"We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the lower courts over the appropriate mental state for threat prose�cutions under 18 U. S. C. �875(c)."

"Save two, every Circuit to have considered the issue�11 in total�has held that this provision demands proof only of general intent, which here requires no more than that a defendant knew he transmitted a communication, knew the words used in that communication, and understood the ordinary meaning of those words in the relevant context. The outliers are the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, which have concluded that proof of an intent to threaten was necessary for conviction. Adopting the minority position, Elonis urges us to hold that �875(c) and the First Amendment require proof of an intent to threaten. The Government in turn advocates a general-intent approach. Rather than resolve the conflict, the Court casts aside the approach used in nine Circuits and leaves nothing in its place. Lower courts are thus left to guess at the appropriate mental state for �875(c). All they know after to day�s decision is that a requirement of general intent will not do. But they can safely infer that a majority of this Court would not adopt an intent-to-threaten requirement, as the opinion carefully leaves open the possibility that recklessness may be enough."

Writes Justice Thomas, the sole dissenter in Elonis v. United States (PDF) one of this morning's new Supreme Court cases.
Click for more �

"Is sexual desire a human right?"

"And are women entitled to a little pink pill to help them feel it?"

Those questions are being raised in a campaign that is pressing the Food and Drug Administration to approve a pill aimed at restoring lost libido in women. The campaign, backed by the drug�s developer and some women�s groups, accuses the F.D.A. of gender bias for approving Viagra and 25 other drugs to help men have sex, but none for women....

The drug, flibanserin, has been rejected twice by the F.D.A. on the grounds that its very modest effectiveness was outweighed by side effects like sleepiness, dizziness and nausea....

I don't see how women are "entitled" to a drug in the general area of Viagra as some kind of gender equity proposition. The standard for approval of all drugs should be the same � some balance of effectiveness and unwanted effects. And obviously, there's a big difference between wanting to have sex and the capacity to physically carry out the act. Why is not wanting to have sex even regarded as a dysfunction? I want to want what I don't want. What the hell kind of problem is that? Or is it that my partner wants me to want what I don't want and I want to satisfy him? Drugging women so we'll be able to do what men want? How did that get turned into a women's rights issue? I guess you could say that it's for women to decide � don't take away our choice! � whether we want to want what he wants when we don't want it.

�Our usual patient is someone who is fearful of losing the relationship they have been in for years,� said Dr. Irwin Goldstein, director of sexual medicine at Alvarado Hospital in San Diego and a consultant to many drug companies. �It�s tragedy after tragedy after tragedy.�

One of his patients, Jodi Cole, 33, of Porter, Okla., said her lack of desire �tends to cloud my thoughts of everything related to my husband.� She said that �replacing the dread I have for intimacy with desire would be life-changing.�

Meanwhile, on college campuses, Cole's frame of mind � needing to have sex out of fear of losing the man � would be enough to brand her husband as a rapist if he proceeded to have sex with her knowing that's how she felt. And yet we're asked to think a drug that causes sleepiness, dizziness and nausea should be approved � in the name of women's rights � so she can blot out her lack of true consent.

This flibanserin is like those rape drugs frat boys are said to put in the unguarded drink. Oh, but if the woman chooses to take the drug? Well, isn't that like choosing to get drunk at the party? The man isn't supposed to exploit the opportunity of a drunken and seemingly willing sexual partner. Why is it okay to have sex with a woman who's taken the flibanserin?

"Can These Panties Disrupt the $15 Billion Feminine Hygiene Market?"

THINX panties have "antimicrobial, leak-resistant fibers in the crotch that promise to absorb as much menstrual blood as up to two tampons or a pad � without the wearer feeling it � and promise to leave the wearer feeling dry."

The business is built on a buy-one-give-one model, by which every pair of THINX sold generates a donation to Uganda based AFRIPads, which trains women in developing countries to make and sell reusable pads, which are sold at affordable prices to local women.

On the environmental front, Agrawal says THINX panties can eliminate the landfill waste generated by traditional feminine products. The National Women�s Health Network reports that each year 12 billion pads and 7 million tampons are dumped into U.S. landfills. Agrawal says that by using only THINX during her period, she has made zero carbon impact for the past year.

Denny Hastert "was a bland, utterly conventional supporter of the status quo; his idea of reform was to squelch..."

"... anyone who disturbed Congress�s usual way of doing business," writes John Fund "How Did Denny Hastert Get Rich Enough to Pay Millions to an Accuser?"

