Unequivocally yes: Here's my proposal to do just that. cato.org/commentary/let…

All too common socialist motte and bailey

One way to know you’re not cut out to be a SCOTUS justice is if you think the Constitution’s command that the trial of all crimes “shall be by jury” means the trial of all crimes SHALL BE BY JURY. Not so, according to SCOTUS—so-called “petty offenses” don’t trigger that right.

Big day today in the historical evolution of the criminal jury trial. cato.org/blog/trial-wil…

Amazing* how quickly US immigration enforcement policy went from "we must protect the innocent victims of MS-13 violence" to "we will chain & perp-walk Korean engineers with the wrong paperwork" *Unsurprising

JD “I don’t give a shit” Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the “highest and best use of the military.” Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation??

Remember that police and prosecutors disclaim any legal duty to protect you from violence. Any protection they do provide is offered purely as a matter of largesse and with marginal competence. In the eyes of the state, you’re on your own—act accordingly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_o…

It’s simply not accurate to say govt sucks at everything. To the contrary, govt excels at spending money it does not possess, destroying things that others have built, and avoiding accountability.

Them: You’re not going to be able to defend yourself against a knife-wielding maniac with a gun, which is more dangerous to you than no gun. Us: No, YOU aren’t going to be able to defend yourself against a knife-wielding maniac; and a gun is more dangerous to YOU than no gun.

📜 On Constitution Day, we mark the moment in 1787 when the framers finished drafting the US Constitution. Join us for Cato’s 24th Annual Constitution Day—featuring top scholars, the new Cato Supreme Court Review, and debates on the most important cases from the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS, pausing for an immeasurably short period of time to consider whether its court-confected policy of zero accountability for federal law enforcement agents was a good idea.

Join us on Wednesday, in person at Cato or online!

Americans are getting a peek at the odd world of broadcast law. "I dislike what Kimmel said—but how can regulators threaten TV stations? Isn't that a free speech violation?" It should be. But, because of a 1943 SCOTUS decision, broadcasters operate at the sufferance of the FCC.

“It is difficult to imagine a more ominous and more horrendous violation of the basic principle of free speech.” Cato’s legal expert Clark Neily comments on ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show after FCC pressure.

We're taught to believe that a unanimous Supreme Court victory is the-end-all-be all. But all too often, a SCOTUS win is just the beginning of a path to justice dotted with judicially confected barriers. For Ashtian Barnes, that path abruptly ended today. ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…

Find yourself a life partner who will work as hard to put food on your family's table as the judiciary works to keep civil and criminal cases away from juries--especially when the govt's a party.

Bravo. As Justice Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous Court, it's long been settled that "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors." If you want to engage in your deflecting whataboutism, please

Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue may have been offensive or inaccurate. But the government should never act as the arbiter of truth in political debate. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s recent threats against ABC reveal just how dangerous our outdated broadcast law remains But as the

Thanks to Peter Baker for including my thoughts in this great piece on Trump and free speech