Doomscroll News

Tag: Law

  • The Bork Nomination: The Man, The Philosophy, and The Transformation of American Judicial Politics

    The Making of a Verb

    In the lexicon of American politics, few eponyms carry the weight of the verb “to bork.” Its definition is stark: “to obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) by systematically defaming or vilifying them”. More pointedly, it means “to viciously attack a presidential nominee, blackening his name in an all-out effort to defeat his confirmation by the senate”. The term’s origin lies in the tumultuous 1987 confirmation battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert Heron Bork to the United States Supreme Court. The fact that a man’s name became synonymous with a new and particularly ferocious form of political destruction signals a phenomenon that transcends a single failed appointment. The story of Robert Bork’s nomination is not merely a historical footnote; it is the story of a flashpoint—a moment when decades of simmering legal and political conflict over the role of the judiciary in American life erupted, irrevocably altering the landscape of judicial politics.   

    The creation of a new word suggests that existing language was insufficient to capture the nature of the event. Nominees had been rejected before on grounds of ethics, cronyism, or ideology. What happened to Robert Bork, however, was perceived as fundamentally different. It was not just a rejection; it was a new method of rejection, one characterized by an unprecedented fusion of interest group mobilization, sophisticated media campaigns, and a public trial of a nominee’s entire intellectual framework. The verb “to bork,” therefore, signifies more than defeat; it signifies defeat through a modern, public, and ideologically charged campaign of a type and intensity not seen before.   

    This report seeks to answer the central question arising from this etymology: How did a jurist with impeccable professional credentials—a former Yale Law professor, Solicitor General of the United States, and sitting judge on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered one of the most qualified nominees in decades—become the target of such a successful and transformative opposition that his name entered the dictionary as a synonym for political annihilation?. To understand this event is to dissect the career of the man himself, the revolutionary and polarizing nature of his legal philosophy, the high-stakes political context of the 1987 Supreme Court vacancy, and the profound, lasting consequences of his defeat. It is a story of a man, his ideas, and the political firestorm they ignited, a firestorm that continues to shape the American judiciary today.   

    (more…)

  • Hey Rep. Issa, I’ll Take That Bet: Here Are the Democrats Who Will Support Law Enforcement.

    Rep. Issa, regarding your “Over/Under on how many Democrats will support law enforcement,” I’ll happily take the over. You might be guessing not many, but I’m betting on a flicker of common sense from a handful who understand that “condemning violence against law enforcement” should be the easiest bipartisan win of the century.

    My guesstimate? You’ll get about 10 Democrats to vote YES on your resolution.

    Here’s the scouting report on the Democrats most likely to break ranks and join you, and why:

    (more…)

  • Justice KBJ: Anti-DEI, Pro-Religious Freedom, Defender of Jan. 6 Rioters … or Not?

    As I’ve been telling people since she was confirmed—and I have witnesses—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record is revealing a judicial philosophy with surprising MAGA elements. Here are a few of her rulings that prove it:

    • Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025): Marlean Ames, a straight woman, alleged her supervisor, a lesbian, discriminated against her by favoring LGBTQ+ employees. The case centered on whether plaintiffs from majority groups had to meet a higher legal standard—showing “background circumstances” of discrimination—to bring a lawsuit. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Jackson ruled that Title VII forbids such a two-tiered system. The decision eliminated the “background circumstances” test, ensuring all individuals face the same evidentiary standard when alleging workplace discrimination.
    • Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (2025): The Court unanimously sided with Catholic Charities against the state of Wisconsin, which had denied the organization a religious-employer exemption from unemployment taxes. Wisconsin argued the charity wasn’t “operated primarily for religious purposes” because it served all people, not just Catholics, and didn’t proselytize. The Court held that the state’s position violated the First Amendment by imposing a “denominational preference” and attempting to define what constitutes a valid religious activity, which the government is forbidden from doing.
    • Fischer v. United States (2024): This case questioned whether a felony obstruction charge, originally passed to prevent evidence tampering, could be broadly applied to defendants from the January 6 Capitol riot. Justice Jackson joined the conservative majority in a 6-3 decision that found prosecutors had interpreted the law too broadly. The Court ruled the law is limited to acts that impair the integrity of evidence, not any conduct that disrupts an official proceeding. This significantly narrowed the application of a key felony charge in Jan. 6 prosecutions.
    • CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (2024): Her opinion, while far from perfect in my opinion, was a strong defense of judicial restraint, arguing that courts have no power to overrule Congress on funding matters unless the Constitution is explicitly and unambiguously violated. This reasoning champions a limited role for the judiciary, a core principle of legal conservatism.
    (more…)
  • The Autopen Republic: An Exposé on Legislative Negligence

    The Autopen Republic: An Exposé on Legislative Negligence

    The assertion that “no one has ever read an entire bill before voting on it” rings with a cynical truth that many Americans feel deep in their bones. It’s a damning indictment of a broken system. This isn’t about lofty ideals or the complexities of modern governance; it’s about a fundamental failure of duty. We demand proof of review, a guarantee that our laws are not passed by autopilot. The era of excuses is over.

    By the Numbers: A Crisis of Volume and Verbiage

    The sheer scale of legislation has become a convenient shield for lawmakers. But a look at the data reveals a problem that has spiraled out of control.

    • The Longest Bill: The record for the longest bill ever passed goes to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. At an obscene 5,593 pages, it was a behemoth spending bill combining COVID-19 relief with a $1.4 trillion omnibus package. To expect any single human to read, comprehend, and critically analyze this mountain of text before voting is a physical and cognitive impossibility. It was signed into law by President Trump on December 27, 2020, after passing both houses of Congress with large bipartisan majorities just days earlier.
    • The Shortest Bill: In stark contrast, some legislation can be very brief. In 2017, a bill was introduced in the House with a single sentence: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.” While this bill did not pass, it demonstrates that brevity can be a tool for radical change.
    • The “Average” Bill – A Rising Tide of Text: The very concept of an “average” bill is misleading, but the trend is undeniable. In the 1947-48 session, the average law was just 2.5 pages. Today, that average has ballooned to nearly 18 pages. More complex legislation often exceeds 1,000 pages. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, for example, clocked in at over 2,500 pages.
    (more…)

  • Immediately repeal the federal Real ID Act, replace with StatePass or Nothing

    Immediately repeal the federal Real ID Act. Its core danger lies not just in bureaucratic failure, but in its fundamental threat to personal liberty and privacy. Real ID creates the infrastructure for a national tracking system, linking state databases and enabling unprecedented government surveillance of citizens’ movements—precisely the kind of invasive system that evokes deep-seated fears among many Americans, including concerns resembling a “mark of the beast” scenario where government monitors and controls individuals through mandatory identification. This potential for pervasive tracking violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment and must be dismantled.

    Replace Real ID with StatePass, a new system of state-controlled secure IDs for domestic travel originating within their borders. Leveraging lessons from Real ID’s troubled history, states will implement StatePass quickly and efficiently. The absolute priority of StatePass is preventing federal surveillance; standards must prohibit centralized databases or features allowing easy federal tracking, focusing instead on secure credentials verifiable locally, not federal data collection. This state-centric approach, where states design, issue, and manage their own StatePass IDs and verification, directly counters the “mark of the beast” concerns tied to federal overreach.

    State accountability will be ensured through robust mechanisms. The State Security Assurance Fund (SSAF) is a mandatory pool of state contributions, essentially security deposits, used to levy substantial financial penalties against any state whose faulty StatePass system causes a major security breach originating there. The Interstate Travel Security Commission (ITSC), composed of representatives from participating states, manages the SSAF, investigates security failures to determine penalties, and facilitates voluntary collaboration on StatePass best practices.

    (more…)
  • The Crypto Eradication and Corporate Fraud Retribution Act (Hypothetical)

    The Crypto Eradication and Corporate Fraud Retribution Act (Hypothetical)

    Preamble: To ensure the integrity of financial markets, discourage speculative and potentially illicit activities associated with certain digital assets, and hold accountable high-level corporate executives who defraud investors in smaller public companies, this Act establishes a stringent taxation regime for digital assets and dedicates the resulting revenue exclusively to the prosecution and incarceration of culpable C-suite executives.

    Section 1: Taxation of Digital Assets

    • (a) Capital Gains and Income: All realized capital gains and income (including staking rewards, mining income, airdrops, and interest) derived from digital assets shall be taxed at a rate of 90%.
    • (b) Capital Losses: No capital losses from digital asset transactions may be deducted against gains from digital assets or any other form of income.
    • (c) Annual Wealth Tax: An annual wealth tax of 10% shall be levied on the total market value of all digital assets held by a U.S. person (individual or entity) as of December 31st each year, regardless of whether the assets have been sold or generated income.
    • (d) Transaction Tax: A 5% excise tax shall be imposed on the fair market value of every digital asset transaction, including purchases, sales, exchanges (crypto-to-crypto, crypto-to-fiat, fiat-to-crypto), and payments for goods or services. This tax is payable by the U.S. person initiating the transaction.
    • (e) Reporting: Taxpayers must report all digital asset holdings and every transaction, regardless of value, on their annual tax return with detailed information including dates, values, counterparties (where identifiable), and transaction IDs. Brokers and exchanges must issue detailed 1099 forms for all customer activity.
    • (f) Penalties: Failure to comply fully with reporting requirements or tax payments under this section will result in penalties including, but not limited to, a fine equal to 100% of the unreported assets’ value or unpaid tax, plus potential criminal charges including tax evasion. Egregious non-compliance may result in asset forfeiture.
    (more…)
  • The TikTok Paradox: National Security, Digital Sovereignty, and the Forging of U.S. Tech Policy

    The TikTok Paradox: National Security, Digital Sovereignty, and the Forging of U.S. Tech Policy

    David’s Note: This article was substantially revised on October 10, 2025 to incorporate new research and provide a more comprehensive analysis.

    On January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a landmark law that forces the sale of TikTok, a platform used by over 170 million Americans, or face a nationwide ban.1 This decision highlighted a central paradox in modern American policy. TikTok is at once a legislative target, condemned as a grave national security threat, and an indispensable campaign tool, actively leveraged by the political actors who seek to regulate it.

    This paper argues that this apparent contradiction is not a sign of policy incoherence. Instead, it reveals an evolving and deliberate strategy to confront a novel threat to the nation’s digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is a nation’s ability to control its own digital destiny—the data, hardware, and software it relies upon.3 In this context, it means securing the digital infrastructure and information environment within its borders from the control of a strategic adversary.4

    The core of this argument is that the threat posed by TikTok is fundamentally structural. It is rooted in the legal and operational subordination of its parent company, ByteDance, to the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This structural risk is distinct from the commercial data practices of domestic social media companies. It has compelled the U.S. to forge a new national security doctrine for the digital age.

    To develop this thesis, this paper will proceed in four parts.

    • Section I will establish that TikTok represents a structural national security threat due to its data collection capabilities under PRC law and its potential for algorithmic manipulation.
    • Section II will trace the evolution of U.S. legal strategy, from the failure of broad executive orders to the crafting of a targeted, constitutionally-sound legislative solution.
    • Section III will systematically deconstruct the primary counterarguments against this policy, including those based on the First Amendment, economic disruption, and false equivalencies with U.S. tech firms.
    • Section IV will analyze the political realities that create the central paradox, examining how electoral pragmatism and divided public opinion coexist with the national security consensus.

    Ultimately, this analysis will demonstrate that the TikTok dilemma is a landmark case in how a liberal democracy is adapting its legal and political tools to defend its sovereignty in an era of weaponized information.

    (more…)