It’s that time of year in the South when it gets hot. And when I say hot, I don’t mean “hot” like “enjoy this sunny day at the beach” weather. Try more along the lines of feeling like you’re breathing soup when you step outside.
Fortunately for my family, we have this great invention we use regularly. It’s called “air conditioning” and it’s glorious, no matter what the climate wokescolds tell you.
Anyway, with summer ending it was time to take the kids to Dollywood. Continue reading
At Techdirt, Tim Cushing makes a good point.
A law enforcement activity doesn’t get a catchy nickname unless it’s pervasive. And the “Kansas two-step” is not only pervasive, it’s becoming known nationwide despite being a local phenomenon.
Kansas state troopers are taught this one cool trick that, they were told, enabled them to circumvent the Fourth Amendment and turn a seizure into a consensual stop and, well, whatever follows once consent is tacitly obtained. From Senior U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil’s decision holding it unconstitutional, the description of the dance is too cute by half. Continue reading
Former Harvard law prof, now Massachusetts senator, Elizabeth Warren, is a big fan of the bureaucratic state. It’s hard to say what Lindsay Graham is a fan of, but at the moment it would appear it’s Senator Warren, as reflected in a New York Times op-ed announcing their bipartisan bill to create a new administrative agency to rule the internet.
Nobody elected Big Tech executives to govern anything, let alone the entire digital world. If democracy means anything, it means that leaders on both sides of the aisle must take responsibility for protecting the freedom of the American people from the ever-changing whims of these powerful companies and their unaccountable C.E.O.s. Today we’re stepping up to that challenge with a bipartisan bill to treat Big Tech the way we treat other industries.
In an underappreciated ruling, District of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the multinational law firm Covington & Burling must comply with an SEC subpoena requiring the firm to give up the names of clients, publicly-traded corporations, in order for the SEC to investigate whether there was any trading on non-public information. This didn’t arise because of suspicious trades or other red flags on the corporate side of the ledger, but because hackers working for China launched a successful cyber attack on Microsoft which ultimately gave them access to the firm’s internal records.
This case concerns the intersection of a federal law enforcement agency’s interest in rooting out possible law violations and a law firm’s ethical obligations to its clients. On March 21, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “the Commission”) served a subpoena on Covington & Burling, LLP (“Covington”), a multinational law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. The subpoena sought information relating to a cyberattack on Covington’s information technology systems that had occurred a year prior. Covington largely complied with the subpoena. It balked, however, in one key respect. Citing its ethical obligation to protect its clients’ identities, Covington refused to disclose the names of its nearly 300 public company clients whose files had been compromised by the attack.
Neither I nor my children benefited from legacy admissions. Indeed, if anything, we were the group left behind, neither rich enough to be anywhere near the top one-tenth of one percent who enjoy privileges of real wealth, nor poor or ethnic enough to enjoy the largesse of the elite. So as far as self-interest goes, it would be mine to join in the chorus of voices condemning the sham of elite schools feigning meritocracy when, as this report of a story in the New York Times concludes, “being rich is its own qualification.” Continue reading
In earlier days of the internet, review sites like Yelp fought against businesses buying positive reviews to bolster their online reputation. One tool they used was badging businesses with a “consumer altert” when they found a business engaging in fraudulent reviews.
“The bigger Yelp gets, the more incentive there is to game the system,” said Eric Singley, its vice president for consumer products and mobile. “These notices are the next step in protecting consumers.”
With Trump indicted in Florida and New York City, and another indictment almost certainly coming in D.C. and possibly Fulton County, Georgia, if DA Fanni Willis can find the time, a lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief. Despite the two plus years of near silence, breeding wonderment as to why a Democratic attorney general hadn’t lifted a finger to do anything, the new stoic hero of the fair-weather friends of law and order, Jack Smith, is doing the job everybody thought Merrick Garland was doing in deep secrecy, but he wasn’t.
But now we’ve got him? Continue reading
If there is any concrete claim against the current Supreme Court lineup, it’s that President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, didn’t get his hearing before the Senate. While it may not have been unlawful for then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to game the Constitution by denying Garland his hearing, it flouted norms and the Senate’s responsibility. That he got away with it doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. Continue reading
Granted, it was in response to a ridiculously baseless argument. Granted, it was in a civil case. Granted, the civil case was against Donald Trump. Granted, the outcome, that the $5 million dollar verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll was hardly excessive. Still, Judge Kaplan’s ruling is troubling.
So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll. Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.” And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.
It was a shocking revelation, even if it’s unclear how seriously it should be taken.
Case in point: a new Newsweek poll on misgendering. In the poll—given to 1,500 eligible voters in the U.S. in early July by Redfield & Wilton Strategies—people were asked whether “referring to someone by the wrong gender pronoun (he/him, she/her) should be a criminal offense.”
A shocking percentage of younger survey respondents said that it should.