Unethical Quote of the Month: Un-Named California Lawyer

Gail Herriot is Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights since 2007. She is a conservative, so much of the civil rights racket (“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Eric Hoffer) objects to her existence.

Herriot recently posted the following jaw-dropping letter that she received from a member of the California Bar:

Dear Ms. Heriot,
 
This letter serves as a formal cease and desist demand regarding your ongoing, public, and targeted efforts to undermine and harass the Black community and its advocates for equity, in direct violation of state and federal civil rights laws and your ethical obligations as a member of the bar.
 
Your activities—including those publicly associated with the California Foundation for Equal Rights (CFER) (among others) and campaigns explicitly opposing Black-focused equity —constitute racial targeting and harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and applicable state hate crime and anti-discrimination statutes. Such conduct is not protected expression when it rises to the level of coordinated intimidation or bias-based obstruction of legally protected programs. It is particularly egregious that your public campaigns have focused solely on efforts benefiting the Black community, while remaining silent on or even supportive of state and federal allocations to other racial or ethnic groups. 
 
For example: In 2021 and 2022, the State of California directed substantial funding—over $165 million—to AAPI anti-hate initiatives, a commendable effort to address rising hate incidents against Asian Americans.
 
In 2024, the California Legislature authorized over $300 million in support for Holocaust survivors and members of the Jewish community, recognizing their suffering and need for continued support.
 
Despite these allocations, your campaigns have not targeted or criticized these initiatives—only those aimed at repairing centuries of harm done to Black Americans, who remain the most frequent victims of race-based hate crimes nationwide according to federal data. Your selective and racially targeted opposition to Black equity initiatives, combined with your public standing as an attorney, member of a federal civil rights commission and educator, magnifies the discriminatory impact and constitutes a pattern of bias-based harassment under both state and federal law.
 
Accordingly, you are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from any further direct or indirect harassment, public misinformation, or racially targeted advocacy directed toward the Black community or programs designed to support it. Continued actions of this nature may result in:
 
Formal referral to state bar disciplinary authorities for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning bias, harassment, and discrimination; and
 
Referral to appropriate civil rights enforcement agencies for investigation under state and federal hate crime and civil rights statutes.
 
Please provide written confirmation within ten (10) business days that you have received this notice and that you will comply fully with its terms.
 
Warmest Regards,

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Third Candidate

New York City, which has not had a competent mayor since Michael Bloomberg, is about to punch itself in the face and elect Communist, anti-Semitic, charismatic demagogue Zohran Mamdani as its latest fiasco. One aspect of the perfect storm that is about to allow the City That Never Sleeps to fall into an abyss of its own making is that Mamdani is running in a three-way race, which often helps elects a candidate who would lose in a two-person race. Another is that the only viable alternative to Mamdani is disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo, who in addition to killing hundreds of rest home residents by stashing Wuhan virus victims in close proximity to them, whereupon they sickened and died, was a serial sexual harasser. I wouldn’t vote for the guy to be dog-catcher. There is at least a chance, however, that as mayor of New York Cuomo will make a good faith effort to redeem himself and not leave the Big Apple a smoldering pile of broken dreams. With Mamdani’s proposed policies, disaster is a near certainty.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: The Los Angeles Dodgers (Not Really)

Normally this kind of item would be in a potpourri post, but I’m being pulled hither and yon today, so I may be putting up some minor matters piecemeal.

Dodger pitching icon Sandy Koufax was a spectator at all three of the 2025 World Series games at Dodger Stadium last week, including the epic 18 inning Game 3. However, his seating in Game 5 was the object of some controversy. The Dodgers were called out by Mets announcer Howie Rose, among others.

“How does Sandy end up in the second row?” Rose asked on social media. “Maybe those are his permanent, personal seats but Sandy Koufax takes a back seat to no one. Especially at Dodger Stadium.” Others were infuriated that Koufax would rank supposedly lesser seats than celebrity hucksters Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who were also at Game 5 in the seats in front of Sandy.

I like to see American taking the opportunity to denigrate the Renegade Royals: it seemed especially timely given the stupid “No Kings” rallies and L.A.’s position as Trump Derangement Central. Yeah, why not sit the Royals in the bleachers? Behind a pole, maybe! (There are no obstructions in Dodger Stadium.) But the complaint made no sense for many reasons.

