When New York voters go to the polls, they will see propositions in addition to candidates for elective office. The first of these props will be presented on the ballot as follows.

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”

A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution.

A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the State Constitution.

Continue reading →

In other times, Daniel Penny would likely be celebrated as a hero. There would be a movie about him and children would dress as Penny for Halloween. But not at this time, as Penny stands trial for the killing of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway. As Andrew Fleischman explains, the law in New York leaves Penny exposed to conviction as the law regarding the use of force, and deadly force, makes clear.

Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely with a chokehold. Some feel that this was not a crime, or that it was so heavily mitigated by the circumstances that we should not treat it as a crime. But it looks like the law applied to the facts is clear. Under New York law you’re not justified using force unless it’s to prevent the imminent unlawful use of force against you or someone else. “Imminent” is an important word here. Somebody who has pulled back their hand to punch you in the face is threatening imminent force.

Continue reading →

Some of you may have noticed that I trash your comments on a post about Harris when your point is that Trump is worse, or a post about Trump when your point is Harris is worse. I appreciate that it’s popular to do so, and most people who agree with you also agree with your comparison. I do not. Nor, apparently, does David French.

If you think the left is uniquely intolerant, how do you process right-wing censorship? Or if you think the right is uniquely prone to political violence, how do you process far-left riots? When faced with similar behavior from one side or the other, hard-core partisans retreat to specious comparisons. They comfort themselves with the idea that no matter how bad their own tribe might be, the other side is worse.

Continue reading →

Is it wrong to offer people who are registered to vote and sign a petition at a Musk rally the chance to a cool mil? Election law prof Rick Hasen says you bet it is.

Hugo Lowell: “Elon Musk says on stage at a town hall that America PAC will be awarding $1 million every day until the election to a registered Pennsylvania voter who has signed his petition. Musk awarded the first $1 million this evening to someone at the town hall, bringing the guy onto the stage and handing him a jumbo check, lotto-style. Musk is essentially incentivizing likely Trump voters in PA to register to vote: Petition is to support for 1A and 2A, so basically R voters. But they also have to be registered to vote, so if they weren’t already, they would do it now.”

Continue reading →

The mastermind of the October 7th tragedy, Yahya Sinwar, was fortuitously killed. Other than the terminally ignorant, this is recognized as both a great thing and a necessity for the future of the middle east. Of course, it wasn’t necessary before, as so many clamored for a ceasefire while Sinwar remained alive and ready to do it again and again, a detail that didn’t seem to prevent fantasies of peace. But hey, now that he’s dead, it’s over, right?

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the death of the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. It creates the possibility not only of ending the Gaza war, returning Israeli hostages and bringing relief to the people of Gaza. It creates the possibility for the biggest step toward a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians since Oslo, as well as normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia — which means pretty much the entire Muslim world. Continue reading →

According to Bret Baier, the Harris team would allow a 25 interview of Vice President Kamala. It turned out to be only 20 minutes, and it started late such that the turnaround presented a logistical problem of airing a live to tape interview unedited.

Baier: So we were waiting at 4:55. At 5:17 the vice president walked out. It did feel like icing the kicker or trying to. pic.twitter.com/QiKhNsJ9kc

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 17, 2024

Continue reading →

I’m not a fan of candidates dancing. Not Kirsten Gillibrand. Not Kamala Harris. And certainly not Donald Trump. But there is a difference between a few moments of awkward dancing and what happened at Trump’s Town Hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania.

Continue reading →

But what about the Pentagon Papers, you ask? A damn good question. It exposed a massive conspiracy underlying the Vietnam War, one that the public needed to know. And wasn’t “Deep Throat” a hero, telling Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money”?

But that was a long time ago, when the whistle-blower was the oddity, and what the whiteblower revealed was big. Huge. Compelling journalists to reveal their sources could have significantly changed the course of history back then. Is it still true today? Continue reading →

Most lawyers would consider burning evidence in a backyard barbecue outside the scope representation. Indeed, most lawyers would be astute enough, reasonable enough, to distinguish crimes committed by lawyers to be distinct from lawyers ethically representing despised clients. Kate Shaw does not.

Lawyers today have come of age in a legal profession that takes seriously its ethical obligations. That wasn’t always the case. In fact, it was the Nixon White House counsel John Dean’s question to the Senate Watergate Committee — “How in God’s name could so many lawyers get involved in something like this?” — that set in motion a reckoning for the legal profession. Watergate led to an extensive American Bar Association study and a set of ethics guidelines that to this day provide the foundation of the ethics instruction for law students and lawyers.

Continue reading →

Does an invited speaker at university have the right to speak without disruption? Do the people who want to prevent a hated invited speaker from speaking have the right to disrupt the event to prevent the hated invited speaker from speaking? Harvard has apparently come up with a middle ground.

A quick note before we begin—Harvard University is committed to maintaining a climate in which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea. Speech is privileged in the University community. There are obligations of civility and respect for others that underlie rational discourse. If any disruption occurs that prohibits speech the disrupters will be allowed for up to 10 minutes. A warning will be issued to all disturbers at the 5-minute mark explaining that the protesters are disrupting the event and ask them to stop. Any further disruption that prevents the audience from adequately hearing or seeing the speakers will lead to the removal of the disrupters from the venue.

Continue reading →