Apparently our Attorney General shares the President's familiarity with the Constitution, and is openly contemplating the possibility of filing charges against those who deny the majority hypothesis of climatology, that of anthropogenic climate change. One would have thought that even if "climate change deniers" were 100% wrong, the "First Amendment" would shield them from prosecution, but apparently the Bill of Rights is not taught at Harvard Law School.
Which, of course, is exactly what we would have concluded after the former editor of the Harvard Law Review decided that it was his responsibility to sue nuns to force them to buy birth control coverage for their insurance. The Bill of Rights is obviously not his specialty, or that of the AJ, though one would figure that people who are wrong as often as they are (or outright lying) would treasure the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
In a just world, the former editor and the Attorney General would not only lose their license to practice law, but there would be some very tense discussions for Harvard Law the next time their accreditation comes up for discussion.
We do not care. - This morning I was able to spend some time with my parents. They mentioned that one of their friends is Anglican, in the northern Waikato, and the bishop i...
5 hours ago