by Diane Klein
I first became interested in transgender issues more than two decades ago, as an academic feminist, and then, when I began studying law, as an aspect of gender and legal theory and a pressing civil rights cause. One afternoon during law school, my Feminist Legal Theory seminar at UCLA met outdoors, in the courtyard the law school shares with the philosophy department. As I and other law students opined condescendingly about Title VII and trans issues, Talia Mae Bettcher, then a grad student in philosophy, tapped me on the shoulder and quite literally gave me my comeuppance. A decade or so later, with every self-styled legal feminist using trans people and the legal issues they raise (and face) as metaphors and thought experiments for every other gender-related issue under the sun, Dean Spade did so again, powerfully cautioning those of us who imagine we are progressives and allies to refrain from the production of scholarship for our own advancement that only exploits and misuses the community it purports to serve.
This week's trans issue is trans military inclusion, thanks to Trump's tweets purporting to ban transgender service people yesterday. Although the Joint Chiefs apparently intend to ignore the Cheeto-in-Chief, and the tweets are of dubious legality, they naturally ignited a social media firestorm, among trans people and their allies.
So this is a moment when allyship (for me) means leveraging my privilege to amplify trans voices (instead of putting my own two cents in). Dean Spade, Elijah Edelman, Maria Carmen Hinayon, and Soma Navidson all offer critiques of U.S. militarism and imperialism that shed a different light on the conversation about trans military service.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Magic Mitch McConnell's Skinny Mirror
by Michael Dorf
In an episode of Seinfeld, Elaine buys a dress that looks good on her in the store, only to find that when she tries it on at home, it is unflattering. Outraged, she concludes that the store's dressing room was outfitted with "skinny mirrors." The episode seems an apt metaphor for the bit of theater that transpired in the Senate late last week. Say what you will about Mitch McConnell's appalling record; the man is a master magician. His so-called "skinny repeal" bill was a deeply layered trick. We may never know whether its narrow defeat at the hands of a battered-but-not-beaten John McCain was itself part of the illusion. I suspect not, but focusing too much attention on McCain simply legitimates McConnell's legislative legerdemain.
In an episode of Seinfeld, Elaine buys a dress that looks good on her in the store, only to find that when she tries it on at home, it is unflattering. Outraged, she concludes that the store's dressing room was outfitted with "skinny mirrors." The episode seems an apt metaphor for the bit of theater that transpired in the Senate late last week. Say what you will about Mitch McConnell's appalling record; the man is a master magician. His so-called "skinny repeal" bill was a deeply layered trick. We may never know whether its narrow defeat at the hands of a battered-but-not-beaten John McCain was itself part of the illusion. I suspect not, but focusing too much attention on McCain simply legitimates McConnell's legislative legerdemain.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
A Former Student (Now Professor) Remembers Robert Ferguson
[Editor's Note: My remembrance of my late colleague Robert Ferguson prompted Ori Herstein to recall Robert from his vantage. Ori's memorial follows.]
For Robert A. Ferguson (1942-2017)
It was from a letter that I came to form my first impressions of Robert Ferguson. Robert was writing to welcome Columbia Law School’s 2004 incoming class of doctoral students. In time, he became a mentor to us all. Looking back, much of what I came to admire in the man was evident in this first of many correspondences that we would exchange over the following thirteen years. For Robert, self-regard and regard for those around him were like two sides of the same sheet of paper. Which is why if he were writing to welcome his new students, he would compose an actual letter not an email. And he would print it on posh formal stationary. And take the time to individually address and hand sign all twelve of them. Robert’s letter was of course well-fashioned, striking a balance between setting expectations and conveying warmth; between giving respect and garnering it. A literary connoisseur and devotee of the English language, for him these letters served as the first opportunity of many to instill in his students his reverence for the Sisyphean craft of writing. I still have that letter. And I still remember how it sparked my anticipation for the hard work to come and how it made me feel bigger, welcome, and that I belonged.
Friday, July 28, 2017
Why McCain Might Not Really Have Been a Hero on the Health Care Bill
by Neil H. Buchanan
The Republicans have reached what we can only hope is truly and finally the end of the road for their obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act. The process was indescribably insane, especially in the last week or so, with a series of bizarre show votes that ultimately led to the Republicans' defeat.
Maybe it really is over, but we thought the same thing two weeks ago, only to watch things become even weirder. Nothing would surprise me at this point. We might never hear about health care legislation again, or we could within days or even minutes discover that the game is back on.
In any event, the key vote in that please-let-it-be-final showdown was cast by Senator John McCain. Is that vote proof that, at long last, he truly is the principled maverick that he has long portrayed himself to be? Perhaps, but I think that there is a better, more cynical explanation. But first, we need to figure out what McCain's colleagues were thinking during this never-ending farce.
The Republicans have reached what we can only hope is truly and finally the end of the road for their obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act. The process was indescribably insane, especially in the last week or so, with a series of bizarre show votes that ultimately led to the Republicans' defeat.
Maybe it really is over, but we thought the same thing two weeks ago, only to watch things become even weirder. Nothing would surprise me at this point. We might never hear about health care legislation again, or we could within days or even minutes discover that the game is back on.
In any event, the key vote in that please-let-it-be-final showdown was cast by Senator John McCain. Is that vote proof that, at long last, he truly is the principled maverick that he has long portrayed himself to be? Perhaps, but I think that there is a better, more cynical explanation. But first, we need to figure out what McCain's colleagues were thinking during this never-ending farce.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Senatorial Incapacity Or, Why John McCain Should Not Be Casting Votes
by Diane Klein
On May 30, 2017, my 77-year-old father died, of an aggressive adenocarcinoma that began in the pancreas and metastasized to, among other places, his brain. His cancer was diagnosed March 19, 2017, and he underwent brain surgery on March 29, 2017, to remove a tumor the size of walnut (or a golf ball - it's all foods and athletic equipment with these things) from between his frontal lobes. The craniotomy and brain surgery were a "success" - he healed more or less without incident, and when he died, you could hardly see the scar.
Why do I mention this? Two reasons. First, it allows me to be critical of a terminal brain cancer patient like John McCain without seeming callous. (Though not quite as critical as this guy.) But second, although my father's cancer was of a different kind than McCain's, my interaction with him gave me an up-close look at a smart, strong, but sick and elderly man laboring under a brain disorder of whose cognitive consequences he seemed not entirely aware. And it gave me a chance to witness the dynamic by which the patient and those closest to him conspire so that everything can feel like things are still normal.
