There are numerous points along the way where 33-year-old Matthew Graves could have been more compliant, more accommodating and less difficult. For some, that would have been the obvious solution to his remaining alive, as his bad attitude didn’t help him any. But then, much as it’s likely a wiser tactic to remain alive to complain another day, even if that’s not what the Constitution requires of us, and not what the Supreme Court, in its limited wisdom, believes happens on the street when cops engage with a guy for the heinous crime of . . . jay-walking.

Eagle Point, Oregon, Police Officer Daniel Cardenas did what any normal police officer would do after killing a guy. He told his story. Continue reading →

While the trial proceeds in the case against Harvard for discriminating against Asian applicants, pushed by a guy whose agenda is to end affirmative action merely because he caught Harvard red handed, defenders of diversity have focused their attentions on the last refuge of the woke, the tu quoque logical fallacy.

A lawsuit against Harvard University has put a focus on admissions policies that the plaintiffs argue hurt Asian-American applicants. I disagree with the suit, seeing it as a false flag operation that aims to dismantle affirmative action for black and Latino students.

It’s unclear how one can “disagree with the suit.” It’s not an agree or disagree thing, but a mechanism for proving a cause of action. One would expect someone as bright as Nick Kristof to understand enough about how law works to not write such a silly paragraph, particularly since he indulges in the mod use of “false flag,” a “covert operation designed to “disguising the actual source of responsibility.” Continue reading →

An Australian student* found an obstacle between him and his final grade that he didn’t anticipate.

There was no way around it, under it, over it. The deal was that in order to see his grade, he had to obtain a grade of 100% on the quiz before he could move on. Continue reading →

Wild Bill Douglas is remembered as one of the Supreme Court greats, authoring such significant opinions as Skinner v. Oklahoma, Brady v. Maryland and Griswold v. Connecticut. But William Orville Douglas was pretty awful.

Judge Richard A. Posner, who was a law clerk at the Court during the latter part of Douglas’s tenure, characterized him as “a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible” Supreme Court justice, as well as “rude, ice-cold, hot-tempered, ungrateful, foul-mouthed, self-absorbed” and so abusive in “treatment of his staff to the point where his law clerks—whom he described as ‘the lowest form of human life’—took to calling him “shithead” behind his back.”

None of this is new or surprising to those moderately familiar with Justice Douglas, who was stronger on outcome and the occasional rhetorical flourish than substance and the gritty details of making his novel outcomes work. If he was, maybe we wouldn’t be arguing about a Brady (1963) “epidemic” more than half a century later. Oh wait, that “epidemic” came from Alex Kozinski, and he’s too awful to refer to anymore given his sexual misconduct. Continue reading →

The buried lede is that Ronald Conner is a sovereign citizen. He believes that the government is a corporate sham, that it has no authority to collect taxes and that he is entitled to refuse to do so. How much does he believe this? Enough to sit in a cell for the past 16 months.

Ronald Conner hasn’t been charged with a crime.

He hasn’t been indicted.

He isn’t even accused of breaking the law.

But he is in prison. He has been for 16 months — and he could be there for a lot longer.

Continue reading →

Would you rather your lawyer get you a better deal or a worse deal? Do you care how? Should your lawyer? If the answer is yes, then Vivia Chen, the Careerist, says your lawyer should be a man.

It pains me to say this, but men and women are different—very different—in how they approach negotiation.

And guess what? Men are winning, winning, winning.

This comes from a study in the Harvard Business Review that men are more effective negotiators, but it comes with a hitch. Continue reading →

Albert Einstein is as anodyne an example as possible, since everybody concedes he was a pretty bright guy and came up with a theory of relativity of some significance. But what if it turned out that he was some sort of awful lech, leering at young women at parties and, at least once, being accused of engaging in enthusiastically consensual sex with a woman who, the next day, claimed to have had two glasses of peppermint schnapps and been incapable of consent?

Do we ignore the theory of relativity? Do we accept it, but refuse to give Einstein credit for it? Do we simply ignore his awfulness?

A recent essay in The Chronicle by Nikki Usher, an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, posed the question starkly: “Do we still keep citing the scholarship of serial harassers and sexists? Within their institutions, they may finally get the fate due to them (or not). But their citational legacy will live on, sometimes even in the form of the pro-forma citations that reviewers expect to see in a manuscript, and ask for if they don’t.”

Continue reading →

An op-ed by Nancy Kaffer in the Detroit Free Press makes it sound awful that Siwatu-Salama Ra was in prison, wasn’t released on bail pending appeal, was shackled to a bed when giving birth and then had her newborn child taken from her. And indeed, it may very well be awful, in whole or part.

Last year, Ra, 26, waved an unloaded gun at an acquaintance whom Ra’s mother, Rhonda Anderson, says became belligerent and violent at Anderson’s Detroit home, using her car to hit a parked car in which Ra’s toddler daughter Zala was playing.

No one was hurt. No shots were fired. Ra, a Detroit activist and community organizer with no previous criminal record, is a legal gun owner with a concealed-carry permit, who says she was afraid that the acquaintance would harm her daughter, her mother, or herself. But a jury believed that Ra acted in anger, not in self-defense, and found her guilty of felonious assault.

Continue reading →

The ugly side of the teary-eyed anecdote is the exception that proves the point. And yet, it’s that exception that’s always thrown back in your face, that makes the headline, that is held up as proof that an idea is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And who better to be that smug, if not particularly factual, source than the New York Post.

One of the jailbirds sprung by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights group already has a fresh warrant for her arrest — for skipping court Tuesday.

The foundation paid $750 to free Tamika West, 44, from Rikers Island on Oct. 3 as part of its controversial mass bailout program.

Continue reading →

It’s an interesting way to look at judging, expressed in a curious triad.

Three umpires walk into a bar. The World Series is on TV — Red Sox vs. Dodgers. The three umps have a few beers as they watch the game and discuss their philosophies of umpiring.

The first one says, “I know that some are balls and some are strikes, so when I’m behind the plate I call them as I see them.” You might describe him as an empiricist.

The second one then says, “You’re right that some are balls and some are strikes, but I call them as they are.” He’s a realist.

Continue reading →