The question posed to the original three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit was whether the state of Washington could prohibit a licensed therapist, Brian Tingley, from advising his patient under the age of 18 to undergo “conversion therapy,” defined by statute as a “regime that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” The law prohibited such advice and deemed it professional misconduct.

For most of us, the answer is easy, dictated by the fact that conversion therapy doesn’t work and is potentially harmful to the patient. Perhaps more to the point, if one is of the view that there is nothing wrong with being gay, then it’s not a problem to be cured and there is no justification for conversion therapy. But after the panel ruled in favor of the state, plaintiff sought en banc review, which was denied with an opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain that raises some troubling concerns. Continue reading →

When the NCAA was compelled to allow college athletes to enjoy million dollar sponsorships for their name, image and endorsement, many applauded that the students would finally be allowed to partake of the bounty that had previously gone only to their colleges. Yay? Well, kinda, but for the fact that the bounty wouldn’t be distributed equitably.

To most of us, this was so obvious that it was accepted as a given. Star athletes would make big bucks. Lesser athletes, less, if anything. Meritocracy would vote with its wallet, as it should. But what of the age-old sport conundrum, that women don’t get the opportunities and benefits that men do? Continue reading →

While I’m sure they exist, I can’t imagine a parent who believes that someone else, someone at school, would make better choices for their child than they would. Yet, parents believe that schools should be empowered to make decisions for other people’s children because they will make the decisions for other people’s children that they believe should be made. Not their children, but other people’s children, when the parents might not make the choices they would make for their own. Continue reading →

When Joshua Browder came up with the idea for DoNotPay, a chatbot to walk defendants through the basic handling of parking tickets, it had its merits. After all, many defendants were unable to afford a lawyer to represent them, and the offenses were infractions, not crimes, so the cost of failure was low. And frankly, most defendants lacked the focus and knowledge to handle their defense adequately, no less competently, so any help that guided people down a reasonably sound path was better than nothing.

Then he got more ambitious. Continue reading →

It’s understandable that people are dissatisfied with the report of Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley’s investigation into who leaked the draft Dobbs decision. After all, it came up empty as to the Court’s staff, and left out any discussion of the very people who so many truly thought, and passionately wanted, to be the culprit.

After the reaction to the report reached fevered pitch, Curley released a separate statement to calm the savage beast. Continue reading →

Is it any big surprise that Alec Baldwin will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter? Well, despite his inability to remain silent in the face of having killed someone, it is a surprise.

He told detectives he had been assured the gun he was rehearsing with that day did not contain live ammunition, sat down for an extensive television interview, sought indemnification from financial liability in the case and then sued crew members on the film, claiming that they were responsible for handing him a loaded gun.

Continue reading →

When quitter Andrew Cuomo nominated former Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, there was, to be mild, unhappiness. This was not the choice one wanted from a Democratic governor, a conservative prosecutor in the top state judicial post. But Cuomo had the juice to overcome objections, and since there was little expectation that Cuomo’s pick wouldn’t be approved, others fell in line so as not to make enemies with this unfortunate choice.

Cut to yesterday’s judiciary committee vote in the New York Senate for formerly fill-in, now newly-elected, governor Kathy Hochul of the hinterlands. It did not go as well as Judge DiFiore’s vote. Continue reading →

Granted, I came of age when there was no such thing as a bike helmet. Not only did we ride bikes, but we did so everywhere, for great distances, without a second thought. And whether we were on a fancy three-speed English racer or a hip Sting Ray with its banana seat and butterfly handlebars, it was freedom for a kid and our only means of transportation.

I never wore a bike helmet. No one did. And I survived. But then I met Ted, the father of one of my daughter’s friends, who had been an avid bike rider when he was in an accident, went over the handlebars and was severely brain damaged. Ted was such a sweet guy, but what remained was a shell of a human being. It was so sad. I would never let my kids ride without a helmet, even if the law permitted otherwise. But the law didn’t, and I understood why. Continue reading →

There is law. There is duty. And then there is the question of discretion, who gets to decide whether it’s to be executed or not. This is an issue that’s reared its head on numerous levels over the past few years, most notably when progressive prosecutors ran for and won office upon the campaign promise that they would categorically refuse to prosecute laws with which they disagreed.

There’s no doubt that a prosecutor has the individualized discretion to decide not to pursue a particular case. Maybe the evidence isn’t there. Maybe the facts and circumstances are such that she feels it would be an improper or counterproductive exercise of authority. Regardless, it’s within their authority to decide to toss a case. But individualized discretion is very different than categorical exceptions. Continue reading →

There are few people whose words are seized upon to make arguments they never made, never intended, never believed, more than MLK. The reason why is obvious, as they were so respected and revered that the influence of an appeal from authority was undeniable. The problem is that they aren’t here to refute the motives and meanings put into their mouths.

And, indeed, if they were here, perhaps they would have approved of the ideas others impute to them, but it’s disingenuous to use their memory, their words spoken more than 50 years ago, in a different world, with different understandings and different problems, than are now perceived. Continue reading →