Do
you
know
what
“McCarthyism”
is?
If
not,
Google
the
word,
and
if
it
doesn’t
chill
you,
it
should.
You
are
probably
too
young
to
remember
the
seven
dirty
words
that
George
Carlin
couldn’t
say.
The
judge
hearing
the
lawsuit
filed
by
Perkins
Coie
against
the
Trump
administration
found
that
its
labeling
“diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion”
as
“dirty
words”
to
be
both
“jarring
and
puzzling.”
There’s
no
indication
when
the
DC
federal
district
judge
might
rule
on
Perkins
Coie,
but
it
is
helpful
that
one
court
sees
through
the
Wizard
of
Oz’s
machinations.
The
New
York
Times
conducted
an
opinion
poll
of
a
few
independent
voters
who
had
voted
for
Trump
last
year.
While
some
had
concerns
about
tariffs
and
Elon
Musk,
not
one
of
the
13
polled
said
that
they
would
have
voted
differently. The
interviewers
summarized
their
findings
with
the
13
independent
voters:
“He’s
doing
what
he
promised,
and
actual
change
is
taking
place
in
the
country
for
the
first
time
in
a
long
time.
That
change
might
be
painful,
or
I
might
not
like
every
aspect
of
it,
but
that’s
what
I
signed
up
for
when
I
voted
for
Trump.”
No
one
gave
Trump
a
failing
grade.
Not
one
question
was
asked
about
the
issues
that
concern
lawyers:
the
fragility
of
the
Constitution,
based
upon
actions
taken
by
Trump
so
far,
and
the
equal
fragility
of
the
Rule
of
Law.
It
seems
as
if
only
we
lawyers
care
about
what
have
been
bedrock
principles
so
far.
The
cultish
admiration
for
47
does
not
bode
well
for
persuading
any
one,
at
least
in
that
poll,
that
he
is
steering
this
country
in
the
wrong
direction,
which
is
what
we
lawyers
fear.
But
at
a
recent
town
hall
in
Fort
Madison,
Iowa,
Republican
Senator
Charles
Grassley
got
an
earful
—
and
more
—
from
his
constituents
about
deportation
and
due
process.
Yay!
Ever
since
January
20,
2025,
Trump
47
has
engaged
in
target
practice.
Closest
to
all
our
lawyer
hearts
(at
least
I
think
so)
have
been
the
relentless
attacks
on
the
judiciary
and
a
number
of
Biglaw
firms.
Institutions
of
higher
education,
among
others,
are
also
feeling
the
arrows.
Many
of
us
have
been
outraged
by
Biglaw
firms
caving
in
to
demands
to
knuckle
under
to
Trump’s
Rule
of
Law
(having
nothing
to
do
with
the
Rule
of
Law
that
we
practice
under).
Those
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
dismantling
any
and
all
DEI
programs.
We
worry
about
looming
constitutional
crises.
We
have
signed
on
to
amicus
briefs,
we
have
watched
various
Zoom
events,
but
are
we
the
people
who
need
the
education?
Are
we
really
just
talking
among
ourselves
without
regard
to
the
citizens
who
think
that
47
will
provide
long-term
gain,
even
if
there’s
short-term
pain?
Aren’t
the
ones
who
need
to
be
reached
out
to,
not
preached
to,
those
who
think
that
the
way
the
country
is
headed
is
precisely
the
right
way?
Constitutional
crisis?
Where?
So
what? Rule
of
Law?
Who
cares?
How
do
we
reach
Trump
voters?
How
to
chat
with
them
(not
lecture
them)
on
the
looming
constitutional
crisis?
How
to
chat
with
them
(not
lecture
them)
about
the
different
roles
of
our
three
branches
of
government,
the
theory
of
checks
and
balances?
This
is
not
the
time
for
so-called
“elites,”
regularly
seen
with
noses
in
the
air
and
pedigrees
(not
the
dog
food
variety,
but
maybe
it
should
be)
to
lecture,
sermonize,
patronize
or
in
any
way
talk
down
to
the
citizens
who
voted
for
Trump.
How
do
we
cross
that
great
fractious
divide
without
alienating
those
who
may
not
have
gone
to
college
but
are
successful
in
so
many
other
ways
that
we
don’t
consider?
Those
who
may
not
have
had
the
privileged
lives
of
many
of
us,
but
who
deserve
our
respect
and
dignity,
whose
successes
need
to
be
recognized
as
equally
valuable?
This
“elitist”
issue
arose
in
the
2008
presidential
election.
Candidate
Barack
Obama
insulted
Midwest
small-town
voters:
“They
get
bitter,
they
cling
to
guns
or
religion
or
antipathy
to
people
who
aren’t
like
them
or
anti-immigrant
sentiment
or
anti-trade
sentiment
as
a
way
to
explain
their
frustrations.”
Hillary
Clinton
didn’t
win
any
friends
in
her
2016
campaign
when
she
called
half
of
Trump’s
supporters
a
“basket
of
deplorables.”
How
do
we
talk
with
people,
not
at
them,
about
the
risks
this
country
faces
now?
It’s
difficult
to
find
anyone
who
cares
about
what
happens
to
Biglaw
where
even
their
first-year
associates
make
way
more
than
the
average
American
income.
So,
how
do
we
share
that
what
is
important
to
lawyers
today
is
also
important
to
the
country
at
large?
Your
thoughts?
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].