Fun ethics week! Lots to talk about!
Open Forum!
Fun ethics week! Lots to talk about!
U.S. Society
The ABA Doubles Down On An Unethical SCOTUS Ruling
Begining with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US. 79 (1986), trial lawyers in both criminal and civil cases have been officially forbidden from exercising peremptory challenges to potential jurors based on the prospective juror’s race or gender on the theory that this violates prospective jurors’ equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. It was a utopian ruling and grandstanding by the Supreme Court in deliberate defiance of the Sixth Amendment right of citizens to a fair trial as well as contradictory to the legal profession’s duty of zealous representation.
The majority in Batson fantasized that in many cases racial or gender bias, positive or negative, is will be likely based on the jurors’ characteristics alone. There is a scene in “Airplane! II” where a man on trial for abusing his ex-wive, and all of the jurors are women nursing babies. The film came out a few years before Batson. Courts have permitted lawyers to strike jurors based on a prospective juror’s age, marital status, disability, or socioeconomic status, but especially since the infection of critical race theory and the destruction of race relations initiated by Barack Obama, the fact that an attorney can’t decide in a particular case that he wants as few blacks/whites/ women men as possible without risking a verdict being overturned or being subjected to a disciplinary complaint is one more way progressives have managed to distort the rule of law.
So, naturally, the American Bar Association, having now become a full member of the Axis of Unethical Conduct, has decided to bolster the Batson decision, which really needs to be ove-turned, For this it relies on its controversial and arguably unconstitutional Model Rule 8.4 (g) (which Ethics Alarms has been discussing for years), which reads,
“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.”
It’s a really bad rule, vague and insidious, which is why only a minority of states have adopted it and why some courts struck it down when their state bars tried. How can any lawyer, or anybody at all, “know” what kind of conduct is going to be found discriminatory today, when, for example, criticizing an incompetent Presidential candidate for sounding like a vaudevillian’s doubletalk routine is likely to be called “racist”? (I’m sorry to keep picking on poor Kamala, but I didn’t nominate her…). But the ABA is now more devoted to the woke overhaul of society than it is law or ethics—see this recent post–so ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 517 was inevitable. The only mystery is what took the ABA so long.
Here’s the gist of it:
Addendum to “The Supreme Court Rules That The President Is In Charge of the Executive Branch, Just Like the Constitution Always Said.”
When I wrote the last post, I could not find a link to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s sole written dissent in the 8-1 SCOTUS decision today to, you know, let the President of the United States run the Executive Branch, which the Constitution says he controls. Well, I finally did find one here, and the dissent is exactly what you would expect if you’ve read her recent hysterical, legally incompetent rants because her party isn’t getting away with its various efforts to cripple the Trump Administration. She is distinctly echoing the primal scream of frustration that the Axis is emitting because its dreams of a Woke paradise are evaporating by the hour.
She wrote in part, “In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground. This case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened. Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”
This is a policy complaint, not a legal one. Remarkably, even the pathetic Justice Sotomayor went along with the majority. The fact that Presidents have sought authority to do what the Constitution makes clear that they already have the power to do does not amend the Constitution. The Court lifted the say because it believed it likely that the President’s reorganization of his own Branch would be found lawful. It’s a good bet, given that the Constitution backs him up and there is no progressive majority on the Court more concerned with blocking Republican policies than following the law.
The coalition of unions and activists that sued to block the cuts said in a statement, “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
Are you sick of this narrative yet? It’s a grave thret to democracy to allow the elected President of the United Sates do what he said he would do if elected. More…
“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”
But it is. Nothing in the document requires Congressional approval for Presidential control of his own Branch. The Founders do not mention “federal workers” at all, and envisioned a government that would not have departments and agencies multiplying like rabbits. Jackson’s tell is the use of her term “wrecking ball.” That’s a political bias without relevance to the law or the Constitution. She is the one advocating an abuse of power, not the majority.
Ethics Observations on President Trump’s White House Cabinet Meeting/Press Conference
1. Well, Biden didn’t have Cabinet meetings at all for the most part, so I hate to complain. But a public Cabinet meeting is not a real Cabinet meeting. True, Trump proved in the epic confrontation with Zelenskyy that the presence of cameras won’t always inhibit him, but still: a true Cabinet meeting must be private and permit candid and open discussion from all involved.
