As Damon Linker writes, there is always some degree of taint when a politician of one side is proscuted by the other. As David French writes, no politician, no matter how high or mighty, should be treated better than or worse than any other citizen. What’s Trump got to say? Send money!!!.

His political advisers had been preparing for weeks to exploit the federal indictment for full effect. His team has come to view federal law enforcement actions against him as a core part of its fund-raising strategy. Online fund-raising — which has long been the lifeblood of Mr. Trump’s political operation because high-end Republican donors largely shun him — has dried up for all Republican candidates over the past several years, including Mr. Trump. Continue reading →

At Techdirt, Mike Masnick has received a flurry of press releases in response to YouTube’s decision not to moderate election misinformation.

Judging by the number of very angry press releases that landed in my inbox this past Friday, you’d think that YouTube had decided to personally burn down democracy. You see, that day the company announced an update to its approach to moderating election misinformation, effectively saying that it would no longer try to police most such misinformation regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election: Continue reading →

Whether it’s Sam Bankman-Fried or George Santos, law is often crafted in the wake of people we despise, or at least for whom we hold little sympathy. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields (EDNY) ordered that the names of the sureties for Santos’ release be made public. The order has been sealed in order to allow Santos an opportunity to appeal the decision to the district court.

ORDER: For the reasons contained in the attached Order, the motions to unseal the identities of the Suretors who signed the Bond for Defendant’s pretrial release, filed herein at Docket Entries 13 and 14, are granted. To allow Defendant to appeal this ruling to the District Court, the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the attached decision and all previously sealed documents, including the Bond, under seal. Any appeal of this Order must be filed by noon on Friday, June 9, 2023. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 6/6/2023.

Continue reading →

What comes to mind when you hear the name Audubon? The magnificent images of Birds of America? The society that protects birds and other animals? Conservation? Natural sanctuaries? Or slaves, racism and stealing the skulls of indigenous peoples?

In 1896, a pair of upper-crust Bostonian ladies founded the Massachusetts Audubon Society in a bid to outlaw feather hats. They named the group after John James Audubon, the fine artist and bird collector whose paintings and books influenced Charles Darwin and sparked public protections of animals, helping birth the modern conservation movement. (The national wing formed in 1905.) Continue reading →

Despite Chris Seaton’s best efforts, the writers’ strike continues and we may never see a sitcom again. It presents an interesting contrast to many of the more popular platitudes of the unduly passionate, where people who followed their passion are now constrained to admit that love doesn’t pay the bills.

Last month, in an interview about Warner Bros. Discovery’s $50 million streaming profit in the first quarter of 2023, the company’s chief executive, David Zaslav, told CNBC that he believed the Writers Guild of America strike would ultimately end because of “a love for the business and a love for working.” Continue reading →

It’s been about ten years since Maurice Jimmerson;s arrest, and he’s still awaiting trial.

It’s unclear why exactly Jimmerson has languished in jail for so long. Gregory Edwards, the Dougherty County district attorney, told Atlanta News First that some of the delay can be attributed to a 2021 courthouse flood, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a previous judge’s decision to try Jimmerson and his codefendants separately for the 2013 double-murder charge. Two of Jimmerson’s codefendants were tried—and acquitted—in 2017.

Continue reading →

In the grand scheme of reviled Supreme Court justices, William Rehnquist was no Roger Taney. But it was bad enough to be Rehnquist that he didn’t have to be. And so there’s a natural inclination to want to believe the worst of the show pony with his velvet stripes on his black robe. And Rick Hasen and Dahlia Lithwick do just that.

The late chief justice, who long sought to turn the 14^th Amendment on its head, notoriously drafted a 1952 memo as a Supreme Court clerk that defended racial segregation in the South and the disastrous Plessy v. Ferguson decision on which the institution’s legality was based. Although Rehnquist denied during his confirmation hearings that the memo reflected his own views—saying they were meant to reflect those of Robert H. Jackson, the justice he was clerking for in 1952—a newly released court document, not previously reported, lays bare Rehnquist’s abhorrent true position on segregation as late as 1993.

Continue reading →

When Stanford law school’s DEI dean, Tirien Steinbach, took to the mic to stand up for the students who silenced invited speaker Judge Kyle Duncan, she was suspended from her position and roundly castigated for both failing to enforce the law school’s policies as well as encouraging the heckler’s veto to silence free speech. What, I pondered, did the deans and pundits expect a DEI dean to do? Wasn’t this her job?

[H]ow could it be that well-trained DEI Deans at elite institutions can have such a fundamentally flawed vision of the purpose of an academic institution? And what are these DEI staff teaching law students? Indeed, Steinbach doubled-down on her position in the WSJ: Continue reading →

The Illinois Supreme Court has created a Committee on Equality, with six subcommittees, for the purpose of “bringing equality and facilitating trust in the court system.” While it’s unclear why there is a need for such a committee at all, given that Equal Protection is a constitutional mandate, and that the word “equality” has fallen out of fashion in favor of “equity,” which allows for the currently preferred outcomes without regard to principle, the goal can’t be faulted. After all, who would be against “bringing equality and facilitating trust in the court system”? Continue reading →

We’ve held debates here, most notably between two of our former Fault Lines debating rivals, Chris Seaton and Mario Machado. And the rules are pretty much there are no rules. They agree upon a proposition and then one takes the affirmative and the other gets stuck with the negative, whether they are personally for or against the resolution. Why? Because debating is about debating, about coming up with the most persuasive argument possible to make your case.

What happens here, apparently, stays here, or at least isn’t happening on the national high school debate tournaments. Sure, they have rules because schools love rules, but they also have judges who adore debate except when an argument is made that conflicts with their beliefs or failings. And they make no secret of their “paradigm.” Continue reading →