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

LATEST NEWS

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 03, 2014 24 Comments
In light of the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court today granted an injunction pending appealy in favor of Wheaton College, which did not want to comply with certain Obamacare paperwork on religious grounds:
The application for an injunction having been submitted to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court, the Court orders: If the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a nonprofit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the applicant the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final disposition of appellate review. To meet the condition for injunction pending appeal, the applicant need not use the form prescribed by the Government, EBSA Form 700, and need not send copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators.
Note that this really is not substantive, it's a matter of paperwork, as AP explains:
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday allowed, at least for now, an evangelical college in Illinois that objects to paying for contraceptives in its health plan to avoid filling out a government document that the college says would violate its religious beliefs. The justices said that Wheaton College does not have to fill out the contested form while its case is on appeal but can instead write the Department of Health and Human Services declaring that it is a religious nonprofit organization and making its objection to emergency contraception. The college does provide coverage for other birth control. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied Wheaton's request and made the college fill out a form that enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.
Yes, heads exploding:

Posted by Bruce Carroll on July 03, 2014 12 Comments
Every monthly jobs report announcement since 2009 seems to be a perfect symbol for Barack Obama's entire presidency. When the jobs numbers are first released at 8:30AM each month -- the expressions of 'hope' and hype dominate the morning news cycle. But by mid-way through the day, hope has 'changed' into reality: there's no substance to the sizzle.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 03, 2014 20 Comments
A Quinnipiac University National Poll released today confirms what conservatives across the country have known since 2008: that Barack Obama is a dreadful president. Via Quinnipiac University:
President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush. Ronald Reagan is the best president since WWII, 35 percent of voters say, with 18 percent for Bill Clinton, 15 percent for John F. Kennedy and 8 percent for Obama, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Among Democrats, 34 percent say Clinton is the best president, with 18 percent each for Obama and Kennedy.
Meanwhile, just under half of voters polled believe that America would be better off with Mitt Romney at the helm:
America would be better off if Republican Mitt Romney had won the 2012 presidential election, 45 percent of voters say, while 38 percent say the country would be worse off.
There are two takeaways from this poll, and only one of them has to do with the fact that the majority of Americans are experiencing some serious buyer's remorse over all the "hope and change" happening down on the border/in Benghazi/at our VA hospitals.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Teacher Unions Sounding Alarm Over New AI-Driven Classroom Model

Students Claim Required English Course at Texas A&M San Antonio Ties Standard English to ‘Oppression’

AAUP Backs Anti-ICE Campaign on College Campuses

California High School Drops Punishment of Student for Pro-ICE Flyers After Inquiry From FIRE

CUNY LGBTQ Center to Host Podcast Discussion About the ‘Trans Politics of Looting’

Northeastern University Students Anxious After String of Crimes Near Campus

SEE MORE

Posted by New Neo on July 03, 2014 22 Comments
Ruth Marcus thinks that the female SCOTUS justices do. And she thinks it's a good thing:
How did the Supreme Court manage to agree unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching cellphones, yet split on whether employers must offer contraception as part of their health care plans? My explanation, slightly crude but perhaps compelling: All the justices, presumably, have cellphones. Only three have uteruses, and you know which way they voted.
This is hardly an isolated idea. It was inherent in Sotomayor's statements about the superior judgment of a "wise Latina":
And [Sotomayor] often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach. The line was almost identical every time: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans.
A similar notion about the superiority and importance of membership in a minority or other group officially designated as oppressed was strongly suggested in an execrable comment by Harry Reid (is there any other kind?) in connection with Hobby Lobby, about which I wrote:

Posted by A.F. Branco on July 03, 2014 1 Comment

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.  To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here. Branco’s page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco...