That the loved ones of a dying man want desperately to believe that he is or will be "fine," and ignore evidence to the contrary for as long as they can, is sad but natural and understandable. That the Senate Republicans (and, it seems, many Democrats) are willing to do the same, for political ends - for Republican healthcare legislation, no less!, is simply ghastly. McCain should have stepped down upon receiving this diagnosis and anointed a successor. He is not fit to serve, or to vote in his representative capacity - no matter how useful Republicans may find him.
On May 30, 2017, my 77-year-old father died, of an aggressive adenocarcinoma that began in the pancreas and metastasized to, among other places, his brain. His cancer was diagnosed March 19, 2017, and he underwent brain surgery on March 29, 2017, to remove a tumor the size of walnut (or a golf ball - it's all foods and athletic equipment with these things) from between his frontal lobes. The craniotomy and brain surgery were a "success" - he healed more or less without incident, and when he died, you could hardly see the scar.
Why do I mention this? Two reasons. First, it allows me to be critical of a terminal brain cancer patient like John McCain without seeming callous. (Though not quite as critical as this guy.) But second, although my father's cancer was of a different kind than McCain's, my interaction with him gave me an up-close look at a smart, strong, but sick and elderly man laboring under a brain disorder of whose cognitive consequences he seemed not entirely aware. And it gave me a chance to witness the dynamic by which the patient and those closest to him conspire so that everything can feel like things are still normal.
That the loved ones of a dying man want desperately to believe that he is or will be "fine," and ignore evidence to the contrary for as long as they can, is sad but natural and understandable. That the Senate Republicans (and, it seems, many Democrats) are willing to do the same, for political ends - for Republican healthcare legislation, no less!, is simply ghastly. McCain should have stepped down upon receiving this diagnosis and anointed a successor. He is not fit to serve, or to vote in his representative capacity - no matter how useful Republicans may find him.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
The Long Path to Universal Coverage
by Michael Dorf
The legislative free-for-all currently unfolding in the Senate will test the proposition that it is impossible for a small-d democratic government to repeal a major entitlement program. Conservatives who opposed the Affordable Care Act fought so hard to block it in the courts before it went into effect and then before it became too entrenched because they believed--as did progressives who defended the ACA--that what psychologists call the endowment effect would protect the ACA. The endowment effect makes people value something they already have more highly than something they don't. That psychology certainly operates among the public, with polls showing that there is much greater support for retaining the ACA than for any of the GOP proposals to repeal or repeal-and-replace.
If Congress nonetheless manages to repeal or, more likely, weaken, the ACA, that will not be a refutation of the existence of the endowment effect. It will merely be a demonstration of the undemocratic features of our national government--especially the grossly disproportionate representation given to small states in the Senate and gerrymandering in the House. Even then, passage of an unpopular repeal (skinny or otherwise) or repeal-and-replace would not necessarily stand as a condemnation of American democracy unless and until Republican Senators and House members fail to pay a price at the polls.
Meanwhile, however, most of the attention currently being paid to the congressional drama overlooks the endowment effect in reverse. When asked whether it is a good idea to strip 22 or 23 million people of their health insurance, most Americans have the good sense to say no. The unasked question is whether it is also a good idea not to provide health insurance to the 26 million Americans who still lack it.
The legislative free-for-all currently unfolding in the Senate will test the proposition that it is impossible for a small-d democratic government to repeal a major entitlement program. Conservatives who opposed the Affordable Care Act fought so hard to block it in the courts before it went into effect and then before it became too entrenched because they believed--as did progressives who defended the ACA--that what psychologists call the endowment effect would protect the ACA. The endowment effect makes people value something they already have more highly than something they don't. That psychology certainly operates among the public, with polls showing that there is much greater support for retaining the ACA than for any of the GOP proposals to repeal or repeal-and-replace.
If Congress nonetheless manages to repeal or, more likely, weaken, the ACA, that will not be a refutation of the existence of the endowment effect. It will merely be a demonstration of the undemocratic features of our national government--especially the grossly disproportionate representation given to small states in the Senate and gerrymandering in the House. Even then, passage of an unpopular repeal (skinny or otherwise) or repeal-and-replace would not necessarily stand as a condemnation of American democracy unless and until Republican Senators and House members fail to pay a price at the polls.
Meanwhile, however, most of the attention currently being paid to the congressional drama overlooks the endowment effect in reverse. When asked whether it is a good idea to strip 22 or 23 million people of their health insurance, most Americans have the good sense to say no. The unasked question is whether it is also a good idea not to provide health insurance to the 26 million Americans who still lack it.
Can Lawyers Ameliorate the Trumpian Threat?
by Michael Dorf
My latest Verdict column takes issue with the tendency of the punditocracy to call every political issue with constitutional overtones a "constitutional crisis." I adopt and build a little on the typology of crises set forth in an insightful 2009 University of Pennsylvania Law Review article by Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin. I conclude that the possibility of a presidential self-pardon--while despicable--would not plunge us into a constitutional crisis, because our existing institutions could readily resolve the legal question whether a president has the power to issue himself a valid pardon.
Of course, the particular institution that would ultimately resolve the question concerning self-pardons is the U.S. Supreme Court--either by deciding itself or denying review from a decision by a lower court. I don't mean to say that the courts will save us from Trump more generally. In the column I point to genuine constitutional crises that Trump may be spawning and which the courts will not be well positioned to block. Just what role law and the courts will play in reining in Trump is perhaps the most important question for persons with legal training who see Trump as an existential threat to liberal democracy.
My latest Verdict column takes issue with the tendency of the punditocracy to call every political issue with constitutional overtones a "constitutional crisis." I adopt and build a little on the typology of crises set forth in an insightful 2009 University of Pennsylvania Law Review article by Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin. I conclude that the possibility of a presidential self-pardon--while despicable--would not plunge us into a constitutional crisis, because our existing institutions could readily resolve the legal question whether a president has the power to issue himself a valid pardon.
Of course, the particular institution that would ultimately resolve the question concerning self-pardons is the U.S. Supreme Court--either by deciding itself or denying review from a decision by a lower court. I don't mean to say that the courts will save us from Trump more generally. In the column I point to genuine constitutional crises that Trump may be spawning and which the courts will not be well positioned to block. Just what role law and the courts will play in reining in Trump is perhaps the most important question for persons with legal training who see Trump as an existential threat to liberal democracy.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Veganism, Year Nine: Why Do Hipsters Mock Vegans?
by Neil H. Buchanan
In July 2008, I became a vegan. Every year since then, I have celebrated my "veganniversary" by writing a column specifically on the subject of veganism. Here are links to previous years' columns: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and my two original posts from 2008 (here and here).
Because Professors Colb and Dorf have covered the scholarly aspects of ethical veganism so well -- most importantly with their masterful 2016 book Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights -- I have generally (not always, but usually) used my posts to focus on the day-to-day experiences of being a vegan, in particular analyzing the way that vegans are treated and portrayed in popular culture.
Today, I will focus on the way that hipsters treat vegans. Why hipsters? The simple fact is that they are the group that is most comfortable with veganism, in part because there are so many hipster vegans.
In July 2008, I became a vegan. Every year since then, I have celebrated my "veganniversary" by writing a column specifically on the subject of veganism. Here are links to previous years' columns: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and my two original posts from 2008 (here and here).
Because Professors Colb and Dorf have covered the scholarly aspects of ethical veganism so well -- most importantly with their masterful 2016 book Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights -- I have generally (not always, but usually) used my posts to focus on the day-to-day experiences of being a vegan, in particular analyzing the way that vegans are treated and portrayed in popular culture.
Today, I will focus on the way that hipsters treat vegans. Why hipsters? The simple fact is that they are the group that is most comfortable with veganism, in part because there are so many hipster vegans.
Monday, July 24, 2017
The Politics of Mean
By Eric Segall
The President of the United States is one of the few democratically elected leaders in the world who is both the administrative leader of the government and the symbolic head of the Country. In many nations, these roles are divided between a President and a Prime Minister or even a Prime Minister and royalty with no official governmental responsibilities. This dual capacity of our Chief Executive makes it imperative that the President carry out his duties with class and character because his behavior has a role-model quality that affects not just our youth but our entire national character. This is why I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned the Presidency after we found out that he lied under oath about having sexual relations with a White House intern. His basic defense, that having oral intimacy is not “having sex,” I believe, had negative consequences for a generation of young Americans, and his obvious lying and truth-cutting was not the kind of behavior we want from an American President.
The President of the United States is one of the few democratically elected leaders in the world who is both the administrative leader of the government and the symbolic head of the Country. In many nations, these roles are divided between a President and a Prime Minister or even a Prime Minister and royalty with no official governmental responsibilities. This dual capacity of our Chief Executive makes it imperative that the President carry out his duties with class and character because his behavior has a role-model quality that affects not just our youth but our entire national character. This is why I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned the Presidency after we found out that he lied under oath about having sexual relations with a White House intern. His basic defense, that having oral intimacy is not “having sex,” I believe, had negative consequences for a generation of young Americans, and his obvious lying and truth-cutting was not the kind of behavior we want from an American President.
The hallmark of President
Trump’s Presidency, so far, is the politics of mean. Trump’s behavior strongly
suggests that it is okay to respond to the professional with the personal. Over
the last couple of days, Trump used Twitter to repeat his campaign nickname for the former
Senator from New York, Secretary of State, and First Lady, “Crooked Hilary.” He
also called congressman Adam Schiff “sleazy.” Of course, these insults are just
the tip of the iceberg.
Note to President Trump: You Already Own It
by Michael Dorf
(cross-posted on Take Care with some minor updates here)
Last week, as the latest Senate GOP effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) failed, President Trump voiced support for simply repealing the ACA, with a replacement to come later. When that Plan B (which had originally been Sen. Mitch McConnell's choice for Plan A) failed a few hours later, the president quickly moved on to Plan C: "We'll just let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it."
Although the very next day the mercurial president attempted to strong-arm GOP Senators into making another push for Plan A, that approach looks likely to fail, even if Plans A and B make it to a floor vote this week. Thus, for the near term it looks like Trump will be following his Trotskyite the-worse-the-better Plan C. While a clear violation of his oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not to mention immoral, there is a question whether it will work as a political matter. Is Trump right that by "letting" (about which more below) Obamacare fail, the GOP won't own that failure?
As the president himself might say . . . WRONG! Announcing that you are going to let Obamacare fail means that you own it. Or at least it should.
(cross-posted on Take Care with some minor updates here)
Last week, as the latest Senate GOP effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) failed, President Trump voiced support for simply repealing the ACA, with a replacement to come later. When that Plan B (which had originally been Sen. Mitch McConnell's choice for Plan A) failed a few hours later, the president quickly moved on to Plan C: "We'll just let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it."
Although the very next day the mercurial president attempted to strong-arm GOP Senators into making another push for Plan A, that approach looks likely to fail, even if Plans A and B make it to a floor vote this week. Thus, for the near term it looks like Trump will be following his Trotskyite the-worse-the-better Plan C. While a clear violation of his oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not to mention immoral, there is a question whether it will work as a political matter. Is Trump right that by "letting" (about which more below) Obamacare fail, the GOP won't own that failure?
As the president himself might say . . . WRONG! Announcing that you are going to let Obamacare fail means that you own it. Or at least it should.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
Christopher Nolan, the Trump of Dunkirk, Misses the Boat
By Diane Klein
In "Dunkirk," Christopher Nolan (of "Interstellar" and "Dark Knight" fame) has given us a war movie only Donald Trump could love. Full of bombast and spectacle, it is ignorant of history, devoid of nuance, frequently unintelligible, and ineloquent. It is a movie by, for, about, and starring handsome Anglophone White men, and reflects a view of history in which only their lives matter.
The film's subject is the evacuation from Dunkirk in Northern France, of more than 300,000 Allied troops, mostly the British Expeditionary Force but also French, Belgians, and others. The evacuation occurred between May 26 and June 4, 1940 - but the film takes place in what critic David Edelstein calls "Nolan time" - "cutting among several locations in several timelines." However effective this may have been in "Memento," here, it serves mostly to confuse and distract. Nolan's film doesn't tell us what year it is, much less what day - but perhaps that is because he can't.
In "Dunkirk," Christopher Nolan (of "Interstellar" and "Dark Knight" fame) has given us a war movie only Donald Trump could love. Full of bombast and spectacle, it is ignorant of history, devoid of nuance, frequently unintelligible, and ineloquent. It is a movie by, for, about, and starring handsome Anglophone White men, and reflects a view of history in which only their lives matter.
The film's subject is the evacuation from Dunkirk in Northern France, of more than 300,000 Allied troops, mostly the British Expeditionary Force but also French, Belgians, and others. The evacuation occurred between May 26 and June 4, 1940 - but the film takes place in what critic David Edelstein calls "Nolan time" - "cutting among several locations in several timelines." However effective this may have been in "Memento," here, it serves mostly to confuse and distract. Nolan's film doesn't tell us what year it is, much less what day - but perhaps that is because he can't.
Friday, July 21, 2017
The Prime Directive Is to Protect the Rule of Law
by Neil H. Buchanan
The transcript of Donald Trump's recent interview with the editors of The New York Times could simply be titled: "The Case for Dictatorship: A Child-Like Narcissist's Guide to Destroying America." As soon as Trump started talking, he revealed for the umpteenth time that he is unwilling or unable to understand the limits on the president's power.
And now we learn that Trump has his minions investigating imaginary conflicts of interest that they can use as "leverage" against Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of investigators. Trump even has his people talking about abusing the pardon power, including the possibility of pardoning himself. He is, at long last, truly Nixonian: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Trump clearly believes that ethics rules are for suckers and non-presidents, and his claim that his toady of an attorney general, Jefferson Sessions, was "very unfair" for recusing himself from the Russia investigation tells us all we need to know about Trump's version of accountability.
Trump even attacked his own deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein -- who has probably done more than anyone else to destroy his reputation by working for Trump -- because Rosenstein is from Baltimore. Why is that a problem, in Trump's addled mind? "There are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any." As the kids say: WTF?!
The transcript of Donald Trump's recent interview with the editors of The New York Times could simply be titled: "The Case for Dictatorship: A Child-Like Narcissist's Guide to Destroying America." As soon as Trump started talking, he revealed for the umpteenth time that he is unwilling or unable to understand the limits on the president's power.
And now we learn that Trump has his minions investigating imaginary conflicts of interest that they can use as "leverage" against Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of investigators. Trump even has his people talking about abusing the pardon power, including the possibility of pardoning himself. He is, at long last, truly Nixonian: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Trump clearly believes that ethics rules are for suckers and non-presidents, and his claim that his toady of an attorney general, Jefferson Sessions, was "very unfair" for recusing himself from the Russia investigation tells us all we need to know about Trump's version of accountability.
Trump even attacked his own deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein -- who has probably done more than anyone else to destroy his reputation by working for Trump -- because Rosenstein is from Baltimore. Why is that a problem, in Trump's addled mind? "There are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any." As the kids say: WTF?!
Thursday, July 20, 2017
2017: Now Officially The Summer My Professional Responsibility Exam Questions Wrote Themselves
By Diane Klein
On July 17, 2017, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC featured a segment about the latest allegations of financial wrongdoing involving Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's second campaign manager and attendee at the now-notorious Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
As part of that story, Maddow mentioned that Manafort is represented by Reginald Brown, a partner at Washington, D.C.-based megafirm WilmerHale. Manafort hired him back on March 24, 2017.
For those who don't know, the law firm with the name that sounds like hipster beer is the result of a 2004 merger between Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, and Boston-based Hale and Dorr. It employs more than 1000 lawyers, 400 of them in D.C., the others spread over eleven more offices. And virtually every lawyer associated with the Trump-Russia scandal is connected to it.
On July 17, 2017, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC featured a segment about the latest allegations of financial wrongdoing involving Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's second campaign manager and attendee at the now-notorious Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
As part of that story, Maddow mentioned that Manafort is represented by Reginald Brown, a partner at Washington, D.C.-based megafirm WilmerHale. Manafort hired him back on March 24, 2017.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
What's Wrong With Shotgun Weddings?
by Sherry F. Colb
My column for this week discusses the current state of California law, under which there is no minimum age requirement for marriage. There is a bill under consideration that would modify the law somewhat, but it has been amended to remove the age of 18 requirement and thus only adds some oversight in family court to prevent coercion. As I discuss in my column, the California statutory rape law, which requires that a person be 18 to consent to sex, suggests that sex with minors is inherently coercive and therefore not properly subject to oversight rather than outright prohibition.
In this post, I want to discuss one of the reasons that people cite for permitting children to get married, with parental (and court) permission: an unplanned pregnancy.
My column for this week discusses the current state of California law, under which there is no minimum age requirement for marriage. There is a bill under consideration that would modify the law somewhat, but it has been amended to remove the age of 18 requirement and thus only adds some oversight in family court to prevent coercion. As I discuss in my column, the California statutory rape law, which requires that a person be 18 to consent to sex, suggests that sex with minors is inherently coercive and therefore not properly subject to oversight rather than outright prohibition.
In this post, I want to discuss one of the reasons that people cite for permitting children to get married, with parental (and court) permission: an unplanned pregnancy.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Freedom Apparently Means Whatever Republicans Need It to Mean
by Neil H. Buchanan
The Republicans' ongoing effort to take away health care coverage from tens of millions of people is probably only on hold. In any event, their attempt to pass the Trump-McConnell bill has just "collapsed," because Senators Jerry Moran and Mike Lee have joined Rand Paul and Susan Collins in publicly opposing the bill.
That is a very good thing, of course, and I should take a moment to applaud Senator Collins, whom I have bluntly criticized many times over the last few years. On this bill, hers was a public position that actually mattered, not a "free vote" or a statement of "concern" that then was not backed up by action. Because the bill was unconscionable, she took a public stand against it. I hope that she stands up like this again in the future, on health care and other issues.
Unfortunately, the other three Republican opponents of the bill -- Paul, Moran, and Lee -- did so because the bill was not harsh enough. Apparently, Senator Ted Cruz's add-on to the bill, which saw him explicitly choosing full public funding for some health care recipients in order to give insurers the "freedom" to offer junk insurance policies to others, was too government-y for Paul and the others.
All of which means that Republicans' efforts to take away health care from vulnerable people is currently in limbo only because one of them was appalled enough to say no while three said, "Can't we make this even worse?" Who knows how many Senate Republicans will sign onto something that the hardliners could support?
But there is another aspect of the Trump-McConnell bill that is worth considering, which is the Republicans' strategy to replace the dreaded "mandate" to buy health insurance. It turns out that people's freedom to contract is sacrosanct to Republicans, unless that freedom must be sacrificed in order to destroy Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Republicans' ongoing effort to take away health care coverage from tens of millions of people is probably only on hold. In any event, their attempt to pass the Trump-McConnell bill has just "collapsed," because Senators Jerry Moran and Mike Lee have joined Rand Paul and Susan Collins in publicly opposing the bill.
That is a very good thing, of course, and I should take a moment to applaud Senator Collins, whom I have bluntly criticized many times over the last few years. On this bill, hers was a public position that actually mattered, not a "free vote" or a statement of "concern" that then was not backed up by action. Because the bill was unconscionable, she took a public stand against it. I hope that she stands up like this again in the future, on health care and other issues.
Unfortunately, the other three Republican opponents of the bill -- Paul, Moran, and Lee -- did so because the bill was not harsh enough. Apparently, Senator Ted Cruz's add-on to the bill, which saw him explicitly choosing full public funding for some health care recipients in order to give insurers the "freedom" to offer junk insurance policies to others, was too government-y for Paul and the others.
All of which means that Republicans' efforts to take away health care from vulnerable people is currently in limbo only because one of them was appalled enough to say no while three said, "Can't we make this even worse?" Who knows how many Senate Republicans will sign onto something that the hardliners could support?
But there is another aspect of the Trump-McConnell bill that is worth considering, which is the Republicans' strategy to replace the dreaded "mandate" to buy health insurance. It turns out that people's freedom to contract is sacrosanct to Republicans, unless that freedom must be sacrificed in order to destroy Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Monday, July 17, 2017
Justice Gorsuch and Foolish Formalism
By Eric Segall
Last week, Professor
John McGinnis wrote an essay
at the Law & Liberty Blog praising Justice Gorsuch for his commitment to a “formal
conception of law.” While others have criticized Gorsuch for his aggressive
questioning and decision-writing so early in his SCOTUS career, McGinnis
defended Gorsuch, arguing that his confidence stems from Gorsuch’s view that a “lawful
judge should render judgment on the basis of his best judgment about the
meaning of statutory and constitutional provisions that are put before him or
her and candidly set out the reasoning in support, regardless of the political
consequences and regardless of what others think.” According to McGinnis, being a Supreme Court Justice for a formalist is "no different from being any other kind of judge.” Because Gorsuch is an “experienced judge” who
believes in formalism, he “was able to act forcefully from day one on the
Supreme Court.”
Professor McGinnis is a
respected scholar. His views on originalism, in a book he wrote with Professor
Michael Rappaport, are interesting, provocative, and need to be taken seriously
(which I do in my forthcoming book). But this praising of Justice Gorsuch, and
his commitment to formalism, is both unpersuasive and dangerous.
Friday, July 14, 2017
This Is What One-Sided Dishonesty Looks Like
by Neil H. Buchanan
Faced with the historic unpopularity of his health care bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded by making it even worse -- or, as the sub-headline to a New York Times editorial put it, Senate Republicans "found a way to make a horrible bill truly hideous."
This is not surprising, I suppose, although McConnell did manage to make it worse than even I cynically predicted earlier this week. The new window dressing is even more minimal than expected. Moreover, he adopted a proposal offered by the much-beloved Senator Ted Cruz, who figured out how to indirectly destroy the highly popular provision in the Affordable Care Act that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
As Donald Trump might put it: mean, mean, mean. My focus here, however, is not on the Republicans' attempt to deny health care to millions of people, as shocking as that is. Instead, I want to put this latest truckload of Republican dishonesty into some context.
Faced with the historic unpopularity of his health care bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded by making it even worse -- or, as the sub-headline to a New York Times editorial put it, Senate Republicans "found a way to make a horrible bill truly hideous."
This is not surprising, I suppose, although McConnell did manage to make it worse than even I cynically predicted earlier this week. The new window dressing is even more minimal than expected. Moreover, he adopted a proposal offered by the much-beloved Senator Ted Cruz, who figured out how to indirectly destroy the highly popular provision in the Affordable Care Act that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
As Donald Trump might put it: mean, mean, mean. My focus here, however, is not on the Republicans' attempt to deny health care to millions of people, as shocking as that is. Instead, I want to put this latest truckload of Republican dishonesty into some context.
Latest Travel Ban Ruling Helps A Lot But Not Enough
by Michael Dorf
Judge Watson just issued an order and opinion granting the plaintiffs' request to enjoin the government's narrow interpretation of the SCOTUS interim ruling in the Travel Ban Litigation. Procedural junkies wondering how, given that just a week ago he denied that he had the authority: The prior motion sought "clarification" of the SCOTUS order; Judge Watson said only SCOTUS could clarify; the Ninth Circuit agreed but helpfully added that Judge Watson could grant specific injunctive relief; that's what he did.
The new order expands the list of relatives and others who count as "bona fide relationships" to include "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States." It also overrules the Trump administration by classifying an approved refugee's relationship with a resettlement agency as bona fide. And the order disposes of the plaintiffs' other requests, granting some and denying others. We can expect an almost immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which I expect, will not disturb the injunction, and if that happens, the DOJ will try to go back to the SCOTUS on an emergency basis. I won't hazard a prediction about whether the Court would disturb this injunction before it reconvenes in October.
Judge Watson just issued an order and opinion granting the plaintiffs' request to enjoin the government's narrow interpretation of the SCOTUS interim ruling in the Travel Ban Litigation. Procedural junkies wondering how, given that just a week ago he denied that he had the authority: The prior motion sought "clarification" of the SCOTUS order; Judge Watson said only SCOTUS could clarify; the Ninth Circuit agreed but helpfully added that Judge Watson could grant specific injunctive relief; that's what he did.
The new order expands the list of relatives and others who count as "bona fide relationships" to include "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States." It also overrules the Trump administration by classifying an approved refugee's relationship with a resettlement agency as bona fide. And the order disposes of the plaintiffs' other requests, granting some and denying others. We can expect an almost immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which I expect, will not disturb the injunction, and if that happens, the DOJ will try to go back to the SCOTUS on an emergency basis. I won't hazard a prediction about whether the Court would disturb this injunction before it reconvenes in October.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Trump Jr. and Citizens United
by Michael Dorf
Despite its title, this is not an essay about whether Donald Trump Jr. violated federal election law by "solicit[ing]" a "thing of value" from "a foreign national" when he eagerly agreed to meet with a Russian lawyer acting on behalf of the Russian government for the purpose of receiving damaging information about Hillary Clinton's supposed Russian ties. I accept both that it is a somewhat unresolved question whether such information constitutes a "thing of value" under the statute and also that there is enough authority for the view that information alone can be a thing of value so that prosecuting Trump Jr. (and Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort) for their meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya knowing what they knew would not constitute such a surprising interpretation of the statute as to violate the so-called rule of lenity (under which ambiguities in a criminal statute are resolved in favor of the defendant).
Nor is this an essay about whether construing federal election law to forbid the receipt of valuable campaign-related information from a foreign government agent--even if it was lawfully gathered, which Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort had no reason to assume Veselnitskaya's proffered information was--can be forbidden consistent with the First Amendment. I agree with Rick Hasen that if there are free speech concerns with some applications of the law under consideration (52 U.S.C. § 30121), the right approach would be either to construe the law so as not to reach such applications or to invalidate the statute as applied, not on its face. Thus, no one should read this essay as a defense of Trump Jr. or anyone else in the Trump campaign.
So what is this essay about? Simply put, I want to suggest that in a perfect world Section 30121 would distinguish between foreign governments involving themselves in U.S. elections and foreign nationals doing so. Unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world because of the Supreme Court.
Despite its title, this is not an essay about whether Donald Trump Jr. violated federal election law by "solicit[ing]" a "thing of value" from "a foreign national" when he eagerly agreed to meet with a Russian lawyer acting on behalf of the Russian government for the purpose of receiving damaging information about Hillary Clinton's supposed Russian ties. I accept both that it is a somewhat unresolved question whether such information constitutes a "thing of value" under the statute and also that there is enough authority for the view that information alone can be a thing of value so that prosecuting Trump Jr. (and Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort) for their meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya knowing what they knew would not constitute such a surprising interpretation of the statute as to violate the so-called rule of lenity (under which ambiguities in a criminal statute are resolved in favor of the defendant).
Nor is this an essay about whether construing federal election law to forbid the receipt of valuable campaign-related information from a foreign government agent--even if it was lawfully gathered, which Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort had no reason to assume Veselnitskaya's proffered information was--can be forbidden consistent with the First Amendment. I agree with Rick Hasen that if there are free speech concerns with some applications of the law under consideration (52 U.S.C. § 30121), the right approach would be either to construe the law so as not to reach such applications or to invalidate the statute as applied, not on its face. Thus, no one should read this essay as a defense of Trump Jr. or anyone else in the Trump campaign.
So what is this essay about? Simply put, I want to suggest that in a perfect world Section 30121 would distinguish between foreign governments involving themselves in U.S. elections and foreign nationals doing so. Unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world because of the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Would Trump's Defense In The Zervos Case Be Stronger If He Had Groped More Women?
by Michael Dorf
My new column on Verdict examines an argument set forth in the memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss that President Trump's lawyers have filed in the Summer Vervos case. Vervos, recall, is a former contestant on The Apprentice who sued Trump in January for defamation based on his calling her a liar. The allegedly defamatory statements were contained in Trump's response to the women who came forward contending that Trump had at one time or another acted towards them in ways much like what he described to Billy Bush on the infamous Access Hollywood recording. Trump repeatedly stated that his accusers were not merely mistaken but that they were liars.
The argument my Verdict column considers is Trump's contention that calling his accusers liars was mere hyperbole and fiery rhetoric that cannot be actionable because, in the context of a heated political campaign, these statements were opinion rather than claims of fact. I conclude that Trump's arguments on this point are weak.
Here I want to address two of Trump's other arguments made in the dismissal brief. First I'll revisit the contention that Clinton v. Jones--which allowed a damages action by a private plaintiff for pre-presidential conduct to go forward against a sitting president--does not apply in state court. Second, I'll consider the contention that Trump cannot be held accountable for defamation because the allegedly defamatory statements do not mention Zervos by name.
My new column on Verdict examines an argument set forth in the memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss that President Trump's lawyers have filed in the Summer Vervos case. Vervos, recall, is a former contestant on The Apprentice who sued Trump in January for defamation based on his calling her a liar. The allegedly defamatory statements were contained in Trump's response to the women who came forward contending that Trump had at one time or another acted towards them in ways much like what he described to Billy Bush on the infamous Access Hollywood recording. Trump repeatedly stated that his accusers were not merely mistaken but that they were liars.
The argument my Verdict column considers is Trump's contention that calling his accusers liars was mere hyperbole and fiery rhetoric that cannot be actionable because, in the context of a heated political campaign, these statements were opinion rather than claims of fact. I conclude that Trump's arguments on this point are weak.
Here I want to address two of Trump's other arguments made in the dismissal brief. First I'll revisit the contention that Clinton v. Jones--which allowed a damages action by a private plaintiff for pre-presidential conduct to go forward against a sitting president--does not apply in state court. Second, I'll consider the contention that Trump cannot be held accountable for defamation because the allegedly defamatory statements do not mention Zervos by name.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Moderate Cruelty in Health Care Reform
by Neil H. Buchanan
Although the news is once again being dominated by the latest bombshells about the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 election, the Senate is again moving toward a possible vote on their deservedly unpopular bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Republicans' ACA repeal effort quite literally means life and death for millions of Americans, and the only question is whether at least 50 out of 52 Senate Republicans will support Mitch McConnell's efforts to score a legislative victory on the backs of poor children, the elderly (most of whom have never been poor in their lives), and the working poor and near-poor people who do not receive health insurance through their jobs.
As I will describe below, defeat of the Trump-McConnell bill will understandably be called a victory for "moderation." Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that even if the bill is killed by three dissenters, that will mean that 49 Republicans and Mike Pence would have been willing to vote for this exercise in cruelty.
Although the news is once again being dominated by the latest bombshells about the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 election, the Senate is again moving toward a possible vote on their deservedly unpopular bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Republicans' ACA repeal effort quite literally means life and death for millions of Americans, and the only question is whether at least 50 out of 52 Senate Republicans will support Mitch McConnell's efforts to score a legislative victory on the backs of poor children, the elderly (most of whom have never been poor in their lives), and the working poor and near-poor people who do not receive health insurance through their jobs.
As I will describe below, defeat of the Trump-McConnell bill will understandably be called a victory for "moderation." Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that even if the bill is killed by three dissenters, that will mean that 49 Republicans and Mike Pence would have been willing to vote for this exercise in cruelty.
Monday, July 10, 2017
A Personal Remembrance of Robert Ferguson
by Michael Dorf
Robert Ferguson died last week. I urge readers who are unfamiliar with Robert and his work to read the official obituary at the Columbia Law School website. It gives a good sense of Robert's place in the academy as a towering interdisciplinary figure in the world of law & literature as well as his fundamental decency as a human being. Here I want to reflect a little on the man I knew and the lessons that we might all learn from the example of his life.
Robert Ferguson died last week. I urge readers who are unfamiliar with Robert and his work to read the official obituary at the Columbia Law School website. It gives a good sense of Robert's place in the academy as a towering interdisciplinary figure in the world of law & literature as well as his fundamental decency as a human being. Here I want to reflect a little on the man I knew and the lessons that we might all learn from the example of his life.
Friday, July 07, 2017
Judge Watson is Either Definitely Wrong or Possibly Wrong
by Michael Dorf
Judge Watson's order declining to grant Hawaii's motion for clarification that "close relatives" includes grandparents (contrary to the executive branch interpretation of the SCOTUS decision in the Travel Ban case) rests on the view that the Supreme Court issued the underlying order, so it is up to the Supreme Court to clarify it. Insofar as Judge Watson meant that he, as a lower court judge, has no business clarifying unclear language by the Supreme Court, that's plainly wrong. Much of what lower court judges do in deciding questions of law is to clarify the meaning of decisions of higher courts. Ilya Somin, writing on the Volokh Conspiracy, is clearly right in criticizing Judge Watson on this point.
However, there is another, better way to read the order by Judge Watson. He is not saying that he lacks power to clarify the SCOTUS language. He is saying instead that while the case is before the Supreme Court, a motion for clarification of a Supreme Court order--as opposed to his own order--should go to the SCOTUS. He could still be wrong about that, and Hawaii has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. But the rules and standards governing what a lower court may do with respect to a case that is on appeal are sufficiently complicated, that his ruling in this regard is not crazy. Possibly wrong, mind you. But not crazy.
Judge Watson's order declining to grant Hawaii's motion for clarification that "close relatives" includes grandparents (contrary to the executive branch interpretation of the SCOTUS decision in the Travel Ban case) rests on the view that the Supreme Court issued the underlying order, so it is up to the Supreme Court to clarify it. Insofar as Judge Watson meant that he, as a lower court judge, has no business clarifying unclear language by the Supreme Court, that's plainly wrong. Much of what lower court judges do in deciding questions of law is to clarify the meaning of decisions of higher courts. Ilya Somin, writing on the Volokh Conspiracy, is clearly right in criticizing Judge Watson on this point.
However, there is another, better way to read the order by Judge Watson. He is not saying that he lacks power to clarify the SCOTUS language. He is saying instead that while the case is before the Supreme Court, a motion for clarification of a Supreme Court order--as opposed to his own order--should go to the SCOTUS. He could still be wrong about that, and Hawaii has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. But the rules and standards governing what a lower court may do with respect to a case that is on appeal are sufficiently complicated, that his ruling in this regard is not crazy. Possibly wrong, mind you. But not crazy.
Thursday, July 06, 2017
The Meaning and Challenge of Intersectional Activism
by Michael Dorf
This week Prof. Colb and I are attending and speaking at Vegetarian Summerfest, an annual vegan conference with presentations focusing on multiple aspects of the vegan movement, especially nutrition, animal rights, and environmental issues. (It's called "vegetarian" for historical reasons, but the conference promotes and practices veganism.) Yesterday, we gave a joint talk titled "Animal Rights, Abortion, and Capital Punishment," which focused on issues raised in our book Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights, while experimenting with some ideas for a potential new book about the regulation of capital punishment and the regulation of animal slaughter. Each of us is also giving two solo talks. My talk today is titled "Intersectional Veganism." Here is the description from the program:
This week Prof. Colb and I are attending and speaking at Vegetarian Summerfest, an annual vegan conference with presentations focusing on multiple aspects of the vegan movement, especially nutrition, animal rights, and environmental issues. (It's called "vegetarian" for historical reasons, but the conference promotes and practices veganism.) Yesterday, we gave a joint talk titled "Animal Rights, Abortion, and Capital Punishment," which focused on issues raised in our book Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights, while experimenting with some ideas for a potential new book about the regulation of capital punishment and the regulation of animal slaughter. Each of us is also giving two solo talks. My talk today is titled "Intersectional Veganism." Here is the description from the program:
Some social justice activists promote “intersectionality”—the idea that various forms of injustice are connected. Intersectionality presents the vegan movement with opportunities and challenges. By making common cause with those who favor civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and others, we broaden our base. Yet given political polarization, intersectionality can also alienate potential allies. Let’s discuss our experiences.In this post, I want to preview some of the themes of the talk, which should apply broadly to a variety of social and political movements. I will begin by distinguishing between two different ways in which the term intersectionality has been used.
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
An Unqualified Right to Die
by Sherry F. Colb
In my column for this week, I discuss a case in which a judge found a woman guilty of involuntary manslaughter for texting her boyfriend messages repeatedly urging him to commit suicide immediately, which he ultimately did. The column raises some potential objections to holding the woman who texted messages accountable for the actions of her boyfriend, including the freedom of speech, the right to die, and the notion that the victim's own actions superseded what his girlfriend said beforehand as the causal agent of his death. The column concludes that the judge was right to hold the girlfriend accountable, notwithstanding the various objections.
In this post, I want to elaborate on my view that a competent individual (i.e., one who understands what he is doing) ought to have a right to die, a point I make in passing in the column when discussing the right to die. The Supreme Court, in Washington v. Glucksberg, has rejected a right to physician assistance in dying, even for the terminally ill, and only six states and the District of Columbia recognize a right to assistance in dying. In those states, moreover, the right extends only to the terminally ill. I would recognize a right to die (and to assistance in dying) for anyone who wishes to end their life.
In my column for this week, I discuss a case in which a judge found a woman guilty of involuntary manslaughter for texting her boyfriend messages repeatedly urging him to commit suicide immediately, which he ultimately did. The column raises some potential objections to holding the woman who texted messages accountable for the actions of her boyfriend, including the freedom of speech, the right to die, and the notion that the victim's own actions superseded what his girlfriend said beforehand as the causal agent of his death. The column concludes that the judge was right to hold the girlfriend accountable, notwithstanding the various objections.
In this post, I want to elaborate on my view that a competent individual (i.e., one who understands what he is doing) ought to have a right to die, a point I make in passing in the column when discussing the right to die. The Supreme Court, in Washington v. Glucksberg, has rejected a right to physician assistance in dying, even for the terminally ill, and only six states and the District of Columbia recognize a right to assistance in dying. In those states, moreover, the right extends only to the terminally ill. I would recognize a right to die (and to assistance in dying) for anyone who wishes to end their life.
Tuesday, July 04, 2017
How do You Say Happy Birthday (and Remain Sane) in the Age of Trump?
By Eric Segall
Today is the 241st birthday of the Declaration of Independence. We treat July 4th as our country's birthday. Who feels like celebrating?
A related question is what
does a sane person do when he looks around and sees madness everywhere? The
President of the United States is exercising his power as if his office is the
ultimate fantasy of a reality television star. He cares much more about
ratings, insults, popularity, and revenge than sound policy, or policy of any
kind. His top two advisers appear to be his 37-year-old son-in-law who has no experience
governing, and a 64-year-old former media executive who might well like to see
the world implode, and appears to be both a sexist and a racist. In any event, he too
had zero government experience before walking through the White House doors.
