Oh Look! Now the LEFT Is Complaining About Lawyers Being Reluctant To Represent Unpopular Clients!

In 2020, as discussed here, The NeverTrump Lincoln Project joined the anti-Trump Democrats in targeting law firms hired by the Trump campaign to challenge alleged irregularities in the election. Election law specialists Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and its lawyers were threatened with professional ruin and financial disaster, as they were told that daring to support the President of the United States constitutes a “dangerous attack on our democracy.” The firm, showing a dearth of legal ethics and integrity, withdrew, whining that the assault on its reputation created a conflict of interest, was disrupting the firm, and had prompted at least one lawyer’s resignation. Other firms dropped the campaign as a client, and the reason was fear—of losing clients, of being shunned in the legal community, of losing money. Mostly the latter.

How times had changed. When Bush Department of Defense Deputy Secretary Cully Stimson, a lawyer, gave a radio interview in which he condemned attorneys from large law firms who were representing Guantanamo Bay detainees pro bono and suggested that corporations avoid employing those firms because they were aiding the nation’s enemies, the legal profession reacted with indignation and horror. Karen J. Mathis, then the president of the American Bar Association, said, “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.” Prof. Stephen Gillers, the media’s favorite legal ethicist thanks to his penchant for being hard on conservatives and lenient on liberals, wrote, “This is prejudicial to the administration of justice. It’s possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.” Christopher Moore, a lawyer at the New York firm Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton continued the profession’s defense of core lawyer ethics, telling the New York Times, “We believe in the concept of justice and that every person is entitled to counsel.”

Continue reading

Wait, What? Disciplined For Objecting To WHAT at a Law School?

I don’t understand this story at all. Of course, it would help a bit if the news media thought it was worthy covering. Instead the story gasps in the rarefied and suffocating atmosphere of a few conservative websites. I get it: this idiocy makes progressive extremism look bad. But then, it is bad.

Third-year Scalia School of Law students Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara (that’s the George Mason U. law school in Northern Virginia) have been sanctioned by the school in the following bizarre scenario. On September 27, 2024, a classmate solicited their opinions in a “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe chat regarding their support for his proposal that the student government put tampons in the men’s restrooms. (Yes, this again.) Cerankosky was critical of the proposal, arguing that “allow[ing] biological females into male restrooms to access period products as ‘trans men,’” would mean “female bathrooms will welcome male occupants.” She found that development unacceptable because female students might be “considerably uncomfortable if there are males using private women’s spaces on campus.” “Women have a right to feel safe in spaces where they disrobe,” she added. Arcara posted her agreement with that assessment.

The male classmate then ridiculed their concerns and called the two women anti-trans bigots. Two weeks later, on October 11, both Cerankosky and Arcara received “no-contact” orders from GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion prohibiting them from having any contact with the male classmate, aka “Asshole,” who had complained to the administration alleging harassment. Neither of the women had ever spoken to the guy, other than to exchange messages in the chatroom.

Continue reading

Squirrel Ethics: The P’Nut Saga [Corrected and Expanded]

State government officials this week seized and ultimately destroyed P’Nut, a pet squirrel with a popular Instagram page, in Pine City, New York. Somehow, conservatives have decided to make this incident some kind of watershed for state abuse of personal liberties , not to mention pet squirrels. Thus P’Nut has become an election issue; Hey, why not, everything else is from McDonald’s to Liz Cheney. First pet squirrels, next guns and free enterprise. “First, they came for P’Nut, and I said nothing…”

Give me a break.

Mark Longo adopted P’Nut seven years ago in New York City as an orphaned baby squirrel that crawled up his leg after his mommy was squished by a car. The squirrel ended up with his own room, and when Longo and his wife were at home the furry friend wandered wherever he wanted in their house. Longo described P’Nut as “the most charismatic, sassy animal.”

P’Nut also was a profitable animal. The rodent became the face and name of P’Nuts Freedom Farm Animal Sanctuary, a nonprofit Longo and his wife started in April. The Longos contribute half of the organization’s roughly $20,000-a-month expenses to run the sanctuary and donors supply the other half, with most of those donations raised largely through cute P’Nut videos posted on Instagram. “We have rescued over 300 animals in our sanctuary already,” Longo said. “Cats, dogs, horses, goats, sheep, donkeys and pigs.”

Ah! The ends justify the means! Here is the problem: it is illegal to keep wildlife like squirrels as pets, in New York as well as many other states. The full list is here. (Pointer: jeffguinn) According to that source, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming all allow people to own pet squirrels. [Note: This is a correction from the original post, in which I assumed that all states would have prohibited P’Nut.]

