Author: Bill Otis

The Abortion Case and Criminal Law

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.

Continue reading . . .

Defense-Oriented Academia Goes Over the Cliff

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.

Continue reading . . .

Can You Spot the Commonality?

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.

Continue reading . . .

The Economic Impact of Drug Use

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.

Continue reading . . .

The Correct Outcome in Vega v. Tekoh

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.

Continue reading . . .

At Least Progressive Prosecutors Have Strong Family Support

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.

Continue reading . . .

What’s a Woman?

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?

Continue reading . . .

Jussie Smollett, Lying to the Very End

CNN has this story about today’s sentencing of actor Jussie Smollett.  He was given 30 months of felony probation, ordered to pay restitution of more than $120,000 and a $25,000 fine and spend 150 days in jail for making false reports to police that he was the victim of a hate crime in January 2019.  In fact, Smollett himself hired two men he knew to stage the “attack” so that he could go on the now routine diatribe about how Amerika is a racist and homophobic cesspool.  One might think he was trying out for a spot in the administration of an Ivy League college.

Mr. Smollett’s performance today did not disappoint.

Continue reading . . .

The Diversity Scam

It’s not news at this point that President Biden preemptively determined that he would exclude close to 95% of the population in looking for his first Supreme Court nominee, and restrict the search solely to black women.  Excluding almost everyone in advance is a remarkably stupid way to go about making critical SCOTUS appointments, as three quarters of the electorate took little to time figure out.  The excuse being given for the blanket exclusion of black men, white men, white women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and anyone else you can think of is  —  ready now?  —  diversity.

That this is preposterous on its face is not the point I want to make, since that’s too obvious to be posting about.  Instead, the point worth noting is that, according to one quite prominent leader in Washington, DC, it’s not really about diversity at all.

Continue reading . . .

Mike Pence Stands Up for the Rule of Law in Federalist Society Speech

Like most Vice Presidents, Mike Pence was loyal to his superior while in office.  Of late, former President Trump and some of his more extreme allies have been touting the notion, hatched a bit more than a year ago, that Pence should have either refused to count the electoral votes that put Joe Biden in the White House, or have simply “counted” them in a way where Trump would have come out ahead.  Whether or not one views the last Presidential election as having had its episodes of fraud (what national election hasn’t to some degree?), there is no reasonable way to view that stance as consistent with the rule of law, or as anything but a dangerous deviation of how we do things in this country.

Today, speaking at the Federalist Society, Mike Pence gave his answer.  The Washington Post has the story.

Continue reading . . .