  • As even Rose noted, those are Sandy’s regular seats.
  • I speak from experience: at the field box level, the front row is inferior to a few rows higher. Harry and Meghan’s seats were inferior to Sandy’s
  • Magic Johnson, like Koufax an LA sports icon, was in the same row as Koufax—and he’s a part owner of the team.

Still, bashing the Royal Family still feels a lot more American to me than when everyone was salivating over the late Princess Diana. This is progress.

The Sec. of Transportation Tells Kim Kardashian That She’s an Irresponsible Ignorance-Spreading Fool. Good!

In an episode of the reality show “The Kardashians” (My god, is that still on?) Uber Kardashian Kim, the only one of the breed who earned her celebrity (with a sex tape and a huge derriere), told actress Sarah Paulson that she had watched interviews with Buzz Aldrin, who was on the Apollo 11 mission with Neil Armstrong and the second person to walk on the moon, and they convinced her that the moon landing was a government hoax.

“I don’t think we did. I think it was fake,” the Kimster announced. “I’ve seen a few videos on Buzz Aldrin talking about how it didn’t happen. He says it all the time now, in interviews.” Does anyone know what the hell she’s babbling about? The last time I heard about Aldrin in relation to the moonwalk conspiracy theory, he punched a guy in the face for claiming it was true.

Then Kardashian repeated a trope of the ancient conspiracy theory: “There’s no gravity on the moon. Why is the flag blowing?” I view that statement all by itself as signature significance: anyone who says it once is too gullible to be let outside without a keeper, and anyone who says it publicly is an idiot. The “mystery” can be answered by viewing the archived videos or by 3 seconds of googling. Who goes on TV and asserts a non-fact that anyone, including her, can prove false in a trice?

This time, however, big guns were trained on the specific idiot. Sean Duffy, the US Transportation Secretary and acting administrator of NASA, rebutted the whatever-she-is on X. He wrote: “Yes, Kim Kardashian, we’ve been to the moon before … Six times! And even better, NASA Artemis is going back under the leadership of [President Trump]. We won the last space race and we will win this one too.”

Madison, Wis, bloggress Ann Althouse, in one of her “it’s not the topic, it’s the tangents” posts, asks,

“Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory? We’re Americans. We have our conspiracy theories. Keep your government nose out of our business. You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. Why stick your neck out to deny what isn’t true? You’re making it more fun to believe the theory!”

Ann is evoking the “Streisand Effect” with her “You’re only giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.” She’s wrong, maybe even at an Ethics Dunce level. This conspiracy is hardly unknown: there was even a movie about it, and I have encountered moonwalk skeptics periodically ever since the event. “Why is a government official calling out a private citizen who expresses interest in a conspiracy theory?” Because, Ann, celebrities are not “private citizens.” They are public citizens; they make their millions by being famous and by appearing, speaking and misbehaving in public. More Americans by far know who Kim Kardashian is than who know who Sean Duffy is. A disturbing number of Americans, maybe even a majority, believe that being a celebrity (and appearing on TV) indicates virtue, wisdom and intelligence. Celebrity culture helped get Donald Trump elected President. Doesn’t Ann Althouse understand that? Hasn’t she ever heard the rejoinder, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”

Continue reading →

Is Harris Really Going With The Absurd Argument That It Is Easier Being President Than Running For President? [Corrected]

Apparently! Which is a mass insult to everyone since it is, you know, obviously nonsense.

That recent interview with an Australian journalist was just the easiest one for me to find: she has said this over and over. Biden may have babbled like an idiot in his debate with Trump, but it just indicated weariness and lack of stamina that made it mandatory to replace him at the top of the ticket. Otherwise, and Kamala’s fellow DEI beneficiary Karine Jean-Pierre has been claiming one her book tour for a ghost-written hack job nobody in their right mind should want to read, Biden was “sharp as a tack.” Never mind that nobody believes Biden was “sharp as a tack” in 2024 (he has never been sharp as a tack in his life), who could possibly believe that campaigning competently is tougher than leading the nation competently?

I guess this fantasy is comforting to Harris, who was one of the most inept campaigners for the White House ever in a tough field that includes Hillary Clinton, Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, John McCain, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Walter Mondale and more. But isn’t it sufficiently ridiculous on its face that nobody is so gullible as to believe it? Being President, if one intends to do the job, requires astounding stamina: look at President Trump. It’s a killing job, for most of our history, literally. If being tired robs a POTUS of the ability to think with more clarity than your average dementia patient (“We beat Medicare…”), how can such an overwhelmed leader be trusted to answer the proverbial “3 AM phone call”?

Harris’s repeated assertion, apparently market tested by one of the same consultants whom she relied on during her disastrous campaign, is “It isn’t what it is” on crack. She really thinks the public is stupid.

Continue reading →

Let’s Make This Short and Sweet: “Now What?”

The House Oversight Committee has released a damning (but hardly surprising, given what we already knew) report concluding that senior aides to President Joe Biden exercised his Presidential powers without his knowledge or consent, including his signing of executive actions and deciding and directing national policy.

The 90-page report is titled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.” (Might have tried to be a bit more restrained there, partisan-wise…) The report documents how Biden’s inner circle ran the government when he could not, while concealing his cognitive deterioration, strictly staging his appearances and controlling Biden’s decision-making. Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) said the findings raise “constitutional and criminal concerns” about the validity of executive actions taken between 2021 and the end of his term in office.

Yes, that seems like a fair assessment. As is usual in such matters, the Democrats on the committee released the obligatory “this is a partisan witch hunt” rebuttal, but the evidence throughout the report seems beyond reasonable dispute. The evidence does not prove Biden’s staff acted without authority, the Democrats say, because it is always nearly impossible to prove a negative. Right. That’s the best they have?

To save us both time, read the Washington Examiner’s extensive report on the report, here. My considered, measured analysis: Holy crap!

So the question is, “Now what?” At the bare minimum, the Department of Justice must revise its guidance on the use of the autopen on Presidential Executive Orders. A 2005 DOJ memo held that Presidents can use the autopen for official documents, but it wasn’t until President Barack Obama used it to sign legislation in 2011 while he was abroad that the gates were opened for the Biden team’s abuse.

A lot needs to happen in light of this confirmation of our worst fears. I’ll post about that in a follow-up, but reader suggestions are welcome.

You Know, Ethics Alarms Would Stop Posting So Often About The Constant Unethical Assault On Our Elected President If The News Media Would Stop Its Unethical Assault On Our Elected President…

Because I can’t let crap like this pass; I’m sorry, I just can’t.

The headline in the Times says, “Trump Says a Recent M.R.I. Scan Was ‘Perfect,’ and He’d ‘Love’ a Third Term”: President Trump made the comments on the second day of his trip to Asia. The Constitution limits presidents to two terms, but Mr. Trump has suggested he might try to circumvent it.” No, he didn’t say anything of the sort. The President said he was healthy, and that he would “love to do it,” as in a third term. That does not suggest that he would try to circumvent the Constitution. When I say I would love to have Elon Musk’s resources, and I would, it does nor mean that I am tempted to rob him. If I say I would love to spend a night with Sydney Sweeney, it does not mean I am plotting to abduct her.

Continue reading →

Ethics Musings On Dr. Attia’s “60 Minutes” Feature

My major concern is the very beginning of the interview, in which Attia, whose specialty is human longevity, says, “At 75, both men and women fall off a cliff…. At the population level, it’s unmistakable what happens at the age of 75.” The statement has special resonance for me, as my birthday is December 1 (known locally as “Jack Finding His Father Dead in a Chair Day”). I don’t look forward to falling off any cliffs.

To frame the discussion with the threshold question to begin most ethics inquiries, “What’s going on here?”

1. The doctor is irresponsible and lying. He doesn’t say that statistically, there is a definite, measurable decline in human health as a result of aging if one is looking at the human population as a whole. He says “At 75, both men and women fall off a cliff,” which will be heard as “At 75, all men and women fall off a cliff.” That is quite simply not true. It certainly isn’t true for my family, as my mother, father, and grandmother all were lively, productive, engaged and active well into their late 80’s. I just got a Facebook post from Pat Boone showing him training in a gym; he also does a weekly radio show on the Sirius ’50s channel in which he is witty, erudite, funny and except for a little hoarseness, immediately recognizable as the same guy who sang “April Love.” Pat’s 91. My next door neighbors are a decade older than me, and as far as I can see and hear, they are as active and lucid as ever, and I’ve known them for almost 45 years.

Continue reading →

Cowabunga! The Washington Post Supports Trumps Ballroom: Ethical Quote of the Month

“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”

—-The Washington Post editors, in an Editorial not only defending the President’s East Wing overhaul for a long-needed ballroom, but implying that he is a strong leader. 

See! I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says! The Post editorial duplicates the arguments I made here. It’s not a particularly ingenious point of view; it should be obvious to anyone capable of thinking through the orange mist of Trump hate.

