The View from Right Field

Disinformation, Misinformation. How About “Lies” and “Wrong”?

People talk and complain about disinformation and misinformation constantly.  Disinformation and misinformation are said to be horrible, and in some people’s views, they need to be banned.  But to be honest, I’m not really sure what these terms mean.  Is “disinformation” a statement that is false or does it have to be knowingly false?  Does it need to have an illicit purpose or does that matter?  And what about “misinformation”?  Is it something that is not true but without an illicit purpose or is it something else?  And how is it different from “disinformation”?

I don’t know, and I suspect that I’m not alone in my confusion.  I also suspect that disinformation and misinformation are used more as weapons than as descriptions.  The nice thing about calling something disinformation or misinformation is that you don’t have to explain why it’s false or wrong.  You just get to call it false and tell people to ignore it and sometimes even try to shut people up because they’re saying it.

Will Conservatives Be Happy With the Supreme Court Overturning Chevron If Trump Wins in November?

The following appears in the Letters section of today’s Financial Times under the heading “US courts vs. agencies is not a left-right problem”:

"Brooke Masters is quite right in saying that U.S. businesses may come to regret at least some aspects of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision overturning the “Chevron deference” doctrine that held judges should defer to the decision of government agencies when laws are ambiguous (Financial Times, Opinion, “Red-tape win for US business may backfire”, July 12).  This may also be true, when political winds change, for conservatives who applauded the decision.  Progressives, on the other hand, may come to love Loper Bright.

Biden? Trump? The Heck With It.

Readers of this blog may have noticed (they have even been grateful) that I have not been posting as much lately.  After getting back from our break and seeing that things are pretty much the same as they were before we left (which was to be expected), I can see why: Biden v. Trump, again.  Progressives v. right-wing populists constantly. 

When George W. Bush was president and while Barack Obama was president, I posted a lot because there were things I wanted to say.  That even continued, for a while, under Doanld Trump.  But then I got tired complaining about Trump, especially when the other side didn’t seem any better. 

When Joe Biden came in, I posted things, but the number of them has dropped.  He’s been bad, his policies have been bad, but so many on the other side seem bad, too.

Free Speech and “Censorship Envy”

With all of the protests about Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s response thereto, the question of free speech is coming up again.  Of course, all the woke and anti-woke campaigners in the US are raising lots of free speech issues, too.  My main response to these is “Thank God for James Madison and his friends.”  The United States is so lucky to have the First Amendment – and a Supreme Court willing to enforce it.

I could go on, but really I don’t need to – because Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA, has done it so well in “Censorship Envy” at The Volokh Conspiracy (and Reason.com).  There is no reason for me to try to write something when he does such a great job.  Read his article/post, "Censorship Envy," here. 

On the Special Counsel for Donald Trump

I let out a big sigh when I read that Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a special counsel to investigate whether Donald Trump should be indicted with respect to the events of January 6 and with respect to confidential documents he took to Mar-a-Lago.  I sighed because, at least to me, the appointment means former President Trump will likely be indicted, and I can’t see that as a good thing.

I don’t know whether former President Trump broke any laws with respect to January 6 or the Mar-a-Lago documents.  I don’t know all the facts, and I don’t know the specifics of the laws.  But, ultimately, I don’t think former President Trump should be indicted because I don’t think it will help the country.  I want former President Trump gone.  And I think the best way to get him gone is to just ignore him.  Don’t talk about him.  Stop giving him the respect of attention.

Solving Gun Violence – Without a Time Machine

I totally understand the calls for new gun control legislation.  What is happening is horrific.  The problem is that most of the proposals involve a time machine.  Let me explain.  Too many of the calls for gun control assume we can go back in time and get rid of the Second Amendment (which would involve going back to the early 1790s).  Or that we can, at least, go back to before the Heller decision in 2008, and get the Supreme Court to issue a different decision in that case (which might require going back before 2008 and getting at least a couple different justices on the Supreme Court). 

Many of them also assume we can go back to a time when we did not have upwards of 400 million guns in the United States. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade – And a Call for the Great Middle of America to Take the Issue Back

In September of 2018, I wrote a post about Roe v. Wade and the possibility that it might be overturned.  (It was the time of the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh.)  At that time, I said this:

“What people don’t understand in the debate over a woman’s right to choose is that we are not evenly divided between those who support a woman’s right to choose and those who oppose abortion.  Actually, views on abortion are divided among four groups: (i) those who oppose a woman’s right to choose under virtually any circumstances; (ii) those who want abortion available virtually without restriction; (iii) those who would allow it in some situations; and (iv) those who allow it in many circumstances. 

Do Kirkland & Ellis and the Biden Administration Have the Solution to Crime?

With Roe v. Wade getting overturned today, this post is probably a day late and a dollar short.  But here it is anyway:

Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, who won the case in the Supreme Court against New York state’s relatively strict handgun law,  New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, have announced that they are leaving the law firm they were at, Kirkland & Ellis.  According to them, Kirkland & Ellis told them that the firm would no longer take firearms cases and that they needed to stop representing clients such as the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association or leave the firm.  Not surprisingly, Clement and Murphy are leaving K&E.¹  In any case, the lesson is clear: K&E doesn’t want to provide legal representation to unpopular clients – or at least certain unpopular clients.

Two Nations, One Country, Talking Past Each Other

I watched parts of a couple of Sunday morning news shows this morning (for the first time in I don’t know how long).  Among the stories were (i) the January 6 committee hearing last week in prime time and (ii) the protests outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house and the guy arrested and charged with his attempted murder.

With respect to the January 6 committee, I don’t know if I learned much new.  For me, January 6, and the events leading up to it, told me all I needed to know about Donald Trump.  He lost the election, he tried to overturn the results on specious grounds, and he should not be considered any kind of candidate for any kind of office ever again.  The committee hearings may tell me a little more about January 6, but it will only make him look worse, and the prior sentence is still true. 

Right to Choose; Right to Life. Again.

The big deal in Washington on Wednesday, in addition to Covid, was the Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case involving the Mississippi law generally prohibiting abortion after fifteen weeks.  Among others things, the question in the case is whether Roe v. Wade (1973), along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), should be overturned.

I had several thoughts.  I’m going to just list them, maybe not in the right order, but as I think of them.

1. First, I think Roe v. Wade is a poor decision from a legal reasoning point of view. The Court created the three-trimester test out of thin air. It didn’t really justify it; it just stated it.  Without commenting on whether abortion ought to be legal, Roe v. Wade is just poorly done.