Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Friday, March 29, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service
Op-Ed

Presidential Conduct

April 29, 2019

Punishment should fit the crime. This is especially true if the crime is simply doing something modern-day presidential. I submit for your consideration the case of a Kentucky lawyer named Carroll Hubbard Jr. who has been hit with a 60-day suspension from the practice of law for doing the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from our leaders.

Milt Policzer

By Milt Policzer

Courthouse News columnist; racehorse owner and breeder; one of those guys who always got picked last.


Punishment should fit the crime. This is especially true if the crime is simply doing something modern-day presidential. I submit for your consideration the case of a Kentucky lawyer named Carroll Hubbard Jr. who has been hit with a 60-day suspension from the practice of law for doing the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from our leaders.

According to the Kentucky Supreme Court: “Hubbard clipped a picture of Bobo and her wife from a newspaper, drew an arrow to the couple, and wrote ‘2 pitifull (sic), fat, ugly lesbians” beneath the photograph, addressed an envelope to Bobo and her wife, and mailed it to them.”

Bobo was the opposing counsel in a family law case.

I realize there’s an obvious problem with this behavior — he didn’t do this on Twitter. Using regular mail that no one else can see may be the real reason for the sanction. This borders on malpractice.

It gets worse. At first, according to the Kentucky court ruling, Hubbard did what he was supposed to do — denied that he’d done it. He even denied it under oath. But then he admitted it, got charged by the state bar, and then, in retaliation, he sued the judge he’d lied to.

The Kentucky Supreme Court approved a settlement that included the 60-day suspension and a requirement that the lawyer produce a bunch of “written” apologies. There’s no mention of Twitter. Maybe they don’t have it in Kentucky.

I suppose this is justice of a sort, but I don’t think it quite fits the crime. It’s too much like making Bart Simpson cover a blackboard — not an effective deterrent.

What I would have done is give Bobo, the wife, and the trial judge free swings — they get to create their own pictures of Hubbard with appropriate captions and post them on Twitter (or whatever they have in Kentucky) for our entertainment.

Everyone will feel better.

Unequal protection? We have, supposedly, religious freedom in this country. Does that mean we also have non-religious freedom?

Apparently not. At least not according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That court has ruled that the U.S. House of Representatives “does not violate the Establishment Clause by limiting its opening prayer to religious prayer.”

The suit was filed by an atheist who was denied an opportunity to do the opening prayer for a session of Congress after a member of the House asked the House chaplain to invite plaintiff to do the prayer (or non-prayer). The rationale, so far as I can tell, is that legislatures have always done this, so discrimination against non-religiousness doesn’t establish religion. Or something like that.

I need not express an opinion — most of you are now either fuming or feeling smug. I’m not going to provoke either side.

But here’s an interesting aspect to this: Take a look at the long list of amici curiaie briefs filed by state attorneys general supporting the House chaplain. They’re pretty much all from red states.

We can look forward to non-prayers if we live in blue states.

Passing thought. If you refrain from doing the right thing because you don’t want people thinking you’re doing that thing for political reasons, aren’t you not doing that thing for political reasons?

It’s best not to think about these things.

Huh? Sometimes a passage from a lawsuit is so bewildering that all I can do is report it without comment.

This is from a class action filed last week in Los Angeles against the sellers of beverages called Original New York Seltzers: “Had plaintiff and other consumers known that the products are not made in New York and do not contain New York water, they would have paid significantly less for them, or would not have purchased them at all.”

Who are these people?

Categories / Op-Ed

Subscribe to our columns

Want new op-eds sent directly to your inbox? Subscribe below!

Loading...