Month: June 2025

Being Married Without Your Consent? Yeah, I’d Say This Is “Toe in a Plug of Tobacco” Level Unethical: “Someone Has Been Very Careless”

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Ethics Alarms has often cited the dry desiccated toe in the plug of tobacco that is the essence of “res ipsa loquitur,” or “the thing speaks for itself”: “Someone has been very careless.”

This leads me to the bizarre experience of a Texas man, whose name so far has been withheld, presumably because he feels like an idiot. He says he was married to his ex-fiancée without his knowledge. The 42-year-old victim was in a committed relationship with 36-year-old Kristin Marie Spearman. They were about to get a Wayne County marriage license but got into a heated argument that culminated in his breaking off their romance. His ex-fiancée was not one to give up without a fight, however.

Her ex- received a gift bag from Bath & Body Works containing some products along with a copy of an officiated marriage license with his and Spearman’s names on it and a photo of his ex-fiancee holding up the document legally declaring them to be husband and wife. Kristin had managed to get a local pastor to certify the marriage even though the groom wasn’t in attendance. She then took the certified marriage license to her local county clerk’s office and filed it with officials. As far as the records go, it’s a legal marriage.

Spearman has been arrested and charged with third-degree felony stalking. The pastor, meanwhile, has a lot of explaining to do.

New York City’s Democrats Remind Us Why It’s an Ethical Duty To Vote (and They Didn’t)

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Apparently less than 5% of all New York City residents voted for Zohran Mamdani, the charismatic, anti-Israel, slick crypto-communist who is now poised to become mayor of the City That Doesn’t Think—oops! I mean “sleep.” Never mind though: winning the crowded primary last week made him an instant celebrity, gave him a platform to spew his toxic ideology far and wide, confounding the dim, the gullible, the uneducated and the America-haters, and makes him a genuine threat to take over the drowning Democratic Party by apathy.

People who are stupid, ignorant and don’t care shouldn’t vote, but when a majority of potential voters who aren’t stupid and ignorant and do care also don’t vote, democracy not only doesn’t work, it is dangerous.

Continue reading →

Why People Don’t Trust Lawyers…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

A personal injury law firm whose name will remain unspoken “explains” on its website why exorbitant contingent fees are justifiable and ethical. The page says that a lawyer receiving a higher potential fee will probably do a better job representing the client than one who will receive a lesser proportion of the settlement or damages: more motivation!

This is exactly the opposite of what the ethics rules of every jurisdiction mandate. A lawyer is obligated to represent a client to the best of his or her ability regardless of the fee, including when the representation is pro bono, that is, for no fee at all. A lawyer who calibrates the effort and passion he or she puts into a case based on the size of the fee, negotiated or potential, is an unethical lawyer, an untrustworthy lawyer.

A bad lawyer.

And yet here is a law firm stating, “The more you pay us, the better job we’ll do.”

Disgusting.

But, somehow, not surprising….

On the Illegality of Illegal Aliens

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Guest column by Ryan Harkins

We have this report from HotAir explaining that that the ICE raid on the meat packing plant in Nebraska was not simply due to the fact that the plant hired so many illegals. Instead, the focus of the raid was on an identity-theft ring running out of that plant.

I want to make it clear I am all in favor of whoever in the world who wants to come to the United States to make a better life for themselves should have the opportunity. I’d give top priority to those who wish to become US citizens, but I’m generally in favor of letting into the country far more people than our current immigration system allots. How many more, I can’t say, as I’ve not crunched the numbers. But in general more immigrants means more workers, more production, higher demand for services, all which contribute to a growing economy that enriches everyone here.

Continue reading →

Here Is How Arrogant and Delusional Harvard Is: It Really Thinks It Can Prevail In Public Opinion Over The President of the United States…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The Harvard Alumni Magazine arrived yesterday. Above is the cover and the illustration for its feature section about the University’s “resistance” to President Trump’s completely reasonable, responsible and justifiable demands that the most visible, influential, prestigious and wealthy university in the United States stop dedicating itself to undermining American values, indoctrinating students in anti-American biases, provide intellectual diversity on its faculty, cease discriminating against whites, males and Asians, and stop enabling flagrant Jew hatred on campus.

To Harvard’s credit, the alumni magazine makes a pass at even-handedness, even highlighting an alumnus who writes that “no private institution has a right to demand that taxpayers fund discrimination, exclusion and intolerance.” But most of the issue is devoted to familiar anti-Trump victim-mongering, including an essay extolling the work of a non-binary (or something) professor “whose data shows how—and when—authoritarians fall.”

“Authoritarianism” has joined “sexism,” “racism,” “violence,” “insurrection” and other rhetorical weapons of the Left as infinitely flexible accusations steeped in double standards. A President who uses his constitutional powers to pursue policies the Left opposes is an “authoritarian.” A President who weaponizes the legal system to imprison and persecute his political opposition is not—as long as he is a Democrat.

I mean, just to pull a fantastic hypothetical out of the air…

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Justice Elena Kagan

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

This is so disillusioning. I supported Elena Kagan’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. She was obviously qualified, had the right experience for the job, and seemed capable of objective, non-partisan analysis unlike Barack Obama’s disastrous “historic” first nominee to the Court, the dim bulb Sonia Sotamayor, and Biden’s arguably worse choice, DEI Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I have tried to cut Kagan a break for so often sticking to her less able woke female colleagues like the Three Little Maid from School in “The Mikado” in 6-3 decisions. I understand why loyalty to the team might have its long-range advantages. Often I can imagine Kagan rolling her eyes at one of the fatuous Sotomayor dissents based on feelz instead of the law. I get it.

