Sunday, May 21, 2017

‘This Wasn’t a Speech About Islam’ - The New York Times

‘This Wasn’t a Speech About Islam’ - The New York Times
Two of our opinion writers, Mustafa Akyol in Istanbul and Wajahat Ali in the Washington, D.C. area, watched President Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia this morning and discussed what they thought it means for the Middle East, American foreign policy and Muslims around the world.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Robert Mueller's Mandate is Narrow - Congress still has a role to play

The news of the appointment of Robert Mueller is good.  But his is a criminal investigation: not a commission.  He will not issue a report.  He will not describe the scope of Russian interference. that requires Congress to investigate and report.
- gwc

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Criminal President? - The New York Times

The Criminal President? - The New York Times
by Richard Painter and Norman Eisner
After the revelations of the past 24 hours, it appears that President Trump’s conduct in and around the firing of the F.B.I. director, James Comey, may have crossed the line into criminality. The combination of what is known and what is credibly alleged would, if fully substantiated, constitute obstruction of justice. It is time for Congress and a special counsel in the executive branch to conduct objective, bipartisan inquiries into these allegations, together with the underlying matters involving Michael Flynn and Russia that gave rise to them.
First, the facts. On Jan. 26, Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, informed the White House that Mr. Flynn had apparently lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. The next day, President Trump hosted Mr. Comey for a private dinner, during which he allegedly asked Mr. Comey repeatedly whether he would pledge his “loyalty” to him, which Mr. Comey declined to do.
On Feb. 14, the day after Mr. Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor, President Trump allegedly held Mr. Comey back after a meeting to say that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong and that, “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Mr. Comey declined to drop the investigation, going on in March to confirm before Congress that it was ongoing, and later requesting greater resources from the Department of Justice to pursue it.
Finally, on May 9, President Trump fired Mr. Comey. We were first told he did so because Mr. Comey bungled the F.B.I.’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email. Two days later, President Trump changed his story: “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’” The day after that, President Trump threatened Mr. Comey on Twitter, warning him against leaking to the press.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Lawyerly Integrity in the Trump Administration - Lawfare

Lawyerly Integrity in the Trump Administration - Lawfare
by Professor Jack Goldsmith  (Harvard Law School; Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002-2003.)

The New York Times’s story on “What It Means to Work for Trump,” on top of Jim Comey’s firing last week, got me thinking again about how difficult it is for a lawyer who is a political appointee to act with integrity in the Trump administration. (I limit my comments here to government attorneys, and do not analyze the situation of other political appointees.)

Trump, Comey, and Conflicts of Interest

Image result for model rules of professional conduct
Every law has both a letter and a spirit.  Upon taking office each of our Presidents has sworn to “ faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and … to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.  More particularly the President is obligated to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.  There is little to guide us as to the meaning of “faithfully”.  Is it subjective good will?  Compliance with the general penal laws?  Inspired by faith in God?
The President has discharged the Director of the FBI who has continued an investigation into how, why, and with what consequence the Russian Republic intervened in our Presidential election.  Such a violation of our sovereignty is unprecedented and disturbing.  Mr.  Trump has repeatedly denounced the press for following the story – calling it “fake news”.  We have no doubt that the President has full control over the executive branch. But his choice of who shall be chosen is subject to constraints.  The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation serves at the pleasure of a President. But the choice of that officer can be made only with the consent of the Senate.  And the term of office is limited to ten years – a time period intended to divorce the FBI from the election cycle.
The President is, thus constrained in only limited ways.  How, then should he be guided in the exercise of his discretion and his ultimate control of the results of the investigation.  During the Federal Convention of 1787 the executive was routinely referred to as the Magistrate.  That implies disinterest – or interest only is what faithful execution requires.  The President – and the Congress -  would do well to look at two reference points to determine how their authority should be exercised.
The first is the Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyers.  It provides in RPC 1.7 Concurrent Conflicts of Interest that a concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
“(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”
The personal interest of the President is certainly present in an investigation which could affect how the legitimacy of his victory is viewed.  The Attorney General of the United States has already recused himself.  So should the President.
A similar result is implied by reference to the Coode of Conduct of United States Judges.  Canon Three provides:” A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently”.  The same principle should govern the conduct of the chief Magistrate.  When his own interests – political or personal – present an appearance of impropriety a President, like a judge, should recuse.  Although the Independent Counsel law expired, there is a known path:  appoint special counsel to complete the investigation and recommend any reforms and pursue any charges that are warranted.

We urge our legislators – and our President – to choose that course: appoint special counsel to conclude the investigation “fairly, impartially, and diligently.

-      George Conk
-      May 11, 2017

Rule 1.7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.


The Nightmare Scenario: Trump Fires Comey, the One Man Who Would Stand Up to Him - Lawfare

The Nightmare Scenario: Trump Fires Comey, the One Man Who Would Stand Up to Him - Lawfare
by Benjamin Wittes and Susan Hennessey (The Brookings Institution)

Make no mistake: The firing of James Comey as FBI director is a stunning event. It is a profoundly dangerous thing—a move that puts the Trump-Russia investigation in immediate jeopardy and removes from the investigative hierarchy the one senior official whom President Trump did not appoint and one who is known to stand up to power. One of the biggest dangers of Comey’s firing is that Trump might actually get away with it, ironically, because of Comey’s unpopularity among Democrats and on the political left.
We warned about this danger immediately after the election.
On November 10, we wrote that that Trump’s firing of Comey would be a “a clear bellwether to both the national security and civil libertarian communities that things are going terribly wrong.” At the time we wrote those words, Comey was deeply unpopular with both the Left, which blamed Hillary Clinton’s defeat on his eleventh hour letter to Congress, and the Right, which criticized his decision to recommend that Clinton not be charged over her handling of government emails. Whatever the merit of Comey’s actions during the campaign, the fact that he managed to anger both sides of the political spectrum demonstrated his storied political independence. And that political independence, we argued, would serve as a critical check against any efforts on the part of President Trump to trample the rule of law.***

Saturday, May 13, 2017

SPC Puts National Appellate IP Court On Its Agenda | China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China

SPC Puts National Appellate IP Court On Its Agenda | China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China

At an IP symposium held this Wednesday, May 10, 2017 in Chengdu, it was revealed by a senior Chinese academic (Prof. Wu Handong) in response to a question raised by former [Federal Circuit] Chief Judge Randall Rader, than the Supreme People’s Court has decided to recommend to the National People’s Congress that China should establish a national appellate IP court, similar to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prof. Wu also noted that this court would be in addition to new intermediate level IP courts being established in Chengdu, Nanjing, Suzhou and Wuhan and would be part of the recommendations regarding continuation and expansion of the existing (and successful, in my opinion) IP court experiments in China (Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou).
 The new Court’s jurisdiction, if approved by the NPC, would be similar to that of the existing specialized IP courts, and would focus on technology-related IP issues. Prof. Wu noted that the court would likely be a circuit court that would be based in Beijing. He also said that he would present Judge Rader’s views supporting a national appellate IP court to the SPC for inclusion in its recommendations to the NPC. Prof. Wu’s comments drew applause from the audience.

Fairbanks Declaration of the Arctic council

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270802.htm

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Trump's Constitutional Crisis | by David Cole | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books


Trump's Constitutional Crisis | by David Cole | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books
by Prof. David Cole (National Legal Director - ACLU)
James Comey is no saint. But thanks to Donald Trump, he is now a martyr. On May 9, in a twist that would have seemed far-fetched even on House of Cards, President Trump fired Comey as director of the FBI on the recommendation of Jeff Sessions, his attorney general. According to the administration, Trump did so not because Comey was investigating the possible collusion of Trump campaign officials with the Russian government but because of how Comey mishandled the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. 
This nakedly concocted justification has caused deep alarm among leading members of both parties in Congress. If the president and his attorney general are firing the FBI director because of the FBI’s investigation into the campaign that got the president elected—a campaign in which the attorney general had a direct part—it amounts to an obstruction of justice and an attempt to place the president above the law. 
This is a constitutional crisis. The only way forward is to ensure an independent and credible investigation—whether by a special prosecutor or a select congressional committee or both—into the Russian meddling and the administration’s efforts to obstruct the inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to it. 