2. This leads to the second problem: because it is a PR exercise and not a real Cabinet meeting, everyone except Trump comes off as scripted. Worse, they all come off as yes-people and sycophants. However, in front of cameras, Trump’s appointees can’t exactly start arguing with each other or the President. That should be obvious, but I’ve already had one Trump-Deranged colleague get on the phone to say, “See? It’s just like Stalin!” That’s the narrative, and all of the obsequious “Yes, under your leadership, Mr. President, the improvement in this area has been remarkable and America is truly great again!” boot-licking supports it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Trump should hire me to train his team to be more convincing and less obsequious.
President Trump: The Kennedy Center, NPR, PBS…Now Fix The Smithsonian, Please
I knew there was a reason I hadn’t been to the Smithsonian Institution for so long. Like so many other crucial institutions the apathy of sane and patriotic American allowed to become leftist propaganda weapons over the last 50 years or so, the Smithsonian, along with most of the major museums across the country, “stress on narratives over artifacts.” That’s a quote from Jonathan Turley in his annoying understated mode.
White House official Lindsey Halligan condemned the new National Museum of American History’s Entertainment Nation exhibit, writing, “American taxpayers should not be funding institutions that undermine our country or promote one-sided, divisive political narratives. The Smithsonian Institution should present history in a way that is accurate, balanced, and consistent with the values that make the United States of America exceptional.”
Gee, ya think?
That Star Wars exhibit above would have prompted me to walk out of the building. Turley comments, “I was one of those who went to the movie when it came out, and I cannot recall anyone thinking, let alone connecting, the film to Nixon or Vietnam.” Nor can I, because nobody thought that, even the most politics-obsessed. Even film reviewers, always mostly left-leaning and desperate to find hidden messages in the most apolitical films, didn’t think Jabba the Hut was meant to suggest Spiro Agnew, or something.
We’ve known this about the Smithsonian for a long time, of course, but just shrugged it off because so many other example of insidious political corruption are worse. The Institution tried to slap a war crimes narrative on the Enola Gay. It left Clarence Thomas out of the National Museum of African-American History because being conservative means that he doesn’t count.
Among the flagrant propagandizing noted by Turley:
- The commentary tied to a 1923 circus poster, reads: “Under the big top, circuses expressed the colonial impulse to claim dominion over the world.” Ah. So those clowns were supposed to be scary…
- The Smithsonian declares “One of the earliest defining traits of entertainment in the United States was extraordinary violence.” You know, because United States BAD. One of the earliest traits of HUMAN entertainment for thousands of years was “extraordinary violence”! That one would have also had me running for the exits. Gladiators? Bull-baiting? Public executions? Grimm’s Fairy Tales???
- The Lone Ranger display states: “The White title character’s relationship with Tonto resembled how the U.S. government imagined itself the world’s Lone Ranger.”
Oh for God’s sake…
Fix this, Mr. President. Fire the administrators and curators, all of them. Start from scratch.
“Can The Princess Treatment Go Too Far?” Answer: No, If Your Ethics Alarms Function…
I heard the term “The Princess Treatment” for the first time last week, then right on cue the New York Times produced a feature called, “Can the ‘Princess Treatment’ Go Too Far? A popular video has prompted discussions about how to treat your significant other, what qualifies as “the bare minimum” and how this all relates to traditional gender roles.” It begins in part,
A husband opening the car door for his wife. A boyfriend surprising his girlfriend with flowers. Remembering her birthday. Tying her shoes. Paying for her nail appointment. Are these normal expectations or examples of the “princess treatment”? A recent slew of popular videos on social media have debated the concept, and what it means for women in relationships…Last week, Courtney Palmer, 37, reignited that discussion with a video that has garnered more than three million views. In it, she describes how princess treatment informs her relationship, including how she will sometimes defer to her husband. “If I am at a restaurant with my husband, I do not talk to the hostess, I do not open any doors and I do not order my own food,” she says in the opening of the nearly six-minute video, which has prompted a wide-ranging discussion about gender roles, restaurant etiquette and relationship expectations…
You can read it all: it’s a stupid debate. Not only with “significant others” but with all women (and, for that matter all men), how I treat them in private and social situations is based on 1) how I would like to be treated, Golden Rule 101, 2) how I have been told or discerned that they would like to be treated, and 3) what I have concluded is basic manners, and ethical societal norms that I believe should be cultivated. Why is this hard? Continue reading
Revisiting “I Don’t Understand This ‘Niggardly Principle’ Story At All…Or Maybe I Do and Am Just Afraid To Accept the Truth”
The Rest of the Story: I’m reposting this essay from almost exactly a year ago because the Free Press has a disturbing update on Holden Hughes (“He Was Falsely Accused of ‘Blackface.’ It Derailed His Life.”), one of the boys whose 2017 selfie was used by an unidentified woke ethics villain to have the children tarred as racists during the George Floyd Freakout in 2020. That ethics villain was an ideological compatriot of my friends who are raving about MAGA and Trump today. That is their “side.”
