SCOOP: President Joe Biden’s nominee to fill a vacancy on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is a longtime diversity trainer who has argued for curtailing the First Amendment and conducted training sessions that say "microaggressions" can "kill you." 🧵
Now an associate justice on the Connecticut State Supreme Court, Maria Araujo Kahn suggested in a 2020 opinion that courts should criminalize speech that offends "oppressed groups."
Since 2013, she has also delivered at least a dozen diversity trainings and presentations to lawyers across the country, with titles like "Cultural Competence, Implicit Association and Racial Anxiety," according to her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire.
To prepare for one of those trainings, participants were instructed to watch an animated video, "How Microaggressions Are Like Mosquito Bites," that depicts a man-sized mosquito telling a dark-hued college student to "try a less challenging major" and then sucking him dry.
"Some mosquitoes carry truly threatening diseases that can mess up your life for years," a voice-over says. "And other mosquitos carry strains that can even kill you."
The video then cuts to a mosquito holding a gun next to a dead body. "I felt threatened," the insect tells officers at the scene of the crime. "It looked like he was up to trouble, ok?"
Another clip depicts a black woman murdering several mosquitos with a flamethrower after they ask to touch her hair.
The revelations could prove a last minute stumbling block for Kahn, who in September sailed through the Senate judiciary committee with little pushback. A final vote on her nomination could come as soon as next week.
As a Second Circuit judge, Kahn would have a say in some of the influential judicial cases in the county—and would bring to the court a controversial view of the First Amendment.
In a 2020 opinion, Kahn argued for broadening the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment—which bans speech likely to spark violence—on the grounds that some groups are unlikely or unable to physically retaliate against insults.
That means they "must endure a higher level of offensive speech before being afforded legal remedies," she wrote.
Though Kahn is vague on how exactly she would reform First Amendment law, the opinion laments that bigots can "verbally assault certain oppressed groups"—especially women and the disabled—"without fear of criminal prosecution."
The Second Circuit’s docket is unusually high-profile, in part because of its jurisdiction over NY state, and often includes prominent free speech cases. In 2022, for example, the court upheld a New York state official’s right to discourage banks from doing business with the NRA.
In 2019, it ruled on 1A grounds that Donald Trump could not block critics from his personal Twitter account. If Kahn joins the Second Circuit, she could hear challenges to NY’s controversial social media law, which requires platforms to report "hateful conduct" to the state.
Kahn’s views on free speech reflect a broader trend in progressive jurisprudence, where once-taken-for-granted legal norms have fallen out of favor.
Last year, for example, the Washington State Supreme Court flipped the burden of proof for claims of racial bias in civil trials, forcing attorneys accused of stereotyping to show that their language did not activate any juror’s "implicit bias." freebeacon.com/courts/batsh-t…
Lawyers and law professors said that the negative would be impossible to prove and that the court had set a chilling precedent. David Bernstein, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University, called the decision "batshit crazy."
Kahn isn’t the only radical Biden nom. Rebecca Slaughter, whom Biden this month renominated to the FTC, suggested the United States take a page from South Africa and integrate "racial equity" into antitrust law, going after businesses with "racially skewed" ownership.
"#Antitrust can and should be #antiracist," she declared in September 2020. Two weeks later, she told CNBC that "it isn’t possible to really be actually neutral, nor should we be neutral in the face of systemic racism and structural racism." thefp.com/p/the-takeover…
Biden has also nominated Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, the legal director of the ACLU’s Illinois chapter, to serve on a New York district court. In 2019, Choudhury told an audience at Princeton that police shoot unarmed black men every day. wham1180.iheart.com/featured/the-c…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Free Beacon gets results: in August we reported that Pfizer was barring whites and Asians from a prestigious fellowship.
Last week the company opened the program to all applicants, regardless of race, in the wake of a discrimination lawsuit. freebeacon.com/latest-news/fa…
Between Feb. 14 and Feb. 18, according to web archives, Pfizer quietly dropped the requirement that applicants to its Breakthrough Fellowship be black, Hispanic, or Native American. The program, which offers recipients guaranteed employment with the pharmaceutical giant, is now… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
New application guidelines state that "you are eligible to apply for the Breakthrough Fellowship Program regardless of whether you are of Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Native American descent." cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/Prog…
Pennsylvania's Office of Child Development and Early Learning, which funds health and social programs for young children, requires providers to report demographic information on their cases—including, since 2022, the gender identity of infants.
Data collection forms for the agency now ask for newborns' "gender" rather than their sex and allow providers to select male, female, or "Gender Non-Binary."
Providers must fill out these forms to receive funding from the office.
Amy Wax may be the most controversial law professor in country. Now, the University of Pennsylvania is trying to get rid of its tenured bomb-thrower—by any means necessary.
If Penn succeeds, it could mean the death of academic freedom as we know it. 🧵
You aren't supposed to be able to fire a tenured professor for speech, no matter how offensive it may be. That's the whole point of tenure.
But Penn is trying to anyway—in large part by denying Wax anything approaching due process.
This is the story of tenure's last stand.
In Sept. 2019, Penn students hosted a town hall with law school dean Theodore Ruger to discuss the "issues" surrounding Amy Wax. Wax had sparked outrage earlier that year when she'd argued that the US should favor immigrants from countries with similar values to its own.
For one thing, most countries around the world saw a marked decrease in crime during their stay-at-home orders; the United States was an exception, suggesting that the crime spike was due to other factors.
It’s also tough to attribute the surge to COVID-induced economic hardship. Recessions aren’t correlated with homicide rates, and—as progressives have noted in their attempt to downplay the crime spike—property offenses declined during the pandemic, when the economy was weakest.
With studies like this, there’s always the rejoinder that certain sorts of masks, worn in certain situations by certain people, do actually work, and the effect size for groups tells us little about the effect size for individuals. But mask mandates are GROUP-LEVEL interventions.
“Mask mandates may work under X, Y, and Z conditions, which we have no plans or power to bring about,” is no defense of a generalized mask mandate.
“If everyone owned guns, carried them on their person at all times, and knew how to use them, there would be no mass shootings. Therefore, we should mandate gun ownership.” This is a moronic argument that liberals would rightly scoff at.
Both organizations have maintained the masks are effective at curbing COVID-19, including in schools. But the guidance was typically based on weak studies with small sample sizes and few controls, limitations that critics said biased their findings.
Many of the studies just compared places with mask mandates with those without them, making it hard to sort out whether it was masks that reduced COVID or other factors.
For example, the people most likely to wear masks may also have been the most inlined to reduce their social contacts—and the reduction in socializing might explain the lion’s share of the reduction in COVID.