None of which is relevant to the law in New York and it’s enforcement.

“Following multiple reports from the public about the potentially unsafe housing of wildlife that could carry rabies and the illegal keeping of wildlife as pets, D.E.C. conducted an investigation,” the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said in a statement after P’Nut was seized. “Investigation” is a bit sanitized: the operation has been described as a raid, and sure sounds like one. Before the officers left with P’Nut (and a raccoon, which nobody seems to care about), they “ransacked my entire house,” Longo said. “They made me sit outside for five hours.”

Presumably they were making sure that the house didn’t contain any other illegal residents. “We have had P’nut for seven years without a single complaint,” Longo said. “Now it’s suddenly an issue? It’s not like we were hiding him.”

Well, yes. That’s the problem. Longo and his wife were openly violating a law, and the argument for letting P’Nut keep hiding his nuts under their rugs is simple: the law is the law, there is no exception for cute law-breaking or profitable law-breaking. Regardless of the squirrel’s popularity and use in fundraising for a worthy cause, a law that isn’t enforced when it is broken for reasons some people think are justifications isn’t a law at all.

This isn’t just one slippery slope, it is several. Today it’s P’Nut the Squirrels, then it’s whenever that raccoon was, and tomorrow it’s Chewy the Wolverine.

“To the people who filed complaints, thank you for taking away the best part of me, thank you for taking away my best friend,” Longo whined online.

Conservatives have to stop flipping their values any time they see a chance for political point-scoring. This is called lacking integrity. Taking away P’Nut is based on the same principle that says “good illegal immigrants” should still be deported, Hillary Clinton shouldn’t get away with mishandling classified materials, and that if Donald Trump is prosecuted for mishandling documents, Joe Biden should be as well.

The King’s Pass is a rationalization even if the king is a squirrel.

A grace note: P’Nut had to be euthanized after he bit one of the officers as they removed him from his happy home, so they had to see if the squirrel had rabies. Good for P’Nut: he didn’t go down without a fight. We can’t blame him for not knowing the law.

Comment of the Day: “Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?”

Sarah B.’s excellent Comment of the Day on the post, “Is This the Level of Critical Thinking Devoted To Pro-Abortion Advocacy?” stands on its own and makes any introduction from me supoerflous beyond, “Here it is.”

Here it is…

***

I believe that the reasons many women want abortion to be legal are, when delving down deeply: fear and guilt. Please note that my argument is not meant to absolve anyone of responsibility, especially as I am dang near an anti-abortion absolutist, but instead what motives I have seen in my argumentation with pro-abortion (they hate that label because “we aren’t for abortion, we’re for women having the right to choose what is best”) advocates before the argument degenerates into some form of the above as their “knock down, undeniable” argument to shut me up. (Tearing it apart just turns into accusations of me being brainwashed and the conversation devolving into at least one side calling names, though my temper has occasionally dropped me to their level.)

I’m going to start with guilt, because it is the easiest to explain. Many women know someone who has had an abortion. My cousin had one for reasons that are at least sympathetic – the child was diagnosed with a genetic mutation that is always fatal if the diagnosis was correct (many are not) – even if I think she was completely in the wrong. She is hardly the only person in my circle that has had an abortion or helped someone obtain one. Most people who do this recognize somewhere that this may have been a “choice,” but it was the wrong choice. Many people are nearly eaten-up with guilt about the child they know they killed. I know people who have broken down in tears in private over this, even though they are pro-abortion in public.

They have pro-abortion stances that seem to cover up the guilt. They often act as though they believe that if everyone supports abortion and allows it up to birth or beyond, they will finally not feel guilty because the only reason they feel guilty is the societal pressure to accept that abortion killed a baby.

Fear, however, is the primary reason so many women want abortions to be legal. Men, since time immemorial, have gotten away with consequence-free sex, while women bear most of the negative consequences. Men don’t get pregnant. When it comes to STDs, women are far more susceptible then men, being the penetrated rather than the penetrator. Frankly, men (as a whole) desire sex more than women. It is a generality, but one that I have found to be true, as iin the saying, “Men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love.” This puts an unequal spin on the consequences.

Men, again generally speaking, desire sex more. Women bear a higher cost for sex than men. This lack of equality is a breeding ground for fear. Women who have regular sex will get eventually face pregnancy, contraceptives or no, if it continues over a long enough time span, assuming they do not have fertility issues,

There are many fears that women can have regarding pregnancy, and today’s society has bred even more. Men have the advnantage of consequence-free or at least consequence-reduced sex. See “The Scarlet Letter” or any dead-beat dad to prove my point. Women can fear that the trials of parenthood, and there are many, will leave them holding the bag when the man responsible bolts. This is exacerbated in today’s society when many of the Y-chromosomed fail to grow out of acting like boys and never develop into men.

