Station Selected:
Beginning the discussion with a review of our constitutional right to privacy, as first articulated clearly in 1965 and reaffirmed broadly until 2021, when the Supreme Court of the United States not only rescinded nearly 50 years of access to abortion but also placed in jeopardy many other fundamental privileges and prerogatives in the areas of personal relationships and private decision-making. And among the over 50 important cases now awaiting rulings from the High Court, two set for oral argument next month—both focusing on the liability of social media service providers for the false, misleading, incendiary, and indoctrinating posts of its users; all of this as the SCOTUS Marshal announces the curiously stunning results of her failed attempt to identify the court official who released the non-public draft of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.
Among the body of other legal-government news of this past week, the continuing civil defamation prosecution of Dominion v. FOX News, based on the latter’s knowingly false reporting on the involvement of the former in the election of 2020; another interesting evidentiary ruling in the federal criminal prosecution of the Proud Boys for their direction of and seditious conspiracy in the January 6 attack on the Capitol; and the latest scathing rebuke of Donald Trump by a federal judge imposing a $1 million fine on him and his attorney for starting an overtly frivolous and factually unfounded case against his political rivals and adversaries.
In the arena of violent crimes, a review of the arrest of an unsuccessful Republican candidate for New Mexico state office charged with violent firearms attacks at and on the homes of elected Democratic leaders; the decision by the Attorney General of the United States not to seek the death penalty in the hate crimes murders of 23 people committed by the gunman at the El Paso Walmart in August of 2019; and accounts from the Georgia criminal trial of rapper Young Thug for RICO and other wildly violent crimes—now likely exacerbated by the distribution of Percocet in the courtroom itself and the atypical penalty imposed by the presiding judge on a prospective juror who chose not to return to the courtroom, acting in contempt of the proceedings and compromising the foundations of our Rule of Law system.
