A wide ranging commentary and dialogue
on the media, politics, today's headlines and the popular culture. Always fresh and new every day! Now celebrating our second decade and more than 25 million page views. Nationally recognized, widely quoted, newsworthy, noteworthy.
Most Reverend Michael J. Fitzgerald, retired Auxiliary Bishop of Philadelphia, in addition to being a canon and a civil lawyer, will celebrate the 2026 Red Mass of the Holy Spirit Monday, October 19, 2026 at Saint John the Evangelist Church in Philadelphia. Reverend Sean Bransfield, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and a canon lawyer, will be the homilist.
Monday, October 19, 2026 5:15 p.m. (Mass) Saint John the Evangelist Church 21 South 13th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107
The Red Mass of the Holy Spiritisa traditional liturgy invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the Bench and Bar at the beginning of a new judicial year. The Red Mass offers the Philadelphia legal community an opportunity for prayer, reflection, fellowship, and a renewal to their shared commitment to justice.
Most men need a lifetime for their defining moment and many never have one. 35 years ago today, Clarence Thomas needed 3 minutes. I’ve watched this 1000 times and every time still feels like the first. The dishonesty, the media, and the early machinery of lawfare. He saw it all. https://t.co/XT6RKv12oe
It's happened again. Just a few weeks ago, we saw it in the heart-wrenching trial of Lindsay Clancy. And now, the possibilities loom once more in the explosive rape allegations coming out of Cornell University, one of America's most prestigious institutes of higher education.
We're talking about the clash between the court of law and the court of public opinion.
In today's media saturated world knowing the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion is vital if you want to have any sense of what's actually happening.
The most important thing to remember about the court of law and the court of public opinion is that they couldn't be more different.
They are almost like the two sides of the brain. One's more rational and linear. The other's more intuitive and non-linear. Think of the court of law as the verbatim transcript of a murder trial. Then, think of the court of public opinion as the same trial reported by TMZ. That's an exaggeration, to be sure. But now, you're starting to comprehend the difference. For a better understanding, consider the following:
1) In the court of law, facts theoretically count for something and the facts of the case are collected carefully and methodically and presented in some kind of order. In the court of public opinion, the facts may not be facts at all, and what information is brought forward is collected in a haphazard and fragmented manner and presented in bits and pieces in an often sensationalized fashion.
2) In the court of law, the rules are reasonably clear and they are presented to and known by all parties beforehand. In the court of public opinion, there really are few if any rules and besides, even if rules seem to exist, those rules can change at any moment.
3) In the court of law, the principals pretty much know who the main characters in the drama will be. In the court of public opinion, we never know who will pop up on which side and what role he or she may play.
4) Generally, the court of law is quiet and structured. People speak when spoken to. Only one person speaks at a time. Equal time is given for each side to present its case. A single presiding officer remains in charge. There is a clear sense of order and authority. The court of public opinion, on the other hand, is noisy and often downright chaotic. People do not wait to speak. Sometimes several voices are heard at once. While equal time guidelines may seem to exist, that does not mean they will be observed. No one seems to know who is in charge and the party who appears to have the "upper hand" may change many times during the course of the proceedings. There is virtually no sense of structure or order.
5) In the court of law, the proceedings have a beginning, a middle and an end. At some point, the matter is brought to a conclusion. A decision is made. In the court of public opinion, there often is no finality - no deciding moment. Just when you thought the story was over, a new chapter emerges. Today's victory can be tomorrow's debacle. The hero of 2025 is the villain of 2026. "Hot-button" issues now are "old hat" in a matter of weeks if not days.
If these contrasts seem to smack of hyperbole, think for a moment about some of the stories and characters that have inhabited the court of public opinion in recent years. The murder of George Floyd and the trial of Derek Chauvin. The charges against Kyle Rittenhouse and his subsequent law suit. The tales and travails of Jussie Smollett. Britney Spears' financial tussle with her dad. The legal journey of Bill Cosby. And, of course, who can ever forget the O.J. Simpson trial which became its own long-running daytime drama?
And now the Clancy case and impending allegations of a gang rape. One continues to play out in the court of public opinion following a hung jury while the other unfolds as a possible future trial.
The court of public opinion hosts a variety of issues and personalities in a continuously chaotic, unpredictable setting. The whole show unravels in front of an often mesmerized audience that isn't always sure what it's seeing or what to think about it.
