Among the bizarrely anti-liberal positions being held by the progressive left, its contortion and rejection of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech is one of the most dangerous and inexplicable. The problem is that its promise of content neutrality by the government means it doesn’t work only in their favor, and as the aphorism goes, if it’s not for them, it’s against them.

David Cole, who’s described only as a lawyer who has argued five First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, and whose affiliation is otherwise unmentioned at the top of his New York Times op-ed, tries to gently explain why this is wrong.

Have conservatives hijacked the First Amendment?

Critics are increasingly making this claim, maintaining that under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the First Amendment, once an important safeguard for progressive speech, has become a boon to corporations, conservatives and the powerful.

Continue reading →

There was nothing particularly surprising about states’ attorneys general seeing an opportunity to take a stand. After all, many are serious enemies of the Second Amendment, see guns as a blight on their communities and imagine 3D guns as being so evil, so horrifying, that they will bring the unstoppable purge to the streets.

So what if they swore to uphold the Constitution? That only means the Constitution as they choose to interpret it, the amendments they like, and only as far as it achieves the outcomes they deem right.

When Cody Wilson decided that his company, Defense Distributed, was going to post the CAD program to allow 3D printers to fabricate guns, the attorneys general went to work. Continue reading →

Emails regularly filter in from readers, informing me of things they liked, didn’t, or just wanted to discuss. Usually, the emails are from regular readers, so I have some idea who they are even if I don’t exactly “know” them. Some are heartwarming. Some are dumb.

On occasion, I send an email in response. On very rare occasion, it strikes me as worthy of a post. This is such a time.

From: David Surratt
To: SHG
Re: “Vitamins, A Field Test And Deputy Dolt”

Continue reading →

Through the fertile imagination of Amanda Hess comes her dystopian view of fembots that, apparently, have morphed from teeny-bopper sci-fi to slaves of Youtube likes.

Putting aside Hess’ structural challenges, like the fact that Dr. Frankenstein created a male monster first, she provides an interesting insight into how the raging hormones of teenage boys having sex fantasies about women because there’s no chance they’re going to have actual sex with actual females, ends up reflecting  misogynistic control needs. Who knew guys were so complex? Continue reading →

Grand futile gestures are as American as apple pie. So a group that calls itself Rise and Resist decided to give it a go by unfurling a banner at the Statue of Liberty that read “Abolish ICE.” This was when Trump’s family separation and zero tolerance immigration were the outrage of the day.

The earlier protest involved members of Rise and Resist, a group formed after the 2016 presidential election, who hung a banner calling for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished. Members of the group, angered by the Trump administration’s immigration policies, called the agency a “threat to our liberty and way of life.”

What they managed to accomplish was an evacuation of Liberty Island, in the neighborhood of 4,500 people from around the world who came to visit the Statue.  Continue reading →

There is a fair concern about the failure of the president, any president, to consider judicial nominations because of race, ethnicity, religion or sex. This would deprive the American people of a potential pool of qualified judges. If we want the best possible judges, then the broadest possible pool would best enable us to get them. This, it should be noted, is true of all endeavors. Pick based on merit, not on irrelevant characteristics. And if you refuse to consider people based on irrelevant characteristics, then you’ve deprived a nation of worthy judges.

The arguments in favor of this expansive pool from which to draw our judiciary is often presented in nonsensical terms: that their diversity would bring differing views to the bench. It’s never been a sound idea that the luck of the wheel, the judge drawn, should result in wildly disparate outcomes based on their personal idiosyncrasies.

The assumptions based on stereotypes, such as women and minorities would be more empathetic to certain litigants or hold different priorities of constitutional rights, are curious. Having come before female judges and minority judges, there is one thing that they tend to share. They are judges first and foremost. The people who are on the judicial radar, regardless of irrelevant characteristics, come from the “establishment,” whether biglaw or the United States Attorneys’ office. Their view of the law tends to be remarkably narrow, and their concern for, for example, the rights of criminal defendants is niggardly at best. Continue reading →

The first rewrite of the AP news feed was by 2015 University of Nebraska journalism graduate Emily Nitcher of the Omaha World-Herald. The second had no byline, and admitted to merely being an AP story at the Lincoln Journal-Star. Both shared a common goal, to completely mislead their readers.

Over the weekend, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf reacted to comments made by a group of current and former law clerks. The group, Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability, was formed in response to reports of harassment within the federal judiciary, according to its website.

One might expect what follows to address the controversy, the substance of the  reactions. Oh, sweet summer child. Continue reading →

The Nation published a poem by Anders Carlson-Wee called “How To.” Whether it’s a good poem is better decided by others, or perhaps by any reader individually. Whether it’s an insensitive poem, however, is decided for you.

As poetry editors, we hold ourselves responsible for the ways in which the work we select is received. We made a serious mistake by choosing to publish the poem “How-To.”  We are sorry for the pain we have caused to the many communities affected by this poem. We recognize that we must now earn your trust back.  Some of our readers have asked what we were thinking. When we read the poem we took it as a profane, over-the-top attack on the ways in which members of many groups are asked, or required, to perform the work of marginalization. We can no longer read the poem in that way.

After its publication, the editors were attacked for publishing such an “ableist” poem. It includes the word “crippled,” which is unmentionable in polite company. And like all good people told they’re insensitive, the editors admitted guilt and repented, throwing themselves on the mercy of the mob. The mob, however, was not feeling particularly merciful. Continue reading →

The “breaking” news caused waves of outrage among lawyers. It was outrageous that some male lawyer accused a female lawyer of getting pregnant to obtain a delay of trial. It was outrageous that he wouldn’t consent to an adjournment when the trial date coincided with her delivery. It was proof, conclusive proof, of how literally awful and sexist male lawyers were.

Christen Luikart of Murphy Anderson is due in October, and a product liability trial she’s been lead counsel on is set for the same month. Luikart asked for a continuance to accommodate the final weeks of her pregnancy and the birth of her child, and Reid, of course, objected — and boy, did he object. Not only did he say in his opposition that her parental leave wasn’t a “compelling circumstance” for a continuance, but you should check out the transcript from their appearance in court.

Not only did Reid compare Luikart’s pregnancy to an illness and suggest that she pass the case on to another attorney at her firm, but he alluded to the fact that she may have gotten pregnant in an attempt to further delay the proceedings. Reid says that his critics are taking his words out of context, but in any context, they are abhorrent.

The outrage was palpable. Who would be so horrifying and exhausting as to doubt this conduct was abhorrent. David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy. Continue reading →

After the glazed donut fiasco, one might hope that the humiliation of being held out to the world as a blithering idiot would be sufficient incentive to prevent a cop from leaping to conclusions. Nope. But in this unnamed deputy’s defense, the field test said so.

Rebecca [Shaw’s] perfect storm of hell started when she ran out of gas on the road. A Pasco County Sheriff’s Office deputy pulled up behind her, but instead of helping her, he asked if he could search her car.

This requires a full stop. Shaw ran out of gas. There is no aspect of running out of gas that gives rise to any suspicion that she was engaged in criminal activity, and yet the deputy decided that, rather than help someone in need, he would seize upon the opportunity to search her car. Shaw, being neither a criminal nor particularly concerned about a search, made a rookie mistake and submitted to the shield. After all, what could possibly go wrong for a woman on the Good Guy Curve? Continue reading →