Another fear is that having a baby ties you down to marriage to a man whom you should not be with. A girl’s crush on the wrong boy whom she then decides to sleep with so she can keep him can suddenly become horrible marriage, bound together with children when she becomes pregnant even when he actually does take responsibility. Sure, you can get divorced if things are too bad, but you are back to being a single mom, maybe with child support. The system also has a number of loopholes that can wreck any chance of acquiring a decent amount of money to help with the kids. Again, if you get pregnant and have a baby, the odds seem stacked against you.

There is also the fear of what kids will do to your education and career. If you have to pay for a babysitter, it hurts your chances of being able to afford college, and feeding two mouths while paying off student loans is harder than just feeding yourself. Of course, having to be up at night with a teething child rather than studying or sleeping before a test is its own struggle. How can you make it? And all those career women? If that is what you want out of life, you will struggle when you have to take time off because the kid is throwing up or has a fever, something that happens all the time when kids are little. Even when they are older, is your presence at their piano recital or sporting event more important than your presence working the hours needed to get that big promotion? A child makes achieving your goals harder.

What about all the things and experiences you want out of life? Society is pushing so many different concepts now of what happiness is, but very few of them work with children. You can’t reasonably take small children to many concerts. Sporting events are expensive and now you have to buy not one, but two tickets, or pay for a babysitter who costs a decent fraction of those tickets? The money that you spend on diapers, wipes, formula, clothes, medical care and the rest could have gone towards you having fun and enjoying life. Or maybe you are a minimalist and for you good times are possible living with the bare minimum. Well, that bare minimum is now cluttered with toys, covered in spit-up, and smelling like pooped diapers. There go your dreams.

Then there are the fears surrounding pregnancy itself. Honestly, maternal mortality rates aren’t that bad, if you ignore those who didn’t receive prenatal care, weren’t able to give birth with medical care at least nearby if not in the hospital, and who haven’t already had an abortion (which increases the chances of life-threatening complications in future pregnancies). However, women do die when pregnant, even in the best of circumstances. Therefore pregnancy is an elevated risk. What about complications? What if you really need an abortion to survive?

Adoption has its own fears. Assuming I do go the adoption route, what if the child has anything other than the perfect childhood? What about if they end up in foster care? What happens if they or, assuming I keep the child, we end up in poverty? All of that misery is avoidable with abortion.

There are other fears. There is the fear of rape. If you get raped, you could get pregnant. Surely you can’t be expected to have the baby of your attacker. What about the fear of disabled children who may or may not live as long as you want or fear? Birth defects happen, incest or not, but that fear is especially true if you were raped by a relative. What happens if you fall in love with this baby and it dies? Then you are left with heartbreak.

What happens if you have a special needs child? That could mean you have to care for that child all of its life and yours; you can never retire and might die in poverty. How about any horror story you hear about on social media that may or may not be the full truth? We NEED abortion to deal with this! If we can’t decide to end a pregnancy when something is wrong, we are not equal to men.

Again, these are not my beliefs, merely a summary of the beliefs I have heard whenever I speak with a pro-abortion believer. I can think of responses to most if not all of these. However, the response this post was based off of is essentially about getting rid of some of the fears. Usually I see that response coupled with a guarantee that men will no longer rape women, that medical care will be so advanced that women never have a problem with pregnancy, and that no woman will ever have to have a job she doesn’t want or is beneath her. The fears that drive women’s desire for abortion make for some illogical outcomes and arguments.

That being said, I am ashamed of my sex for our illogical outbursts that demand the deaths of our own children. The demand that started this post is just one of many of those illogical outbursts, and I apologize for my sex for their saying it.

Small Ethical Silver Lining To An Ugly Cloud: At Least This Awful Woman’s Lawyer Talked Her Into Pleading Guilty

Tiffanie Lucas, 33, had been preparing to try an insanity defense in her upcoming December murder trial stemming from her Novenber 8, 2023, shooting of her sons Maurice “Peanut” Baker Jr. and Jayden Howard, 6 and 9. Now she says she will plead guilty and rely on the judge to decide her fate.