He’s an adult now, but Holden’s life plans were seriously derailed when the private school he was attending expelled him, not because he really was wearing “blackface” in that photo (he and his friends were smeared with green anti-acne facial masks) but because the woke head of the school believed that appearances mattered more than reality. Last year, a successful law suit by his family against the school ended in a one million dollar verdict for him and another one of the boys. That was just money, however, the damage remained
Everyone should reflect on this cautionary tale (which the mainstream media scrupulously avoided reporting on, and you know why) when the Trump Deranged claim that progressives defend democratic values and deplore ideological bullying. The piece ends,
Last year, shortly after the lawsuit was settled, he started dating a girl he liked. On their second date, he told her about his past and after that, he said, she stopped responding to his texts. He told me that it’s hard to accept that “something completely out of my control kind of inhibits that relationship from going farther.” But he can’t change the past.
“It’s my life, and there’s no avoiding that. It made me who I am today.”
Throughout the entire ordeal of the last five years, Holden told me he would remind himself: “I know who I am. I know my values. I know the real story.” He knows the other story—the one that isn’t true—will continue to haunt him. “I don’t think it’s ever gonna leave me,” he said. But he wanted to speak to me because he believed that putting his story in print, knowing it would be on the internet forever, would be cathartic. For him, it is a chance to finally set the record straight, after trying to hide the lies for so long.
“I am not ashamed of anything that happened,” Holden said. “I have made a lot of mistakes in my life. I make them every single day, but doing an acne face mask in eighth grade was not one of them.”
Here is the post, from May 11, 2024:
Now get this: In 2017, three 14-year-old California teens, two of whom, Holden Hughes and Aaron Hartley, were about to begin attending St. Francis High School, a Catholic private school in Mountain view, were modeling anti-acne medicinal face masks that involved smearing dark green goo on their faces. (One of the boys had severe acne and his friends put the stuff on their own faces in an act of support). The teen who wasn’t headed to the private school snapped a selfie because the boys thought they looked funny. A similar photo taken a day earlier indicated that they had tried white medicinal face masks as well.
A student at St. Francis found the image online and uploaded it to a group chat in June 2020. Not only was the George Floyd Freakout in full eruption, but the photo was circulated on the same day that recent SFHS graduates had posted on Instagram a satirical meme pertaining to Floyd’s demise, so the school was “triggered.” The gloriously woke student who decided to publicize the greenface photo claimed that the teens were using blackface; “another example” of rampant racism at the school, he posted, and urged everyone in the group chat to spread it throughout the school community—you know, to cause as much anger, division and disruption as possible.
I can’t find the name of that charming kid. He’ll probably be Governor of California some day.
Soon after this seed was planted, the Dean of Students at St. Francis Ray called the Hughes’s and Aaron Hartley’s’ parents to ask them if they were aware of the photograph. They explained that the teens had applied green facemasks three years earlier, long before the non-racial Minnesota incident that had no demonstrable racial significance and definitely no relevance to blackface. The parents added that the teens’ use of the acne medication had “neither ill intent nor racist motivation, nor even knowledge of what “blackface” meant.”
“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” CNN—AGAIN—Uses a Disaster to Broadcast Democrat Talking Points
Just as it does with almost every mass shooting, CNN pounced on the opportunity created by the fatal flash-flooding in Texas to weaponize it for the Axis of Unethical Conduct, or which it is a card-carrying member. Partisan propaganda is not the function of ethical journalism, if anyone can even remember what that is now. Nor is lying outright, as CNN does in this passage:
“The NOAA research cuts would come just as human-caused climate change is resulting in more frequent and intense downpours like the ones that led to this tragedy in Texas.”
Nice! CNN states as fact what many scientists and researcher deny. Climate change hysterics keep claiming that weather events like hurricanes are increasing, but so far, their predictions have proven repeatedly and inconveniently wrong. Nor is there evidence of “more frequent downpours” like what just hit Texas: what made that downpour newsworthy and disastrous was that it was so unusual. One freak weather event doesn’t prove anything, but nevermind: CNN’s goal is a political agenda, not informing the public.
Most of the news story tries to blame the disaster on the Trump budget cuts, even though at one point CNN says that the flood warnings were timely. That doesn’t stop it from littering the piece with subheads like “Forecast offices stretched thin,” though their own reporting makes it clear that this is irrelevant to the Texas flooding.
Well, hey, if the spin can know a point or two off Trump’s approval rating in a poll, it’s worth it, right?
____________________
Pointer: Arthur in Maine
Trump Derangement Saturday Note…
Yes, that’s the Fourth of July tweet from poor, deluded Kamala Harris. Since I’ve posted on several examples of Trump Derangement today (the ridiculous Indian bridge is the one exception, but I try to avoid politics, I really do), I feel like Harris’ statement deserves a little attention. Like Ken White, she just assumes everyone sees through the same jaundiced eyes and knows why “things” are really, really terrible, but she doesn’t give any specifics. That strategy is so much safer than saying, “It’s really terrible that we crunched Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities, it’s so horrible that criminal illegal aliens are being deported, it’s just outrageous the news outlets that try to rig our elections and that the universities that discriminate against men, whites, and Jews* are being held to account.’
Unemployment is down, the stock market is up, inflation has slowed, DEI is fading away, sanctuary cities are finally being confronted, and Congress passed a budget. The male swimmer who cheated female swimmers out of records and titles has even been rebuked. What’s “hard,” Kamala? Hard for whom?
And what ideals is she talking about? To repurpose her own infamous indignant quote her, “How dare she?” She represented an administration and led a party that ran roughshod over “American ideals” like no other. A fake President. Criminalizing politics. An appointed Presidential candidate who never faced a primary challenger. Refusal to enforce the nation’s laws. An administration built on demographic bias instead of merit.
The amazing thing is that anyone would care what Kamala Harris says, thinks, or wants at this point. She really seems to think she has a career in politics. She’s like the Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” still issuing challenges and bravado despite having lost his arms and legs.
Just not as funny.
_________________
*Note: Harvard’s alumni magazine this month congratulates the Class of 2025 on its back page, featuring a photo of a white, maybe mixed-race female grad, a Hispanic female grad, and an Asian male, all smiling away.
Unethical Quote of the Week: Lawyer/Pundit Ken “Popehat” White
“The people I despise, and who despise me, believe America’s values and goals are blood, soil, swagger, and an insipid and arrogant conformity. They are the values of bullies and their sycophants. They may prevail. There’s no promise they will not.”
—Libertarian pundit Ken White, in the introduction to his annual retelling of personal July 4th reminiscence.
What happened to Ken White over the last several years or so? Once a frequently-praised, reliable advocate of free speech and responsible analysis, he has slowly morphed into a standard issue “resistance” hack, although better writer than most. As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds might say (and maybe he has), “Ken White morphed into Charles M. Blow so slowly I almost didn’t notice it.”
Ken was the main blogger at the now defunct libertarian blog Popehat. Now he periodically issues his Popehat Report newsletter, which you can subscribe to for free. That’s a good thing, because the most recent edition was the first one in 2025. He also has a podcast, like virtually everyone breathing but me.
Apparently every Fourth of July Ken posts some version of his “Fourth of July story,” a personal reminiscence about an incident he says was “epiphanal and . It describes “a formative experience in my life and in my identity as an American.” It’s a nice story about a naturalization ceremony the judge he was clerking for at the time performed for some aging Filipino veterans. However, White feels compelled to introduce it this year with the same kind of lazy, reflex, Trump-Deranged snark that infests so many of the less erudite post of my Facebook friends these days. A favorite approach of their posts is the “Everything is Terrible” Big Lie (#5), which has been, as I wrote in “The Big Lies of the Resistance,” “has been a veritable mantra of the ‘resistance,’ Democrats, progressives and the mainstream news media from the second Donald Trump had been declared the winner of the 2016 election.” You read this in social media and hear it from all over, the side comments about “the way things are now,” “these difficult times,” and “with what’s going on.” This is how the Trump Deranged signal that they’re not a deplorable: it’s like a secret handshake. If I wanted to have whole days wasted by arguments with people who don’t care about reality, I would ask these TDS sufferers, “What exactly is that supposed to refer to?” Then their answers would make me lose respect for them, because they would be regurgitated talking points, massive hypocrisy, or proof positive of crippling ignorance and gullibility.
Ethics Alarms 