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

An enormous entitlement in the tax code props up home prices — and overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and the upper middle class. - The New York Times


One of the consequences of housing segregation in America - particularly in the mass migration to the suburbs in the post-war 1950's - is that  Black people were excluded from buying houses.  As massive suburbs like Levittown became mature communities they became the source of much wealth.  By the time of the Fair Housing Act of 1965 the damage was largely already done.  It would be followed by accelerated white flight from cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, and the Bronx. 
The wealth building mechanism receives government support via the mortgage interest deduction which subsidizes upper middle income families like the Asares, pictured above.  
- gwc
How Homeownership Became the Engine of American Inequality - The New York Times
by Matthew Desmond
***Almost a decade removed from the foreclosure crisis that began in 2008, the nation is facing one of the worst affordable-housing shortages in generations. The standard of “affordable” housing is that which costs roughly 30 percent or less of a family’s income. Because of rising housing costs and stagnant wages, slightly more than half of all poor renting families in the country spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs, and at least one in four spends more than 70 percent. Yet America’s national housing policy gives affluent homeowners large benefits; middle-class homeowners, smaller benefits; and most renters, who are disproportionately poor, nothing. It is difficult to think of another social policy that more successfully multiplies America’s inequality in such a sweeping fashion.***
An enormous entitlement in the tax
code props up home prices — and
overwhelmingly benefits the
wealthy and the upper middle class.

Palestine and the New Peacemakers « LobeLog

Palestine and the New Peacemakers « LobeLog
by Paul Pillar

President Trump’s expressed desire to resolve, somehow, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is welcome, but the grounds for skepticism about this outweigh the reasons for hope.  The principal reason for skepticism is the lack of evidence that Trump has distanced himself politically from the position, embodied in the right-wing Israeli government and its most ardent American supporters, that favors perpetual Israel control of the occupied territories and, despite occasional lip service to the contrary, sees no room for Palestinian self-determination or a Palestinian state.  As a presidential candidate, Trump assumed this position after coming to terms with Sheldon Adelson and adopting AIPAC’s talking points as his own.  As president, this position was manifested in his appointing as ambassador to Israel his bankruptcy lawyer, a hard-right supporter of the Israeli settlement project in the occupied territories.  This week, in a joint appearance at the White House with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, Trump talked in general terms about working together to reach an agreement to live in peace, and in more specific terms about defeating ISIS and security cooperation with Israel, but said nothing at all about Palestinian self-determination or a Palestinian state.
One might also wonder whether this issue will be another one that gets the amateur hour treatment, in which the president comes to admit that, gee, this task is harder than he expected it to be.  With his bankruptcy lawyer having been sent off as ambassador, Trump has turned the Israeli-Palestinian policy portfolio over to his son-in-law and his real estate lawyer.  Of course, given the many years of meager results on this subject when in the hands of supposedly experienced professionals, it might not hurt to see what the amateurs and some fresh eyes might accomplish.  The real estate lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, received favorable marks from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides during a recent listening tour he made to the region.
But with the learning process for this president and this administration starting almost from scratch, Trump’s effort may already be behind the times. ***

Friday, May 5, 2017

California Blue Cross CEO Renounces GOP Health Care Bill

Kaiser Health News - Repeal and Replace Watch:
  Blue Cross CEO Denounces GOP Healthcare Bill
by Craig Terhune
The chief executive of Blue Shield of California, the largest insurer on the state’s insurance marketplace, issued a blunt critique of the Republican health care bill, saying it would once more lock Americans with preexisting conditions out of affordable coverage.
In an interview with California Healthline on Wednesday, Paul Markovich said the GOP’s American Health Care Act is “flawed” and “could return us to a time when people who were born with a birth defect or who became sick could not purchase or afford insurance.” The bill is set to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives on Thursday. (California Healthline is produced by KHN.)
Paul Markovich (Courtesy of Blue Shield of California)
An amendment to the bill would allow states to roll back key consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act, including the popular provision that prohibits discrimination against patients with a history of illness. Some Republicans say that flexibility will help lower premiums overall and expand coverage choices for consumers.
Markovich, however, said “it’s a moral imperative” to guarantee coverage regardless of medical history. “The discrimination, whether on price or just on the ability to access insurance at all on preexisting conditions, is unconscionable. As a country, we are better than that,” he said.

