The New York Daily News did something that few, if any, newspapers would do. They published an editorial conceding that they were wrong. Wrong. That’s an amazingly bold move, and for that, they deserve props. They were wrong.

Three years ago this month Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled unconstitutional the NYPD’s program of stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking people suspected of criminality.

The third anniversary of Scheindlin’s ruling — August 12 — presents an opportune moment to evaluate its consequences on the city after the passage of a reasonable amount of time.

While her findings remain as flawed today as they were then, New York has come through to a brighter day.

Judge Scheindlin’s findings weren’t “flawed.” They were well-known to every black kid on the street who hugged the wall of a tenement at the invitation of a random cop who needed to make his Compstat numbers. By the hundreds, thousands, even millions, kids were tossed. It happened far from the offices of the Daily News, so they didn’t see it. If you don’t see it, it never happened. They didn’t see it. Continue reading →

Announcing a “white paper” is about as sexy as a new law review article or a doctoral thesis on how icebergs are patriarchal. But trusted ally, Tyler Kingkade, the white knight for fragile women, was there for them, and he would not let the Feminist Lawprofs down. He never has before and it wasn’t going to start now. Integrity be damned. He had a job to do and he would not fail them.

A group of more than 90 law professors from at least 50 different universities signed onto a white paper, released Sunday, defending the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on how colleges should handle sexual assault cases.

Specifically, the law professors focus on how much proof is needed to determine whether a student accused of sexual assault is guilty in the eyes of their college or university.

A “Dear Colleague” letter released by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in April 2011 was considered a wake-up call for schools to honor their obligation to handle sexual violence involving students under the gender equity law Title IX.

See what he did there? To “honor their obligation to handle sexual violence . . . under gender equity law Title IX”? Not a word that’s accurate, but Tyler brilliantly glossed over all of it to reach his windmill to tilt. Give him credit for shamelessness. But he’s a serious journalist (hey, he works for Huff Post, and if you can’t trust Huff Post, who can you trust?), so he does the obligatory bow to the contrary argument. Continue reading →

It was only a couple days before that the Chicago Police Department was held up as a model of police progressiveness for having adopted the “procedural justice” approach to policing. Shooting Laquan McDonald in the street like a dog was old news. Concealing video of cops committing murder was the old way. There’s a cute new phrase in town, procedural justice,* and that changes everything!

Then it all fell to shit, because a few, maybe a couple, Chi town cops went and killed another unarmed black kid. Oh why, oh why, must you go and ruin a good theory? Why must you bring reality crashing down around the voices of reform who are trying desperately to talk up good policing? Why did you have to go and kill another unarmed black kid?

At least this time, the phonies caught a break.

The shooting happened after officers chased a stolen Jaguar convertible through the South Side before it collided with a police cruiser on a residential street. Two officers opened fire. Cameras captured some early stages of the encounter, but not the fatal gunshot, apparently fired by another officer after Mr. O’Neal fled the crash scene on foot.

Continue reading →

What sort of male lawyer would call a female lawyer “honey” in court? A jerk? Sure, but lawyers sometimes behave like jerks for a reason. To demean a female lawyer, push her buttons?  Most female lawyers will rip your head off if you try to play that game. There is no tactical advantage to be gained by doing so. Instead, you’re far more likely to give your adversary a reason to go to extreme lengths to destroy you and make your client’s life as miserable as humanly possible.

What sort of male lawyer could call a female lawyer “honey” in court? An incompetent loser.

Of course, there are also male lawyers who are just old school sexist, who use such demeaning language without any tactical purpose. It’s just the stupid crap that comes out of their mouths. It shouldn’t, and they should gain a sufficient level of awareness so that they stop saying stupid crap. If they’re too old, or too unaware, to grasp that such stupid crap is offensive, they need to be told.

And then there are male lawyers who are well aware of the fact that their words are offensive, serve no tactical purpose, and yet use them anyway. These are the misogynists. Yes, there are actual men who are misogynists, despite the fact that the word has been reduced to meaninglessness by its overuse. These lawyers need a hard smack, as they’re malicious in their language. Continue reading →

Among the aspects of life of the poor, underprivileged students at Yale that made them unable to eat or sleep was that the people in charge of their residential colleges held the title “master.” Though the word “master” had nothing to do with slaveowners, it was sufficiently reminiscent to compel its elimination.

The argument, at the time, was that the elimination of the word made students feel better and did no harm (aside from undermining tradition, which is way overrated), so what was the big deal? Why not make a fairly easy change that would assuage the feelings of students, regardless of the lack of any substantive connection between the word “master” and their feelings about the word?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has now been asked to hold that the wearing of a hat bearing a likeness to the Gadsden flag, the snake with the words, “Don’t tread on me,” can create a hostile work environment in a federal agency.

Complainant maintains that the Gadsden Flag is a “historical indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea Party.” He notes that the Vice President of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters cited the Gadsden Flag as the equivalent of the Confederate Battle Flag when he successfully had it removed from a New Haven, Connecticut fire department flagpole. Continue reading →

This year’s Olympics will bring an important change for American athletes.

