1. Remember, this creep is a popular and influential “progressive.” Here was what Michael Moore tweeted yesterday on Karl Marx’s birthday:
“Happy 200th Birthday Karl Marx! You believed that everyone should have a seat at the table & that the greed of the rich would eventually bring us all down. You believed that everyone deserves a slice of the pie. You knew that the super wealthy were out to grab whatever they could.”
Nobody who spins Marx this way after his abstract theories were used to enslave and kill millions while leaving nations devastated and impoverished is worthy of respect, or indeed anything but horror. Such a statement requires ignorance, delusion, dishonesty or idiocy, probably all three. Moore is the Left’s Richard Spencer.
Birthdays deserving of more public remembrance than Karl’s: Arnold Stange, Harold Staasen, Melody Patterson, and Phil Linz, among others, as well as every world citizen who lived his or her life without playing a role in making the planet more miserable.
2. But those other polls are reliable? Reuters came up with a poll that shows dramatic improvement in President Trump’s approval rating, and it finds that unacceptable, writing,
“This week’s Reuters/Ipsos Core Political release presents something of an outlier of our trend. Every series of polls has the occasional outlier and in our opinion this is one. So, while we are reporting the findings in the interest of transparency, we will not be announcing the start of a new trend until we have more data to validate this pattern.”
In fact, Rasmussen has been polling similar numbers for a while. I have no idea whether the Reuters/Ipsos is accurate or not, or whether any poll is, but this is just denial based on bias. Let’s see: Trump’s tactics seem to have opened a dialogue between North and South Korea, unemployment is at a record low; unemployment pay-outs are down, Kanye West broke the embargo on black support of Trump, Obama’s Iran deal, which Trump attacked from the start, looks worse than ever, the Russian collusion theory seems like the plot to topple Trump that it always was, the news media showed its ugly bias at the AWHC dinner, two judges have challenged the legitimacy of Mueller’s tactics, and the public may finally be starting to resent how horribly the nation’s President has been treated by Democrats, the resistance and journalists. Why wouldn’t the President’s approval rating be soaring? The real question is how some of those other polls can be explained.
In case anyone is interested, I would vote my disapproval if I were polled. Do I approve of many of the President’s policies? Yes. Do I approve of the results so far? Generally, yeah. Am I glad Hillary Clinton was foiled and defeated? Oh, yes. Do I find the conduct and tactics of Trump’s opposition unfair, un-American, destructive and disgusting? Absolutely.
Do I approve of the manner in which he conducts the Presidency? NO.
3. “I’m smart! I’m not dumb like people say!” The ABA’s recently passed Rule 8.4 g states,
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to… engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.
The measure has not been adopted by most states, and since the rule first appeared, I’ve been telling seminars that it was virtue-signaling by the association, and that it was likely to be found unconstitutional. From The Federalist:
On April 23, the Supreme Court of Tennessee denied a petition to adopt a slightly modified version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The Court had held a public comment period on the petition, which was filed by the Tennessee Bar Association and the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility. During the comment period, the Court received over 400 pages of public comment.
The Tennessee Attorney General filed a comment letter with the Court, explaining that a black-letter rule based on ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) “would violate the constitutional rights of Tennessee attorneys and conflict with the existing Rules of Professional Conduct.” The comment letter was incorporated into Attorney General Opinion No. 18-11 (Mar. 16, 2018), which noted that ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) “has been widely and justifiably criticized as creating a ‘speech code for lawyers’ that would constitute an ‘unprecedented violation of the First Amendment’ and encourage, rather than prevent, discrimination by suppressing particular viewpoints on controversial issues.”
Noting the rule’s application to “‘verbal . . . conduct’ – better known as speech,” Tennessee Attorney General Slatery’s comments concluded that “any speech or conduct that could be considered ‘harmful’ or ‘derogatory or demeaning’ would constitute professional misconduct within the meaning of the proposed rule.” He highlighted “several problematic features” of the proposed rule, including:
- “[T]he proposed rule would apply to virtually any speech or conduct that is even tangentially related to an individual’s status as a lawyer, including, for example, a presentation at a CLE event, participation in a debate at an event sponsored by a law-related organization, the publication of a law review article, and even a casual remark at dinner with law firm colleagues.”
- “[T]he proposed rule would prohibit . . . a significant amount of speech and conduct that is not currently prohibited under federal or Tennessee antidiscrimination statutes.”
- “[T]he proposed rule would subject an attorney to professional discipline for uttering a statement that was not actually known to be or intended as harassing or discriminatory, simply because someone might construe it that way.”
The Attorney General warned that the proposed rule “would profoundly transform the professional regulation of Tennessee attorneys.” This transformation would occur because the rule “would regulate aspects of any attorney’s life that are far removed from protecting clients, preventing interference with the administration of justice, ensuring attorneys’ fitness to practice law, or other traditional goals of professional regulation.” That is, the ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) takes attorney regulation far beyond the traditional province of the rules of professional conduct.