Continue reading

Two Faint Cheers For the Colorado Supreme Court in “Jerk vs. Jerk”

It looks like the political correctness Furies who have been swarming around Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner whose refusal to bake, decorate and sell same-sex wedding cakes had him targeted for destruction have finally been foiled.The Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed the latest lawsuit against him, though not on the merits. Legal Insurrection has detailed coverage and a retrospective on this almost decade-long drama here.

Remember the old Mad Magazine series called “Spy vs. Spy”? This has been “Jerk vs. Jerk.” I sided with the baker in the original lawsuit over the same-sex wedding cake, though holding even then that the adversaries were being unreasonable. Ethics Alarms advised one, “Oh, bake the damn cake!” and the other, “So find another bakery!” That battle got all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the baker won on what non-lawyers call “a technicality.” Then Phillips was targeted again, as LGTBQ activists apparently considered it a matter of honor to bend him to their will.

Continue reading

‘Good Discrimination’ At Northeastern, Boston College and the University of Chicago

Why did it take four years for someone’s head to explode over this? Well, as they say, if it’s new to you, it’s news, and this is new to me.

Campus Reform reveals an earlier report by The Chicago Thinker showed that student-run debate organizations at Northeastern University and Boston College co-hosted the American Parliamentary Debate Association’s  “inaugural BIPOC tournament” and explicitly prohibited white students from competing. Huh. Why would this make sense? Whites are too articulate? Too quick on their feet and skilled in rhetorical flair, are they? This is the equivalent of prohibiting black basketball players from competing in an all-white tournament; after all, as the movie says, “White Guys Can’t Jump.” The existence of such a discriminatory tournament is an insult to non-whites.

Continue reading

The Fake James Earl Jones Problem

Oh yeah, I can see where this is going…

Vanity Fair reports that in 2022, Lucasfilm and Skywalker Sound hired a Ukrainian startup called Respeech to recreate Darth Vader’s voice for its upcoming mini-series “Obi-Wan Kenobi.” The recently departed James Earl Jones was then alive but 91 and his voice was waeker and not as resonant as in his “THIS is CNN!” days. Using AI, Respeech used archived “Star Wars” sound tracks footage to recreate Jones’ iconic Darth Vader’s tones from the original 1980s trilogy. Jones was satsified with the fake version of him, and signed off on using his archival voice recordings for future (lousy) “Star Wars” spin-offs. When “Obi-Wan Kenobi” premiered, nobody guessed that Darth Vader’s voice was AI generated.

Continue reading

More VP Debate Ethics: Oh-Oh! Tim Walz Doesn’t Get That First Amendment Thingy…

Does this bother you? It should: It bothers me. And Walz has been saying the same illiterate crap about free speech for years. I don’t want Presidents who don’t understand the First Amendment. It means they are incompetent at least, and dangerous at worst. If I don’t want a President with these deficits, I don’t want a Vice President with them either.

I was late to this particular party because I can only find one transcript of the debate online, CBS’s, and the site demands that I dump my ad-blocker to read it. Bite me. This is public information, and CBS shouldn’t have a monopoly on it: that’s unethical. Journalism has no public interest at heart at all, at least not the outlets I usually deal with.

When J.D. Vance pointed out that Walz had said there is no First Amendment right to misinformation,” Walz interjected “or threatening, or hate speech.”  Why do woke fools like Walz keep saying this? While “True threats”—meaning threats that are accompanied by the means and circumstances to carry them out—aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Misinformation that falls short of fraud or defamation definitely is, indeed outright lies are protected.

“Hate speech” also has full First Amendment protection. Walz, a high ranking member of the Democratic Party, the pro-censorship party, naturally is in favor of gutting free speech, or he doesn’t know what it is. I’m guessing both.

That’s particularly troubling in someone who taught school.

Continue reading

Harris Is Losing the Meme Wars, So Naturally Democrats Want To Censor Memes

Who would have expected the AI metaphorical tidal wave to have an influence on the Presidential election? Memes are a breeze to make using artificial intelligence, and while I got heartily sick of my Facebook friends bombarding me with political ones, I have to admit that the technology has the silver lining of taking blunt and biased punditry out of the political cartoonist monopoly and letting some very witty people make satirical political statements.

So far, at least, it appears that conservatives have mastered meming before the Left has, and in this race for President, that is having impact, though how much and how significant is impossible to tell. However, it is clear that the Kamala-Harris-as-a-Communist memes are getting under the skin of some Democrats—one of my Trump-Deranged relatives was complaining about those just yesterday—and so now there are calls for “something to be done” about anti-Harris memes. On MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show,” NPR’s Maria Hinojosa was very upset about AI images of Harris presented in Maoist uniforms:

Continue reading