American women were not exactly a powerhouse at the 1972 Summer Olympics: They won just 23 medals, compared with 71 for the U.S. men. The women were absent from the medal podium in gymnastics. They didn’t win a single gold in track and field, managing just one silver and two bronze.

But something else happened that year. The U.S. Congress passed Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal money. Sports wasn’t the focus of Title IX. In fact, quite the opposite.

Well, not exactly true, but since few remember (or care to remember) that Title IX was sold to the public as a means of offering women parity in athletics, there’s no reason not to completely revise history to conform to whatever current trends demand. Continue reading →

It was my third home, and I was ready to do some serious work to make it just the way I wanted it.  I hired a contractor, Frank, to redo the master bath. Frank was a good guy, who did the kitchen already, and we loved his lead guy, Vinny.

It’s important that you like the people you will be living with day after day when doing a home renovation project. Regardless of whether they’re skilled, they become like family. Either you welcome them every morning or dread their arrival. We liked Vinny, and were always happy to see him show up for work at our home.

Having reached the point where I was comfortable indulging in the fixtures that I really wanted in my bathroom, I picked out a sink made in Italy. It was expensive, but it was what we wanted. And it would take 12 weeks to arrive, which meant it was a huge commitment. The plan of action for the renovation of the master bath basically revolved around the sink. This sink became the driving force of the project’s timing and focus. It was all about this sink. Continue reading →

To call the New York State Parole Board’s handling of the lives of human beings a failure of monumental proportions is to give the Board credit it doesn’t deserve. It is a political cesspool, an affront to every sentencing judge who does his best to impose a lawful and justifiable sentence. It is above reason. Above law. Above integrity. Above everything.

And now, it killed John MacKenzie.

MacKenzie’s story was told here and by the New York Times.  He was as appropriate a human being for parole as could be, and there was absolutely no legitimate dispute that he should have been paroled.  This is why Kathy Manley obtained a ruling from Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice Maria Rosa holding the Parole Board in contempt for its irrational refusal to grant MacKenzie parole, after 40 years in prison and 16 years of parole eligibility, without any justification other than the original offense of conviction for which he was sentenced by the court.

But the Parole Board, unrestrained by anything, decided that they didn’t like that sentence. They wanted MacKenzie to stay in prison for as long as they decided. Forever, if that’s their choice, because they are under no constraints to do anything more than whatever the fuck they feel like doing for any reason or no reason. Because they can, as long as they throw in the right words. Continue reading →

A facial constitutional challenge to a criminal law isn’t easy to win. It’s not meant to be. The notion is that a legislative determination that something should be criminal should be given great deference by a court, which should do its utmost to find a way to square the law with the Constitution. So why are there so many facial constitutional challenges lately? And why are they prevailing?

First, some law.

It is well-settled law that legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality (People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 422 [2003); People v Scott, 26 NY2d 286, 291 [1970)) Thus, a party seeking to find a statute unconstitutional bears a heavy burden and “must demonstrate, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that the statute suffers from ‘wholesale constitutional impairment'” (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 23 [2009), quoting Matter of Moran Towing Corp v Urbach, 99 NY2d 443, 448 [2003)). While this burden is high, facial constitutional challenges are permissible “in the presence of a constitutionally protected right” (Dickerson v Napolitano, 604 F3d 732, 744 [2d Cir 2010)[discussing City of Chicago v Morales, 527 US 41 [1999)).

While this comes from a New York decision, the point is fairly universal. If there is any way a court can avoid holding a law unconstitutional, it should do so. The party, invariably the defendant, arguing that a law is facially unconstitutional comes to court and faces a huge mountain to climb. It’s supposed to be that way. Laws don’t get tossed easily. Continue reading →

Bad things happen in jails. Terrible things. This just wasn’t one of them. When Sandra Bland was found dead in her cell, that was worthy of outrage. That the female defendant who appeared before Louisville Judge Amber Wolf was not wearing pants is at most insignificant, and at worst, no issue at all.

The video of Judge Wolf reacting to a woman in court without pants has gone somewhat viral, which is surprising given that the video is 12 minutes of painful tedium. Keith Lee twitted it at me early, and I watched it, thinking only that Keith owed me 12 minutes of my life back. At the time, it appeared that the woman, who remains unnamed as she should, was in a state of undress that evoked outrage by the judge. Was she naked underneath her long t-shirt? Was she in her panties? It’s never said, but that she wasn’t in pants was clear and, to the judge, wholly unacceptable.

“Excuse me? This is outrageous. Is this for real?” Judge Wolf said upon hearing this from the defense attorney.Footage of the proceeding was captured by the courtroom camera. Wolf continued, “Am I in the Twilight Zone? What is happening?”

“This is completely inhumane and unacceptable,” Wolf told the woman. “I’m sorry you had to go through this.”

Continue reading →