Now, all along, of course, the audience is part of the show as the principals carry out a breakneck effort to sway the jury of public opinion. Glancing into this shrill well of public discourse, one can understand Ralph Waldo Emerson's frustration when he concluded: "The people are to be taken in very small doses."
Ideally, one would hope for a strong, sturdy wall between the two courts. But that simply is not the case -- if, indeed it ever was.
In the end, democracy demands that the people's voice be heard. That voice is what we call public opinion. And that collective opinion is monitored, scrutinized, analyzed, disseminated, amplified, manipulated and some might say magnified to the point where it is a force unto itself.
And the court of public opinion is the collective environment in which this continuing process occurs. It is an environment inhabited by media moguls, TV cameras, cell phones, street reporters, satellite dishes, pollsters, newspaper scribes, podcasters, focus groups, social media influencers, bloggers, reality TV, marketing strategists, docudramas, packs of paparazzi, anchorpersons, commentators, talking heads, serious authors and ordinary Janes and Joes. Like it or not, it's a vital and integral part of what we call the popular culture.
And, for better or worse, today's savvy lawyers are attuned to the court of public opinion and are adept at playing it like a fine instrument to advance their case in the court of law. They thrive within the periodic intersection of the two courts.
Or, as Billy Flynn sings in the iconic musical Chicago:
Give 'em the old three ring circus Stun and stagger 'em When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder They'll let you get away with murder Razzle dazzle 'em And you've got a romance.
Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting “disaster,” which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM.
Justices Alito and Thomas, legends both, strongly disagreed with this horrible, highly political, ruling. It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left “Dumocrats,” on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do - And now they have an open field to do so! The Supreme Court has really let our Country down!
Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. Their horrible decision on Tariffs will be costing the U.S.A., for many years to come, Trillions and Trillions of Dollars. They didn’t even state, “money paid does not have to be paid back,” much to the benefit of entities that truly hate our Country, and have been RIPPING IT OFF FOR YEARS, unnecessarily costing us, immediately, Billions of Dollars.
Likewise, the Supreme Court’s Decision on Birthright Citizenship is a complete and total disaster for America, and has already led to massive corruption with respect to “citizenship” in our Country. The damage done to America is incalculable, and they know this, just as everyone else does - It is an irreparable and unrecoverable harm! The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History. This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.
These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, a Court that is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal.
It is a Court that will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country’s history. It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court - it will likely cost me dearly for years to come - but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love!
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. God bless the U.S.A. President DONALD J. TRUMP
A Massachusetts family says the state took custody of their teenage daughter after they refused to affirm her as a boy, citing their Catholic faith.
The parents allege a school counselor socially transitioned their daughter without their knowledge, then reported them to the… pic.twitter.com/cpHWhMHTXb
"He would not interact with us... He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."
Well, DUH!
These women jurors wanted the lone male holdout to "interact" with them -- maybe, you know, try a bit of yoga or sing Kumbaya or hold hands in some sort sort of peace circle.
But he wouldn't interact because there was just one tiny little problem: he just couldn't get beyond the fact that the defendant viciously murdered her three innocent little children -- that she murdered them in the most brutal and horrific way imaginable.
Good for him!
And God help the rest of us and our nation.
Harridans, the whole lot... and two swishy men. Only the lone holdout can be proud of what he did! https://t.co/xO9Io3FWMe
I've been following the reactions to the mistrial on both facebook and X and some of them are worth posting here because ordinary people -- real, everyday Americans, often bring such treasured common sense to the table. Here goes:
If Lindsay Clancy murdered 3 dogs by strangling them, chasing one down that tried to run away, the entire world would demand that she be sent to prison for a long time. She would definitely be held accountable and have 0 support. Killing 3 beautiful kids gets her a fan club. We are a lost society.
A SINGLE, SOLITARY MAN is BLOCKING 9 women and 2 beta cuck men from allowing a TRIPLE BABY MURDERER from rolling away free.
He’s been fighting with these deranged idiots for 7 DAYS, and is REFUSING to budge.
THANK YOU, LEGEND!
🚨BREAKING🚨
Lindsay Clancy's attorney claims she was "wonderful" and "brave" during the trial.
Lindsay’s 3 children could not be reached for comment.
Miscarriage of justice. The victims deserved far, far better than a kangaroo court.
Quote
Gerald Posner
@geraldposner
·
Amid all the analysis of what a mistrial will mean in the Clancy trial, it’s worth stopping for a moment.
Callan was eight months old. Dawson was three. Cora was five. Callan lived four more days on life support before he died.