But this time Kagan’s collegiality with her intellectual inferiors led to a breach of integrity. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., last week was much needed, greatly deserved, and necessary to stop an egregious abuse of judicial power for partisan agendas. The decision struck down the sudden fad of nationwide injunctions by lower courts, the Trump II weapon of choice employed by Democrats seeking not to allow the elected President they hate do the job he was elected to do. The “wise Latina” issued another one of her amateurish dissents. It was Kagan, however, joining with Jackson in endorsing that dissent, who really disgraced herself.

In 2022, when conservatives were the ones seeking injunctive relief from his President Biden’s Executive Orders (if in fact they were his EOs), Kagan expressed disapproval of nationwide injunctions.  “This can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process,” she said. 

So she’s a partisan hack then, cutting the cloth of her supposedly objective legal analysis to match the dictates of the Democratic Party. Good to know.

(The ethics password is integrity.)

Justice Kagan doesn’t have it.

“The Ethicist” Answers the Dumbest Question Yet…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Sure, Prof. Appiah answers the question from “Name Withheld” correctly, because if he didn’t, the New York Times would have to send its long-time author of its weekly ethics advice column to Madam Louisa’s Home for the Addled and Bewildered. But why did he feel he had to answer such an easy question at all? Slow week for the ol’ mailbag, Kwame?

A wife worried about the fact that her husband is sedentary, fat, and getting fatter asked if it was wrong to try to get him to take affirmative steps to lose some weight. “As we both approach 50,” she writes, “I worry that his B.M.I., which is 30, and his B.R.I. (body roundness index, a measure of abdominal fat) are high (he can’t even button some of his shirts around the middle), which could lead to other health issues. I’ve already tried encouraging him to move more and eat better, but I can’t schedule every one of my workouts for us to exercise together, and he dislikes some of the routines I do, anyway. He’s also very sensitive about his weight.”

“Is it wrong for me to try to get him to take Ozempic?,” she finally asks. “I’m hoping that losing weight will help boost his energy levels, which might lead to more self-care. I know it’s not my body, and I’m not his doctor, but as his wife I also know it will fall to me to care for him if health issues arise.”

Ignore her concentration on Ozempic; she’s not asking about the risks involved with that medication or about the perils of quick fixes. She’s asking if it is wrong (this is The Ethicist she’s writing to) for a spouse to try to get the man she has vowed to love and to cherish to be responsible and take care of himself before it’s too late. Ozempic, Weight Watchers, jogging, whatever: how can a wife’s diligent efforts to somehow convince her husband to get healthier be wrong, as in “unethical”?

Continue reading →

More Observations on Zohran Mamdani…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

To his credit, for it is both smart and responsible, the shock winner of the Democratic primary and the presumptive mayor-of-NYC-to-be, Zohran Mamdani has been having interviews with everyone who will sit down with him….well, except for Fox News and its ilk, at least so far. As the fawning interview with MSNBC’s Jen Pasaki shows, the guy is smart, articulate, engaging, charismatic, and, I would say, a skilled demagogue.

Oh-oh.

Continue reading →

Signature Significance: The Democrats’ Year-Old Debate Tweet

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

It was a year ago yesterday that Joe Biden revealed for all to see that America had a senile President. This was established beyond all doubt when he responded to an early question in his debate with Donald Trump by muttering and slurring Authentic Frontier Gibberish, ending with the immortal declaration, “We beat…Medicare.”

Even though anyone with two neurons to rub together knew that moment was curtains for hopes of a Biden re-election, the Democrats tweeted out the flaming lie above.

Yesterday social media wags were taunting and mocking Democrats for a tweet that “hasn’t aged well,” but it’s not funny. It’s terrifying. That tweet demonstrated then and demonstrates now just how Orwellian, Machiavellian, dishonest, ruthless and untrustworthy the Democratic Party has become. It has no regard for transparency, no respect for the public, and no shame.

Even as it was engaging in “it isn’t what it is” disinformation, the Democrats were hustling behind the scenes to dump Biden from their ticket. They issued that tweet knowing full well that Biden didn’t win the debate, he disgraced himself in it. But like the committed totalitarians they are, his party directed its faithful to believe what they told them to believe. Biden won the debate as Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

A trustworthy, democracy-supporting, patriotic political party doesn’t issue a message like that. A dangerous political party does.

A Perfect Example of a “Trump Lie”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

On both MSNBC and CNN today, a big deal was made over the fact that President Trump said that “no other country” confers automatic citizenship on those born within its borders. They were both sneering so hard that I bet they needed a lip massage afterwards, “Of course, 33 nations have birthright citizenship,” said one, with the other making a similar statement.

No question about it, they are right and Trump was wrong. What he meant, however, was “No nations anywhere but the Americas have birthright citizenship, and we are the only major power in the world that does.” Or, “Almost no nations that know what the fuck they are doing have birthright citizenship.” Presidents shouldn’t be that careless, but Trump is, he refuses to change, he’s not going to, and nobody should pretend that they are shocked when he does.

Here’s the list, as represented in the chart above: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Continue reading →