Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

/var/www/vhosts/legalinsurrection.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/bridge-child/readFeeds.incFALSE

You thought it was bad that law students at Columbia, Harvard, Georgetown and Berkeley demanded exam delays because of the failure of grand juries to indict in the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner? Sit down. Harvey Silverglate, civil liberties lawyer and co-founder of the FIRE, tweets a link to a Volokh Conspiracy post: https://twitter.com/HASilverglate/status/543529885248282625 The original story is from the UCLA Daily Bruin, Law school exam question on Ferguson shooting draws criticism:
Some students at the UCLA School of Law have expressed concerns after a professor asked an exam question this week relating to the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson, Mo. The exam, given by Professor Robert Goldstein in Constitutional Law II, asked students to write a memo related to the Ferguson shooting. Some students who took the exam said they found it difficult to write about the incident in terms of the first amendment while ignoring issues such as police brutality.... Hussain Turk, a second-year law student who took the exam, said he thinks the question was problematic because he thinks exams should not ask students to address controversial events. He added that he thinks the question was more emotionally difficult for black students to answer than for other students.

LATEST NEWS

Update: The Senate has managed to muster the majority vote needed to pass the NDAA. Votes are still flowing in. (Bill eventually passed 89-11.) --- You can watch the debate and final vote here, via C-SPAN. The Senate has been in session since 10 this morning, debating a $585 billion defense authorization. The National Defense Authorization Act, when passed, will authorize spending by the Pentagon into 2015, and includes a controversial lands use portion that would create new national parks and expedite the permit process for oil and gas drilling. Interestingly enough, most of the chatter about the NDAA has revolved not around defense spending itself, but around the unrelated, deficit-neutral land use provisions. From The Hill:
“The NDAA for fiscal year 2015 is a legislative hodgepodge that includes those straightforward, noncontroversial items that almost all of us support, but also numerous other provisions that are unrelated to national defense,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said. “Most egregiously, the drafters secretly added 68 unrelated bills pertaining to the use of federal lands.” ... As the House prepares to leave town Thursday night, the bill's authors made it clear it that this bill was the only chance to pass an NDAA authorization by the end of the year. “We have to pass this bill,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said ahead of the vote. “The House is going to go home and there are no ways to make any changes.” Senators on both sides of the aisle defended the lands use portion, saying the Congressional Budget Office reported it would be deficit neutral. It designates new national parks and wilderness areas and expedites the permit process for oil and gas drilling, among other things. “That is why the package of lands bills in the National Defense Authorization Act is vitally important to America.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. “This compromise is the chance for the Senate to get something done.”

The NLRB has spent the past year doing their best to make it easier for union organizers to force workers into union membership. Their McDonald's ruling brought us closer to mass unionization, and a new rule that was just passed seeks to speed up the union elections process: From Politico:
The rule will require businesses to postpone virtually all litigation over eligibility issues until after workers vote on whether to join the union, thereby depriving management of a stall tactic that unions widely claim benefits the employer. In effect, regional NLRB directors will be given broad discretion to rule such litigation unnecessary until an election takes place. ... The regulation will eliminate a previously-required 25-day period between the time an election is ordered and the election itself, and it will require employers to furnish union organizers with all available personal email addresses and phone numbers of workers eligible to vote in a union election. An NLRB decision handed down yesterday essentially prohibited employers from denying union organizers access to company email. The rule will also, for the first time, allow for the electronic filing and transmission of union election petitions.
You can call it a stall tactic, but it's certainly a valid one, considering the demands union organizers make not only on employers, but on the personal privacy of employees. Now, employees won't even have a choice when it comes to participating in the conversation. Obviously, businesses and unions are at odds with each other over whether or not this new rule will help workers, or make it impossible for them to make an informed choice about unionization:

Rasmea Odeh, convicted in Israel of involvement in a supermarket bombing that killed two students and in Detroit of immigration fraud, was released yesterday on $50,000 cash bond. Prosecutors had planned to challenge the source of the bond money, but withdrew that challenge. Odeh's guilt on the bombing and other terrorist activity, and the immigration fraud, is beyond serious doubt, notwithstanding the propaganda hyperbole by anti-Israel activists and websites supporting her. Odeh will be sentenced in March. She faces 10 years in prison, but almost certainly will receive a small fraction of that. Regardless, she will be deported after her prison sentence. Yet Odeh's inability to acknowledge her guilt on the immigration charge, and defiant claims that the immigration conviction was unjust and based on racism, may result in a longer prison sentence than otherwise could be expected.

Democrats speak out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to campaign finance laws. They say they want big money out of American politics but they'll stop at nothing to raise big money to install Hillary Clinton as America's next president. Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon reports how that goal may have resulted in a violation of law:
Pro-Hillary PAC Accused of Illegal Activity in FEC Lawsuit An anti-Hillary Clinton PAC filed a lawsuit on Thursday to compel the Federal Election Commission to determine whether the pro-Clinton Super PAC Ready for Hillary is violating campaign finance laws. The Stop Hillary PAC originally filed a complaint with the FEC in January, claiming that Ready for Hillary may be illegally conducting authorized campaign activity on behalf of Hillary Clinton. According to the complaint, Ready for Hillary used an email list owned by Hillary Clinton’s Senate committee to send out fundraising letters. Ready for Hillary also allegedly sent out the solicitations using the email address [email protected]—a website that the complaint says is owned by Clinton’s authorized committee. The Ready for Hillary email stated “now is the time to get our support for Hillary organized and ready for 2016,” according to the lawsuit.

UPDATE: The House passed the massive spending bill. Looks like Senate short term vote tonight and vote tomorrow on bill: You know what comes next:

Harvard Business School professor Ben Edelman has apologized amid backlash from his private-made-public harassment of Boston-are Sichuan Garden manager Ran Duan. Edelman made headlines after lambasting Duan over a $4 overcharge on his Chinese takeout order. After realizing that the menu prices posted online differed from what he was charged by $1, Edelman sent Duan a series of e-mails threatening agency action and demanding damages (yes, damages) for the incident. The Boston Globe has the exchange: email1ad 2

Over the summer I covered the Argentine government’s default on its debts owed to U.S. hedge funds—its second default in just 13 years. Now fellow Latin American socialist paradise Venezuela is gearing up for a default of its own, as precipitously falling oil prices have decimated the country’s budget and will continue to pressure its currency reserves. Since mid-June, crude oil prices have declined by more than 30%, with West Texas Intermediate (the benchmark measure for North American oil) dipping to $60.55/barrel before ultimately settling at a 5-year low of $61.54/barrel on Wednesday. A CNBC report on the prospect of a Venezuelan default cited a Capital Economics report stating that a default could be expected by next September or October when $5 billion in debt payments come due. Only an upswing of oil prices to somewhere around $121/barrel would allow Venezuela to balance its budget, according to some estimates. But with OPEC recently slashing its 2015 production levels to a 12-year low in response to decreasing estimated global oil demand and increasing supply via U.S. shale production, a significant oil price increase in the short-term seems highly unlikely. Bloomberg reports that the implied probability of default---derived from complex financial formulas---in the next five years stands at 93%, the highest in the world. Meanwhile, low oil prices translate into low oil revenues for PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil and natural gas company, which means the Venezuelan government will have to dip into dwindling reserves to service debt payments. Ratings agency Moody’s estimates that the country’s non-gold reserves are less than $7 billion, with only half of that “freely available and usable.” How is it that the country with the largest proven oil reserves—more than 297 billion barrels—sports an economy in such shambles? There are many reasons, but a few stand out:

Senator Mitch McConnell has characterized the new CIA report on "torture" as a last ditch effort by outgoing Democrats to stick their thumb in the eye of the George W. Bush administration and of course, he's right. Where were all these Democrats when Obama was pulverizing suspected terrorists into dust with drones if they happened to be on his personal kill list? It's convenient for Obama to kill terrorists with drones because they're enemy combatants he'll never have to place in Gitmo. Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed by Bret Baier on FOX News Wednesday night and was asked about the highly partisan CIA "torture" report. He didn't hold back: Dick Cheney understands something Obama will never get. People want to know the truth, no matter how ugly it is.

Yeah, they went there. "The killings of Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin clearly shows that we don't live in a post-racial society as many expected when you were elected," Ramos says. Obama chuckled, "Well, I didn't expect that. You probably didn't either." "But many people expected you to do more on race relations, dealing with white privilege. Do you get angry with this? Is it your responsibility?" Then President Obama claimed Americans experience more equality now than before he took office, and also that Eric Holder was awesome. When Ramos pressed on saying, "but there's not really been a lot of improvement," Obama retorted, "The folks who say there's not a lot of improvement, I don't think were living in the 50's and remembering what it was like to be black or Hispanic and interacting with the police then." Take a look:

Fact Check:

Flashback to November 2, 2008. The Washington Post had this to say: