One possibility is that the Supreme Court’s questioning during oral argument over Colorado’s disqualification of Trump from the primary ballot reflected a number of serious, legitimate concerns about the novel issues raised by the state’s putative exercise of Section 3 of th Fourteenth Amendment. The other is the XAnon conspiracy theory being propounded by the left that it’s a cynical ploy to rehabilitate the Court’s public image.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his colleagues seemed ready on Thursday to start to rebuild the court’s reputation by presenting themselves as unified and apolitical. Continue reading →

There are two truisms here. The first is that there is no parent who doesn’t know, in their heart, that they could have done a better job of it. And many, if not most, did a very poor job of it. The second is that the warning signs are always more obvious after your child murders people.

Jennifer Crumbly was not a good parent. Whether she appreciated at the time her son, Ethan, murdered four of his classmates, just how bad a mother she was is another matter. Sure, we can now, after four classmates were killed, but there’s nothing like a quadruple murder to clarify whether the shooter’s mom could have prevented the shooting. Oh, and dad James sucked too. Continue reading →

You thought we were past the worst of me too, the sex inquisition where any accusation by a woman was all that was needed for punishment to be exacted? Sit down. I have something to tell you about Yascha Mounk and it’s going to make you sad.

A woman with issues claims that she was raped about two and a half years ago. What happened is unclear despite thousands of words murdered in furtherance of her catharsis, except to the extent she says this:

I mean, it wasn’t violent like that. I didn’t bleed. I was in and out of sleep when he penetrated me and was jolted wide awake when he started moving fast inside me.”

Continue reading →

There has been a great deal of discussion about whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes Trump from being re-elected president. Issues swirl, from whether the president is an officer to why it was specifically omitted. Is he precluded from running or just serving? Must he be convicted or is it left up to the states to decide? There are “expert” opinions all over the place, meaning that the Supreme Court’s decision can legitimately go either way.

But what if the Court rules that a state can decide to reject Trump as a candidate and not put his name on the ballot? Continue reading →

There are few worse jobs in Washington than representative. You’re one of 435, so it’s not as if any individual congressman carries much clout. You have a two-year term, so the day after you win election you’re back to begging for money to pay for the next campaign. Why would anyone want such a job?

Joe Cohn told me it was because he’s dedicated his career, indeed his life, to trying to make this a better country, and he’s willing to take the hit for the rest of us. I tried to talk Joe out of it, but he made up his mind. Joe Cohn is running for Congress in the Third Congressional District of New Jersey. Continue reading →

At Volokh Conspiracy, Jon Adler provides four “concerns” about what has become of Chevron Deference, the doctrine that courts should defer to the “expertise” of federal agencies executing the law.

First, in practice, Chevron is often used to uphold agency interpretations that have little to do with allowing agencies to exercise their delegated authority to make policy judgments based upon agency expertise.

Second, despite Supreme Court decisions suggesting that ambiguity alone is insufficient to trigger Chevron deference, lower courts often fail to engage in any meaningful “step zero” analysis in order to make sure that Congress had delegated the relevant authority to the agency. Instead, Chevron has become an excuse for courts to abdicate their responsibility to resolve legal questions in favor of agencies. Continue reading →

At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman notes a study questioning why jury verdicts in criminal cases are rendered as general, as opposed to special. When the judge orders the defendant to rise to hear the jury’s verdict, and the lawyer stands as well as the client should never stand alone, they suffer the longest, most intense minutes in a criminal case. Everything up to that point is foreplay. This is the climax. You stand there, frozen, awaiting the jury foreman to utter the words “not guilty.’

But why only the ultimate conclusion and not a finding as to each element of the offense? Continue reading →

It is Groundhog Day in the year 2024.

For the first time in the company’s history, no one named McMahon is in charge at World Wrestling Entertainment. And for the first time in forty years, Vincent Kennedy McMahon, the guy who essentially nationalized professional wrestling in America, has nothing to do with the company that made him a billionaire.

This whole damn situation is wild and it’s only going to get more interesting as time goes on. Continue reading →

Not being a gamer (assuming you don’t consider ‘striods a serious game anymore), Megan McArdle’s explanation was new to me, even though it may not be new to many of you.

In some respects, a good society is like a good game. Both have well-defined, well-designed rules that allow for the pleasures of companionship alongside the thrill of competition. Both require their participants to have virtues, such as honesty and good sportsmanship, that temper the naked lust for victory. And both offer everyone a fair chance of winning and keep the cost of losing bearable.

Continue reading →

It was a dumb fight to pick for a business that relied upon the largesse of the state and for a state that relied upon the largesse of a business. In the heat of the moment, Disney employees pushed for the company to speak out against Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. CEO Bob Iger Chapek succumbed to pressure. But in response, Gov. Ron DeSantis decided to teach Disney a lesson by seizing control of the “special tax district” that was DisneyWorld.

Disney sued DeSantis and others, arguing that the governor’s actions were in retaliation for its speech critical of his law and thus violated its First Amendment rights. Northern District of Florida Judge Allen Winsor, a Trump appointee, tossed the suit. Continue reading →