In Catholicism, the sin of omission occurs when a person ignores doing that which is good, needed and expected. In judicial decision-making, the sin of omission occurs when judges ignore inconvenient truths, facts beyond dispute. The Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade warrants condemnation on many grounds – the end of the 14th Amendment as a source of individual liberty, the reliance on incorrect history, the freezing of rights as of 150 years ago. But also worthy of condemnation is the repeated act of omission. First to be omitted are two words – rape and slavery. Nowhere does the majority even say the word “rape.” Nowhere does it explain how Due Process permits a state to force a rape victim to bear a child. To the majority, rape does not exist. And the relevance of “slavery?” For a majority claiming to use history as a guide to what liberties are protected, the 13th Amendment banning slavery and “involuntary servitude” must be considered. A horrific and recurring act of slavery was forced childbearing. Essential history, ignored. …

It was 4:55 a.m. when the door bell rang. Who could it be at this hour?  I looked out and saw him – crying, shivering in 20 degree cold, he waited.  And when I opened the inner door he backed away, raised his hands in the air, and kneeled down.  To tell me he was lost and needed directions.  That he approached my home because the living room light was on and the computer screen, with me at it, visible.  Kneeling, like a soldier surrendering to their captors. Growing up in the era of Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, and My Three Sons, this was not the image of how someone sought help.  The goofy or errant teenager could still turn to a neighbor, not fearing violence but perhaps expecting a stern headshake, and then having an arm put around his shoulders and taken to the kitchen for a warm drink, some fatherly advice, and a ride home. That is what my son could expect, even decades later.  A neighbor – even a …

What is Donald Trump’s culpability for the January 6th assault on the Capitol?  Morally, it is clear – Trump is a sentient being, aware of risks and consequences, who acted with disregard for the lives and well-being of others. Causally, the case is strong – in the terms of proximate cause and foreseeability, he spent months agitating and stirring discontent, he knew the volatility of his audience, and the actions of his followers were “not so extraordinary that it would be unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the actual result.” 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4, at 464 (2d ed. 2003). And in the eyes of history, culpability is beyond question – the “buck stops here” principle is the metric. But is he criminally responsible? Are there acts worth investigating, are there provable criminal acts attributable to the President? The President’s speech at the pre-insurrection rally may not, on its face, be sufficient to prove solicitation to commit a crime – here, riot, assault, theft, or damage to property. The language that …