Former Medtronic CEO: GOP bill will cause decline in Americans' health, transfer wealth to the wealthy

Here’s the real loser in the GOP health-care reform plan—commentary

Bill George

Bill George, Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School.
Senior Fellow, Harvard Business School and Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Medtronic, Inc.

Thursday's 217-213 vote in the House to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the Republicans' new health-care plan constitutes one of the largest wealth transfers in history from the poor and middle class to wealthy Americans. This will further exacerbate economic disparities in our country. Even worse, the health of our nation will likely decline from its already perilous state, as far fewer Americans will have adequate health insurance.
The "repeal and replace" vote represents an enormous political win for President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, coming on the heels of a previous attempt in March that failed. They can justifiably take credit for following through on their campaign pledge, but will also face the wrath of the American public if the new health plan causes further health problems for the American people. The health-care debate now shifts to the U.S. Senate, where a vastly different bill is expected to emerge as skeptical senators focus on the implications of the House plan.
The American Health Care Act (AHCA) poses significant risk for many of the 300 million Americans who will face disruption in their health-care insurance for the second time in the past decade. Most of the recent debate in the House focused on the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions. The bill includes just $23 billion as support for up to 110,000 people with pre-existing conditions, or 5 percent of the 2.2 million Americans in this category. But the greater issue is whether millions of Americans will have any affordable coverage at all.
"All the bill accomplishes is to shift the burden of paying for health care from the wealthy and healthy to middle class and unhealthy citizens."
In spite of significant changes in the March bill to win support from the right-wing Freedom Caucus and modest concessions for moderates, Republican House leaders intentionally did not ask the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to analyze its financial impact — which will have to be done before the Senate votes. Using the most recent CBO projections, 24 million fewer Americans will have health insurance under AHCA than Obamacare, and wealthy Americans, health plans and pharmaceutical companies will receive an $885 billion tax cut. These projections will likely get worse under the House-approved plan.
To be clear, this bill does nothing to improve the health of Americans. Nor does it reduce the staggering cost of health care, or lessen its inexorable rise. The likelihood is that the overall health of our citizens will get worse, especially among those who cannot afford the full coverage they have today, including a large proportion of Trump voters. All the bill accomplishes is to shift the burden of paying for health care from the wealthy and healthy to middle class and unhealthy citizens.
It also changes the focus of health care from the federal government to the states, many of whom will design their own plans. This is consistent with Republican principles, but it will lead to greater health disparities between the states. Having a state and local focus is not a bad thing per se, as states may be better able to design plans for their residents than living with the "one size fits all" plans under Obamacare.

The Trumpcare Butcher Block Celebration in Photos, Annotated – Talking Points Memo


Only in America...land of opportunity.
Promises made, promises broken.

The Trumpcare Butcher Block Celebration in Photos, Annotated – Talking Points Memo

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Balkinization: The further decay of our constitutional order: Reflections on the passage of Trumpcare

Why should California stay in the U.S.?  Nine states have less than 1 million people.  They have 18 members of the United States Senate.  California has two Senators.  Trump lost the state by 30%.  Now he wants to take away federal health care support.
Prominent Constituional law scholar Sanford Levinson suggests that secession is better than civil war....
Balkinization: The further decay of our constitutional order: Reflections on the passage of Trumpcare
by Sanford Levinson (U. of Texas - Austin)
***As always, the key question facing us is “what is to be done” as we realize, more and more, that our political system is a clear and present danger to us all.  I wish I knew, though I continue to find secession a thinkable option (certainly preferable to civil war).  But that is surely the most important question facing us as a country.  We are simply lightyears from the political system that was, more or less accurately, described by John Marshall in McCulloch.  Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington were indeed giants who took their role as leaders of the fragile new nation with the utmost seriousness, even if one pays full attention to their more human-all-too-human aspects set out in Michael Klarman’s magnificent study.  We are instead currently governed by people who make Aaron Burr look admirable.  Sad.

President Trump Is the Enemy of Their Enemies - The New York Times

Trump's fumbles don't hurt him because his voters think he is he enemy of their enemies - so he is their friend no matter what he does. - gwc
President Trump Is the Enemy of Their Enemies - The New York Times
by Thomas Edsall
**The political system is not equipped to resolve these social and cultural conflicts, which produce a gamut of emotions, often outside our conscious awareness. Threatening issues — conflicts over race, immigration, sexuality and many other questions that cut to the core of how we see ourselves and the people around us — cannot be contained in ordinary political speech, even as these issues dominate our political decision-making.

It is Trump’s willingness to violate the boundaries of conventional discourse that has granted him immunity to mainstream criticism. Pretty much everything he does that goes overboard helps him. He is given a free hand by those who feel in their gut that he is fighting their fight — that he is their leader and their defender. As the enemy of their enemies, President Trump is their friend.

Balkinization: Why Did We Have to Have a Civil War?

Gerard Magliocca, Indiana law professor, - and a political conservative - is the author of a very good biography of John Bingham (principal architect of the 14th Amendment), and a biography of Andrew Jackson's constitutional views.
- GWC
Balkinization: Why Did We Have to Have a Civil War?
by Prof. Gerard Magliocca 

President Trump offered some commentary on the Civil War in an interview today:

"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn't have had the Civil War," he said. "He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw with regard to the Civil War, he said 'There's no reason for this.'" 
"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"
As the author of a book on Andrew Jackson's constitutional philosophy, I want to point out that this utter nonsense. Jackson was against secession. He was also for slavery and owned many slaves.  (Maybe "big-hearted" means that he only whipped his slaves every once in a while--I'm not sure what the President is talking about. Big-hearted is a term I would definitely not associate with Jackson.)

Sure, Jackson would have worked things out to avoid a civil war.  And government of slavery, for slavery, and by slavery would have taken much longer to perish from the Earth.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

New Study Shows Trumpcare’s Damage - The New York Times


Freedom lovers:
Republican representatives Fred Upton, Michael Burgess, Greg Walden and Billy Long after meeting with President Trump
The New Study That Shows Trumpcare’s Damage - The New York Times
by David Leonhardt

When Massachusetts expanded health insurance a decade ago, state officials unknowingly created an experiment. It’s turned out to be an experiment that offers real-world evidence of what would happen if the House Republicans’ health bill were to become law.
The findings from Massachusetts come from an academic paper being released Thursday, and the timing is good. Until now, the main analysis of the Republican health bill has come from the Congressional Budget Office, and some Republicans have criticized that analysis as speculative. The Massachusetts data is more concrete.
Unfortunately for those Republicans, the new data makes their health care bill look even worse than the C.B.O. report did. The bill could cause more people to lose insurance than previously predicted and do more damage to insurance markets. The $8 billion sweetener that Republicans added to the bill on Wednesday would do nothing to change this reality. President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan are continuing to push a policy that would harm millions of Americans.
Here are the basics of the new study, and why it matters:
KEEP READING

James Comey Is ‘Mildly Nauseous’ About the Election. It’s Not Enough. - The New York Times

 James Comey Is ‘Mildly Nauseous’ About the Election. It’s Not Enough. - The New York Times

by Andrew Rosenthal

Not only did [FBI Director James] Comey probably tip the election to Donald Trump; he also handled the investigations of Clinton’s emails and Trump’s strange relationship with the Kremlin in entirely different ways. He treated Trump with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s customary silence about ongoing probes. He talked about the Clinton investigation in extremely public and damaging ways.
When Comey decided to announce the reopening of the Clinton email probe, he had no solid evidence that there was any significant new information on the newly discovered computer, belonging to the disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, that sparked the renewed investigation.

Not a normal President ~ Jennifer Rubin. WAPO

During the first 100 days the Republic has survived, but the GOP, permanently we think, has been morally compromised and intellectually corrupted, just as many of us warned. “Everything
ilson is fond of saying. Trump’s victims
rm=.3ddff6c83151

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Is President Trump Above the Law of Incitement? - Lawfare


This is NOT what democracy looks like.
THIS is what democracy looks like.


President Trump is Above the Law (of Incitement) - Lawfare
by Quinta Jurecic

Last night, at a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania convened to celebrate the hundredth day of his presidency, Trump was interrupted by protesters. In response, he declared, “Get him out of here”—and the protester in question was ejected.
This incident is notable for exactly one reason: President Donald Trump is currently being sued in federal court for incitement over events at a campaign rally in March 2016 in which he did literally the same thing—that is, spoke almost verbatim the same words.
Trump is being sued for incitement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Three plaintiffs have filed suit against Trump for his conduct during campaign event in Louisville, Kentucky. The plaintiffs, who were protesting the event, allege that they were shoved and hit by rally attendees after Trump encouraged his supporters to “Get ‘em out of here.” The district court court recently denied a motion by Trump to dismiss the case, allowing the case to proceed, at least for now. The court has not decided that Trump’s conduct constituted incitement, but it has refused to dismiss the matter on grounds that it couldn’t be incitement.

Priebus: First Amendment on the block!


Jonathan Karl (ABC News) interviewed Reince Priebus (White House Chief of Staff) this morning:

KARL: I want to ask you about two things the President has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting “the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?” That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?
The First Amendment is engraved in stone at the
Newseum  on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.
PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we’re sitting here on 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters—
KARL: So you think the President should be able to sue the New York Times for stories he doesn’t like?
PRIEBUS: Here’s what I think. I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired.
KARL: I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. It’s about whether or not the President should have a right to sue them.
PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at. But it’s something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that’s another issue.


Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Sotomayor dissent

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/04/justice_sotomayor_takes_aim_at_police_brutality_in_salazar_limon_v_houston.html

Monday, April 24, 2017

SCOTUS Should Adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct// Lubet// Legal Ethics forum

Legal Ethics Forum: SCOTUS and the Code of Judicial Conduct
by Steve Lubet (Northwestern Law School)
I have an oped on CNN.com explaining why SCOTUS should adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct.  Here is the gist:
While Supreme Court justices obviously face the same quandaries and dilemmas as all other judges, they alone have no set rules for resolving, or even addressing, ethics issues.
Members of Congress have repeatedly called on the justices to adopt an ethics code. Most recently, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2017, which would give the court six months to "promulgate a code of ethics" based on the Code of Conduct for US Judges already in effect for the lower federal courts, along with any modifications that "the Supreme Court deems appropriate."
[T]he objective of a code would be to set discernible standards for the justices' conduct so that the public could know the norms to which the justices are holding themselves.
You can read the whole thing here.

15-1406_db8e.pdf


GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. HAEGER ET AL. //SCOTUS 4/17/17
Held: When a federal court exercises its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct—or put another way, to the fees that party would not have incurred but for the bad faith.

Florida Proposes Adding Rule Regarding Short-Term Limited Legal Service Programs | Legal Ethics in Motion

Florida Proposes Adding Rule Regarding Short-Term Limited Legal Service Programs | Legal Ethics in Motion

Sunday, April 23, 2017

He robbed banks and went to prison. His time there put him on track for a new job: Georgetown law professor. - The Washington Post

Amazing story of redemption.  
On of his article appeared in the Fordham Law Review

Slicing Through the Great Legal Gordian Knot: Ways to Assist Pro Se Litigants in Their Quest for Justice

- gwc
He robbed banks and went to prison. His time there put him on track for a new job: Georgetown law professor. - The Washington Post
By Susan Svrluga

During a break in a basketball game to raise money for charity, Shon Hopwood told some of his Georgetown law students it felt different than the last time he was on a court: When he played basketball in federal prison, he had to carry a shank in case his team started to lose.
His students laughed. He ran back onto the law-school court — and sank the winning shot.
Hopwood’s new job as a tenure-track faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center is only the latest improbable twist in a remarkable life: In the last 20 years, he has robbed banks in small towns in Nebraska, spent 11 years in federal prison, written a legal petition for a fellow inmate so incisive that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, done that again, earned undergraduate and law degrees and extremely competitive clerkships, written a book, married his hometown crush and started a family.
But this could be his most compelling role yet. His time in prison gave him an unusual perspective on the law that allows him to see things other lawyers overlook, and a searing understanding of the impact of sentencing and the dramatic growth in incarceration in the United States.
“It’s one of the big social-justice issues of our time,” he said. The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. 

