There is nothing, absolutely nothing, legally wrong with Aaron Sibarium’s Washington Free Beacon expose on the reactions of certain Yale law students against their follow students and in conflict with what one would expect from a law student, in general, and a student at as elite a law school at Yale, in particular. After all, what law student would publicly say something like this?

Continue reading →

One would suspect that most academics teaching crim law had some hands-on experience actually doing crim law. Sure, there will always be the self-proclaimed “experts” who couldn’t find a courthouse without Waze, but most did a stint in a public defender’s or district attorney’s office and at least once in their sheltered lives had to make the call, plea or trial.

Or maybe not, because if that was the case, they wouldn’t need William and Mary law prof Jeffrey Bellin to explain something so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be mentioned. Apparently it does. Continue reading →

First it was the former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Sherrilyn Ifill. Then it was New  York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie. What are the chances that two important voices would both raise the same argument in reaction to the contention in Justice Sam Alito’s draft Dobbs opinion at the same time out of the blue?

Boom.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder removed critical protections of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and struck down the preclearance formula of Section 5 of the act, which compelled jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to submit proposed electoral changes to a federal authority for approval before enactment. That provision had made the Voting Rights Act the crown jewel of civil rights legislation because it created a regime to head off discriminatory practices before they became law. After striking down the use of the preclearance formula, the Court in Shelby perhaps sought to minimize the damage by reinforcing that Black voters would remain free to challenge discriminatory voting laws after they were enacted by bringing claims under Section 2, which allows Black voters to bring claims to challenge election laws and practices that dilute or deny minority voting strength.

Continue reading →

It was a curious bit of journalistic malpractice, made worse by the fact that it appeared in the New York Times, the paper of record, after passing editorial muster. The headline is where it started.

How a Bill to Protect Abortion Access Failed in the Senate

After Republicans blocked the legislation intended to preserve rights established by Roe v. Wade, Democrats vowed to keep fighting, with an eye on midterm elections.

Continue reading →

The internet is, as most people know, everywhere, which makes it something of a problem for those who either want to regulate it or signal to their supporters that they would, if they could. But they can’t, obviously, because it’s the friggin’ internet, right? Well, the European Union did, to some extent, and Congress holds hearings about it all the time as both sides want to control it, albeit for different reasons.

Then along comes Texas, because it’s Texas, with a cockamamie bill that everyone who has any clue about law and cyberspace knows with absolute certainty can’t be upheld because it’s a flagrant affront to the First Amendment. How bad? This bad. Continue reading →

Trigger Warning: Before you get to the screen at the ACLU website where the statement linked below can be found, you have to first pass through this screen.

Elon Musk said he will restore Trump’s twitter account if his purchase goes through. Continue reading →

The thing I remember most about Mario Batali’s restaurant, Del Posto, was the steel swizzle sticks at the bar. They were pretty cool. The food was fine, and extremely expensive, but that was the price of going to a restaurant by this new breed of creature, celebrity chef. What happened in the back of house was historically raunchy, vulgar and private. Drugs, sex and rock ‘n’ roll, but anyone who sought a place on the line knew that was the lifestyle, wrong though it may be from the outsiders perspective.

Us outsiders learned of such things from Anthony Bourdain’s Kitchen Confidential, may he rest in peace. Continue reading →

A law school graduate who didn’t pass the California bar was bemoaning her circumstance and condemning the 33% pass rate. Among the things noted was that this was one of the first generations of primarily zoom-educated law students to take the bar exam. The graduate asserted that remote education had nothing to do with the massive failure rate. Whether this is right or wrong, I dunno, but it’s not so easily dismissed.

The experience of learning in a classroom was denied these students, with good reason, but still lost to them. Harvard released a study showing remote learning was significantly worse than in-person education, which should surprise no one who didn’t indulge their litany of excuses about why something that sucked wasn’t as bad as everybody knew it was. Continue reading →

Protests at the homes of the six Supreme Court justices, ironically including Chief justice  John Roberts who is presumed not to be part of the majority in the Dobbs case, began after a pro-abortion group published their home addresses for this purpose. The division between those who support protests of this nature and those who do not is proceeding as expected on social media.

What does the White House have to say about these protests? Continue reading →

It might seem too early, as many of those who support the Alito draft opinion that would overrule Roe and Casey, needless to affirm the Mississippi law as falling within the permissible restrictions that do not unduly burden a penumbral right, would argue. After all, we’re told, this isn’t the end of abortion, but the return to where the decision ought to be made, state legislatures. It probably won’t change much of anything, it’s argued, so why get all crazy about it?

Of course, Louisiana voted out of committee this week a law making all abortions murder. Continue reading →