Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

March 2015

Posted by Amy Miller on March 11, 2015 22 Comments
Remember the Vanilla Ice copyright infringement case? Queen and David Bowie sued Vanilla Ice after it became abundantly clear that "Ice Ice Baby" had sampled the baseline from Queen and Bowie's hit "Under Pressure." Listen: Hear the extra note in Vanilla Ice's version? The case may have settled out of court, but anyone who listens to the two songs together knows that that one little note wasn't exactly a gamechanger. The entertainment industry('s lawyers) are buzzing about copyright again, this time about a lawsuit filed by Marvin Gaye's children after they noticed that breakout hit "Blurred Lines" penned by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams borrowed heavily from Marvin Gaye's classic "Got to Give it Up." Yesterday a jury awarded Gaye's family over seven million dollars to compensate for a borrowed baseline that earned Thicke and his crew over $20 million in royalties and revenue. Let's take a listen. Here's "Got to Give it Up": Here's "Blurred Lines" (probably NSFW, so minimize that window):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 10, 2015 2 Comments
The Trustees and senior officers of the University of Illinois, who are defendants in the federal lawsuit by Steven Salaita, filed a motion to dismiss the case on February 24.  Salaita, you will recall, had tweeting issues, to put it mildly. At a court hearing today, the Judge set down a briefing schedule, with Salaita's attorneys having until March 30 to respond, and the defendant's attorneys until April 20 to reply. The Court set May 21 as the date it would rule, orally in court. (Order at bottom.) That's a little unusual in my experience. Normally a judge would issue a written opinion on such a law-heavy motion. I can't tell you whether to read anything into that; it could be that judge's practice, or the judge may orally issue an order and then refer people to a written opinion. The court did order the parties to propose a discovery plan, meaning the exchange of documents, depositions, and so on.  The submission of such plans is required under the federal and court rules. It is likely that some discovery will take place prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss under such plan. I can't tell you whether the judge allowing discovery to commence reflects on the likelihood of the outcome of the motion to dismiss. In their motion requesting that the Court order the defendants to confer on a discovery plan, Salaita's attorneys pointed out that there is no presumption of a stay of discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss.  The PACER electronic docket does not reflect any opposition by the Trustees counsel having been filed as to the commencement of discovery. If I see any reports whether the Judge expressed any view during the hearing, I'll update. There is significance, though, to the timing, unrelated to the lawsuit itself.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 10, 2015 32 Comments
Earlier this afternoon, Hillary Clinton held a press conference to address questions concerning the use of her private email from private servers. Beginning with two flimsy decoys, Clinton first addressed women's rights and went on to criticize Senate Republicans for their letter to Iran's Ayatollah. Unsurprisingly, sites like Vox took the bait. Then, the treasure troves of the internet opened up and out sprung three little facts that prove three of Hillary's emphatic statements false. And this is only the beginning. While the statements that follow are multifaceted in consequence and scope, for the sake of brevity, we'll focus strictly on their veracity.

#1: Hillary only used one phone

"When I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one devise for my work and personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would've been better if I'd used a second email account and carried a separate phone, but at the time this didn't seem like an issue."

