There is an active recall campaign against the radical DA of San Francisco, Chesa Boudin. To his credit, Boudin, while running for office, didn’t make much of a secret about where his sympathies lay. He was with the George Soros “criminals-are-victims” agenda from stem to stern. His problem is that the reality of his tenure apparently is ringing a different bell with San Francisco voters than the high-sounding rhetoric of the campaign. So now, according to the KRON poll, Boudin is in big, big trouble.
Author: Bill Otis
After the unprecedented leak of a draft of a possible SCOTUS decision on the case overruling Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion activists have decided it would be a good idea to flock en masse outside the neighborhood homes of the Justices to make sure they know that, if the “wrong” decision were handed come late June, they would, in Chuck Schmer’s words, “pay the price.”
Gathering in menacing mobs at the homes of Justices has been defended by exactly those people who, for four years, were loudly aghast at the “breaking of norms.” But as it turns out, the mob activity is not merely disgusting but illegal — or at least such is the view of that right-wing rag, the Washington Post. Its article is quoted in part below.
The President today nominated a full slate of attorneys and judges for the US Sentencing Commission. The majority are Democrats, as is the President’s prerogative. I don’t know any of them, but I am familiar with the work on one of them, former US District Judge John Gleeson. Gleeson will be familiar to most readers as the amicus appointed by the district court in the infamous Michael Flynn prosecution, to argue in support of the court’s continuing with the prosecution notwithstanding the Justice Department’s wish to end the case on account of questionable (at best) prosecutorial behavior.
But there is another aspect of Gleeson’s behavior, undertaken while he was on the bench, that calls into question his ethical fitness. I wrote about this before, and regrettably, it is newly relevant today.
The big news in law is, as we all know by now, the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion (per Alito, J.) overruling Roe and Casey. The central holding of the draft is that the Constitution simply has nothing to say about abortion, and therefore that whether and in what ways it should be regulated are matters left to the political process.
CJLF takes no position on abortion, and neither for present purposes do I (a mere guest contributor here in any event). But there is potentially very important news for criminal law in the draft opinion.
One thing opponents of sober law enforcement and sentencing constantly tell us is that they are guided — but we aren’t — by “science” and “evidence-based solutions.” If you follow their views, you’re not merely “compassionate,” but, perhaps more importantly, “smart.” This is why “smart on crime” always turns out, if and when you can decipher all the razzle-dazzle language, to be merely soft on crime, — which of course is the point from the get-go but needs to be hidden.
But dizzy with all their blood-soaked success of late, academia is getting less careful about hiding the pro-criminal nuttiness they try to pass off as “science.” Hence today’s entry.
As liberal programs for less accountability for criminals take root in one city after another — “criminal justice reform” is its intentionally opaque name — criminals have noticed. So have their victims. The quality and safety of urban life cascade downhill, but the most affected remain the common folk, so the political and academic elites can pretend it’s all a big mystery (or just ignore it). But the New York Times, of all things, spills the beans, albeit indirectly and unintentionally.
Many readers will have noticed that, practically everywhere you go, you see “Help Wanted” signs. I’m in my seventies, and at no point have I seen as many as I see now. What’s behind this?
One big answer is tanking labor force participation: More and more people of working age are simply opting not to get a job. This is a curious phenomenon. Although my family was well off, when I reached working age, not getting a job was never even considered an option. The economic analysts at Axios, which has a generally liberal bent, provide one answer about what’s different now. I quote part of its newsletter below.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard argument in Vega v. Tekoh. That case presents the question whether a plaintiff has a civil remedy against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for obtaining a statement in violation of the Constitution, when the statement was later admitted at his trial. In Vega, the statement was obtained from a suspect in custody without having first given him his Miranda warnings. In other words, one pivotal question is whether or not Miranda warnings are required by the Constitution, in particular the Fifth Amendment.
An earlier case, Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) seems to suggest that they are. In fact they aren’t, and for that reason the police officer should win this case.
Mayilyn Mosby is the very progressive State’s Attorney for Baltimore. She was recently indicted by Joe Biden’s Justice Department for a bit of financial razzle-dazzle, and some old-fashioned lying, in connection with her purchase of a luxury apartment in Florida. She has claimed — and I’m not making this up — that the charges are racially motivated.
Still, one must give Ms. Mosby her due. The State’s Attorney position is an elected office, for which she had to campaign (and is campaigning again despite the federal indictment). Campaigns cost money, so contributions are needed. Ms. Mosby reported receiving a contribution from her grandfather, a former police officer. That would be heartening in a way, except for the catch.
As has been widely reported, Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked at her confirmation hearing if she “could provide a definition for the word ’woman.’”
“No, I can’t,” she eventually said. “Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”
What to make of this?