Writes the Post: “It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties. The State Dining Room seats 140. The East Room seats about 200. Trump says the ballroom at the center of his 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate 999 guests. The next Democratic president will be happy to have this.”

Now watch Post staffers quit in a huff, and laugh as my Facebook friends proclaim that Armageddon is here. The Comments on the Post are a window into the mental wasteland that D.C. Trump Derangement has wrought. The Washington Post actually gives Donald Trump credit for doing the wise, smart, and necessary thing, and these are the first 10 comments I read:

“As the editorial board compares building a backyard deck to a 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom that somehow makes a case for why my government’s needs it, my mind wanders to the past, where serious people wrote for newspapers.”

“Washington Post editorial board, I am embarrassed for you.”

“Hey, Jeff[Bezos]. We see you. How do Trump’s boots taste?”

“DEAR(?} WP EDITORIAL BOARD: According to your editorial, if Trump wants to tear down the White House and replace it with a replica of Mar a Lago, he could proceed without any safeguards. It’s not about whether a larger ballroom is needed but whether there are any controls. According to your editorial, if Trump doesn’t like the style of the Washington Monument, the Capitol building or the Smithsonian buildings, he could redesign them as he likes.“

“Sorry, it’s not his house. What else needs to be said?”

“Wapo won’t let me post what I’d really like to say here so it’s adios, arrivederci, bye-bye WaPo.”

“So how much money is Bezos contributing to the Golden Calf to build this thing? It will dwarf the original White House, and if Trump says it will be “beautiful,” we know what it will look like — he’s already turned the Oval Office into a pre-revolution French whore-house. How many times in a year will any sane president need a ballroom for 1000 people? Why not just built a football stadium on the lawn?”

“I guess Jeff Bezos is looking for an invite to the dance floor.”

“The Billionaires have spoken through this EB opinion. Why does anyone who has obscene levels of money have to wade through regulations or be denied a modern estate in an historic neighborhood? We billionaires shouldn’t have to wait for anything or ask anyone’s permission. We’re rich. That means we’re smarter than everyone else in the room. You with less than us? Your opinion and your rights don’t matter. We, the richest of the rich, have spoken.”

Once Again, Unethical Tears For A Well-Earned Execution: Boyd v. Hamm

Supreme Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson are in a tight competition for most flagrantly incompetent liberal member of the Supreme Court. Jackson appears to be well ahead, but Sonia let her inner sensitive Latina run wild in her recent emotional dissent in Boyd v. Hamm, in which the Supreme Court turned down the plea of a condemned prisoner to force Alabama to execute him by firing squad rather than by the relatively new method of nitrogen gas asphyxiation. (Sotomayor’s lame dissent was joined by her two Democratic, reflex-Left wing colleagues because they are nice.)

Some salient facts: Anthony Boyd was convicted of murder in the first degree because he and two drug-dealing comrades killed another drug dealer by binding him and setting him on fire. I’d say Boyd was ethically estopped from complaining that his own execution method was “cruel and unusual,” but he did, even though he had earlier been given a choice between death by firing squad and death by nitrogen, and picked the latter. This is more consideration than his victim was given; at least nothing in the trial transcript indicates that the victim was offered a choice between being roasted alive or having his head bashed in with a rock.

Sonia, however, want us all to feel horror that Boyd, who was executed after his last-ditch appeal to SCOTUS failed, suffered pain in the process of dying. “Take out your phone, go to the clock app, and find the stopwatch,” Sotomayor opens her October 23 dissent. “Click start. Now watch the seconds as they climb. Three seconds come and go in a blink. At the thirty second mark, your mind starts to wander. One minute passes, and you begin to think that this is taking a long time. Two . . . three . . . . The clock ticks on. Then, finally, you make it to four minutes. Hit stop.”

Wow. That’s some impressive legal argument.

My dissent from the dissent: I don’t care, and nobody should. The endless obstacles bleeding heart judges and ethically-confused death penalty activists have thrown in the way of our society’s obligation to set and enforce standards of conduct are destructive and costly. Boyd had a choice, and may have chosen the nitrogen method specifically so his lawyers could use it to stall the arrival of his day of reckoning. The murder he was convicted of committing was particularly heinous and cruel: I might be persuaded to endorse a system in which convicted murderers are executed in the same manner as their victims. But for such an individual to beg for a less “cruel” form of punishment is Death Row chutzpah. Yet Sotomayor fell for it.

Continue reading →