Dan Chasan

Well-intentioned or not, would Inslee's anti-lying bill have been constitutional?  Maybe.

Courts don't want to touch the issue. Congress is unlikely to go near the problem. The Supremes waved it off.

so let's take stock of how we all have wound up here and what we may expect next year.

Local advantages of our forests include the facts that "we do not have significant land conversion to agriculture" and that Northwest "forests are growing well."

Presidents like to sock it to the spotted owl and help out the timber industry while heading out the door. Latest chapter: Biden undoing a huge giveaway of lands to timber industries as Trump made his exit.

Justice Gorsuch asks, "If ensuring an informed democratic debate is the goal, how well do we serve that interest with rules that no longer merely tolerate but encourage falsehoods in quantities no one could have envisioned almost 60 years ago?"

The lawsuit sees the state of Washington doubling down on an old panacea, more hatcheries, that hasn't worked to save the orcas in the past and won't work in the future.

Let's see: We have a law that on its face and in its clear intent is unconstitutional, at least in the way the Court has interpreted the Constitution for nearly half a century. The law is blatantly designed to prevent courts from ruling on its constitutionality. So we have blatant defiance of the Constitution and the Court, shielded by a transparent legislative scam.

"The most important animals in Puget Sound, as in the oceans at large, are neither the most obvious nor the most beloved."

Would Giuliani's continued ability to practice law in New York for even a short time have "immediately threaten[ed] the public interest?" That's a satisfying conclusion for some of us to see drawn. But really? After all, he can keep lying in public all he wants. He just can't do it as a lawyer representing a client.