Cathy Young wrote a terrific op-ed for the New York Times. The subject was one familiar to any regular reader, that the Title IX campus adjudication system is deeply flawed. While the op-ed didn’t break any new ground, it was a solid, well-supported piece of writing. It wasn’t meant as, and didn’t go to, the deeper legal flaws in the system, but was limited to the undoing of the “Dear Colleague” letters. No bombs were thrown.

It was, frankly, impressive that the New York Times published Cathy’s op-ed, given the efforts it’s made to promote the sad “survivor” stories which may very well be sad, but have nothing to do with the propriety of the bureaucratic issuance of “Dear Colleague” letters to re-engineer the law to align with a radical agenda, or the lack of due process it produced. Granted, the Times is running about a thousand to one on the balance meter, but still, they published it.

And in appreciation, Cathy received comments like this:

Continue reading →

I’m no fan of the BDS movement and take no issue with Israel’s unwillingness to welcome people who hate it with open arms. But this isn’t Israel, and just because an idea is anathema doesn’t mean people don’t get to believe in it. That’s the beauty of America, you get to be as stupid as you wanna be.

But a bipartisan gaggle of senators, ours, not Israel Knesset, has decided that people who hold political ideas with which they don’t agree, are criminals.

[A] group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

It’s almost incomprehensible that anyone elected to the senate would entertain a law so flagrantly unconstitutional. And yet, not one, but 43 have done so. Not just Republicans. Not just Democrats. Finally, bipartisanship.

So who would be so intellectually clueless, so morally bankrupt, as to support the passage of a law that criminalized political speech? Continue reading →

Much as anyone who knew of Kamala Harris before her recent reinvention as a senate social justice icon might hate to say anything nice about her, suck it up and remember the blind squirrel. Harris has hooked up with Senator Rand Paul to push a new bill to use federal money to bribe states to change their evil bail ways and reduce pre-trial jailing due to poverty. They’ve written a joint op-ed to pitch the proposed law.

Bail is supposed to ensure that the accused appear at trial and don’t commit other offenses in the meantime.

They open with the story of Kalief Browder, which is somewhat ironic as New York, unlike other places, uses only the return to court criteria, and risk to the community isn’t a lawful factor for consideration. That’s not to say it doesn’t enter into the equation, but it shouldn’t.

The op-ed puts most of its effort into persuading people that this is both an unfair practice and an expensive one.* The former is based on the ramifications of detention, from its disparate impact on minorities and the poor, and the latter because we’re spending an enormous amount of money detaining people who can’t afford $1000 bail. The magnitude of expense in warehousing them, in combination with the impact on their lives, loss of jobs, homes, cars, while needlessly in the can, is outrageous. Continue reading →

Judge Kopf, in his letter to a young practicing attorney, was deliberately provocative and slightly snarky, both for the entertainment value as well as to grab attention. The sweet tummy rubs that the babies prefer tend not to serve any purpose beyond validating their saddest feelings. That wasn’t what the good judge was aiming for.

Still, there were flaming nutjobs* who were literally shaking at the outrage of it all.  This comes as no surprise, as baby lawyers are baby lawyers. That’s the reason why an old judge would write a letter to a young lawyer, because they will bristle and buck in reaction to being called immature. They big boys and girls! They know stuff and there is nothing that experience will teach them. Until they gain experience, but that, of course, takes time.

But there was one piece that evoked a surprising reaction.

Additionally, don’t complain about a work/life imbalance. Your clients are what matters. Your spouses and kids are secondary. If you don’t agree, get out of the practice of law.

I would not have thought it terribly hard to grasp what the judge was saying. I would have been very wrong. Continue reading →

Mimi Schwartz sat on a Harris County grand jury and lived to tell about it.

Last year, Harris County led the state in the number of police shootings of civilians. Of the more than 200 officer-involved shootings brought before grand juries here between 2012 and 2016, only one was indicted — and that was just for official oppression. No case involving a possible indictment of an officer came before us.

Instead, we were treated to some cool field trips: a demonstration of a canine unit, a simulated shoot/don’t shoot course to test our reflexes, and a tour of the county jail. I was so fascinated that I didn’t at first think of it as an exercise in indoctrination.

Grand jurors don’t decide guilt, but merely cause. These are shortcuts to better understand the 99% of witnesses who will come before them. If you ask a cop, he may well be offended by calling it indoctrination. One person’s indoctrination is another’s foundation. How was she to understand what they were talking about when she never experienced it? Continue reading →

Douglas Koziol makes his pitch for allowing bakeries to refuse to make cakes for gay weddings. He works in a independent bookstore in Boston, and likely would never see his post as being an argument for, as he calls them, “straight-only bakeries,” but he does nonetheless.

He opens with his disdain for J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy, which he finds despicable. But more problematic is that the independent bookstore sells it. A lot.

