“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.”
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
Make sure you sit in the middle of the roller coaster when possible. This avoids the “oh shit” views from the front of the roller coaster and spares you the “whiplash effect” one notices when sitting in the back of the coaster.
Expect to wait around 30-45 minutes in line for about a 2-2:30 minute experience. It’s a theme park; what did you expect? Yes, you can buy one of those stupid “Time saver” passes if you want to be a complete douchebag about your trip.
Wooden coasters are loud and fast. Metal coasters are quieter but come with the added “benefits” of loops and steeper drops. Assess your tolerance level for such experiences before riding. Continue reading
When I was asked to beta test its AI research bot, I informed a major legal research provider that it worse than sucked. It was dangerous. Not only did it hallucinate, which could be ascertained with minimal fact checking, but it conflated almost all the critical distinctions that make law work. It failed to distinguish between jurisdictions, both states and state and federal, as well as majority, concurrences and dissents. To AI, it was all the same, words about law, all of which melded into one amorphous mass of misbegotten but seemingly accurate “law.”
It will improve, I was told. Perhaps, but enough that it can be relied upon to tell us who wins and loses? Continue reading