Somebody on the twitters called me “hip” the other day.* Can confirm.
The view is different when you’re looking over your shoulder than ahead of you, but imagine your brilliant self plus experience. As they say, if I only knew then what I know now.
*Then again, another person on the twitters called me “a fucking asshole” to keep me humble.
Whether it’s chalked up to Schadenfreude or hypocrisy doesn’t really matter. Once the camel* sticks his nose under the tent, he’s gonna see whatever happens within. And that means any #MeToo groper could end up exposed. For California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, this is particularly ugly given her stance against men.
In December, when Time magazine announced that “Silence Breakers” who spoke out against sexual harassment were its Persons of the Year, Garcia’s face was prominently included in the art accompanying the cover story.
Garcia was out front in the fight for California’s Legislative Whistleblower Protection Act, and wasn’t the least bit shy about letting everyone know that “she persists.” Maybe too much. Continue reading
When the Appellate Division, Second Department, referred the Article 70 proceeding to Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice Maria Rosa, they made an excellent choice. Justice Rosa had already proven herself an exceptionally bold and tough judge, willing to confront systemic problems in the system head on. And bail? One of the worst.
The NYCLU argued that failure of judges setting bail to consider a defendant’s ability to pay was a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. It’s not that judges were prohibited from considering ability to pay, but they weren’t required to do so by statute. And most didn’t.
While it is clear that the legislature must act, it is undisputed that the earliest such action could occur would be 2019. In the interim, thousands of individuals will be in a similar situation as the petitioner was at his arraignment. It is clear to this court that a lack of consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay the bail being set at an arraignment is a violation of the equal protection and due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the New York State Constitution: Clearly, $5000.00 bail to someone earning $10,000.00 per year, like the petitioner, without significant assets, is much more of an impediment to freedom than $5000.00 bail would be to a defendant earning substantially more and/or with significant assets. Setting that sum as to both such individuals would not be equal treatment.
Fans of the Philadelphia Eagles are, by definition, animals. This is not subject to dispute, as I am a New York Giants fan and that’s that.
Recognizing this sad fact, however, does not explain an editorial in the Penn State Daily Collegian. Continue reading
When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, she was given the sobriquet of the Wise Latina.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Why different, characterized as “richness,” would be synonymous as “better” was that her core value was her “empathy.” This was a curious view from below, as Justice Sotomayor was hardly too concerned with empathy for the downtrodden on the Second Circuit. But hey, she now had to sell herself, and this was her new, improved slogan. Continue reading
There must be a gap in their focus now that the ACLU has decided that some constitutional rights are no longer to their liking, such as free speech when it involves people who should stay in Skokie. To fill that gap, they’ve come up with a new civil right, even if it can’t be found anywhere in your pocket Constitution.
If the recent wave of sexual harassment and sexual assault revelations has taught us anything, it’s that we have not done enough to end sexual harassment and gender-based violence.
The choice of the word “revelations” is a curious one. Accusations might be more accurate, but then there would be some difficulty connecting it to the second half of the sentence, where truth is assumed and something, therefore, must be done. Continue reading
President Donald J. Trump posed the question while speaking to Ohio factory workers.
President Trump on Monday accused Democrats who did not clap during his State of the Union address of being un-American and even treasonous. His remarks came in a rambling, discursive speech at a factory in Ohio, during which he celebrated his revival of the American economy as the stock market plummeted by more than 1,000 points.
This may not be the most objectively factual description of what was said, as he was referring to the refusal of Democrats to applaud his entry into the congressional chamber rather than clapping “during” his State of the Union speech. No doubt it hurt his feelings to be the only president to have people turn their back on him as he walked down the aisle. Continue reading
Not long ago, lawprof Nancy Leong got an unpleasant lesson in courtesy and clout. When you’re invited to be a guest on someone else’s panel, you can accept or decline, but you can’t demand they recreate the panel to meet your demands. She was unceremoniously dropped, and thought they were wrong because, naturally, she couldn’t be.
It’s not that Nancy’s concern wasn’t real or sincere, that there be greater representation of women and minorities on her panel, as she was the only one, but that her effort to achieve her goal by an ultimatum backfired. Do it or else? She got “or elsed,” and then there were none.
This raises a key point that might not be obvious to many. People are asked to speak because they have something to say that other people want to hear. Nobody goes to a conference, a panel, a presentation, because of the demographics of the participants. Continue reading
One of the pressing questions in search and seizure law is what excuses won’t suffice for a cop to justify a search on the road. The Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo, on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals, faced a tough one.
At the suppression hearing, the trooper was asked: “So you’re telling the Court that because you see a van, it’s clean and it’s got two people in it, that [sic] was indicators of potential criminal activity for you?” The trooper answered: “Yes, sir, they are. They – in and of themselves are nothing, but in the total – when you start adding them all together, they can be.” When two people in a clean car indicate criminal activity, then the words of John Lennon have come to fruition: “Strange days indeed – most peculiar, mama.”
So they affirmed the trial court’s suppression? Well yes, they did, but not because of this. The basis for the stop was that the tire of Jose Luis Cortez’s minivan touched the fog line. Twice. Or more to the Whren point, Cortez had “twice driven on an improved shoulder in violation of Texas Transportation Code, section 545.058(a).” Continue reading
Glenn Greenwald calls it “special pleading,” the sudden recognition and concern for a wrong when it touches you or yours.
The objections voiced by Roiphe to this list are ones that have been expressed by many genuine supporters of the #MeToo movement: namely, the accusations it contains are unvetted and unverified; anyone can add accusations on the list while remaining completely anonymous; and because the list purportedly was intended never to be published (a claim Roiphe questions), those accused of misconduct may never know that they’ve been accused and, in all events, have no ability to challenge or dispute the accusations made against them, ones which could nonetheless severely harm their reputations or even destroy their careers. Roiphe’s objection to the list is, in essence, one of due process: It enables people to be punished with no evidence of guilt, no guarantor of reliability, nor any meaningful opportunity to contest the accusations.
But, as Greenwald notes, with some amazement, Katie Roiphe’s attempt at analogy to a make-believe list of Muslims reveals her special pleading. The list is real, called the “no fly list,” and she doesn’t even know it exists. How sincere could she be about due process? Continue reading