Cerebral Political Perspectives

We need to remake our law schools. And we need to do it now. Many of us with a legal background have been stunned by the willingness of numerous lower court judges to simply disregard the law and to spout political rants from the bench. Both Biden and Obama did tremendous damage to this country, but perhaps nowhere as much as their appointments of extreme radicals to the lower court benches. These judges' own words make clear that they see themselves as social justice activists first, and jurists second. But where did all of these lawless judges come from? The Alt Left radicalization of law school faculty over the last couple of decades is one of the biggest untold stories - - and one of the greatest threats we face going forward. Many seasoned lawyers would find the curriculum and content that is now taught in law schools utterly unrecognizable. Like a dangerous virus, these law schools, led by hyper-progressive academics, have been replicating legions of Alt Left lawyers who are becoming judges and government officials. They have no respect for our Constitution and the western notion that even your political opponents are entitled to due process. If you doubt this, I would respectfully remind you of the Left's efforts to imprison their main political opponent and their crusade to remove him from the ballot in numerous states - all aided by numerous Alt Left judges. I would also remind you of the unprecedented prosecution and imprisonment of numerous peaceful January 6 protesters. These new wave judges could care less about the law. Instead, they have been baptized in the holy fire of social justice, and have pledged allegiance to their own untethered sense of self-righteousness and political emotion. This state of affairs cannot continue for long before something irreparable breaks. The Trump administration and Congress need to act decisively, while they still can, to restore political balance to all law schools that receive federal funds. Among other things, they need to ensure that the faculty in these law schools are not closed shops that exclude anyone who does not worship at the progressive altar. They also need to set up a law school accreditation process that does not rely on the approval of the far Left American Bar Association (ABA). The time to act now. In fact, this may be the last time to act for a long time.

@lmkona1 @ChrisMurphyCT As opposed to the progressive model that your eloquent post so proudly displays: “Come for the unbridled emotion, stay for the sheer irrationality.” It’s not a bug in the progressive model, it’s a feature. in fact, it is its main feature.

@informedviewer @ChrisMurphyCT Of course it was intimidation. It’s his superpower and you love it. As Trump says, “Come for the racism, stay for the cruelty.” It’s not a secret ❣️❣️❣️

If he’s trying to intimidate the justices he appointed (and who MAGA world expects to follow Trump’s orders with a vitriolic, fringy fervor), it’s a recklessly dangerous tactic.

brilliantly stated.

@cleo2056 @ChrisMurphyCT As usual, the left confuses insults with arguments.

@informedviewer @ChrisMurphyCT Your cerebral function button isn't working. But then that's what makes a good Putin puppet.

Until tomorrow when that ruling is reversed. The real question is why you want to waste taxpayer dollars on a media outlet that has repeatedly exhibited extreme political biases. Why should conservatives have to pay for a state fund ed media that only promotes progressive ideas? And let’s not pretend for a second that it doesn’t. And let’s not pretend for a second that you wouldn’t scream bloody murder if Fox News were funded by US tax dollars.

BREAKING Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to stop funding NPR and PBS is “unlawful and unenforceable,” a federal judge ruled. Doc buff.ly/WcnQN4A

Actually, those very same allies (in both Europe in the Middle East) are busy telling President Trump- in private - how delighted they are that we are taking out Iran’s military capabilities and nuclear ambitions. They cannot say this in public because of the large number of Islamic extremists within their own populations. But make no mistake, Europe wants American to defang Iran – – and so do many Middle Eastern countries.

It is not only an embarrassment when the President begs for help, and our allies say no—it is a national security threat. Trump’s go-it-alone approach to diplomacy has alienated many of the United States’ allies, and those costs are becoming clear.

what costs? Attending and peacefully listening to oral arguments before the Supreme Court– – like every other American has the right to do – – is not an act of intimidation. But compare and contrast to Chuck Schumer screeching on the steps of the Supreme Court that specific justices will “reap the whirlwind” if he does not get a decision he likes. That most certainly is an act of intimidation - something the progressive left tries to do to conservatives every single day in this country.

Intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.

Factcheck: The censorship on the laptop story continued long, past the election. As did the prohibition of anything that the Biden administration and their social media minions unilaterally deemed to be “election denial.”. Sorry that the actual facts contradict your wishful argument. But my guess is that you’re used to that.

@informedviewer @NicoPerrino My favorite part of this ridiculous list is your suggestion that the "Biden regime" suppressed the information about the Hunter Biden laptop... IN OCTOBER 2020

I don't know the answer to Jim's question, but I question his premise that one of Trump's great successes is "enabling free speech." Consider that he and his administration have: · signed an executive order purporting to ban flag burning and punishing it by up to one year in jail; · targeted visa holders and lawful permanent residents for deportation based on their speech; · revoked federal funding from Harvard and other universities and conditioned future funding on adopting speech codes and restricting academic freedom; · issued executive orders singling out disfavored law firms that effectively made it impossible for them to work with the federal government, its contractors, or even have access to the federal courts; · repeatedly threatened the licenses of TV networks who hosted late-night comedians and broadcast news reports he didn’t like, including by re-opening frivolous Federal Communications Commission complaints against broadcasters that were previously dismissed as being “fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment”; · suggested his attorney general, Pam Bondi, should investigate ABC News for “hate speech”; · banned the Associated Press from the White House press pool because it refused to adopt “Gulf of America” in its editorial standards; · blatantly directed criminal prosecutions of political opponents, such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York state Attorney General Letitia James; · pressured app stores to remove lawful apps from their app store offerings. · and targeted, detained, and even shot citizens who protested or filmed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducting operations in public places. etc.

This decision is hardly surprising, coming from Judge Mehta - one of the most shameless political partisans on the DC bench. This is the same guy who presided over numerous convictions of January 6 protesters under a misapplied statute (1512(c)(2) - a statue that the Supreme Court later said had no applicability to such cases.) This is the same guy who raced to put a 70+ year old Trump administration official, Peter Navarro, in prison for asserting executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena. He also prevented Navarro from putting on any exculpatory evidence at trial. Mehta is no judge. He is a past-his-prime hyper-progressive college activist wearing robes. Nothing more. He’s a prime example of why the DC federal bench needs to be radically reformed.

NEW: A federal judge delivered a serious setback to President Donald Trump Tuesday in long-running civil lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. w/ @joshgerstein politico.com/news/2026/03/3…

JUST IN: Judge Mehta advances theming-running civil lawsuit by lawmakers and cops against Trump over Jan. 6. He says Trump’s rally speech and call to Raffensperger (among other acts) are not plainly immune conduct and can advance toward trial. ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p…

@RichardGrenell @Pismo_B Peter Baker really is one of the worst activists working in traditional corporate media. His inability to understand the difference between progressive activism and journalism also helps explain why traditional corporate media outlets are failing.

New York Times reporter is furious that the public gets to know the truth…. Peter Baker is calling for the government to NOT declassify documents….let that sink in.

You mean like the (mostly) peaceful protest in 2020 when self-righteous progressives rioted in hundreds of cities, causing almost $2 billion worth of damage, committing acts of violence, arson, vandalism, and even murder? that difference? Yeah, I understood that difference a while back.

Understand the difference. Those who peacefully protest Trump today love America. We hate what he is doing to America. When you love something, you fight for it. No kings. Not today. Not ever 🇺🇸

Flashback: Joe Biden attempts to decree a non-existent Constitutional Amendment into law, just because he said so. “It’s the law of the land, now!" The No Kings types clapped and cheered.

@AndrewCMcCarthy @HighSierraMan @NRO A mostly flawed analysis.

Should Judge Boasberg Be Impeached over His Role in the Jack Smith Probe? My @NRO weekender ... nationalreview.com/2026/03/should…

This is one of the most perfect things the internet has ever created.

Zero seconds on ABC, CBS, or NBC for the House Ethics Committee "trial" of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL). Only PBS picked up the story for NewsHour, and omitted the details of the charges against her. Coverage for Cherfilus-McCormick is significantly (D)ifferent than it was for George Santos.

Just a reminder, this is the same guy that told you that if you liked your doctor, you could keep him and that if you liked your insurance plan, you could keep that to. He told you your premiums would go down and that your deductibles would not be raised. As he was telling you this, his own advisors were telling him this was untrue. Vote accordingly.

Virginia: early voting for the redistricting amendment is happening now through April 18. Protect your voting power and help level the playing field ahead of the midterm elections by voting YES today or on Election Day, April 21. Go to IWillVote.com/VA for more information on how to cast your ballot.

Unfortunately, these days, Jonah Goldberg is only interested in throwing shade on all things related to Donald Trump. Years ago, I used to respect his viewpoint, even though I did not always agree with it. But bow he see everything now through an anti-Trump filter. He happily ignores all of the due process violations and selective prosecution that occurred with General Flynn — because it doesn’t fit his narrative.

@JonahDispatch Can you actually defend the obvious abuses of power against Flynn. No respect for Eli Lake's reporting on this? reason.com/podcast/2017/0…

Ffs

@samocnj64 @BarbMcQuade she knows it, she just finds it inconvenient for her narrative.

@BarbMcQuade Disgusting to those who don’t know the complete story like you.

Disgusting.

Such erudite legal analysis. Exactly the type of emotional response we’ve come to expect from the activist academics who have infested our top law schools. “Professor” Barb McQuade happily ignores all of the due process violations that occurred in connection with Mr. Flynn’s extended persecution. And she also ignores that the DOJ tried to correct this years ago by withdrawing the charges against Flynn – – because they were unfounded. Americans should be scared that pseudo law “professors” like Barb McQuade are teaching generations of law students to respond with self-righteous emotion instead of objective analysis.