Sitting in the barbershop, there was a woman on the television of unknown qualification during one of those daytime panel shows of women of little qualification giving advice to parents about how to discuss the Russian invasion of Ukraine with their children. The woman giving advice looked barely old enough to have children herself, but presumably had a degree or wrote a book, so was “expert” enough to fill the air time between commercials.

Her advice was to be simple and supportive. Tell your children they are safe, so they shouldn’t be afraid. My barber, Carol, watched with me, and afterward said, “What the hell is wrong with her?” I demurred, mostly because Carol was holding scissors at my head. Continue reading →

During the campaign, Joe Biden spoke words that he believed would help get him elected by announcing that if was to get the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, he would choose a black woman. How much that helped him will never be clear, but that it  would taint his nominee in the eyes of his adversaries was obvious. After all, is there any smaller cohort in the scheme of potential Supreme Court nominees than black women, a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a small fraction of the universe of potential nominees?

But the unspoken reality happened to make that announcement a little less troubling in the real world than it is in the world of identity politics, where announcing the qualifications for the next justice would be skin color and genitalia, not because it was pandering to the racists (would it have been any different if a president announced he would nominate a white man, an Asian transgender person, an Indigenous nonbinary person or, like me, a Jewish delisexual?), but because it so happened that the pool of potential nominees included some exceptionally good choices. Continue reading →

Every once in a while, someone lacking a firm grasp on the concept of impartiality says the quiet part out loud. When it comes to Title IX hearings, that person is often Brett Sokolow, president of the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) and head of a college “risk management” consulting company. Sokolow is a lawyer, though you would be hard pressed to figure that out from his grasp of the basic principles of law.

This Tip of the Week allows us to focus on two challenges – process delays and the resultant staleness of witness recollection.

To no one’s surprise except Brett, providing an accused with due process is more work than conducting an inquisition, and he may be correct that few campus investigators are  sufficiently competent or inclined to do so. But the more curious grievance is that delays in reaching conclusions is creating a secondary problem, that witnesses can’t keep their stories straight. Continue reading →

The common expression is that someone “committed a crime.” Ever read that someone “omitted a crime”? That’s what three police officers in the sideshow of the most notorious police killing of the decade, George Floyd, now stand convicted of, the crime of omission.

A federal jury determined that the officers — Tou Thao, 36; J. Alexander Kueng, 28; and Thomas Lane, 38 — had willfully violated Mr. Floyd’s constitutional rights by not providing medical care when he lost a pulse and that two of them were also guilty of not intervening to stop a fellow officer, Derek Chauvin, from planting his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck.

Mr. Kueng and Mr. Lane both helped Mr. Chauvin restrain Mr. Floyd while he was handcuffed facedown on the pavement. Mr. Thao stood nearby, keeping bystanders away.

Continue reading →

Whether the bill has any actual justification or serves only as a performative statement is something of a mystery. After all, it’s already a crime to interfere with police in the lawful performance of their duty, whether it’s for a good reason or bad. Yet, the Arizona House Appropriations Committee approved House Bill 2311, so now it’s on the table.

If passed into law, House Bill 2311 would make it illegal “for a person to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity, including the handling of an emotionally disturbed person, if the person does not have the permission of the law enforcement officer” and is within 8 feet of the cop. The original text stipulated that it would be a crime to do so within 15 feet, but Rep. John Kavanagh (R–D23), the bill’s sponsor, altered the radius in an amendment meant to assuage constitutional objections.

Continue reading →

The federal jury returned its verdict against the three Arberry defendants. Guilty. Guilty of violating his civil rights by murdering him. Guilty of being motivated to murder him because of racism. Guilty of being racists. It’s unlikely that anyone will shed a tear for these three men, Travis McMichael, 36, his father, Gregory McMichael, 66, and their neighbor William Bryan, 52.

But does well-earned outrage and hatred toward them that mean this prosecution was proper? Continue reading →

There are ways in which we distinguish one John Doe from another. There are mug shots. Fingerprints. Social security numbers and dates of birth. These distinguishing factors have been around for decades, routinely used to identify one person from another, because in a nation of 330 million, names are occasionally used twice. Often more than twice. Sometimes, there are a whole bunch of John Does, or in this instance, Bethany Farber.

A Southern Caifornia woman has sued the Los Angeles Police Department after she claims a case of mistaken identity left her in jail for nearly two weeks.

Bethany K. Farber was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport on April 16, 2021. According to Farber’s representatives, upon arrival at the airport, she was detained by TSA and told that there was a warrant out for her arrest in Texas. Farber allegedly told police that she had no history of trouble with the law, nor had she ever been to Texas.

Continue reading →

What is happening? Why? What should be done about it?

What does it mean for the United States and the world? Continue reading →

Naturally, Joe Patrice, mustering his usual intellectual depth, championed the cause of the traumatized Duke Law students forced by their faculty advisors to include an article in the Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems.

After Jon Adler at Volokh Conspiracy pointed out that Patrice’s ATL post ran the gamut from vacuous to ad hominem, he noted that editorial decisions at this particular journal were made by academics, and the academics did something that neither a group of Duke students nor Patrice could tolerate: They included an article that failed to adhere to the social justice orthodoxy. Continue reading →

Prince Andrew was accused in a civil action for damages. He denied it. He has now settled the case, which happens when a plaintiff and defendant agree on a resolution to the claims made. But what about you?

It’s deflating to see how often wealth can be used to obscure truth.

WaPo columnist Christine Emba is pissed. How dare Prince Andrew use his wealth to settle the suit against him? Continue reading →