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 10, 2015 36 Comments
Only three weeks after proposing to ban perhaps the most popular ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (more commonly referred to as the ATF, and that ought to be a convenience store, not a government bureau) has abruptly backed down. Or at least it seems--it's not as if the ATF has a well-established reputation for being above-board in its dealings with law-abiding American gun owners. We covered this story when it first broke last month--see Retribution? ATF Bans Common Rifle Ammo.  Exactly one month ago (less one day) the ATF issued a "framework" document for determining whether to ban the M855 (e.g., "green tip") form of 5.56/.223 ammunition in question, stating their intended rationale for the ban (reclassifying the round as prohibited armor-piercing handgun ammunition) and initiating a 30 day comment period. (The framework in question is embedded in its entirety in that post.) M855 has been among the most popular and least costly (but I repeat myself) ammunition for recreational shooting in AR-pattern rifles for many, many years, so the ban was clearly going to cause tremendous disruption in both the consumer and producer ends of the ammunition market. At the time I was struck by the fact that this  framework proposal was handed down only two days after the ATF was humiliated by the summary judgement awarded against them in Mance v. Holder, which we covered here: Federal Court: Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional.  Such petulance has, of course, become a hallmark of the Obama administration. It also wasn't hard to figure out that this move by the ATF to ban M855 ammo would profoundly energize pro-Second Amendment organizations and individuals--meaning, of course, non-Progressives. As I put it in that prior post:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 10, 2015 36 Comments
Late yesterday, Hillary announced she would hold a press conference to address EmailGate -- a paltry 8 days after the blossoming scandal graced the pages of the New York Times. Though there were no mentions as to whether her foreign government sugar daddy problem would be given any airtime. According to Department of State spokeswoman Marie Harf, Clinton released 55,000 pages of her emails to the Department of State in December. Of those 55,000 pages, 850 were passed along to the House Select Committee on Benghazi as being relevant to the investigation. True to Arkansas Underwood form (to borrow a phrase from Rick Wilson), members of the media were shocked to learn that press credentials had to be requested 24 hours prior to the press conference, essentially the exact minute the press conference announcement was made (though the initial announcement gave no specific information). Per MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald:
"It's appearing at the UN, which has a notoriously difficult credentialing process. So there's going to be a restriction on the number of reporters who can come in. You had to apply 24 hours in advance for press passes. So I don't know if it is intentional or not, but there will definitely be a limited number than if they held it at, say, a hotel or somewhere else in New York where they could be expected to be mobbed by every reporter and their mother in the city."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 10, 2015 3 Comments
On a few occasions we've touched upon the toxic anti-Israel rhetoric from Max Blumenthal, son of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal: In his earlier days, Blumenthal turned his wrath on James O'Keefe, Andrew Breitbart and others he deemed part of the vast right-wing conspiracy: (language warning) Then he turned on Israel with a viciousness of propaganda rarely seen.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 10, 2015 47 Comments
One of the earliest projects I took on as a citizen activist was promoting the work of former UCLA professor, Dr. James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who challenged the voodoo science used by the California Air Resources Board to pass stiff, new air emission regulations. David French of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) explained what subsequently happened to this heroic whistle-blower:
The facts of the case were astounding. As the environmentalist Left pushed new, job-killing regulations in the interests of “public health,” Dr. Enstrom took his own look at the data and determined that the health threat from diesel emissions was being wildly overstated. As he looked further, he discovered that the lead researcher pushing the new regulations actually possessed a fraudulent degree, purchased from “Thornhill University,” a shady, long-distance diploma mill. Moreover, members of the state’s “scientific review panel” tasked with evaluating the science had in some cases overstayed term limits by decades. At least one was a known ideological radical. (He was a member of the infamous “Chicago Seven.”) Dr. Enstrom did what a scientist should do. He exposed public corruption, called out fake scientific credentials, and worked to save California from onerous and unnecessary regulations. So UCLA fired him. After more than 30 years on the job.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 10, 2015 3 Comments
The Gulf Cooperation Council has announced that it will host a series of talks in Riyadh to address the current crisis in Yemen:
Saudi Arabia said on Monday the Gulf Cooperation Council had agreed to host talks in Riyadh to end the Yemen crisis, the state news agency SPA said, quoting a statement by the Saudi King's office. The statement said Saudi Arabia had asked the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, on the request of Yemen's President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, to host the talks in Riyadh where the headquarters of the organisation was, and that they had agreed. Yemen, a neighbour of top oil exporter Saudi Arabia and global security worry because of its strong al Qaeda presence, is caught in a stand-off between Western-backed President Hadi and the Houthi clan, now the country's de facto rulers who are supported by Iran. "The security of Yemen is part and parcel of the security of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries," the statement said.
The situation in Yemen has been devolving at an increasing rate since last year, when Iran-backed Houthi insurgents began taking control of key locations throughout the capital city of Sana'a. In late January, the Houthi laid siege to the presidential palace and took the president hostage; the American embassy made preparations to evacuate. Just days after the attack began, President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and his government resigned under pressure.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 10, 2015 12 Comments
Back in December of 2013, Media Matters for America declared victory in its war on FOX News. Unfortunately for MMFA, American news consumers disagree. According to a new Quinnipiac poll, FOX News is doing just fine:
Fox News Has Most Trusted Coverage, Or Not, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Tina Fey, Dennis Miller Top Choices To Replace Stewart FOX News offers the most trusted network and cable news coverage, 29 percent of American voters say, when asked to compare the major TV news outlets in a Quinnipiac University National poll released today. But when network news is examined on a case-by-case basis, FOX drops in the ratings. In the comparison rankings, CNN gets 22 percent, with NBC News and CBS News at 10 percent each, 8 percent for ABC News and 7 percent for MSNBC, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. When asked, "Do you trust the journalistic coverage provided by FOX News," 20 percent of U.S. voters say "a great deal" and 35 percent say "somewhat." Scores for other networks are:
NBC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 46 percent "somewhat;" ABC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;" CBS News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;" MSNBC - 11 percent "a great deal" and 41 percent "somewhat;" CNN - 18 percent "a great deal" and 43 percent "somewhat."
The big winner is local television news, trusted by 19 percent of voters "a great deal" and by 52 percent "somewhat." "FOX News may be the most trusted in the network and cable news race, but they all take a back seat to your local news," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Bill O'Reilly made this the focus of his opening monologue last night.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 09, 2015 10 Comments
The Conservatarian Manifesto is one that needs to find its way onto your essential reading list. The little red book written by National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke provides a tangible framework for a prolific, but largely ignored segment of the political right -- the conservatarians. Artfully weaving hard data (without descending into pedantic statistical lists) with relevant history, Cooke produces several compelling arguments covering an array of topic. Unlike books that dabble in theory but provide no realistically applicable suggestions, The Conservatarian Manifesto goes beyond thoughtful ponderance and illuminates a pathway forward. In sum -- it's a great book, an enjoyable read, and you should buy it. Without further ado, our chat with Mr. Cooke:

First, a bit about yourself:

K: Beer, bourbon, or wine? C: All three. But I mostly drink wine. K: You have one hour to chat with the person of your choosing, deceased or breathing. Who would you choose? C: Charles James Fox. He was a playboy parliamentarian in eighteenth century England who started off a Tory and became a radical Whig. Fox supported the American War of Independence—to the extent that he dressed up in the colors of Washington’s army and cheered British losses in the House of Commons—and he took to using his parliamentary privilege to excoriate the King. He made a bunch of mistakes in his later life, but he was a great friend of American radicalism, a staunch opponent of overweening executives, an opponent of slavery, and a defender of free speech. He could also drink for England. He’d have been a riot. K: We know you're an upstanding American (citizenship imminent), but on a scale of 1 to Queen Elizabeth I, how British would you consider yourself these days? C: Six. Politically, I’m pretty American in my thinking—and I was long before I moved here. But I haven’t lost my accent at all. Nor have I lost most of my Britishisms. At restaurants I still say “thank you” and “please” about seventeen hundred times each minute.

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 09, 2015 26 Comments
I covered the federal court ruling in Mance v. Holder in some detail last month, and if you haven't yet had an opportunity to get up to speed on that decision it might be useful to take a moment to click over: Federal Court: Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional. (That post includes the full-length ruling.) In brief, in Mance v. Holder US District Court Judge Reed O'Connor found that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban was unconstitutional on its face--specifically, the provision that requires an out-of-state handgun purchaser to transfer the handgun through several FFLs before taking possession. Most interestingly, Judge O'Connor found the requirement to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny, as well as an unconstitutional infringement of the 5th Amendment under strict scrutiny. As observed in our earlier post on the subject:
Based on its conclusion that the federal handgun transfer ban was, both facially and as applied to the facts of this case, unconstitutional under both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (thus granting them victory without having to go to trial), and enjoined the Defendants (AG Holder and ATF(E) Director Jones) from enforcing those provisions of the federal handgun transfer ban.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 09, 2015 3 Comments
Obama's big government health care takeover has taken another hit---albeit a small one---to its provisions mandating the coverage of contraception. Notre Dame v. Burwell seemed dead last year, when the Seventh Circuit threw out a lawsuit laying out the University of Notre Dame's religious objections to Obamacare's contraception mandate. Notre Dame brought their objection in the wake of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allowed religious organizations to opt out of the mandate and pass responsibility for paying the costs of contraception to insurance companies. The institution argued that this still placed a burden on exempt religious institutions, because even when opting out, those institutions still have to authorize the coverage. The last time the Seventh Circuit considered this case, SCOTUS had not yet ruled in the landmark Hobby Lobby case, which authorized closely held corporations to seek religious exemptions from the contraception mandate. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Notre Dame failed to show a sufficient burden against the rights of religious institutions; but SCOTUS has now tossed out that ruling completely, and have ordered the appeals court to review the case in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling. Reuters has more background:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 09, 2015 12 Comments
We have posted several times about what it is like to be Walking While Jewish in various places in Europe, including Paris, Copenhagen, and Malmö, Sweden. The fact is that in many places in Europe, it is dangerous to be seen Walking While Jewish. Including in Britain, as The Daily Mail demonstrated (h/t Isreally Cool):
With as many as 45 per cent of British Jews fearing they 'may not have a future in Britain', according to a survey by the Campaign Against Antisemitism - and following an experiment by Israeli Zvika Klein on the streets of Paris, British journalist Jonathan Kalmus decided to test the levels of prejudice in two British cities with shocking results. Volunteers in Copenhagen and Rome also suffered some abuse, as well as welcoming reactions, while Jewish journalists in Stockholm and Berlin walked for hours without incident. 'You Jew' was the anti-Semitic scream which came from a passing car. My shaken wife tried to explain it away to my seven-year-old daughter as a very large sneeze. They were simply playing in a local park in Manchester a few weeks ago when the incident ripped through what should have been a peaceful and wholesome time for any mother and child.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 09, 2015 27 Comments
Put another feather in his cap, Scott Walker today signed Right to Work legislation in Wisconsin, becoming the 24th State to do so. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported prior to the signing:
Gov. Scott Walker will sign so-called right-to-work legislation on Monday morning at Badger Meter in Brown Deer after the Assembly passed the measure Friday morning following almost 24 hours of debate. The measure bans labor contracts that would make it mandatory for workers to pay union fees. The legislation zoomed into play this year, pushed by GOP legislators, after Walker brushed aside the issue as a distraction during his re-election campaign last year. Now as a presumed 2016 presidential hopeful, the pending change in law could add polish to Walker's record on business. Twenty-four states have right-to-work laws. Supporters say that workers shouldn't be forced to pay a group if they don't believe in it. They say the change could provide a spark to the Wisconsin economy. Opponents say businesses and unions should be left alone to negotiate labor contracts. They say the law change isn't about worker rights but more about driving down wages and exerting more control over the workplace.
Here are some images from the signing:
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH