I think of people like Welles Crowther, the man in the red bandanna, the 24-year-old equities trader who had wanted to be a firefighter. The man who could have gotten out, but went back, again and again, to save people, because that was who he was and that was what he had to do.

The most striking thing that he said to the people he was trying to help that day is a lesson still: those who can stand up, stand up now; if you can, help those around you. What would you do in the last hour of your life, and what would it look like? Welles Crowther stood up, and gave his live to save others. And there can be no higher calling. I like to think that for those like Welles, it must be something when God welcomes them home to Heaven, “Here you are, my good and faithful servant.”

May we always remember those who lost their lives and those, like Welles, who gave his life to do all he could in that moment. For there is no greater love. May we also take his lesson to stand up, if we can — because there is such need for that now.

Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. Conspicuously missing are Supreme Court decisions. While the court is known for deciding the constitutionality of laws, its decisions are not themselves laws. In the strictest sense, the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding only on the parties before it. //

The Supreme Court is just that, a court. It was established to adjudicate cases and controversies before it. Courts cannot make general pronouncements of law; they exist to settle disputes.

In fact, the Supreme Court is prohibited from issuing advisory opinions or ruling on laws that do not arise through litigation. Justices are not consultant scholars but arbiters in the limited setting of a legal case, not general legal or public policy matters. Courts issue their rulings in the form of judicial opinions, laying out the holding and the rationale. //

We assume when the high court rules, it is articulating what the Constitution says. The Constitution is the supreme law, but it is also a plain text. That text is the law, the ruling is not. As Justice Story said of judicial opinions in Swift v. Tyson, “They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws.”

Remembering Gen. Charlie Baldwin's story of God’s provision and presence is a fitting tribute on the 20th anniversary of September 11, 2001. //

These are the stories Baldwin told reporters who asked him, “Where was God on 9/11?”

“The answer was ‘He was present.’ He was in the building when the terrorists struck. He offered healing to those who received it. He offered comfort to those who were dying. And God’s presence was overwhelming and even miraculous in some cases,” Baldwin replied.

CR reveals where most of the plastic you throw away really ends up and explains what to do to limit its environmental harm //

One of four things happens to plastic after you’re done with it. If it’s not recycled—and it’s usually not—it is landfilled, incinerated, or littered. The EPA estimates that in 2018, about 16 percent of U.S. plastic waste was incinerated. A relatively small amount was littered. Most of the rest ended up in landfills­—including a lot of the plastic people dutifully put into recycling bins. //

Certain types of plastic, however, are economically viable and relatively easy to recycle, and even in high demand. These include PET plastic bottles, like the ones soda and water are sold in, and HDPE milk jugs (respectively labeled with a number 1 or 2 inside the recycling triangle). But just 29 percent of the plastic used in these jugs and bottles was recycled in 2018.

El Al was among the first to buy the gigantic jumbo with its iconic hump, and went on to break the record for most people on a flight, bringing 1,088 Ethiopian Jews to Israel. This is the story of El Al 001, the flight that made the Jewish world smaller //

For Israelis, the landing of the first El Al Boeing 747 at Lod (later Ben-Gurion) Airport on July 2, 1971, symbolized the opening up of the small and beleaguered country to the wider world. For many Diaspora Jews, it would mean that, for the first time, a visit to Zion didn’t have to involve emigrating there. El Al flight LY001 became the first direct non-stop link between the Jewish state and New York, the greatest Jewish city in the world.

But today the jumbo jet is simply too big and thirsty for the economics of mass air travel in the 21st century. No other machine did more to make the world smaller for so many people. But that world is now too small for the 747.

On Sunday, El-Al's last-ever 747 flight took the sky, drawing a huge Jumbo. It is expected to land at Ben-Gurion Airport later this afternoon, officially ending its service. //

Contracts were signed and El Al became one of the Boeing 747’s 27 launch customers. Today, it is one of only five of those original operators still flying jumbo jets. //

The 747 opened up an age in which rapidly increasing numbers of people could contemplate traveling thousands of miles to distant countries, safely and within mere hours, for work or pleasure. We are still in that age. Some 80 percent of the world’s population has yet to fly, but just last year around 100 million people boarded a plane for the first time. The 747 influenced our lives in ways we now take for granted. //

Fear of flights with empty seats proved unfounded. Throughout its service in El Al, the 747 was invariably, and infamously, packed. In fact, few airlines have succeeded in squeezing as many passengers inside. But even at full capacity, the 747 offered some unique advantages for the company’s clientele. No other aircraft had such wide spaces around the emergency exits — perfect for gathering a minyan (prayer quorum of at least 10 men) at any time of day or night, or for Jewish Agency officials to go through immigration procedures with new olim. For hundreds of thousands of future Israelis (like this writer), boarding an El Al 747 was their first introduction to life in their new homeland.

It profits a man nothing to gain the world if he loses his soul—and the deal is even worse if the earthly gain is just a chance at the fleeting respect of a few law professors. Nonetheless, that is how the left is hoping to tempt Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court considers a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Writing at National Review Online, Ed Whelan observes that such a sales pitch from Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman “isn’t subtle.” //

The justices should do their duty and follow the law and Constitution to the best of their abilities. In the case at hand, this means overturning Roe and Casey, which are legal abominations, exercises of raw power divorced from the text and history of the Constitution. //

The most important consideration is the wickedness of the radical regime of abortion on demand established by Roe and confirmed by Casey. In the age of ultrasound, we know what abortion is, and who it kills. The images eagerly shared on social media and stuck to the fridge condemn the atrocity of our abortion regime, in which the child whose features can be seen on the screen, and whose movements can be felt in the womb, has less legal protection than livestock.

