What the hell is DWTS?

Glad you asked! It’s an acronym for “Dancing With The Stars.”

And why the fuck are you talking about it today?

One, I write the jokes around here on Fridays. Continue reading →

It was a dicey case from the get-go, a baby Somalian cop shooting an Aussie blond woman who called 911 to bring him to the alley where she heard a woman scream. So the Reasonably Scared Cop Rule kicked in and, just like that, Justine Damond was shot, and died, by the hand of Mohommed Noor.

Noor was charged and convicted of Murder in the Third Degree, as well as Manslaughter 2. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Murder 3 conviction.

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea found that third-degree murder was an inappropriate charge on the grounds that such a conviction requires that a defendant’s conduct not be directed specifically at the person killed.
Continue reading →

To the motivated believers at the bottom of the critical-thought challenged pyramid, there are two abiding beliefs. Tax the rich and get stuff free. The former, because no one deserves to be better off than they are, and the latter because everything they want and need has morphed into an entitlement. People have a right to health care, food, housing, education, child care and wifi.

And to some extent, they’re not entirely wrong, as the top of the wealth pyramid has gone from merely rich to obscenely rich, and the bottom has watched as the incentives to work hard  and succeed appear to have gone out of reach, with too many unable to afford basic services despite playing by the rules and working hard. There are a great many reasons that make these beliefs more true or false under various circumstances, but that doesn’t change the fact that many believe these two things, tax the rich and get stuff free, is the right thing for the Biden Administration to do. Continue reading →

Granted, there was always a good chance that defending a person charged in the January 6th insurrection was going to have its pitfalls. It’s the nature of the beast, the working of a mind of someone whose grasp of reality was so distorted that he was inclined to be there, to do whatever he did, to buy into the insanity of the conspiracies and lies, in the first place.

But crazy clients are nothing new in criminal law, and dealing with a defendant’s irrationality is part of the gig.

The first Jan. 6 rioter sentenced for a felony charge began mounting a desperate bid Wednesday to unravel his plea agreement, claiming through a newly retained attorney that his signature on the deal was forged. Continue reading →

For a fleeting moment, Theranos was huge and Elizabeth Holmes, the rare female Silicon Valley entrepreneur, was flying high. Too high, as it turned out.

Ms. Holmes’s case has been held up as a parable of Silicon Valley’s swashbuckling “fake it till you make it” culture, which has helped propel the region’s start-ups to unfathomable riches and economic power. That same spirit has also allowed grifters and unethical hustlers to flourish, often with little consequence, raising questions about Silicon Valley’s tightening grip on society.

Continue reading →

Did Syracuse University do the right thing when outraged demands for cancellation spread over the mind-numbingly idiotic twit by its “queer genderflux androgynous Black woman, an abolitionist, a lover of all Black people, and an Assistant Professor at Syracuse University in the Department of Political Science,” Jenn Jackson? At Volokh Conspiracy, Princeton prof Keith Whittington tries to provide the positive incentive by arguing it did.

Her tweet generated some backlash. The university responded as universities should in such cases—by defending free speech and avoiding any temptation to praise or condemn the professorial speech in question.

Continue reading →

For all the drama, lawprof Howard Wasserman has been dissecting what he calls the “procedural puzzles” that confront the pre-emptive efforts to enjoin Texas’ abortion law, SB8. For the non- and unduly passionate lawyers, this all seems silly, as such details ignore the only real legal issue, that the law is unconstitutional and so something must be done. But what, by whom and against whom? This is where the United States steps into the fray.

The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law, known as Senate Bill 8, “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious new legislation.

“It is settled constitutional law that ‘a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability,’” the department said in the lawsuit. “But Texas has done just that.”

Continue reading →

Nick Grossman isn’t prone to hysteria, so his dot connection at Arc Digital was concerning. But then, Nick also isn’t a lawyer and sees law through the same eyes as most people, devoid of nuance, the rationale for the rules and an understanding of how and why we got where we are and we stay where we are. Or not.

He began, as so many do these days, with the Supreme Court’s shadow docket decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, the Texas SB 8 case, denying injunctive relief, relief which I argued should have been granted despite the structural problems with the parties and the limits of equitable remedies. But Nick didn’t see any of that. Continue reading →

The introduction to the interview in The Nation gives some scary numbers.

The New York Times published an opinion piece that illustrated an uncomfortable fact: The vast majority of American authors published after World War II have been white. This should not be a surprise to most people who pay any attention to contemporary literature, but the voluminous data included in the piece proved shocking even to the worst of pessimists. Continue reading →