Posted by RedDawn on July 02, 2014 13 Comments
Florida's 18th Congressional District has an interesting contender: Calvin Turnquest. Born in Nassau, Bahamas, Turnquest cites one of his proudest moments as taking the oath to become a United States citizen. A citizen by choice. Having been through the tedious American immigration system, starting as an international college student at the University of Miami, Turnquest hopes to be the GOP's new face of legal immigration. Turnquest, hoping to represent Floridians in Allen West's old district, has lived and worked in the district for 15 years. During that time, he and his wife (a practicing physician) have owned small businesses and Turnquest served as a Councilman and Vice Mayor for the Village of Tequesta. "Those of us who have been through the process feel disenfranchised by those who get to jump in front of the line," Turnquest said in an interview with me. A sentiment held by many who have been through the American immigration ringer. He hopes that in being able to share his story of working hard to achieve the American dream, other immigrants will be emboldened to choose citizenship legally. Believing Republicans too often and too easily concede to Democrats when it comes to immigration reform, Turnquest said, "Pandering is a bad move, we're handing this country and the votes to the Democrats." He went on to say, "I'm so tired of hearing Republicans say, "let's take a page from the Democrat's playbook," that's ridiculous! We need to be changing the conversation and driving the narrative." "Experience the American dream like I have. Go to the back of the line, pay the fees, pay your taxes and then you'll be welcome with open arms," Turnquest proposed. He also indicated that there reasons we have certain immigration regulations in place, like protecting American citizens. "When I went through the process, I had to present the U.S. Embassy with a certificate of health. One problem I see with illegal immigration; we don't know who's been vaccinated for what," he mentioned.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2014 6 Comments
Martha Robertson is the Emily's List-backed, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) "Red to Blue" Democratic challenger in NY-23, my home district. The "red-to-blue" designation means she's considered at the top tier of Democratic candidates who might flip a current Republican seat. So she will be showered with national money. We have been following the race closely, and have exposed a number of issues that have helped frame the narrative of the race, including Robertson's false fundraising claim that GOP operatives hacked her website during a critical fundraising period, her support for Obamacare as a pathway to single payer, and her misunderstanding of the Veteran's administrative crisis. In an attempt to gain some momentum, Robertson held a press conference today to announce her challenge to Reed on several issues revolving around congressional perks. This was her statement at the press conference, as reported by the Elmira Star-Gazette:

Posted by Bruce Carroll on July 02, 2014 54 Comments
Who would have thought that the Mississippi GOP Senate Primary race would be more exciting and last longer than the World Cup soccer tournament? Well, it's happening. You may recall that allegations surfaced that incumbent U.S. Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) supporters engaged in flagrant race-baiting tactics against Cochran's June 24 runoff opponent -- State Sen. Chris McDaniel. These vicious racial attacks were used by a third party SuperPAC to bash McDaniel's conservative supporters in order to gin up support by traditional Democratic African-American voters and have them vote for Cochran in the runoff.
Crushing the Tea Party was the goal of the Republican Party, even if it came at a “staggering price.” Crushing supporters of expanding government and a system of pork barrel politics, not such a priority. So remind me again, why am I a Republican? Because it beats being a Democrat? When the Republican Party establishment needs Democratic voters looking for more government and more pork to win Republican primaries, that’s not a good enough excuse anymore.
These first round of allegations about race-baiting campaign ads were bad enough. But the news just seems to get worse each day for the Cochran camp and his supporters. The latest blockbuster allegation: Cochran's campaign allegedly gave cash to an African-American preacher so he could literally buy votes for the Senator in the runoff.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2014 28 Comments
Overnight the body of a Palestinian teenager from Jerusalem was found in a forest in the city. It appears to be confirmed that his name is Mohammed Abu Khdeir. The featured image is from Twitter. Immediately, there was speculation in the media and social media that it was a revenge killing for the murder of three Israeli teens who had been kidnapped and whose bodies were located just a few days ago. On social media in particular, the speculation was not really speculation -- it was announced by the usual suspects to be definitively a revenge kidnapping and murder by "settlers." There have been riots in an Arab section of Jerusalem, including the destruction of the Light Rail system, based on the rumors. Forest fires also are being set. The truth is that as of this writing, we don't really know who did it, and why. The allegation that it was a revenge killing is unconfirmed as of this writing. Israeli police are following three paths of investigation: (1) it was a revenge killing, (2) it was an honor killing related to the teen's sexuality, and (3) it was part of a non-political murder as part of an ongoing feud between families. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and the family of one of the murdered Israeli teens) issued a swift condemnation and promise to find out who and why the teen was killed:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 02, 2014 8 Comments
It's been a while since we checked in on Democratic challenger Sean Eldridge, running in NY-19 against incumbent Republican Chris Gibson, Facebook, I mean Sean Eldridge, trying to buy NY-19 congressional district:
The congressional race in NY-19 has been off my radar this cycle, even though the district is just over the Catskill mountains from Ithaca. Republican incumbent Chris Gibson was on our 2012 Operation Counterweight list. Off my radar until I saw an article at Politico about how Democratic challenger Sean Eldridge is trying to buy the District by handing out money to local businesses and then touting how many jobs he has created in the District. It’s the venture capital equivalent of walking around money.
That was back in early April. How are things going for Eldridge? Not well, according to left-wing Down With Tyranny blog, Bagels And Cream Cheese And A Million Of His Own Dollars Won't Win Sean Eldridge A Seat In Congress (emphasis added):

Posted by Mandy Nagy on July 02, 2014 6 Comments
The New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that a local law intended to protect children from cyberbullying violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it was too broad. From the Wall Street Journal:
New York's top court struck down a law that made cyberbullying a crime, in what had been viewed as a test case of recent state and local statutes that target online speech. The New York Court of Appeals, in a 5-2 ruling, held on Tuesday that the 2010 Albany County law prohibited a vast swath of speech "far beyond the cyberbullying of children," in violation of the First Amendment. The court's ruling could stand as a guidepost for other state high courts hearing challenges to such laws, as well as for states and localities considering criminal penalties for cyberbullying, legal experts said. Besides Albany, four other New York counties and more than a dozen states, including Louisiana and North Carolina, have similar laws.
The 2010 law defined cyberbullying against “any minor or person” to mean “any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.” Writing for the majority, Judge Victoria Graffeo said, in part, “…it appears that the provision would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example: an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult.”

