Time to eliminate them from the American legal system.
“Hate crimes” are, in essence, thought crimes. Which is why the Left loves them.
Mann Suit Analysis
Ken White has looked at the amicus briefs (I think), and explains, as entertainingly as possible, what the current status of the case is:
So: here we are. Mr. Mann has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the theory that the denial of an anti-SLAPP statute is not immediately appealable and on the theory that the defendants are all awful haterz who think Waterworld is a feel-good movie. That motion and the Court of Appeals’ order for the parties to brief the issue apparently crossed in the mail. If the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had a docket accessible online, or gave electronic notice of orders, that would not have happened, but since it is 1986 and the District of Columbia is an obscure jurisdiction, it is understandable they do not. National Review et al. has filed response to the order saying they are entitled to an immediate appeal and that, in so many words, Mann is a butthurt censorious twit. Defendants are supported by amicus briefs on the appealability issue from the ACLU, a conglomerate of media companies, and the District of Columbia itself, whose amicus ought to say “lol we suxxors at drafting statutes plz fx k thx bye,” but in fact does not.
Next up, unless it finds another procedural dodge, the Court of Appeals will decide whether the DC Anti-SLAPP statute allows an immediate appeal. If the answer is no, it goes back to trial court for discovery and motions and possibly trial; if the answer is yes, then the Court of Appeals addresses the merits of the anti-SLAPP motions — which, in my opinion, are meritorious.
Obviously, we think so as well.
The Case For Blunders
Thoughts on facts and theories, from Judith Curry.
An Orwellian Dissent In Schuette
Observations from Taranto:
Roberts’s statement was trivially true, which means that Sotomayor’s defies logic. Her argument amounts to an assertion that a ban on racial discrimination is a form of racial discrimination–that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Also Orwellian is her claim that she wants “to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.” Such an assertion is almost always disingenuous. After all, the way to speak openly and candidly is to speak openly and candidly. Declaring one’s intention to do so is at best superfluous throat clearing.
And while Sotomayor may be open, she isn’t candid. She presents a potted history of race in America in which there is a straight line from Jim Crow segregation through literacy tests to the Michigan amendment, which “involves this last chapter of discrimination”–even though it bans discrimination, and even though Sotomayor acknowledges that its substance is perfectly constitutional.
One can understand how a mediocrity like Sotomayor likes racial and gender discrimination, since she’s benefited so much from it herself.
California’s Bullet-Train Boondoggle
A lawyer familiar with the case mocked this argument as amounting to, “Damn the legal niceties, this mean judge is getting in our way.” – See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/04/22/gov-browns-legal-strategy-to-prop-up-bullet-train-faltering/#sthash.Na3IFURm.dpuf
This is a problem that won’t be solved until California gets an intelligent electorate.
The Climate Abolitionists
Chris Hayes is going down a dangerous road:
“It’s a bit tricky to put an exact price tag on how much money all that unexcavated carbon would be worth, but one financial analyst puts the price at somewhere in the ballpark of $20 trillion,” Hayes writes. “So in order to preserve a roughly habitable planet, we somehow need to convince or coerce the world’s most profitable corporations and the nations that partner with them to walk away from $20 trillion of wealth.”
Note the phrase: “convince or coerce.” If persuasion were to fail, coercion — presumably by the federal government or some very, very powerful entity — could be pretty rough. Certainly by writing that the “climate justice movement” should be known as the “new abolitionism,” Hayes makes an uneasy comparison to a 19th century conflict over slavery that was settled only by a huge and costly war — a real war, not a metaphorical one. Is that how environmentalists plan to save the planet from warming?
They have to destroy humanity to save the planet.
More Legal Support In Mann Suit
The District of Columbia and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have also filed amicus briefs on our behalf. None of them address the merits of the case, but at this point they probably see no need to, since it shouldn’t even go to trial.
Gabby Giffords
Sorry, I wish that she hadn’t been shot, despite my political differences with her, but being shot by a nutcase doesn’t make you a hero.
Space Solar Power
whatever you think of its prospects, low-cost launch will certainly improve them.
[Afternoon update]
Space solar power, visualized.
Chelsea Clinton’s Fetus
Before you were even born your mommy’s mommy pretended that it’s a completely normal thing to announce your own grandchild’s birth to the world at a joint press appearance with your mom, hosted on Skype and live-streamed. With America Ferrera!
Although you will at all times pretend to be a normal baby, you actually already have your very own career, like doctor or fireman or lobbyist! Can you say “Campaign Asset”? Good, now let’s learn about skill sets! You only need one talent. Ready? It’s “Soften the Candidate”! Sort of like human bubble bath.
It’s apparently driving a lot of hostile comments from readers.