I saw him become passionate only once, when he defended earmarks � the special projects such as Alaska�s �Bridge to Nowhere� that members dropped at the last minute into conference reports, deliberately leaving no time to debate or amend them....

The [Sunlight Foundation] found that Hastert had used a secret trust to join with others and invest in farm land near the proposed route of a new road called the Prairie Parkway. He then helped secure a $207 million earmark for the road. The land, approximately 138 acres, was bought for about $2.1 million in 2004 and later sold for almost $5 million, or a profit of 140 percent. Local land records and congressional disclosure forms never identified Hastert as the co-owner of any of the land in the trust. Hastert turned a $1.3 million investment (his portion of the land holdings) into a $1.8 million profit in less than two years. Hastert claimed at the time that the land deals had nothing to do with the federal earmark he had secured. �I owned land and I sold it, like millions of people do every day,� he told the Washington Post. Or, as George Washington Plunkitt, the former Tammany Hall leader in New York, once said of someone who made a killing in local land that later became part of a lucrative subway development: �He saw his opportunities and he took �em.� Plunkitt called such �opportunities� a form of �honest graft.�...

ADDED: But getting that money isn't the crime Hastert is charged with. Nor is conveying that money to a person who accused him of wrongdoing. Lawprof Noah Feldman describes the conduct the government cites in its charges (I've added some boldface):

First, [Hastert] made 15 withdrawals of $50,000 each from his own accounts. The withdrawals were not criminal, but they did trigger a federal law that requires a bank to report any transaction or series of transactions of more than $10,000. In April 2012, according to the indictment, bank officials questioned Hastert about the withdrawals.

Presumably, in those conversations or in conjunction with them, Hastert realized for the first time that he shouldn't be making withdrawals of more than $10,000 if he didn't want to trigger scrutiny. Beginning in July 2012, Hastert switched his withdrawals so that they were less than $10,000 each -- to a total of $952,000. That was a crime under the law that prohibits knowingly structuring transactions to avoid reporting. And it's a crime that seems easy to prove, given Hastert�s change in his withdrawal practices.

Unfortunately for Hastert, when the FBI and IRS questioned him about the structure of the transactions in December 2014, he lied to them, insisting that he �did not feel safe in the banking system.� When asked directly what he did with the money, he said, �Yeah, I kept the cash. ... That's what I'm doing.� The lie to federal officials was a crime, too.

All of that is easy to prove, but we might nevertheless wonder whether the choice to prosecute is really based on the alleged wrong that Hastert spent so much money to hush up. Feldman asks why the government keeping things hushed up too and observes that if the underlying accusation is false and Hastert "was being blackmailed unjustly, then the government's prosecution seems heartless to the point of being abusive." Feldman concludes: "we should know what happened or Hastert shouldn't be charged."

But that assumes that the crimes Hastert seems to have committed should go unprosecuted unless there's something else that that makes us want to convict him of something. I think what is abusive is to have crimes that we don't believe in enforcing that are sitting around only to be used on occasions when we have some other problem with a person!

"A Silicon Valley recycling plant is looking for an unidentified woman who dropped off a rare Apple 1 computer to give her a paycheck of $100,000."

$100,000 is half of the $200,000 that the computer sold for as a collector's item. The recycling place has a policy that it splits all proceeds with the donor (and now they have to find her).

When she dropped it off she said "I want to get rid of this stuff and clean up my garage." Asked "Do you need a tax receipt?," she said, "No, I don't need anything."

"Presuming ISIS is ever defeated, no peace can be sustained if Iraqis aren�t committed to preserving it."

Key line in a NYT editorial.

I think it means: There's no point in defeating ISIS.

"The Senate opened a rare Sunday night session in a desperate attempt to extend a national security surveillance program... that was on the verge of expiring at midnight."

"Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, criticizing Mr. McConnell on the Senate floor, said, 'The majority leader had five months' to fix the problem through committee work. 'Everyone saw this coming,' Mr. Reid, the Senate minority leader, said."

The session quickly became contentious when Senator Rand Paul, the other Kentucky Republican, whom Mr. McConnell has endorsed for president, fought for the right to speak. After being rebuked by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for not understanding the Senate rules, Mr. Paul railed against the surveillance program. �We should be upset, we should be marching in the streets,� he said.

Mr. Paul seemed determined to use his procedural weapon � the words �I object�...