I don’t intend to review Elegy here. More capable pieces have already been written about the book’s “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” message, its condemnation of a supposed culture of poverty, its dismissal of the working class’s material reality as a determining factor in their lives, and its callous claim that the welfare state only reinforces a cycle of dependency. If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because these are the same rightwing talking points that have been leveled at the working class and poor for decades. As if that weren’t enough, the book also boasts glowing blurbs from the likes of Rod Dreher, whose oeuvre consists of transphobic screeds for The American Conservative; literal tech vampire Peter Thiel; and the National Review, which, under the guidance of William F. Buckley, promoted segregation and derided the Civil Rights Movement, among countless other odious stances, and which now primarily serves as a trust fund for a gaggle of #NeverTrump Republicans who hold the President’s views but gussy them up with a bowtie. And yet the customers where I work—largely liberal, well-educated and well-meaning people—have bought the book in droves.

Evil people like the book, which proves how horrible it is. And he knows who’s to blame. Continue reading →

Josh Barro gertrudes his way through the number at Business Insider, which would be cringeworthy in its simplisticness under other circumstances.

I’ve been haunted by a claim my KCRW colleague Rich Lowry made on our radio show a few weeks ago: Democrats keep coming up short in elections because they won’t give any ground on “cultural issues” to win back the working-class voters they’ve alienated over the past decades.

Most of the discussion of this trend has focused on non-college-educated white voters, who have swung heavily toward Republicans; but Democrats should also be worried about their disconnect with non-college-educated nonwhite voters, whose turnout declined precipitously in 2016.

On the other hand, when you look at the polling on specific “cultural issues,” Democrats usually have the edge.

There are two glaring, massive failures in this: first, polls get answers based on how questions are posed. “Are you in favor of discrimination?” No normal person could possibly answer yes, and yet, if people are asked, “should colleges prohibit students from saying ‘America is the land of opportunity,'” the opposite response results.  Continue reading →

A twit by Adam Serwer, senior editor at The Atlantic, formerly of Mother Jones, piqued my interest for all the wrong reasons.

The number of knee-jerk defenders of police who reversed themselves over the MN shooting because the cop is black and Muslim is remarkable.

He’s referring, obviously, to the killing of Justine Damond by Officer Mohammed Noor. His point, which was similarly voiced by Jake here, was that people who failed to see a problem when the bold-faced names of the recently deceased were black, are suddenly seeing a problem. It’s not the right problem, as they blame it on Noor’s being Muslim and brown, but at least it’s a problem.

Seize the moment to bring the “knee-jerk defenders of police” into the fold?  Try to create consensus that there is a problem, and that neither white women nor black men (nor any other combination of whatever identities touch a nerve with you) should die needlessly because some easily scared cop feels entitled to kill? Nope. Continue reading →

Letters to a Young Scientist was written by Edmond O. Wilson, the Pulitzer Prize winning biologist and the foremost expert in the world on ants. If you get nothing else from this post, buy and read that book.

I thought I might try my hand at writing something roughly similar, albeit far less beautiful and far harsher. If you are a young practicing lawyer, I hope that this post will curl your toes, but resonate with you too. Consider please the following advice from an old, straight, white man who was once a practicing lawyer.

Dear Young Practicing Lawyer,

You are young and immature. You instinctively know that you cannot comprehend what your youth and immaturity mean. So, I am going to mentor you from the vantage of 70-plus years. Don’t be mad or sad. Just read and reject or accept as you think best. After all, you are alone in this immense universe. In the end, the choice is yours and yours alone. Continue reading →

You know what’s exclusive? Harvard. It’s about as exclusive as it gets. Yet, that obvious fact doesn’t alter the fantasy of re-engineering one of the most exclusive places on earth to create the impression that it’s inclusive.

Harvard students could soon be banned from joining any private social organization or club.

If the recommendations contained in a just-released, 22-page report are enacted, Harvard would extend previously-proposed sanctions against students joining single-gender clubs, to all “fraternities, sororities, and similar organizations,” regardless of their co-ed status. And instead of instituting a blacklist — leaving non-compliant students unable to captain Harvard-recognized sports teams, or be nominated for prestigious scholarships, for example — violators would be subject to formal “disciplinary action.”

This began with Final Clubs, segregated by gender (at least if one considers male/female to be gender), which gave rise to cries of sexism. But once the ball started rolling, it became hard to stop. And it quickly rolled over fraternities and sororities, because they too are segregated by gender.

And then, as reflected in a student letter attached as an exhibit to the committee report, some students’ feelings could be hurt if they weren’t “punched,” asked to join one of these exclusive segregated clubs, and that’s just not right. Much as one student may swell with pride at being invited to join such an exclusive group, another will cry himself to sleep at night knowing that he was rejected, unwanted, undesired. What of his feelings? Continue reading →