As LePen goes to Runoff - What happens next in France will determine the level of bigotry Europe is willing to tolerate

Image result for french national front
France - which led the way to republican government under the slogan "liberte, fraternite, egalite" heads into a crucial election in which voters could embrace bigotre and racisme.  If you may have forgotten that Europe in the 1930's descended into barbarism - this is a good reminder of the path. - gwc
What happens next in France will determine the level of bigotry Europe is willing to tolerate
by Adrienne Mahsa Virkiani // Think Progress

French voters headed to the polls on Sunday to cast their vote for the country’s next president. The results: Far-right Marine Le Pen and centrist Emmanuel Macron will head to the runoffs on May 7.
According to the Guardian’s live blog of the elections, Macron has a slightly larger share of the votes (23.7 percent) than Le Pen (21.7 percent) thus far. Center-right candidate François Fillon and far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon are at about 19.5 percent, and socialist candidate, Benoît Hamon, is at about 6.5 percent.
Following a year of rising nationalism in Europe and the United States, intertwined with fear-mongering about immigration, the results of the runoff could be an indicator of how much xenophobia Europe is willing to tolerate.
Le Pen, head of the National Front (FN) party, has run on a vocally anti-Islam, anti-immigrant platform — and as a result, has often been compared to U.S. President Donald Trump. In November of last year, Le Pen called Trump’s victory “a sign of hope for those who cannot bear wild globalization,” and two weeks before his inauguration, she was seen at Trump Tower in New York. On Friday, she was tacitly endorsed by Trump.

A Hundred Days of Trump - The New Yorker

170501_r29883illuweb_rd
A stunning rant about the Trump presidency by the editor of The New Yorker.  It ends with this peroration. - gwc
A Hundred Days of Trump - The New Yorker
by David Remnick

***The clownish veneer of Trumpism conceals its true danger. Trump’s way of lying is not a joke; it is a strategy, a way of clouding our capacity to think, to live in a realm of truth. It is said that each epoch dreams the one to follow. The task now is not merely to recognize this Presidency for the emergency it is, and to resist its assault on the principles of reality and the values of liberal democracy, but to devise a future, to debate, to hear one another, to organize, to preserve and revive precious things. 

Let's Talk About Bubbles and James Comey | Mother Jones



Today's big story about James Comey puts hi backin the news.  Essentially his argument, filtered through Columbia Law prof Daniel Richman is "Jim was playing it straight",

Rather than close the criminal investigation with a simple statement of no charges * Comey went on TV because the American people had a right to know - and to know that he did not cave to Democratic partisan pressure,
* Comey sent the October 28 letter because he was afraid that post-election if the Weiner laptop contained damaging information he would be seen as having covered up for Hillary Clinton.
- he did not divulge the investigation into Trump's Russian ties because...that is an open investigation.

At each of these points Comey's acts benefited Trump.  At every point he acted to benefit Trump.

This was a "one off" unique situation Comey's supporters say.  If it was one off then he should have said lessrather than more. - gwc
Let's Talk About Bubbles and James Comey | Mother Jones
by Kevin Drum
I have frequently made the case that Donald Trump is president because of FBI director James Comey. On October 28, Comey wrote a letter to Congress telling them that the FBI was investigating a new cache of Clinton emails that it found on the laptop of Huma Abedin's estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. That was the turning point. Clinton's electoral fortunes went downhill from there and never recovered.
As shocking as this may sound, not everyone agrees with me. A new book, Shattered, makes the case that Clinton was an epically bad candidate and her campaign was epically badly run. That's why she lost. Yesterday, Shadi Hamid took aim at me for my continued Comey obsession in the face of the story told in Shattered:
Sad to watch smart, liberal writers, like @kdrum, refuse to engage in introspection, instead blaming HRC's loss on Comey, Russia, squirrels
I'm citing @kdrum b/c I loved his blog. But then he descended into self-parody. His position—no hyperbole—is that it's all b/c of Comey

Let's talk. There's a reason I blame Comey, and it's not because I live in a bubble. It's because a massive amount of evidence points that way.