Bernie pulled a Bernie.

If we are a nation that can pay baseball players hundreds of millions of dollars, don’t tell me we can’t afford to pay teachers the salaries they deserve.

Is this a false equivalency, or maybe just a non-sequitur? Or should we put aside the multitude of reasons why a comparison between star ballplayers and teachers fails on every level and focus instead on the latter part of Bernie’s being Bernie. What do teachers “deserve”? What does “deserve” have to do with what they get paid? Continue reading →

While there have been a number of somewhat disappointing “progressive prosecutors,” who remain prosecutors even though they mouth the sounds of criminal law reform, there have also been a few who are proving to be the “real deal.” Larry Krasner in Philly. In Dallas, John Creuzot is making waves with his free shoplifting position, and in Boston, Rachel Rollins seems to be doing what she said she would do.

Will they pull it off, put their reforms into practice and make it work, without bringing down a wave of crime or unintended consequences on the good people of their cities who elected them to office with the best of intentions? Time will tell, but so far it appears that more than a few basic assumptions upon which prosecutors and lawmakers, and their fans, have relied forever are being tested and failing. Maybe imprisoning people. more people and for ever-greater lengths of time, isn’t the only answer to protecting the public.

Having made some headway into the prosecutorial function, even if it’s only a few at the moment who are serious about reforming their practices, attention is turning toward the third leg of the criminal law stool. Judges. As much as Larry Krasner’s office is trying to correct errors of the past, the judges aren’t cooperating. Indeed, judges are fighting prosecutors the way prosecutors fought the defense. Continue reading →

Whether the reported story is true is of no moment, as it will never be clear whether passengers on Aeroflot Flight 1492 who stopped to retrieve their bag cost dozens of people their lives.

The online hate was instant, if based on sketchy information. The carry-on grabbers were accused of having hindered the escape of fellow passengers, dozens of whom died in the flames.

No one may ever know how true that is, but the passengers did violate one of the most basic rules of air safety. As a headline in the Travel section of The Times put it after the accident, In the Event of an Emergency, Leave Your Luggage on the Plane. Really.

Seems too obvious for discussion? Oh, sweet summer child. Nothing is too obvious for discussion in a world where narcissism reigns and no feeling is unworthy of respect. Continue reading →

The video isn’t new, but from October, 2018. It was reposted in light of the string of new laws placing extreme limits on abortion, essentially making abortion impossible, the purpose of which is to either get a law before the Supreme Court to provide a vehicle to revisit Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or to energize pro-choice voters and make clear why they must resist candidates, local or national, who want to eliminate the right to an abortion.

Its reposting wasn’t done with great fanfare. It wasn’t done by a renowned celebrity with millions of followers. It was done by a woman who felt very strongly about the issue.

i still stand by this king pic.twitter.com/5tUbj7Dabb

— yacenia (@cheleblush) May 17, 2019

But note, as of this writing, that the twit has well over 300,000 “likes.” Continue reading →

The nice folks at the Broward County Courthouse do not seem to be fond of lawyer Bill Gelin, as he doesn’t always say nice things about them.

Since 2006, attorney and courthouse muckraker William “Bill” Gelin has been shaking up the judiciary on his popular site, JAA Blog. Whether sounding off about potential corruption and racism in the courthouse ruling class, or even its work habits, the 46-year-old Oakland Park attorney hasn’t held back his opinions. But now it looks like his criticisms are boomeranging right back.

In the last few months, the attorney has been fielding heat from the Florida Bar. The statewide group has opened a complaint investigation into the blogger. But the organization won’t tell Gelin why the complaint has been filed or at whose behest.

There’s a bit of a due process problem here, if Gelin is to be able to defend himself, although investigating a complaint is different from prosecuting a complaint. It’s unclear whether the Florida Bar is still investigating in order to determine whether to take action, or taking action. If the former, then its non-disclosure isn’t a problem. If the latter, then it’s a big problem. Continue reading →

On the one hand, the unduly passionate Jill Filipovic asks the most pressing question on the minds of Millennials, with the exception of where their next bag of Cheetos is coming from:

Does Anyone Actually Want Joe Biden to Be President?

Unsurprisingly, she conflates the argument that Biden is the most electable of the 600 candidates for the Democratic nomination with the question of why that might be, since there’s nothing about Biden that appeals to Filipovic, and therefore no one could possibly want him to be president because she knows stuff.

Bret Stephens, a never-Trump conservative, takes up the challenge. Continue reading →

What’s the point of “adversity”? The Roman poet Horace saw it as an opportunity.

Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents, which in prosperous circumstances would have lain dormant.

Others see it less as a hurdle to overcome and more as a wall that blocks talent from showing itself, from being seen. Everyone loves a success story, a tale of the person who faced adversity and overcame it, but those stories are loved because they’re so very rare and special. Most people facing adversity aren’t quite so special, and if they possess greater talent than their circumstances allow, they are invisible behind that wall. Continue reading →

A group of college professors met this week to solve a crucial problem facing academia: why they can’t just teach anymore.

“We gave them trigger warnings on syllabi, safe spaces for disagreeable speakers, and emotional support animals in the classroom,” one professor sobbed. “Now they roam the campus in golf carts, wielding baseball bats to attack us when we don’t cater to their every whim!”

Another looked nervously out a window before adding, “It would’ve been nice if we didn’t have to write a statement each year affirming diversity and inclusion in our classrooms. What the hell does diversity and inclusion have to do with physics?” Continue reading →

The “gay panic defense” never made much sense to me. It seemed inconceivable that any jury would buy it.

A defendant using the defense claims they acted in a state of violent temporary insanity because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances. The defendant alleges to find the same-sex sexual advances so offensive and frightening that it brings on a psychotic state characterized by unusual violence.

Yet, it succeeded on more than a few occasions. It’s a pure play to anti-gay prejudice, plus some junk science, that allowed men to get away with murder. It was, without a doubt, a terrible defense and a terrible reflection of societal prejudice.

And so the statutory eradication of this offense should be cause for celebration, not just by the gay community and its supporters, but by anyone who doesn’t harbor hatred against gay people. And frankly, what the hell do you care what other people do in the privacy of their own room anyway. Continue reading →

Not long after the redacted Mueller Report went public, I had a discussion about whether it reflected “obstruction” with an editor from an online heterodox website. I should have known better, but I did it anyway. The argument was me talking about the legal definition of obstruction, and him arguing that he wasn’t. He was talking about the “ordinary” meaning of obstruction.

Is there such a thing? Can there be? For lawyers, crimes consist of elements, conduct and intent, as proven by evidence. For non-lawyers, they consist of a vague impression of wrongfulness, bolstered by whatever facts are known, or believed to be known, that support the impression that something bad happened. Where there are no facts, they have no qualms about filling the gaps with argument and belief. But what they do not concern themselves with is the use of legal words and concepts, but disconnected from legal meaning and proof.

The editor grew frustrated with my insistent law-talking-guy view. I wasn’t’ “getting” it, that everything wasn’t some hyper-technical legal problem, but a non-lawyer perception that wrongs were happening and, to the non-lawyer, demanded redress. Why couldn’t I just understand that he wasn’t talking about legal “obstruction,” but, you know, common-people “obstruction.” In his head, these were two entirely different things, both equally real, even if only one had actual objective meaning. Continue reading →