Remember when Moira Donegan created the “shitty media men” list as a way for women to hurl untested accusations, whether true or false, at anyone they wanted to smear? At least that list had the putative merit of accusing men of wrongdoing, even if their only wrong was being male. But is it a crime to be Zionist, to believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? Apparently, it is, at least to some.

Jew lists are back in fashion pic.twitter.com/aE8AdrrO67

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 11, 2024

Of course, without lists, how would people know who to hate, to shun, and round up when the time comes? Continue reading →

Bill Cosby’s conviction was reversed. More recently, Harvey Weinstein’s conviction was reversed. The takeaway in both cases, reversed for different reasons, is that the prosecution overstepped the law in order to make sure that these high profile defendants charged in the throes of #MeToo went down. You see, these were bad dudes. Everybody said so. And that’s reason enough to make sure they’re convicted.

And then their convictions were reversed. In New York, this was unacceptable to Democratic legislators, so a bill has been introduced to change the law. Continue reading →

“Oh he’s gone and done it now,” I see a bunch of you thinking. “He’s going to poke the happily sleeping bear that is the holiday this weekend? What happened? Did he get dropped on his head?”

Well now that you mention it…

But I digress. Let’s get started poking this son of a gun, shall we? Continue reading →

Milwaukee criminal defense icon, Chris Van Wagner, sent over a decision by Seventh Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook in the case of Robert Pope, who in 1996 was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. After his conviction, he filled out a form requesting an appeal. You’ll never believe what happened next.

After nothing happened for about 14 months, Pope sought aid from Wisconsin’s public defender, who replied that Pope first needed an extension from the court of appeals—which turned him down on the ground that he had waited too long. See State v. Pope, 2019 WI 106 ¶11, 389 Wis.2d 390, 936 N.W.2d 606 (Dec. 17, 2019) (recounting the 1997 decision). The court of appeals found that Pope had forfeited his appellate rights by not doing himself what the lawyer was supposed to do for him. Pope then asked the trial court for relief; it said no, given the appellate decision. “Since 1997 Pope has made multiple attempts to reinstate his appeal rights.” Id. at ¶12. All were unsuccessful until 2016, when the state acknowledged that Pope is entitled to an appeal and the circuit court entered an order to that effect. Continue reading →

This time, the number was 13.

A group of 13 conservative US federal judges are vowing to not hire Columbia University law students or undergraduates because of how the school has handled pro-Palestinian demonstrations on its campus in recent weeks.

The judges sent a letter to Columbia President Minouche Shafik and the dean of Columbia’s law school Gillian Lester, on Monday, outlining their position and describing the Manhattan campus as “ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, antisemitism and hatred for diverse viewpoints on campuses across the Nation.”

Whether you agree or disagree with the particulars of the judges’ condemnation of Columbia Law, a more basic question arises from this letter. As noted by Orin Kerr at VC, do judges have a role, any role, to play in this melodrama? Continue reading →

To be sure, there is no legal doctrine requiring that the criminal prosecution of a candidate for president be tried in advance of election day. Not that there was any reason for such a doctrine to exist until now, but there is none. That said, the prior rulings by Judge Aileen Cannon appointing a special master to oversee the search warrant inventory, reversed with the back of the Eleventh Circuit’s hand across her snout, suggested one of two things.

Either Judge Cannon wasn’t up to the job of being a federal judge, which wouldn’t come as a major surprise given her stunning lack of experience and extremely thin qualifications when she was appointed by then-president Trump. Continue reading →

At the Bulwark, Cathy Young does her typically brilliant job of parsing the Antisemitism Awareness Act passed by the House by the crushing bipartisan vote of 320-91. The crux of the act is to adopt the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and to make clear that antisemitism is included under Title VI, prohibiting discrimination in education on the basis of race, color and national origin.

What’s wrong with fixing a legally “non-binding” definition of antisemitism in education? As with so many things, it goes vague and overbroad at the fringes. Continue reading →

According to John Sailor, this is a watershed shift, the first elite school to end the practice of requiring diversity statements from faculty applicants.

On Saturday, an MIT spokesperson confirmed in an email to me that “requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT”, adding that the decision was made by embattled MIT President Sally Kornbluth “with the support of the Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans”.

The decision marks an inflection point in the battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education. Since at least the late 2010s, diversity statements have been ubiquitous in faculty hiring, sometimes carrying serious weight in the selection process. As one dean at Emory University put it while describing her approach to hiring, “Diversity statement, then dossier.”

Continue reading →

Some college presidents responded with tough rhetoric, like “the encampment must go.” Others responded with mushy word salad about community and understanding that seemed designed to offer some solace to everyone without actually saying anything. But some of the college presidents who decided that the way out of the dilemma raised by students who refused to leave but couldn’t act to force them ended up negotiating with the protesters. Some, like Northwestern, capitulated to the protesters demands.

Lawprof John O. McGinnis explains the problem with capitulation. Continue reading →

In a painful flex, Volokh Conspirator Steven Calabresi makes a bold constitutional argument in defense of Donald Trump in the “hush money” case.

Every day breathless articles appear in the New York Times, and through-out the liberal media, about Donald Trump’s allegedly lawless payment of hush money to help out his 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, Donald Trump has a First Amendment right to spend money, as does the Trump Organization, to further his electoral ambitions. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court wrongly upheld expenditure limits on how much non-candidates could spend on elections, but it rightly held that wealthy individuals like Donald Trump could spend as much as they wanted to spend of their own money on election campaigns. And, they can spend their money on hush money payments, television or radio advertisements, or in any other legal way that would further their own campaigns or electoral ambitions.

The indictment doesn’t charge Trump with a crime for paying out hush money. He’s free to pay porn stars as much as he wants to keep them silent. This is America, after all. Continue reading →