≡ Menu

Some Links

Columbia University law professor Philip Hamburger is quite critical of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Murthy v. Missouri. Two slices:

The First Amendment, however, says nothing about coercion. On the contrary, it distinguishes between “abridging” the freedom of speech and “prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. As I have explained in great detail, the amendment thereby makes clear that the Constitution’s standard for a speech violation is abridging that is, reducing, the freedom of speech, not coercion. A mere reduction of the freedom violates the First Amendment.

The court in Murthy, however, didn’t recognize the significance of the word “abridging.” This matters in part for the standing question. It’s much more difficult to show that the plaintiffs’ injuries are traceable to government coercion than to show that they are traceable to government abridging of the freedom of speech. More substantively, if the court had recognized the First Amendment’s word “abridging,” it would have clarified to the government that it can’t use evasions to get away with censorship.

Other doctrinal disasters included the court’s casual indifference to listeners’ or readers’ rights – the right of speakers to hear the speech of others. The court treated such rights as if they were independent of the rights of speakers and therefore concluded that they would broadly invite everyone to sue the government.

But listeners’ rights are most clearly based in the First Amendment when they are understood as the right of speakers to hear the speech of others, as this is essential for speakers to formulate and refine their own speech. The right of speakers to hear what others say is, therefore, the core of listeners’ rights. From this modest understanding of listeners’ rights, the plaintiffs’ rights as listeners should have been understood as part of their rights as speakers – an analysis that would’ve avoided hyperbolical judicial fears of permitting everyone to sue.


So, for multiple reasons, Murthy is probably the worst speech decision in American history. In the face of the most sweeping censorship in American history, the decision fails to recognize either the realities of the censorship or the constitutional barriers to it. In practical terms, the decision invites continuing federal censorship on social media platforms. It thereby nearly guarantees that yet another election cycle will be compromised by government censorship and condemns a hitherto free society to the specter of mental servitude.

Wall Street Journal columnist Allysia Finley explains that “Fauci and the medical experts gave Biden a memory pass.” A slice:

Dr. Fauci’s feeble attempt to explain away the president’s mental fog is another illustration of why Americans don’t trust the supposed experts. They dissemble when it suits their political purposes and frequently disparage anyone who dares challenge their deceptions. They have done so with Mr. Biden’s cognitive troubles, as they did with Covid lockdowns, school shutdowns, mask mandates and the virus lab-leak theory. The list goes on.

Wall Street Journal columnist Andy Kessler sings the praises of American innovativeness – and its attractiveness to global investors. A slice:

Despite China’s juggling, the dollar is, and will remain, the reserve currency. Try visiting Costa Rica with Chinese renminbi. Or bitcoin. China is our factory floor, though it’s now contracting. I’m convinced manufacturing will eventually move to India, once they sort out the socialist mess the British left them. I would hurry that up.

The U.S. is oil independent. Thank you, horizontal fracking. With the Biden administration’s ban on liquefied natural gas lifted, we could export enough LNG to Europe and Japan to make them independent of Russia and the Middle East as well.

We lead in pharmaceuticals. And we have the best weapons and military. Our movies and TV shows, even larded with social lecturing, are world hits. And we’re outproducing. From 2010 to 2023, the cumulative economic growth in the U.S. was 34% vs. 21% for the European Union.

Why? Simple: Capital flows to where it’s treated best. Like entrepreneurs, capital looks for opportunity, merit and upside. Democracy is the political system of choice because it best enables capitalism. Generative AI and large language models require boodles of capital and our markets obliged, sending Nvidia to the moon, for now.

Yes, we have some European-like overregulation, but our economic system is a sandbox of progress, meaning anyone with talent can come in and play, raise capital and build castles. Elsewhere, the so-called elite drive the economy, often into the ground. A party member’s son gets capital instead of a worthy entrepreneur. Here, Hunter is the exception, not the rule.

Barry Brownstein warns us to “be wary of the soothing narrative that downplays the seriousness of growing antisemitism.” Two slices:

The market rewards those who have genuine empathy for their customers. Empathetic entrepreneurs can put themselves in their customers’ place and consider how to best serve them. The market process, backed by the rule of law, facilitates empathy and respect for others and a peaceful and prosperous society.

So why do I say antisemitism is likely to grow? The more removed we are from the bonds and affections that commerce creates, the more room for primitive hatred to occupy our minds.

Intellectuals teaching a toxic mixture of identity politics, critical race theory, and Marxism have hijacked our educational and other institutions. “Liberatory Ethnic Studies (LES)” which make use of  “Marxist and Maoist-based liberatory model[s]” are being taught in some K-12 classrooms. What Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay call the “caste system of social justice” labels Jews oppressors because of their economic success.

In his book Marxism, Thomas Sowell points out Marx lived as an intellectual without “responsibility” for his livelihood and the “social consequences” of his “vision.” Sowell explains today’s “Intellectuals enjoy a similar insulation from the consequences of being wrong, in a way that no businessman, or military leader, or engineer or even athletic coach can.”


Today, on college campuses, “we” and “they” thinking seems to be a major part of the current curriculum. It’s assumed, if you can’t make something of your life it’s because “they” have stopped you. Historically, Jews have tragically found the unwarranted role of “they” thrust on them.

Today, college professors and administrators spare students from being exposed to ideas other than their own. Marx never wanted to face the consequences of his low emotional and moral intelligence. How many college students, like Marx, do not want to face challenges to their low emotional and moral intelligence?