When the video first appeared, I was sure it had to be a tourist. By tourist, I meant either an actual tourist or some out-of-town businessman, someone who wasn’t a New Yorker. That’s because I couldn’t fathom any New Yorker noticing, lest being bothered, by the fact that Spanish was being spoken in restaurant.

And this guy wasn’t merely bothered, but lashed out.

A Midtown lawyer was caught on video yelling racist comments at Spanish-speaking restaurant workers — and threatening to call immigration officers to have them “kicked out of my country.”

The nearly minute-long viral clip picks up with the unhinged man (right) railing, ­“Every person I listen to — he spoke [Spanish], he spoke it, she’s speaking it — it’s America!”

Continue reading →

The ruling, per se, wasn’t at all unique. As K.C. Johnson has kept count, this is the 97th adverse decision against a college for its reliance on the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague Letter,” compelling schools upon pain of loss of federal funding to extend Title IX into realms neither the law nor Supreme Court directed.

What makes the decision of Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the District of Rhode Island, stand out was that it didn’t require months of deliberation or judicial gymnastics. He announced it from the bench.

TEXT ORDER For reasons state in today’s hearing, 26 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted in part and denied in part as follows: The motion as to Count 3 is granted as to promissory estoppel, as to Count 4 is denied as to Title IX; as to Count 5 is granted as to intentional infliction of emotional distress; as to Count 6 is denied as to negligent inflection of emotion distress, and as to Count 7 is granted as to injunctive relief as a separate cause of action. – So Ordered by District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 5/14/2018. (McGuire, Vickie) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

Continue reading →

A reader sent Eugene Volokh an email informing him that his blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, had been blocked in Nordstrom.

I’m at the Nordstom E-Bar coffee shop located at the Americana at Brand in Glendale, California. I am using the “Nordstom_Wi-Fi” public WIFI. I just tried to access the Volokh Conspiracy website. I got the message:

This website is blocked by your network operator.

It’s understandable, in a peculiar way, that Nordstrom would avoid controversy. They don’t need a mob attacking them for allowing offensive websites. No, if they just allowed unfettered access to the internet, it wouldn’t concern any rational person, but these aren’t rational people. They’re a mob and mobs have no mind. But Volokh? Continue reading →

A recent moot court judge drew the fury of the woke when she told an advocate to watch her “resting bitch face.” Maybe it was the word “bitch,” now that words are violence to the unduly sensitive. It’s hardly unusual to tell students that there is some aspect of their appearance that could use improvement, is distracting or problematic, when judging moot court. That’s one of the purposes of the exercise, to prepare them to succeed in the real world.

So what would happen if a student stood to argue their moot court cause in their underwear?

“This topic transcends all of our social identities and taps right into the heart of who we are,” Chai, a fourth-year student, said to a room of nearly 50 people while presenting her thesis paper on May 5, as seen in a livestream of the event.

Chai began undressing as she held back tears, first removing her shoes, then her pants and, lastly, her shirt. Continue reading →

There aren’t many, but there are some decisions that reside exclusively in the hands of the defendant.

The lawyer’s province is trial management, but some decisions are reserved for the client—including whether to plead guilty, waive the right to a jury trial, testify in one’s own behalf, and forgo an appeal.

Certainly we guide them. We inform them. We explain the tactical and strategic benefits and detriments of their choices, and the very real world consequences of their choices. And yet, hard as it may be to watch a defendant, a client, make a decision that you are certain will be suicidal, the choice remains the client’s. Ultimately, it’s his life, not yours.  Continue reading →

Whether the statistics are as good as one might hope is always in doubt, but if the NYPD was fudging the numbers for its own sake, they did a pretty lousy job of it.

There are many ways to be arrested on marijuana charges, but one pattern has remained true through years of piecemeal policy changes in New York: The primary targets are black and Hispanic people.

Across the city, black people were arrested on low-level marijuana charges at eight times the rate of white, non-Hispanic people over the past three years, The New York Times found. Hispanic people were arrested at five times the rate of white people. In Manhattan, the gap is even starker: Black people there were arrested at 15 times the rate of white people.

Continue reading →

In a discussion yesterday with a certain very tall Germanic-type fella, the question was raised whether “the end justifies the means” is a principle, such that social justice advocates are principled in their approach. I was of the view that this is not principled, but am I wrong?

I took the position that this was the antithesis of principle, where one chooses the outcome one prefers, then sets about rationalizing it. It may be a logical basis or just a matter of feelz, but it is not grounded in a consistent and overarching adherence to a position. For example, I support the First Amendment, which means that protected speech spans speech with which I agree as well as somebody calling me names. That’s the price of principle.

My figuratively little shit Bentham-licker replied by noting that this was the foundation of utilitarianism. Continue reading →

Both Radley Balko and Ilya Somin have written great posts about why the Protect and Serve Act, which is now pending in Congress, is unnecessary, unconstitutional and just plain bad law. It would make an attack on cops a hate crime, meaning that it would provide for an enhanced penalty.

The House version is the straight up mandatory minimum flavor; cause “serious bodily injury” to a cop and the sentence starts at ten years. Cops tend to suffer “serious bodily injuries” quite a lot, often from the repetitive stress of face-punting a cuffed perp. Like “turf toe” in football, the impact on their dominant foot can last for days.

The message is don’t harm a cop. The law and order crowd perceives no issue with such an admonition, largely because they lead a simple and sheltered life where it never dawns on them that some people face the choice of being killed or trying to defend themselves from police use of force for the hell of it. There is no moral victory in being maimed or killed, but not harming the cop. Continue reading →

It’s now firmly established that a white prof can’t wear blackface even in furtherance of social justice. This, at least, provides a clear line that distinguishes affirmative conduct despite the underlying motive. Good motives do not make it acceptable. Fair enough.

And further, a white prof can’t utter the “n-word,” which is one of those affectations that pretend to conceal what the “n-word” is, as if using the “n-word” somehow makes it less of the “n-word.”

University of Kansas prof Andrea Quenette, who, in describing her own racial bias, used the n-word, for which she was sent packing. No matter what the circumstances, what the purpose, even if in the cause of ending racism, the word cannot be used.

Another bright line. But that didn’t inform Duke admin Larry Moneta’s choice. Continue reading →

The [other] old guy, Jeffrey Gamso, noted that the ACLU founders on the rocks of social justice donations, ceding its historic concern for civil liberties to the mob with paypal, but wasn’t always this way.

You might want to go back and read the news stories about the ACLU’s national board fracturing over the appointment and early days (years) of Romero as Executive Director. The Board essentially self-purged, the long-time committed civil libertarians quitting (there was some talk of them being forced out).

Romero is not and was not a civil libertarian. He is an old-fashioned (as in left and right, not philosophical/Lockian), liberal do-gooder who came to the ACLU from a position with the Ford Foundation.

Ira Glasser, the prior ED, and a strong civil libertarian who’d resigned after decades in the job, was disgusted, and rightly so, and even joined in creating an anti-Romero rump group on the outside.

Continue reading →