The pressure on Israel, on Netanyahu, to bring home the hostages is unbearable, as well it should be. If your loved one was taken hostage by a raping, murderous terrorist organization and held for almost 50 days, you would want them back at any price. And Hamas took full advantage of its having done two horrific things. First, the rape and murder of women, children and the elderly, and then second, the kidnapping of around 250 whom they didn’t kill so they had something to trade.

Note for future terrorists. Take some hostages atop your rapes and murders, and they give you huge leverage to stop your victims from coming after you. That, and convincing the useful idiots to march for the sake of the babies you use as shields so you can perpetrate terror but they can’t do anything to stop you. Continue reading →

While many would argue that the Federalist Society has been unfairly tarred as the conservative equivalent of the progressive American Constitution Society, some long-time conservatives in the law are taking the position that it’s become a captive of the MAGA right and, even if not the conspiratorial organization it’s been painted to be, has failed to fulfill its function of challenging unlawful, unconstitutional and un-conservative “cockamamie” positions taken by Trump and his legal sycophants.

George Conway, Michael Luttig and Barbara Comstock have decided to form a new organization,  Continue reading →

Following the open letter by more than 200 law firms urging law deans to take action against anti-Semitism on their campuses and expressing their intolerance of anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic hatred, a Sidney Austin first-year associate posted an open letter in response. Joe Patrice at Above The Law loved the letter. The associate’s firm, however, did not, and fired the associate.

David Lat argued, with Eugene Volokh’s agreement, that as much as he disagreed with the content of the letter, the associate should not have been fired for what was essentially her personal political view expressed on her own time. Continue reading →

When Colorado state district court judge Sarah Wallace held that, while Trump engaged in insurrection, he was not an “officer” under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,  MSNBC legal analysts waived it off as some goofy nonsense. “Of course he’s an officer,” they said, as if it were so obvious that it was unworthy of any serious thought. But is it so obvious? Well, sure it is, provided you know nothing about the issue and can’t be bothered to learn.

The question first came on my radar when raised in connection to the Foreign Emoluments Clause that was definitely going to nail Trump to the wall as he was stuffing his pockets with Saudi cash. But Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman made a fair historical and textual case that elected officials were not “officers,” and that included the president and vice president. It was later written up as a law review article after January 6th explaining the rationale. Continue reading →

Let’s get the obvious out of the way up front. Reprosecution does  not violate the double jeopardy clause because of the dual sovereignty doctrine. The doctrine runs contrary to the theory behind, and the principle of, the double jeopardy clause, which would preclude multiple prosecutions for the same conduct after acquittal, but the courts say they can do so, and do so they can.

But there once was something called the Petite Policy that precluded the bludgeon of a federal prosecution to come down upon the head of a state defendant who had the effrontery of being acquitted. How dare he? This shall not stand. Continue reading →

It was fall in Mud Lick, and the Grassy Knoll’s staff spent one crisp morning decorating for a private party.

Jesse Custer, the bar’s proprietor, and his long time girlfriend Tulip had no family in town so they decided to invite a few friends over for a holiday celebration. Cassidy was thrilled at the idea and spent the morning attempting to create shots that tasted like cranberry sauce, turkey and stuffing. Tulip did her part replacing the conspiracy-theory-chic decor with items more appropriate for the November holiday. Continue reading →

In one of the first examples of the massive failure of AI, artificial intelligence, Southern District Judge Kevin Castel was not amused when he realized that a brief submitted included citations to non-existent cases. The attorneys involved were ordered to explain, and when they admitted that they relied on a new technology, ChatGPT, which had a tendency to engage in what’s curiously called “hallucinations,” were sanctioned for their misfeasance.

Since then, judges have been crafting rules about the use of AI, including its general prohibition.

Plaintiff admits that he used Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to prepare case filings. [This yielded hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases. -EV] The Court reminds all parties that they are not allowed to use AI—for any purpose—to prepare any filings in the instant case or any case before the undersigned. See Judge Newman’s Civil Standing Order at VI. Both parties, and their respective counsel, have an obligation to immediately inform the Court if they discover that a party has used AI to prepare any filing. The penalty for violating this provision includes, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.

In contrast, the Eastern District of Texas has issued a general rule to “alert” pro se litigants to its failings. Continue reading →

Once you accept that terrorism is a justifiable weapon for the oppressed, this isn’t really that much of a stretch.

Over the past 24 hours, thousands of TikToks (at least) have been posted where people share how they just read Bin Laden’s infamous "Letter to America," in which he explained why he attacked the United States.

The TikToks are from people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and… pic.twitter.com/EwjiGtFEE3

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) November 16, 2023

Continue reading →

The aphorism is that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” and it’s hard to argue otherwise. But that neither means the words are informative nor that the picture makes us wiser, a point that Lydia Polgreen studiously ignores when she says “this photograph demands an answer.”

If you don’t look too closely you might think the photograph is a dimly lit snapshot from a slumber party or a family camping trip. Six small children lie in a row, their heads poking out from the white sheet that is casually lying across their little chests. None appear to be older than 10, though it is hard to say for sure.

Continue reading →

Revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas’ enjoyment of the largesse of his bestest pal Harlan, who suddenly realized how much he liked to hang out with Thomas only after he became a justice, among other things, given rise to calls for a Supreme Court Code of Ethics. Chief Justice John Roberts, hearing the sad laments of cable TV hosts and smelling the hot breath of Shelly Whitehouse on the back of his neck said, “Fine, Here ya go.”

Happy now?

“For the most part these rules and principles are not new,” the court said, adding that “the absence of a code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”

Continue reading →