By this point in time, reactions to Nicole Hannah-Jones’ “1619 Project” have largely been divided into two camps. One camp is filled with history scholars who have pointed out that her claims are largely false, baseless and ahistorical. The other camp doesn’t care much about facts or history because they like, or at least feel compelled to like lest they be called racists by their dear friends, the message.

That the New York Times “quietly” changed one of the most ridiculous claims, which Hannah-Jones denied making to her discredit, either proved the point or proved nothing, depending on how dedicated to the secular religion of social justice one was. But is there a middle ground, where one can appreciate the “message” without getting hung up on the boldly false assertions that will make up the curriculum in woke school districts? Nicholas Guyatt tries to find it. Continue reading →

The facts in Doe v. RPI are of the sort that typically make a federal judge cringe. No one needs to know this much about the sexual claims of college students. It’s not that they don’t know it happens, but no one wants the image in their heads. Nonetheless, Judge David Hurd in the Northern District of New York told the ugly conflicting stories.

Both Doe, the male student, and Roe, the female student, agree that she plied him with vodka to get him drunk while she remained sober, and they then had consensual sex, as they had numerous times before. What happened after that is in dispute.

However, Doe eventually gave in and had sex with Roe again. Plaintiff claims that he remembers only pieces of this round of intercourse, but he claims to distinctly remember that Roe asked him to put his hands around her neck, even though this made him uncomfortable. Plaintiff eventually complied, if only briefly. Roe agrees that she requested that plaintiff put his hand on her neck and provide pressure, but she claims that this happened during their first, consensual encounter on that night. Continue reading →

New York’s Chief Judge, Janet DiFiore, called for a study to be done to ascertain the extent of racial bias in the court system.

DiFiore said in June that her request for the report was spurred by the killing of George Floyd and came two days after a Brooklyn court officer allegedly posted a racist illustration depicting President Obama with a noose around his neck, which Johnson says “peeled the lid off of long-simmering racial tensions.”

Long-simmering, indeed. Continue reading →

Some years ago, people marched for racial equality, and to a huge measure, helped to make the nation better, more equal, even if there remains much work to do. We now have a name for these people. White Supremacists.

As July 4 and its barbecues arrived this year, the activist and former N.F.L. quarterback Colin Kaepernick declared, “We reject your celebration of white supremacy.”

The movie star Mark Ruffalo said in February that Hollywood had been swimming for a century in “a homogeneous culture of white supremacy.” Continue reading →

As Trump’s hopes of ever being invited to dinner by the old guard of Palm Beach swirl around his gold-plated toilet bowl, sucking with it the possibility of Republicans holding the Senate, the real battle for the future of a nation has begun. The shot heard round the capital has now been fired.

Every new president has around 4,000 political appointments to make across the executive branch — and for Democrats, who actually care about governing competently, it’s important to fill those jobs with people who know what they’re doing.

Continue reading →

It’s not that the Virginia lege isn’t trying. The problems it’s addressing are undoubtedly real and serious, even if they also happen to be unduly popular at the moment. Cops profile. Cops use traffic stops as pretexts for searches. Sometimes, they just make up reasons to stop people, because they can. This happens disproportionately to black people, and minor problems, a headlamp out for example, end with serious problems. Something must be done.

This is something.

The legislation bars police from stopping drivers for a wide range of vehicle equipment infractions — from tinted windows and faulty brake lights to loud mufflers and objects dangling from rear view mirrors. Continue reading →

There is a serious question whether it’s wise to pursue Amy Cooper for falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. For one thing, she’s already suffered substantial consequences for what happened without benefit of due process. Yeah, yeah, we all know how every woke anticarceral activists wants her to be burned at the stake. No need to explain why killers deserve our empathy but Cooper deserves life plus cancer. We got it.

For another thing, we’ve promoted the notion that women are entitled to feel threatened, even if irrationally, to make false claims because that’s “their truth” twisted by the litany of excuses as to why it’s too hard to be rational and honest when one’s emotions run rampant. Except when it’s caught on video against a black guy, in which case every absolute tenet of social justice flips on its head and the woman becomes the criminal. Continue reading →

Among the casualties of an otherwise remarkably uncontroversial hearing for a Supreme Court justice, perhaps due to Michael Avenatti’s bond conditions precluding his trotting out some handsome stud to allege he was sexually molested, are certain interpretative methodologies used by judges, originalism and textualism. Their meanings have been twisted.

“Originalism” would mean, among other things, that women couldn’t vote, that black people wouldn’t be people, that religious and ethnic abuse and exploitation of minorities and say gay people would be perfectly acceptable. When ACB uses that word, think about all that.

Continue reading →

There are many generic arguments against the Senate’s confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, bearing on the timing, the rush and the institutional hypocrisy that can only be denied by people with their eyes wide shut. But that’s a slam on the process, not Barrett, although it’s hard these days to separate the two.

At the close of questioning, Judiciary Committee chair Lindsay Graham made the point that, for a nominee from a Republican president, she was fully qualified, just as was Justices Kagan and Sotomayor as nominees from a Democratic president. Yet, that’s not quite the way it’s being seen.

They have the votes to confirm her, and confirm her they will, but her insistence that she is an “originalist,” along with her refusal to answer any questions on topics relevant to the present, including on racial prejudice, climate change, voter suppression, and so on, have made her extremism clear.

Continue reading →

During his questioning of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, former Connecticut attorney general, now senator, Richard Blumenthal, claimed that Barrett “admitted” her dissent in a Seventh Circuit Second Amendment case, Kanter v. Barr, was “radical.”

“Did I say it was radical in the opinion?” Barrett asked.

“I think you said, quote, ‘it sounds kind of radical to say felons can have firearms.’ That’s a direct quote.”

“I didn’t remember that particular language,” Barrett said, adding that she did not want to nitpick.

“We can look it up,” Blumenthal said.

Continue reading →