox News Sunday, where the administration thought it worthwhile to use government funds, a euphemism for the monies you and I (well, at least I) pay as taxpayers, to put commercials on the television. But they’re not political ads, according to Trump. They’re public service ads.

What public service did this remind you of? But it gets worse. Continue reading →

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court stayed the temporary restraining order prohibiting the implementation of the government’s modified SAVE system to determine eligible voters. In its per curiam opinion, it hardly seems like much of a big deal.

Lest there be any doubt, section 1373(c) requires DHS to respond to inquiries from state and local agencies “seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.” Considered alongside section 1373’s “notwithstanding” clauses, section 1373(c) appears to contemplate an information-sharing regime like the modified SAVE program. In light of these provisions, this Court is likely to reverse the District Court’s holding that the federal defendants violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act, and the APA.

Continue reading →