This acceptance of, and reliance on, the violence of abortion poisons society. It turns what ought to be the loving, primordial union of mother, father, and child into a battleground of selfish interests. Abortion hardens the hearts it doesn’t stop.

Overturning Roe will not in itself end these evils, for the justices are unlikely to extend 14th Amendment protections to the unborn, although there is an originalist case for doing so. Abortion policy would therefore return to the states, leaving the pro-life movement to face a grueling state-by-state fight. But at least our democratic victories will no longer be overridden by the caprice of federal judges. //

Millions of voters have supported the conservative legal movement on the promise that it would fight to get courts out of the abortion business. Thus, if the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 Republican-appointed majority, voted to uphold Roe and Casey, the decision might well blow up the conservative legal movement for good. Most of the voters who care about the courts are not interested in Chevron deference or other (to a layperson) esoteric legal doctrines. Rather, they want Roe overturned.

These highly skilled parents came together to not just solve their own kids' education needs but offer a high-quality education to families in their glorious Colorado mountain town.

Many say the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot is one of America’s darkest episodes. Others say the nationwide protests last summer over George Floyd’s murder were worse. Here’s data about both — you decide.

For the first time since Thomas Jefferson, Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited nonsensical and irrelevant ad hominem attacks to be both spoken on the floor of the House and to be entered into the permanent congressional record. Sadly, her invitation was eagerly accepted. Freshman Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., called President Trump “a white supremacist president,” and “white supremacist-in-chief,” while Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., called him “racist-in-chief.” //

“Fighting words” are ad hominem. They attack the person without addressing the argument. //

Oral arguments began on Feb. 22, 1971, with Chief Justice Warren Burger instructing Cohen’s lawyer, Melville Nimmer, that the offensive word in question need not be uttered in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court. Seconds later, in his opening argument, Nimmer said, “What this young man did was to walk through a courthouse corridor wearing a jacket on which were inscribed the words, ‘F— the Draft.’” Presumably, this was the first time in history that such a vile word was uttered in that setting.

For his open defiance of the chief justice, Nimmer was not cited for contempt of court. Rather, he walked away with a 5-4 ruling that overturned 180 years of First Amendment jurisprudence. As Justice John Harlan famously wrote for the majority: “while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” //

Were this the only sad consequence of Cohen v. California, it would be bad enough. But things have devolved further still. In 1977, Cohen was cited as a reason to permit Nazis to chant Jewish insults and carry the swastika through Skokie, Illinois — a community of Holocaust survivors.

In 1978, the Federal Communications Commission lost its ability to keep obscenities off the air; and in 1986 public schools lost their authority to prevent students from screaming “F— you,” in the halls of education. In 1992 the court unanimously struck down long-standing prohibitions against the Ku Klux Klan’s cross-burning threats.

Beginning in the mid-’90s, the advent of so-called “hate speech laws” closed the circle. Now certain ideas cannot be expressed without public penalty. Florists, bakers, clerks, and printers have been devastated by lost business, government fines, and legal costs just for expressing the idea that the words “male” and “female” are not interchangeable. Meanwhile, the law permits them to be assailed with nonsensical words like, “hater,” “bigot,” and “Nazi.”

Such words do not serve as a “step to the truth.” Rather, they are meant to insult and incite economic and social violence against their targets.

It’s been a half-century since the Warren court poisoned popular discourse, there yet remain public places that prohibit the ad hominem and the obscene. For instance, rules in the U.S. House of Representatives dating back to Thomas Jefferson require members to “Avoid characterizing another Member’s personal intent or motives and discussing personalities,” and to “Refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker, other Members, the President or Vice President.” //

Unfortunately, however, those very rules are now under assault. The House Committee on Rules met on Jan. 12, 2021, and adopted an ad hoc rule change providing “that the prohibition against personality in debate with respect to references to the President shall not apply during consideration of H. Res. 21 or any special order of business providing for the consideration of H. Res. 24.”

Thus, rules against ad hominem attacks on President Donald J. Trump were suspended during floor debates on Vice President Pence’s invocation of the 25 Amendment (H. Res. 21), and the motion to impeach President Trump (H. Res. 24).

Thanks to Pelosi, the language of the school-yard bully has now entered our highest deliberative body. As Cohen led to the cancel culture in the public square, so name-calling on the House floor led immediately to the suppression of unfavored ideas in Congress. Within hours, eight senators and 139 representatives who had followed congressional decorum in calling for an investigation of election fraud suddenly found themselves threatened with censure and expulsion merely for expressing the idea.

In 1942, Justice Murphy asserted, as a matter of timeless common sense, that the First Amendment protects the expression and defense of every idea as a valuable step towards discovering the truth. Now, only 80 years later, the case is reversed. Nonsensical, vile, and intentionally injurious words are fully protected speech while the expression of certain ideas — even in the kindest possible terms — is strictly forbidden. Instead of protecting true free speech, we’ve crushed the speech that matters most: the articulation and testing of the truth.