Posted by Amy Miller on July 02, 2014 8 Comments
*Graphic courtesy of the Media Research Center
This past April, a whistleblower at the VA Medical Center in Phoenix revealed to the world that agency officials were falsifying their wait lists in exchange for bigger bonuses and the appearance of efficiency. The scandal gave birth to a flurry of media activity, and journalists, politicians, and the public joined together in their demand for answers--how could this have happened to the people who risk everything to protect us? That outcry was short lived. According to a report by the Media Research Center, the mainstream media has drastically cut back on how much screen time they're devoting to the ongoing crisis at the VA:
The coverage of this scandal, involving at least 40 veterans who died while awaiting care, has been problematic from the start. The story broke on April 23, but the networks didn't get around to it until 13 days later, May 6. But the 180 minutes of coverage in May faded substantially in June.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on July 02, 2014 27 Comments
Thousands of unaccompanied minors have flooded across our border, overwhelming border agents leading to immigration officials opening processing centers around the country. In the San Diego area, protesters force buses carrying undocumented immigrants to leave Murrieta, the local border patrol processing site designated to handle these arrivals.
Protesters gathered in Murrieta on Tuesday where around 140 undocumented immigrants, including lone children, were brought to be processed at a Border Patrol office. And when the buses arrived carrying the immigrants, the drivers ended up turning around and leaving when the protesters refused to let them pass. The buses instead headed for another border patrol station. The immigrants had arrived in San Diego earlier in the afternoon at Lindbergh Field.
The Desert Sun has additional details with a timeline (and a video at the link):
3:21 p.m.: Union representative Ron Zermeno tells The Desert Sun that the Murrieta Border Patrol station will not resume normal operations but instead send its entire staff to the San Diego area to help with the processing of the re-routed immigrant families. "It's just a matter of time," he said. 3:09 p.m.: With the protest too much in Murrieta, Border Patrol union representatives confirm the buses are heading to a San Diego County processing center. 2:55 p.m.: The crowd of protesters in Murrieta blocked buses from entering the Border Patrol station. Officials did not immediately say where they were going to be detoured.
The Desert Sun report also noted that 3 more flights of immigrants were slated to follow. Between the gross violation of law and risk of infectious diseases, Californians aren't the only ones unhappy with the crisis. For example, fellow blue staters in New York are also complaining.

Posted by RedDawn on July 01, 2014 40 Comments
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. If you haven't heard of it before now, you probably will as tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors flood across the border, having been "abandoned" by their parents in Central America. A Legal Insurrection reader tipped us off to what could be a coming legal onslaught to give these children a right to stay in the U.S. permanently:
"Special Immigrant Juvenile Status is something that we attorneys on the border have been getting CLE training in for a while, but largely it has not been well known outside of CPS attorney work. With the invasion now taking place, it is going to explode.  No parents means that any immigrant child under 18 can apply for a Green Card as soon as they are deemed "abandoned" by their parents for 6 months by the court system.  There are some other minor rules, but that is the big one.... The bill renewal was the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.  It modified and exempted application of certain rules which would normally result in inadmissibility....  Also, it set up an "expedited" review schedule that USCIS is REQUIRED to adjudicate SIJ petitions within 180 days of filing, and that interviews may be WAIVED for SIJ petitioners under 14 years of age or when it is determined that an interview is unnecessary. Further, per the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, a SIJ petitioner may not be required to contact an individual who allegedly abused, abandoned or neglected the Juvenile. What nobody is talking about (or maybe nobody has realized yet) is that this is going to flood the child welfare courts FIRST, before they get to the USCIS (certain findings of fact which can only be made by the state are prerequisites to SIJS applications) with a sudden influx of "abandoned" children, and put a strain on the CPS system like nothing that has ever been seen."
SIJS regulations are part of 8 CFR 204.11 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) allows for children to obtain federal legal status in the U.S. if a state court deems they cannot be reunited with the parents and have suffered either abuse, abandonment, neglect or other similar offenses under state law. Children must also be unmarried, and it must be determined that it's not in the child's best interest to return to their country. SIJS is not the same as refugee or asylum status, which both bear very different legal tests.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH