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 Kemberlee Kaye on March 11, 2015 31 Comments
In October, the New York Times reported President Obama intended to fly solo on Iranian negotiations. "But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it," they reported. Fast forward to Monday, when freshman Senator Tom Cotton kicked a hornet's nest. Joined by 46 Republican Senators, Senator Cotton wrote an open letter to Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The letter was an exposition of the Constitutionally guaranteed Congressional role in international agreements. Most notably, a reminder that international agreements arranged by the President are non-binding until they've received Congressional approval. President Obama responded, accusing participating Senate Republicans of allying themselves with Iranian hardliners, "I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk." Vice President Joe Biden weighed in calling the letter "beneath the dignity of [the Senate,] an institution I revere." And then the Democratic dog pile began. Iran too, responded. Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif called the letter a propaganda ploy and proceeded with a self-righteous lecture on international law:
I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
Zarif's statement isn't exactly incorrect, but it in no way negates the fact that for any agreement involving the United States to be a binding agreement on the international stage, it must first pass Congressional scrutiny... which is exactly what Senator Cotton and his 46 compadres pointed out. Conversely, any agreement reached without Congressional consent is not legally binding.

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Amy Miller on March 11, 2015 7 Comments
Big Brother is making an effort at transparency---and it might just work. The Seattle Police Department has taken information accessibility to a new level by posting redacted footage from its officers' body cameras online. You can view the channel here (it's not a stream, and each "episode" is posted separately.) Here's what it looks like: The SPD blotter explains why officers are wearing cameras to begin with:
The intent is to capture video of officer interactions. The footage can be used as evidence against suspects, and help monitor the behavior of officers. In addition, a recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice found that most research on the use of body-worn cameras “document a reduction in citizen complaints against the police and, in some cases, similar reductions in use of force and assaults on officers.”
Fair enough. When I've discussed this issue with my friends, I've normally come down on the side of "no body cameras," mostly because I couldn't stop imagining the pressure of having my work habits recorded; but the Seattle PD has made this choice, and I think it's an interesting, civilian-friendly approach to increasing transparency.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 11, 2015 17 Comments
Hillary's email scandal is a flashback for anyone who remembers the Bill Clinton years. Democrats have put all their eggs in one basket for Hillary in 2016 but as Charles Krauthammer observed on Special Report last night, it's like America has stepped into a time machine. From National Review:
Krauthammer’s Take: ‘It’s the 90s All Over Again’ Charles Krauthammer said Hillary Clinton’s press conference about her exclusive use of a private e-mail account and server made it seem as if, “it’s the 1990s all over again.” He said he thinks Clinton chose to exercise total control over her communications because of President Clinton’s handling of the Whitewater scandal in the 1990s. “She is determined never to let things out of her control,” Krauthammer said on Special Report. “This is going to be stonewalling from here until Election Day.”
Watch the video: This entire episode is a reminder that the Clintons come with baggage, but don't take my word for it.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 11, 2015 13 Comments
The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act is a good thing. If passed, it would allow law enforcement agencies to expand and improve human trafficking deterrence programs. It would make it possible to protect victims while more efficiently prosecuting those who deal in the modern day slavery industry. It would increase monetary penalties for perpetrators. It would expand the definition of "child abuse" to include the production of child pornography, child trafficking, and the solicitation of children for commercial sex acts. It would direct fees and penalties collected into funds and grants to be used specifically for the benefit of victims of human trafficking and associated sexual violence. It's comprehensive. It's bipartisan. And Senate Democrats are blocking it because it doesn't fund abortion. Via Politico:
The legislation passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in late February without opposition, but Democrats are now balking over language in it that would prohibit money in a restitution fund from being spent on abortions. Aides said Democrats shepherded the bill through committee and to the floor, unaware that abortion language was in the bill written by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “You can blame it on staff, blame it on whoever you want to blame,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday. “But we didn’t know it was in the bill, and … the bill will not come off this floor as long as that language is in the bill.”
The shame of a nation, ladies and gentlemen.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

U. Michigan Student Faces Assault, Battery Charges After Attacking Jewish Activist

Washington State U. Bans Fall Rush for Fraternities, Sororities Starting in 2027

Illinois Teacher Union Boss Gets Substantial Pay Raise Despite Low State Reading Scores

Faculty Senate at Northwestern Calls for Restrictions on ICE Access to Campus

Oregon State Instructor Reports Student for Arguing There are Only Two Sexes

University of San Francisco Ditching Mascot Over Student Complaints

SEE MORE

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.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH