Milt

Criminal law in this country has changed radically. Just because you’ve committed a crime doesn’t mean you should be punished for it. This concept explains a lot about what’s been going on lately.

Is shutting off discussion the best way to encourage productive discussion? Can you have a debate without allowing debate? I ask these questions because I’m confused. This should come as no surprise to anyone, but I’m even more confused than usual.

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.

I apologize but I’m going to be derelict in my duty this week. I know I’m supposed to be snide and cynical when the appropriate news item appears. I know I’m supposed to be making fun of those who seem to deserve it. But the news coverage last week announcing that Kim Kardashian West is studying for the bar exam doesn’t strike me as funny.

I’ve been reading Michelle Obama’s “Becoming” lately because, naturally, I wanted to find out how to become Michelle Obama. Imagine my disappointment when I found out that it’s not a how-to book but an autobiography.

I love it when an appellate ruling poses more fascinating questions than answers. I have a fine example for your enjoyment this week: a 21-page ruling from a federal judge in Pennsylvania that can be added to your collection of “what were they thinking?” tales of litigation.

We’ve been freaking out about the wrong unfeeling manmade creations. Robots and artificial intelligence aren’t out to get us. It’s bad enough that rabble-rousers blame immigrants and minorities for our problems, but poor helpless computers have no one to speak for them (except, of course, Alexa, but she’s pretty submissive).

This may come as a surprise, but there’s a lot of bad advice on the internet. For example, last week I ran across an article called “A New Approach for Hiring Entry-Level Lawyers” that claimed a new approach is needed.

I apologize for making you all wait this long. I know you’ve gotten your hopes up, but I regret to inform you that I am not running for president in 2020.

I had a grade-school thought last week — “he who smelt it dealt it” —after reading The New York Times coverage of a concurring opinion by a lone Supreme Court justice. I assume this was part of its ongoing 24-7 full coverage of rulings that have no effect on anyone.

Ok, I admit it. I’m easily amused. So when I see a lawsuit arising from “deceptive marketing practices selling inferior chicken carcasses,” I’m going to laugh. This is clickbait for those of us who read lawsuits and appellate rulings but feel like a 10-year-old.

Somebody call Guinness! We may have a world record for appellate ruling captions.

Sometimes it doesn’t pay to do your job the way you’re supposed to. A lot of employers just don’t like a goody two shoes.

Those of you wondering whether the president or the people managing government agencies have any empathy for their employees can wonder no longer. They don’t.

I know Christmas has passed but that doesn’t mean we can’t have wish lists. This could be the best time ever to ask for whatever you want — at least if you’re a Democrat.

I get a lot of junk email and most of it gets immediately deleted. But I noticed one last week that I had to click on because it came from “Angels.com Partners” and had a surprising subject line: “Injured in an accident? Sachs Law, It’s Not Business, It’s Personal.”