NEWS: Stanford President and Law-School Dean Apologize to Judge Duncan nationalreview.com/bench-memos/st… Read apology letter here and Judge Duncan's acceptance and commentary. 1/
Apology by Stanford president and law school dean faults DEI dean Tirein Steinbach: “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” 2/
Interesting to see that apology's characterization of Steinbach's conduct differs markedly from Dean Martinez's statement yesterday ("well-intentioned" effort at "managing the room ... went awry"). Perhaps explains why Stanford *president* co-signed letter. 3/
You'd ordinarily think that university president would leave a matter like this to law school dean. Sure seems that President Tessier-Lavigne might have been upset at Martinez's excuse-mongering for Steinbach. 4/
Apology is tepid in assertion that Stanford is “taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again.”
Firing Steinbach would be good first step. Publicly censuring students who engaged in flagrant misconduct would be another. 5/
The strong and clear stance that Stanford president Tessier-Lavigne has articulated on precisely this situation makes it all the more plausible that he was appalled by Dean Martinez's coddling of DEI dean Steinbach.
Since Steinbach can't in good faith embrace Stanford's policy on free speech, she should have the integrity to resign forthwith.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In a gross act of constitutional defiance, Biden is about to announce that he regards the ERA as having been lawfully ratified.
Never mind that his own Department of Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and just about everyone else has recognized otherwise.
Biden is citing Virginia's purported ratification of ERA on January 27, 2020--a year before he became president. Why has he waited until now to make his declaration? Because he knows that it's outrageously wrong.
Supreme Court hears oral argument today in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Issue is whether age-verification law for pornography websites violates First Amendment. As WSJ explains in house editorial today, Court should rule that law is permissible. 1/
I hope to cover today's oral argument (which starts at 10 a.m.) in tweet thread. Here's a piece by my @EPPCdc colleague @ClareMorellEPPC that outlines issues. 2/claremorell.substack.com/p/what-to-expe…
@EPPCdc @ClareMorellEPPC In this @firstthingsmag essay, @ClareMorellEPPC and @WBLittlejohn explain how parents are "losing the arms race against Big Tech and Big Porn."
3/firstthings.com/article/2025/0…
In my new Confirmation Tales post, I explore the history of recess appointments of federal judges. I found the results of my research more interesting than I expected, and I hope you will too. 1/
Did you know that some 300 federal judges, including a dozen or so Supreme Court justices (the precise number is contested), have been recess-appointed? Are you curious to learn who was the only recess-appointed justice not to be subsequently confirmed? (Hint: He was a chief justice.) Did you know that Earl Warren delayed the conference vote on Brown v. Board of Education for three months until he had shed his status as a recess appointee? 3/
I'll do a thread on oral argument today in U.S. v. Skrmetti. Begins at 10 a.m. ET, will probably run past noon.
BTW, when Chief invites Chase Strangio to present oral argument, he will surely refer to Strangio as "Mr." No one on either side should make big deal of this, as Court practice allows advocates to select honorific.
Starting very soon: Thread on oral argument in Skrmetti
From today's ruling by Missouri court in Noe v. Parson: "The evidence at trial showed severe disagreement as to whether adolescent gender dysphoria drug and surgical treatment was ethical at all...."
More from today's ruling by Missouri court in Noe v. Parson: "the credible evidence shows that a vast majority of children who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria outgrow the condition."
Hope it's wrong, but I'm hearing through the grapevine about this bonkers plan: Trump would adjourn both Houses of Congress under Article II, section 3, and then recess-appoint his Cabinet.
As predicate for Trump's exercise of adjournment power, one House of Congress would seek other House's consent to adjourn and be denied. So Speaker of House would need to be complicit in evisceration of Senate's advice-and-consent role.
House Speaker Mike Johnson needs to say NO to this right away.