The Secretary of State is
the former CEO of Exxon, there is no FBI Director, the Sectary of HUD knew nothing
about housing upon ascending to that office, while the EPA is now headed by one
of the environment’s most formidable foes. The Secretary of Education detests
public schools and likely couldn’t pass an eighth-grade civics test. Many high level
executive branch vacancies remain unfilled (which I guess might be a good
thing).
The Supreme Court of the
United States is one vacancy away from turning sharply to the right for several
generations. Rights we now take for granted may be lost, and rights big
companies and the rich covet are likely just around the corner.
And the Congress, what
can I say about the Congress? The Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the
House can’t even bring themselves to meet the President in person and timidly
suggest that tweeting out pro-wrestling videos smashing CNN, or personally insulting
morning anchors with apparently false descriptions of bleeding facelifts, does
not honor the Office of the President. These two men are, above all else,
cowardly keepers of the partisan flames.
So, how do we celebrate
our country’s birthday, and how do sane people keep their heads? I don’t know.
All I can do is love and be thankful for my family, friends, and colleagues and
keep them close both emotionally and physically. I can hope that this psychotic
phase we are in will someday be just a period in time that was scary but didn’t
cause permanent harm to the nation. I can hope that America is so rich with people
of compassion, energy and good will that the 2018 elections will turn out
differently, and the country will start climbing back. Hope is essential to
birthday celebrations and to keeping one’s sanity. At least for me.
Most of all, on this
birthday, I want to remember that we did eventually overcome the sin of
slavery. That formal racial apartheid in this country is a thing of the past.
That Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, though on top for a while, didn’t stay
there. That although we are far from perfect, this country has seen a steady progress
to a better, fairer society for all.
We Americans don’t run
from adversity. Maybe that has something to do with our great western spirit
and our urban toughness, I don’t know. Although we have taken a giant step
backwards, I refuse to lose faith in my country and its people. Today I'll celebrate our past (not our present), and hopefully our future. Those are certainly worth celebrating.
So, Happy Birthday America,
but not to you Mr. Trump.
Monday, July 03, 2017
Can Non-Sentient Entities Have Interests? (and Other Questions Raised by a Recent Review of Our Book)
by Michael C. Dorf
The latest issue of Between the Species, an online philosophy journal, contains a review by Philosophy Professor Mylan Engel, Jr., of my book with Professor Sherry Colb, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights. (Engel's paper is styled an "article" because it is substantially longer than most of the book reviews the journal publishes, but for simplicity I'll call it a review.) Engel's review is generous and thoughtful. Professor Colb and I are grateful for his overall assessment and especially for his conclusion that our book "would make an exceptionally useful supplemental text for any contemporary moral issues course that includes sections on abortion and animal ethics," including his own such course.
As one would expect from any serious scholar, even though Engel agrees with our core thesis and argument, he does not spare us criticism with respect to areas of disagreement. In this essay, I'll respond to a number of Engel's critiques. By way of preview, Engel's most pointed criticism addresses our contention that abortions of pre-sentient fetuses are not immoral because an entity that is not and has never been sentient lacks interests and thus cannot be harmed. Engel's review expands on points he made at a panel on our book in 2016, and my response here will largely track what Professor Colb said in response at the time. I'll also address a number of Engel's other points. However, before taking the gloves off, as it were, I want to re-emphasize that I am truly grateful for Engel's serious engagement with our book. As a scholar, it is much better to be vigorously critiqued than blandly praised or, much worse, ignored.
The latest issue of Between the Species, an online philosophy journal, contains a review by Philosophy Professor Mylan Engel, Jr., of my book with Professor Sherry Colb, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights. (Engel's paper is styled an "article" because it is substantially longer than most of the book reviews the journal publishes, but for simplicity I'll call it a review.) Engel's review is generous and thoughtful. Professor Colb and I are grateful for his overall assessment and especially for his conclusion that our book "would make an exceptionally useful supplemental text for any contemporary moral issues course that includes sections on abortion and animal ethics," including his own such course.
As one would expect from any serious scholar, even though Engel agrees with our core thesis and argument, he does not spare us criticism with respect to areas of disagreement. In this essay, I'll respond to a number of Engel's critiques. By way of preview, Engel's most pointed criticism addresses our contention that abortions of pre-sentient fetuses are not immoral because an entity that is not and has never been sentient lacks interests and thus cannot be harmed. Engel's review expands on points he made at a panel on our book in 2016, and my response here will largely track what Professor Colb said in response at the time. I'll also address a number of Engel's other points. However, before taking the gloves off, as it were, I want to re-emphasize that I am truly grateful for Engel's serious engagement with our book. As a scholar, it is much better to be vigorously critiqued than blandly praised or, much worse, ignored.
Saturday, July 01, 2017
SCOTUS Takes On The "Cake or Controversy" Requirement, or, The Queer Motorist's Lavender App
By Diane Klein
In 1936, a Black New York City postal worker named Victor Green began compiling and publishing a travel guide - a pamphlet, really - that came to be known as "The Green Book." Published annually for thirty years, growing from a local New York guide into an international travel directory, this booklet included lists of establishments - "Hotels, Taverns, Garages, Night-Clubs, Restaurants, Service-Stations, Automotive, Tourist-Homes, Road-Houses, Barber-Shops, Beauty-Parlors," "Trailer Parks and Camps, Summer Resorts" - that would serve Black patrons. Without such a guide, travel throughout much of the United States during the Jim Crow era was, at best, uncomfortable - and at worst, a mortal danger. With nowhere to safely sleep, eat, or even refill the gas tank, a car trip was more daunting than inviting. The Green Book aimed to fill that gap.
In 1936, a Black New York City postal worker named Victor Green began compiling and publishing a travel guide - a pamphlet, really - that came to be known as "The Green Book." Published annually for thirty years, growing from a local New York guide into an international travel directory, this booklet included lists of establishments - "Hotels, Taverns, Garages, Night-Clubs, Restaurants, Service-Stations, Automotive, Tourist-Homes, Road-Houses, Barber-Shops, Beauty-Parlors," "Trailer Parks and Camps, Summer Resorts" - that would serve Black patrons. Without such a guide, travel throughout much of the United States during the Jim Crow era was, at best, uncomfortable - and at worst, a mortal danger. With nowhere to safely sleep, eat, or even refill the gas tank, a car trip was more daunting than inviting. The Green Book aimed to fill that gap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
