When Virginia Lt. Gov. justin Fairfax was accused by Vanessa Tyson of forcing her to engage in oral sex, it was close enough to the edge of possible doubt that by the “weighing of the equitites” one could entertain the possibility that it didn’t happen.

After all, Fairfax was a black Democratic pol, about to replace ol’ Frank “Blackface” Northam, and suddenly, out of nowhere, boom, an accusation of sex assault appears where it was never raised before. That it wasnt corroborated has no legal consequence, but it allows us to escape the sense that it wasn’t of recent creation, whether in whole or in “realization.”

Why it wasn’t raised before, if it happened, is a mystery. When he ran for office, no one came forward. Why Tyson chose not to go to the police if it happened can be rationalized away with the usual excuses, but still raises doubts. The choice to do nothing could mean that she perceived it as consensual at the time, and only by a change in her perspective did it morph into an assault in retrospect. Continue reading →

Trash talk is a time-honored part of combat sports. From Muhammad Ali’s verbal jabs at his opponents to Dwayne Johnson threatening to send jabronis to the “Smackdown Hotel,”* it’s generally considered a pre-fight ritual. Two guys poised to fight don’t like each other, they say a bunch of nasty stuff about their opponent, and then fans delight as the two slug it out in a ring or a cage.

Nevada, home to many Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) events, apparently thinks it’s time to play nanny to MMA fighters and regulate what can be said before an event.

“I think it’s gotten to the point with certain unarmed combatants to where it’s become totally unacceptable,” said Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) Executive Director Bob Bennett. “I definitely think, unequivocally, that’s something we need to take a more active role in and hold fighters accountable for their language.”

Continue reading →

The Senate Judiciary Committee has sent the nomination of William Barr to the full Senate for confirmation, which should come as no surprise to anyone. He’s a horrible choice for many reasons to those of us who favor the constitutional rights of the accused and challenge mass incarceration as the cure for whatever ails society. But that he possesses the qualifications to serve as Attorney General, even if he’s the worst possible choice, isn’t in serious dispute.

Or is it?

During Barr’s Senate confirmation hearings in January, Barr was asked whether he believed race and racism plays any role in the American criminal legal system. This should have been a softball question for the nominee. The evidence that racism has been a prevalent, pernicious and profound force within our system of justice is well known and well-documented. Continue reading →

We aren’t a religious nation by law, but a lot of facts tend to make us one. Prayer is offered before Congress. Our currency says so. For some, this brings comfort, and there’s nothing wrong with that. For others, it strikes at the First Amendment, which not only promises us the right to believe in the religion of our choice, but to not believe. The Establishment Clause precludes the government from siding with religion, or any particular religion.

Then there’s Alabama. It’s not bad enough that he was executed last night, but they wouldn’t let him have his choice of spiritual adviser at his side. A stay was sought at the Eleventh Circuit and granted. After all, they can always execute him later. But the Supreme Court lifted the stay and now Ray is dead.

On November 6, 2018, the State scheduled Domineque Ray’s execution date for February 7, 2019. Because Ray waited until January 28, 2019 to seek relief, we grant the State’s application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U. S. 653, 654 (1992) (per curiam) (“A court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.”).

Continue reading →

(Prefatory note: this post is going to sound angry. That’s because I’m angry. If the righteous indignation of a father who cares about his kids bothers you, then piss off.)

Filmmaker Cassie Jaye got a lot of flack from the mainstream media and the wokescolds after the debut of her film “The Red Pill,” a documentary where a feminist looked at the lives of MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) and gave them even footing to air their grievances against society.

“How dare she,” some in the feminist circles crowed. “Those stupid MRAs don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.” Continue reading →

At Minding the Campus, KC Johnson considers a proposal propounded by the Harvard Three.

Few academics have more credibility on Title IX issues than Harvard Law professors Jeannie Suk Gersen, Nancy Gertner, and Janet Halley. The Suk/Gertner/Halley comment criticized the proposed regulations on definitional questions, but strongly endorsed the need for the government to mandate a fair process for both sides.

Like KC, the Harvard Three have established their cred on the issue, risking censure for their failure to adhere to the Title IX orthodoxy. So what did they have to say about cross-examination at Title IX hearings? Continue reading →

It was a rhetorical question, as the obvious answer, noted by my buddy Maggie McNeill just in case I had any doubt, was that partisan delusion can overcome the worst optics. The question went to Kamala Harris’ posting of a video of her questioning Neomi Rao, nominee for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals,

Here’s the bottom line: survivors of sexual assault should not be blamed for the trauma they’ve experienced. Neomi Rao’s prior writings about sexual assault are completely unacceptable and her responses to my questions today were deeply troubling. pic.twitter.com/jlOuhHWtQx

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) February 5, 2019

Continue reading →

About 30 years ago, I bought Dr. SJ a full-length black mink coat as a birthday present. It was not one of my better “investments,” as a few years later, PETA was out on the streets of New York City throwing red paint on women in mink coats. She put it in the closet and never wore it again.

It was never clear to me what purpose was served by not wearing the coat, as it wasn’t as if the pelts would regenerate into happy little playful minks, but I understood both the symbolism of wearing the coat as well as the potential of confrontation. To wear it was a political statement Dr. SJ didn’t choose to make. Fair enough. So it still sits in the closet, unworn and lonely.

It thus came as a surprise to find that mink coats are making a comeback, according to the New York Times. Not because cute little minks are now deemed vermin with nice fur, or nobody gives a damn about slaughtering living creatures for the luxury and warmth of their pelts.  Continue reading →

I think often of a post that has sadly disappeared from the blawgosphere. Venkat Balasubramani observed a “cult of positivity” on the twitters:

A while back, Venkat Balasubramani noted the “Cult of Positivity” [I left the link in, though it’s now dead. Damn you, Venkat!] on twitter, where being nice to people you don’t know was repaid by their being nice in return.

Positivity certainly reigns supreme in the corner of the Twittersphere that I frequent, and my impression is that there are other pockets of it that are overwhelmingly positive as well. Twitter is all about highlighting positive things and people.  The virtual high five or pat on the back is currency on Twitter.  Indeed, research is passed around which shows that “negative remarks lead to fewer followers.”  In my (admittedly anecdotal experience), while there are a few people who call it like they see it, most legal birds are effusive in their praise and quick to withhold criticism.  And this extends to points of view taken, articles passed around, etc.  It’s almost as if it’s socially unacceptable to say that something sucks.

Continue reading →

In some quarters, anything that emits the unpleasant odor of discrimination is immediately given an -ism name and small bands of activists will launch war parties to shame anyone besmirching their victims. Outside of a small group of suspect classifications, generally considered immutable characteristics which had traditionally, but should never, play a role in discrimination, have been identified and prohibited by law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” This was “sex” in the old sense, as opposed to gender or sexual orientation, although many will argue vehemently that those things are subsumed in the three letters. Left out of the law was discrimination based on age.

At the time, the problem was that older workers were more expensive than younger ones, so businesses would jettison the most expensive at their prime earning years to save a buck. Certain assumptions of the day were built in, such as people keeping a job, remaining with an employer, for most of their career. Continue reading →