From the coastal view, where most admirals can be found, one might believe that the scorched cornhusk-strewn earth far below the airplanes wings is a chaste and desolate place. Not true. And not without its potential for some schadenfreude.

The Nebraska State Patrol has for years forced female recruits to submit to invasive, medically unnecessary pelvic exams performed by a male doctor before they can be hired, according to a new federal lawsuit that has prompted a criminal investigation.

State Trooper Brienne Splittgerber filed the lawsuit Tuesday against the patrol, the state of Nebraska, two former patrol heads and various other people, accusing them of creating a hostile work environment for women.

Apparently, lady-parts held a peculiar fascination for the State Patrol, requiring their wimmin-troopers to drop trou and submit to consensual genital inspection before being allowed to protect and serve. Not guys, mind you, but only women. Not that this has anything to do with the unpleasant transition of having females join the troops. Continue reading →

New York Times editor Bari Weiss learned the hard way that her religion would tolerate no heretics. It wasn’t the Jewish religion, but the social justice one that got her. The Chicago Dykes had no place for Jews in their march. It was the obvious and inevitable outcome of a “movement” based on identities rather than principles.

Well, in practice, intersectionality functions as kind of caste system, in which people are judged according to how much their particular caste has suffered throughout history. Victimhood, in the intersectional way of seeing the world, is akin to sainthood; power and privilege are profane.

Can one be lesbian and Jewish? Sure, provided you hide that you’re Jewish and accept the fact that your priestesses decided that Palestinians were good and Israelis, broadened to Jews because nuance is hard for the unduly emotional to grasp, were evil. So, the lesbian Jews were thrown out. Bari Weiss was forced to confront the reality of her social justice religion: she was the heretic.

This could have been the end of it, but that wasn’t possible. If there is anything the social justice warriors demand, it’s the final word. Continue reading →

An email arrived from my friendly neighborhood internet hosting service, A2Hosting, informing me (as well as, I suppose, everyone else paying them money) of changes to their Terms of Service. Having been as much of a slacker as every other relatively normal person on the internet, I had never bothered to read them before. But I had a moment and so…

B Certain content is prohibited…Use of our network to host content related to or to engage in the following activities is strictly prohibited.

Strictly prohibited? Sounds very serious.  So what content will the people I pay to host SJ not allow me to post?

Websites or links to websites advocating human violence and hate crimes;

Continue reading →

I am a supporter of affirmative action. The Supreme Court’s decision in Regents of the State of California v. Bakke properly held that racial diversity was a compelling interest that could be taken into account in college admissions. This was reiterated in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas II.

It’s certainly true that it means someone wins and someone loses, based on race, which understandably seems to offend Equal Protection. After all, if we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race, then we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race. Not against blacks. Not against whites. Not against anyone.

But there are greater variables involved below the surface of the tautology, where race is a proxy for diverse ideas and experiences that contribute to breadth of thought and understanding in higher education. You may not agree, and you’re allowed. The idea that a more diverse student body brings more diverse ideas to the mix and expands the minds and understanding of all students works for me.

New York Times reporter Charlie Savage “exposed” a leaked internal Department of Justice memo that the Office of Civil Rights would shift its attention toward eliminating racial discrimination in college admissions, the lede was that it was about reverse discrimination. Continue reading →

We traveled down to Atlanta to moot* Mark Bennett before his oral argument before the Georgia Supreme Court, where he was arguing a First Amendment case pro bono on behalf of a poor schmuck. Nobody famous. Nobody rich. Nobody anybody would think twice about. Except Bennett, which was why he was there, on his own dime, to help.

You know who wasn’t there? The ACLU.

This wasn’t an issue at the time. Nobody expected the ACLU to step up to aid Bennett’s defense of the First Amendment. It was, at that point, an organization that had to divvy up its scarce resources carefully, and it’s concerns about free speech were already deeply conflicted. Fair enough (not really, but that’s how it was).

Then a rich guy sued a couple of really rich, huge corporations and a funny and fabulously successful comedian in a ridiculous suit. It wasn’t only silly, but relatively inconsequential, as everyone involved could afford the best legal counsel available. Plus, the case was legally very clear cut. There was little no risk that it would have deleterious consequences for free speech. Continue reading →

Even though it was written in the dark ages (1955-56), if you have not read “Howl” by the poet Allen Ginsberg, it is way past time you do so. You can read the poem here or listen to Ginsberg read it here.[i]

The poem starts like this: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix . . ..”

I recently heard twin echoes of “Howl” at a sentencing of a Native American who accidentally killed his African-American friend. And it is about that profound experience that I now write. Continue reading →

As a judge comes to the twilight of his career, his robe frayed and a tiny droplet of spittle dripping from the corner of his lips, knowing full well that he will never, but never, make it to the big time, what’s left to do? One thought is to be as outrageous as possible, lobbing hand grenades into the mix and watching people’s heads as they explode.

Hi, Judge Posner.

Posner — the most highly cited legal scholar of the 20th century, according to the Journal of Legal Studies — repeated his complaint that politicians are more concerned with appointing “tokens” such as women or Hispanic justices, and with would-be justices’ politics than they are with merit.

Merit is a hard metric. If you agree with Posner, it’s merit. Then again, Posner has, in his dottage, taken to eschewing precedent and such banal efforts as reason, and just throwing his feelz against the wall to see what sticks. He justifies this by claiming it’s what all judges do, but the rest of them are all liars so they hide it behind fancy words. Continue reading →

In conjunction with the pending undoing of the Title IX “guidance” letters used to radicalize sexual culpability on campus, a question is being batted around with how far to go to return fairness and normalcy to campuses. This, it should be noted, is because those who are concerned about the impropriety forced down college’s throats are, at the same time, also concerned for the welfare of all students and the eradication of sex discrimination on campus.

The foremost question raised in this discussion is whether the unfairness of the current system can be “fixed” by elevating the preponderance of the evidence standard, as imposed by the Lhamon regime, to clear and convincing evidence. An argument made in favor of preponderance is that it’s the standard used in most, though not all, civil adjudications. Why won’t it suffice here?

But aren’t campus adjudications civil administrative procedures? Not quite. The distinction between civil and criminal is that the former is compensatory and injunctive, while the latter is punitive.  It’s true that campus trials can’t impose imprisonment (though this is also a failing, as a student who has raped, using the proper meaning of the word, may well belong in prison rather than left free to rape again), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t punitive. Indeed, it’s quite punitive.

The consequences of an adverse finding is expulsion, involving substantial harm to a person’s life, career, future, not to mention the forfeiture of however many years of life in college are lost, plus the tuition paid. A quarter million dollars, plus three plus years of opportunity costs, are a very heavy fine. Even worse, being branded with the scarlet “R,” on one’s transcript, in the media, and among one’s friends and around campus, is severe punishment as well. So civil? Hardly. Continue reading →

You want to comment, and some mean old guy keeps saying mean things to you? How horrifying. So, let’s try something entirely different. This is an open thread, so get out all the words you’ve stifled up to now for fear of some less than adoring tummy rub for your brilliance.

This is an open thread, with just a few rules. No violence. No spam or self-promotion. Links will be allowed, within reason. I will post whatever comment you leave. I will not reply. Talk amongst yourselves. Jump atop the SJ soapbox and tell others what you want. There may be great legal ideas, or there may be complete lunacy that could get you killed. That’s up to you commenters.

Have fun. If this works out, maybe this will be a regular feature. If not, then we gave it a try. If nobody wants to post a comment here, well, don’t say I didn’t give you the opportunity to speak your mind. This is your chance. Go for it. Continue reading →

See? Not even the police approve of Trump’s absurd and illegal call to rough up perps.

Prominent police chiefs and prosecutors first raised their voices months ago against the Trump administration’s attempt to revive failed policing strategies and its repeated suggestion that fair, constitutional law enforcement is somehow inconsistent with public safety.

Some of those officials spoke out again over the weekend, after President Trump gave a speech on Long Island urging police officers to rough up suspects arrested in their campaign against MS-13, a violent gang with roots in Los Angeles and Central America.

That’s great that “prominent” chiefs and prosecutors spoke out. They should. Trump’s speech was typically moronic and wrong. The brass running police departments immediately realized the damage to their public relations efforts his rhetoric would cause. And, to be less cynical about it, they want their officers to behave professionally, courteously and lawfully. There may be some differences about what exactly that means, but they don’t want cops to be bad.

And that’s what Trump, in his ignorant pandering, called for. It’s good for bad cops to be bad. They should be bad. Continue reading →