Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 03, 2015 11 Comments
The Obama administration has received sharp rebukes from federal trial and appeals courts for his post-election plan to grant DREAM Act-like status through administrative rules.   That plan, which would have granted de facto amnesty to approximately 5 million people, now is on hold until further argument this month in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. But under the radar, Obama has been accomplishing a more sweeping de facto amnesty through deliberate non-enforcement of the deportation laws.   This has not receive a lot of attention, as the nation went from one social crisis to another over the past few months. Baltimore - Charleston - Confederate Flag - Gay Marriage - Obamacare. All those and more have dominated the media and political attention for months. The Washington Post just published a report on the major policy shift deliberately, Obama administration scales back deportations in policy shift:

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 03, 2015 12 Comments
In the newest edition of Afterburner, Bill Whittle sets the historic record straight on the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to racism. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery while Democrats sought secession to preserve the practice. The Confederate flag, which is a big problem all of a sudden, was created by Democrats. Walk up to any person in the street and ask them which of the two major parties created the KKK. The correct answer is the Democratic Party but sadly, I'd bet against the public answering that question correctly every time. Have you ever been told the progressive myth that the parties "switched" at some point? Whittle gets into all of this and walks you through history right up to the present day.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 03, 2015 4 Comments
The United Church of Christ recently passed a resolution adopting part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) platform. The resolution purported to demand divestment from the "occupation," but in fact a late amendment broadened it substantially to include virtually every Israeli company, as I explained in my prior analysis. (Another resolution, declaring Israeli guilty of the Crime of Apartheid, had a split vote short of the 2/3 needed for passage.) Throughout the committee-level and annual meeting debate and presentations about divestment, aligning UCC with BDS was repeatedly stressed as part of a peaceful process of ending the conflict. The anti-Israel Jewish Voice for Peace played a central role in Jew-washing the nature of the BDS movement, allowing BDS supporters at UCC to say - hey, look, there are Jews who support what we are doing. [caption id="attachment_132637" align="alignnone" width="600"][Speaker in support of divestment says "Stand with Jewish Voice for Peace"] [Speaker in support of divestment says "Stand with Jewish Voice for Peace"][/caption]If UCC's delegates and leadership thought aligning UCC with BDS was a move towards peace, it was severely duped. Here's a perfect example of how BDS is against peaceful reconciliation. The YaLa Young Leaders conference attempts to bring Israeli youth together with Arab youth from around the world. We first wrote about the conference in 2014. Since then, it has grown to even greater success:

Posted by Amy Miller on July 03, 2015 13 Comments
Greece is in trouble, and it's going to take a lot more than a short-term fix to repair what anti-austerity measures broke. The IMF released new numbers this week showing that it will take Greece three years and 50 billion euros just to stabilize its volatile and quickly failing economy. The organization also downgraded Greece's projected economic growth from 2.5% to 0%, and renewed its call for Greece to agree to an extended debt repayment plan coupled with lower interest rates. From the BBC:

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Member of Largest Teachers Union Says They Abandoned Education in Pursuit of Political Power

Columbia to Host Discussion of American Genocide, Colonialism, and Racial Oppression

LGBT Student Group at Florida State U. Requests $58K for Drag Shows

U. Oregon Gives $27K to Study ‘White Supremacy’ in Medicine

Anti-Israel Faculty Group at American U. Demands School Cut Ties With Anti-Defamation League

Turning Point USA Event at U. New Mexico Ends With Arrest of Two Students

SEE MORE

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2015 20 Comments
We previously covered Cynthia Archer, Wisconsin Dems used battering rams against Scott Walker supporters – literally Archer was a woman whose home was raised by paramilitary-style commandos working at the behest of Milwaukee County Prosecutor John Chishom as part of "John Doe No. 2." Archer's only alleged crime was being a former aide to Scott Walker, and being conservative. That flimsy pretense was enough enough to make her a target in the second (hence, John Doe No. 2) secret investigation of Walker, based on the allegation that there was illegal campaign coordination among conservative groups and the Walker campaign during the Recall election. We have covered the legal proceedings extensively. The federal and state courts have rejected the prosecution's theory in the face of lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the laws on campaign coordination and the investigations violated freedom of speech. The key case as to the investigation now is on appeal in the state court system, and the John Doe No. 2 investigation is on hold. Our John Doe (WI) Tag traces the history of the cases. But lost in this legal wrangling is the damage done to real people, such as Archer. She explained what happened to her to David French in National Review:

Posted by Amy Miller on July 02, 2015 14 Comments
When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project last week, social justice activists claimed a major victory in the battle against segregated housing. The decision endorsed a "disparate impact" analysis as applied to a Texas program that plaintiffs claimed distributes federal low income housing credits disproportionately, awarding too many credits to inner-city, predominately black neighborhoods and too few to suburban, predominately white neighborhoods. The Inclusive Communities Project, plaintiffs to the case, said that the government had actually caused continued racial segregation in the Dallas area via its credit allocation program, and sued to force the State of Texas to alter their selection criteria to encourage the construction of low income housing in suburban communities. The playing field changed mid-posture when the HUD secretary issued a regulation interpreting the Fair Housing Act to encompass disparate impact liability and instituted a burden-shifting framework that would make it easier for plaintiffs trying to prove instances of subtle discrimination. Regulatory tango aside, ICP's argument won at the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy and joined by the usual, left-leaning suspects. Back in January, Tulane Law prof Stacy E. Seicshnaydre and Inclusive Communities Project board member laid out better than I could the social justice argument that the plaintiffs brought to the Court:

Posted by Amy Miller on July 02, 2015 4 Comments
He may only be polling at 2% in preliminary polls, but Jim Webb has come out swinging against Hillary Clinton. The former Virginia Senator and Reagan-era secretary of the navy announced today that he's throwing his hat in for the Democratic nomination for president with a statement that punches up both at Clinton's controversial run as Secretary of State, but the underdeveloped foreign policy chops of the other Democratic candidates. Via Time:
“I understand the odds, particularly in today’s political climate where fair debate is so often drowned out by huge sums of money,” Webb said. “I know that more than one candidate in this process intends to raise at least a billion dollars—some estimates run as high as two billion dollars—in direct and indirect financial support.” ... Webb said in his statement that he is running to offer both “a fresh approach” and “experienced leadership.” As president, he said, he would reinforce alliances with NATO and in the Middle East, as well as challenge China in the South China Sea. Webb is the only Democratic candidate to strongly emphasize foreign policy in his platform. “There is no greater responsibility for our President than the vital role of Commander in Chief,” said Webb. “I have spent my entire life in and around the American military.”
The odds are stacked against him, but I wouldn't count him out. Webb is tough, and has a resume that does more than establish progressive talking point credibility.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 02, 2015 41 Comments
Why, Mr. Sulu? WHY? George Takei of Star Trek fame made a wild accusation in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate. The televised portion of the interview went as you'd expect: long-time gay rights advocate is thrilled with advances in gay rights. "We're overjoyed, we're proud, and we feel fully American," said Takei. George discussed having to stay in the closet so he could have a career in Hollywood and the disappointment he felt when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed California's gay marriage legislation. "We're doing this for the straight couples of today because they're going to having the gay babies of tomorrow and they won't have to have those discussions." The televised interview:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2015 5 Comments
After the United Church of Christ passed an Israel divestment resolution on June 30, 2015, there was concern that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement might score three victories at church annual meetings this week. But that did not happen. The Mennonite Church USA tabled the divestment resolution, and the Episcopal Church House of Bishops voted it down overwhelmingly on a voice vote (I listened, and there were almost zero people shouting "yes" and a loud chorus of "No"). AP reported on the Mennonite vote:
A leading Mennonite group has delayed a decision on divesting from companies with business tied to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Mennonite Church USA was set to vote this week on whether they should sell off stock in companies "known to be profiting from the occupation" and from "destruction of life and property" in the territories. A church spokeswoman said delegates at a national meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, voted 418-336 to table the resolution until their next assembly two years from now. Twenty-eight delegates abstained.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 02, 2015 23 Comments
True story: when I was little I never opened the door to my Cozy Coupe. I hopped in through the window like the Duke boys. So this one hits a little close to home. Thanks to the Confederate flag controversy, TV Land pulled reruns of The Dukes of Hazzard.
TV Land has pulled reruns of The Dukes of Hazzard off its schedule, a spokesperson for the network confirmed to EW on Wednesday. The network did not comment further or say why the episodes were removed, but the news comes as the show became part of the growing national debate over use of the Confederate flag, which is displayed on the roof of the Duke boys’ car.
At long last we've been SAVED! Saved from cheesy 70s reruns, because of a... flag? The whitewashing started with The Dukes of Hazzard merchandise last week when Warner Bros. said they'd no longer license any likeness of the show's iconic General Lee.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2015 16 Comments
The NY Times refuses to publish cartoons of Mohammed even as part of news stories about cartoons of Mohammed, and the violence that ensues. But The NY Times has no hesitation in publishing Condom Pope artwork, a portrait of the Pope composed of condoms. The Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan, who functions as a quasi-ombudsman, wrote how the Times Standards Editor responded (emphasis added):
The standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, fielded an inquiry about this from The Washington Examiner. Here’s how he responded:
There’s no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in situations like this. We really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone. We have to make these judgments all the time. Reasonable people might disagree about any one of them.

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 02, 2015 20 Comments
Remember all the fanfare over Hillary Clinton releasing her emails and claiming that there wasn't any classified information in any of them? Hillary absolutely denied ever sending classified material during her UN press conference:
QUESTION: Were you ever -- were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using -- using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president? CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
https://youtu.be/uNgsze5yjG0?t=6m0s At the time, Professor Jacobson expressed skepticism about Hillary's claims:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 01, 2015 18 Comments
Nothing is safe from the long, lame arm of the progressive fun police. Not even sex. While the war against sex rages on college campuses, anti-sex forces are preparing for battle on the legal front. By changing existing sex-crime laws, progressives pushing this hogwash seek to make current sexual norms obsolete or worse -- criminal. Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes at Reason:
Forget sex robots, virtual reality porn, and any of the other technological advances feared capable of disrupting current sexual mores. The biggest threat to sex as we know it is the coming revision of U.S. sex-crime laws. For a glimpse into this frightening future, look no further than Judith Shulevitz's latest in The New York Times. Shulevitz chronicles how "affirmative consent" (the principle, often referred to as "yes means yes," that the mere absence of a "no" is not sufficient permission to proceed sexually) has been quietly spreading from California universities to colleges across the country, and could soon mutate out of academia entirely. The American Law Institute (ALI)—a respected body of professors, judges, and lawyers that draft model laws oft adopted in whole by state and federal government—has spent the past three years deliberating over sexual assault statutes (an area it hadn't revisited since 1962). A draft of the group's recommendations, released in May, endorsed "the position that an affirmative expression of consent, either by words or conduct, is always an appropriate prerequisite to sexual intercourse, and that the failure to obtain such consent should be punishable under" criminal law.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH