The ugly side of the teary-eyed anecdote is the exception that proves the point. And yet, it’s that exception that’s always thrown back in your face, that makes the headline, that is held up as proof that an idea is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And who better to be that smug, if not particularly factual, source than the New York Post.

One of the jailbirds sprung by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights group already has a fresh warrant for her arrest — for skipping court Tuesday.

The foundation paid $750 to free Tamika West, 44, from Rikers Island on Oct. 3 as part of its controversial mass bailout program.

Continue reading →

It’s an interesting way to look at judging, expressed in a curious triad.

Three umpires walk into a bar. The World Series is on TV — Red Sox vs. Dodgers. The three umps have a few beers as they watch the game and discuss their philosophies of umpiring.

The first one says, “I know that some are balls and some are strikes, so when I’m behind the plate I call them as I see them.” You might describe him as an empiricist.

The second one then says, “You’re right that some are balls and some are strikes, but I call them as they are.” He’s a realist.

Continue reading →

Everybody wants to be a hashtag hero, and Emory philosophy professor George Yancy is no exception. So he’s come up with a cool new hashtag and the powers of truth and justice at the New York Times have given him the real estate to promote it.

Men, listen up.

In light of a year of disturbing revelations from the #MeToo movement and from last month’s profoundly troubling Brett Kavanaugh hearings and his eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court, it is time that we, men, act.

Certainly, some of us men have spoken out on behalf of women. But many more of us have remained silent. Some have kept silent out of fear of being judged, fear of criticism or censure, others out of genuine respect. In fact, silence has become the default stance of many men who consider themselves “allies” of women. But given all that has transpired, staying out of it is no longer enough. Continue reading →

When Axios co-founder Jim VandeHei twitted his post, it was immediately clear (to me) that he made a grievous error. It was his ideas on how to restore faith in the media, which matters because Axios is one of those new-fangled media ideas that seems to be catching on, for better or worse. He included an idea for politicians, media, social media companies and “you.”

Since he’s got no say over how anyone behaves outside his own organization, mostly populated by college interns and new humanities grads with a few “name” vets to lend a bit of gravitas, it was his “media” idea that was most notable:

Media: News organizations should ban their reporters from doing anything on social media — especially Twitter — beyond sharing stories. Snark, jokes and blatant opinion are showing your hand, and it always seems to be the left one. This makes it impossible to win back the skeptics.

Continue reading →

On the day trial commenced as to whether Harvard discriminated against Asian-American applicants, or whether affirmative action is at risk according to whether you prefer your beliefs to be contained in boxes tied up in bows of a prettier color, Andrew Miltenberg filed suit on behalf of a John Doe who was suspended for four semesters after consensual sex with a girl.*

2. On April 1, 2017 Doe and Roe attended a party with other members of their acapella group. The two were good friends and had been celebrating at a post-concert party. Both Doe and Roe had been drinking that night and engaged in flirtatious behavior with one another.

3. Following the party, Doe and another group member helped Roe carry equipment back to her apartment in University housing. When they arrived at the apartment, Roe invited Doe to stay the night, which he did. Thereafter, Doe and Roe engaged in consensual sexual activity. Upon waking up the following morning, Roe expressed regret about her encounter with Doe because she had a boyfriend.

Continue reading →

When Bari Weiss wrote of Stephen Elliot’s attempt to do something about the anonymous accusations of sexual misconduct against him that appeared on Moira Donegan’s “Shitty Media Men” list, it fell a bit shy of bringing a tear to my eye. From Elliot’s own self-description, he was a pretty shitty guy.

That doesn’t mean what happened to him was right, or that the anonymous, unproven accusations were right, or that Donegan’s list was right, but Elliot’s ruined reputation, and the destruction of his career and life that followed, wasn’t a hill worth dying on. Bad things happen to good people, but bad things also happen to bad people. Surely there would be a better puss to put on the poster of men wronged by anonymous unproven accusations.

But then Cathy Gellis at Techdirt took aim at Elliot for suing Donegan, as well as the anonymous people whose accusations appeared on her list, using a rather provocative title:  Continue reading →

There is no particular legal authority for cops or Border Patrol agents to randomly stop a bus, enter it and search. Whether they bring police dogs on board to sniff or merely demand identification from people who are of a particular hue, it can’t be done without acquiescence. The union president for Greyhound bus drivers, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1700, calls on the company to tell the government that they will no longer do so.

Local 1700 represents 3,500 Greyhound drivers, mechanics, and terminal workers. My job, as the president, is to advocate on behalf of our members for fair pay, safety, and wellbeing. But today, I’m advocating for our customers. by urging Greyhound management to stand up for our passengers and tell the U.S. Border Patrol that it cannot board our buses without probable cause or a warrant.

Karen Miller is generally* right, that there is no lawful authority to compel Greyhound to allow agents on board their buses. This is a product of consent, drivers and company permitting it to happen because the government wants to do it.  Continue reading →

Walter Katz noted that without the introduction of body cams on NYPD officers, it would be meaningless. He’s an optimist, but then, he’s thrown his lot, his efforts, into believing that there can be systemic fixes to the problems with cops. As the Deputy Chief of Staff for public safety to the mayor of Chicago, Walter left behind the criminal defense lawyer’s plight of fighting for one defendant at a time to make the system better. If he didn’t believe, there would be no point to the job.

But the law, New York City’s “Right to Know” act, is both an ambitious, yet silly effort. Enacted by the City Council, its pedigree is dubious. The City Council has nothing to do with criminal law in New York, which is controlled by state law, so there isn’t a thing about this palliative law that will change what happens to individuals who are denied its benefits in court. The cops didn’t comply? Bummer. Off to prison you go.

It’s up to NYPD, line supervisors, officers, to either do it or not. What are they being told to do? One example from the “fact sheet” is the handling of a Level 2 stop under DeBour, New York’s somewhat distinct flavor of a Terry stop. Continue reading →

Of all the sites to raise the question, and of all the people to write about it, Ezra Klein at Vox says that going outside one’s “echo chamber” doesn’t serve to expand one’s understanding, but to increase polarization.

There’s a simple story for how the media is driving political polarization. Unlike in yesteryear, when there were three nightly newscasts and two local newspapers, the media today is fragmented, competitive, algorithmic.

We watch (because who reads anymore, amirite?) news channels that are flagrantly biased and feed us the spin on the news that confirms our bias.

This story suggests a straightforward solution: If only we crossed the informational aisle, if only the liberals would watch a bit of Fox and the conservatives would spend some time with Rachel Maddow, we would realize the other side is more like us than we thought, that they make some good points too, and our enmity and polarization would ebb.

Continue reading →

After Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated his opposition to cameras at the Supreme Court, Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Steve Leben took issue on the twitters.

Most judges in state courts believe part of our job is to educate the public about what we do. We will carry on. I’ve never seen a way in which educating the public about what we do and letting them see court proceedings (even through TV) has interfered with doing my job.

This raised a few questions, beginning with whether Judge Leben speaks for most state judges, whether it matters what judges “believe” regardless of what their prescribed statutory duties may be and whether it’s accurate to believe that they have a duty, beyond the job of judging, to “educate the public.” Continue reading →