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 January 15, 2014 13 Comments
We previously wrote in detail about the “John Doe” investigation in Wisconsin targeting a wide range of conservative groups and Scott Walker supporters relating to the failed Democratic attempt to recall Walker.  See Secret probe of conservatives makes Wisconsin ground zero in First Amendment war for the details. We also noted the Big defeat for anti-conservative Wisconsin “John Doe” probe, when a judge recently quashed subpoenas. In a new development, Eric O'Keefe, one of the targets of the investigation, is demanding that the prosecutors end the probe or face a federal lawsuit (full media release embedded at bottom of post):
Eric O’Keefe, who has been identified in media reports as a target of a secret “John Doe” investigation in Wisconsin, today demanded that state prosecutors end their action against him or face a federal civil rights action. O’Keefe is director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which was also targeted for alleged unlawful “coordination” with Governor Scott Walker’s campaign for fiscal reforms. “This investigation is political payback by elected prosecutors against conservative activists for their political successes in Wisconsin,” stated O’Keefe. “They are violating the constitutional rights of private citizens and must be held accountable.”

LATEST NEWS

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 15, 2014 10 Comments
For background, see my prior posts: The letter will be finalized tomorrow morning as the House goes into recess Friday and many members leave tomorrow afternoon.  The letter is being coordinated through the offices of Representatives Peter Roksam (R) and Ted Deutch (D). With the crush of business before the recess, it's hard to get the attention of Representatives. Is your House Representative on the list of signatories? If not, now is the time to reach out to their offices and find out why not TODAY. You can find your Representative and office contact information here: Find Your Representative. Here is the current list: UPDATE, list closes 9 a.m. Eastern, Thursday, so if your Rep has not signed by then, too late.

Posted by New Neo on January 15, 2014 16 Comments
We've finally gotten some data on who has actually signed up for Obamacare on the exchanges. At first glance, it would look bad for the insurance companies. There are way fewer young people (only 24% are between the ages of 18 and 34) than the original stated goal. But it doesn't matter for the first year or two because the government has guaranteed to insurance companies that they'll be protected against loss. So the fact that enrollees may be older than expected---and therefore much more likely to make claims and reduce insurance companies' profit margins---is okay because government will take up the slack. And by "government" we mean, of course, the taxpayer. And by "taxpayer" we mean the wealthy taxpayer, although the middle class taxpayer also will pay more in many circumstances. Here's a list of the taxes that are supposed to fund Obamacare. Will they be adequate to cover the fact that nearly 80% of the exchanges' enrollees are getting subsidies so far? It depends on whether this was approximately the number anticipated, and also on whether the tax revenues actually collected will be as great as had been projected. The Byzantine nature of Obamacare is reflected in the fact that one of the largest items in the list of Obamacare funding tax sources is the following:
$60.1 Billion [projected amount of revenue]: Tax on Health Insurers: Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
So Obamacare giveth to the insurance companies and then it taketh away. And then it giveth back again, in a sort of shell game.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Northwestern U. LGBT Community Freaks Out Over Obscure Flag Painted on a Rock

Radical Leftist NYC Teachers’ Group Planning ‘Teach-In for Palestine’ on MLK Day

Amherst College Laying Off Administrators Behind Sexually Explicit Programming

U. Utah Student Charged With Making Gun Gestures, Threatening to Shoot Conservative Debaters

Trump Admin. Apologizes for Mistakenly Deporting MA College Student but Defends Her Removal

Zero Political Donations From Yale Professors Went to Republicans in 2025

SEE MORE

Posted by Andrew Branca on January 14, 2014 109 Comments
Ever since the phrase "Stand-Your-Ground" caught the eye of journalists everywhere, it seems they simply cannot get enough of it. "Stand-Your-Ground" here, "Stand-Your-Ground" there, "Stand-Your-Ground" everywhere. The latest breakout of "Stand-Your-Ground-Mania" is now emerging around a tragic and apparently completely unnecessary shooting in a Tampa-area theater yesterday, as described in a piece from the Tampa Bay Times:  Stand Your Ground already an issue in theater shooting. I covered this a bit from a legal-tactical perspective over at my blog -- Legally-Sound Self-Defense Strategy Rule #1: KEEP OUT OF TROUBLE IN 1st PLACE -- so in the interests of saving time, I'll just copy over the factual description from that post:
Sadly, yesterday the Christian Science Monitor reports on a story where what started as the most minor of conflicts ended up with 71-year-old Curtis Reeves, a former police officer in the area who had retired 20 years ago as a Captain, shooting and killing 43-year-old Chad Oulson, a fellow movie goer. (Movie theater shooting: Did a retired cop shoot a fellow moviegoer for texting?) Both men, each accompanied by his wife, were attending the movie theater to view the just-released movie “Lone Survivor.” Naturally, before the movie itself began the audience was “treated” to s series of trailers for other upcoming movies. While these trailers were being run, Oulson was texting on his phone. Reeves, sitting behind Oulson and presumably disturbed by this activity, told Oulson to stop texting. Oulson replied that he was checking on the status of his 3-year-old daughter.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 14, 2014 14 Comments
Any other "Bs" you can come up with regarding this? Lawmakers unveil massive $1.1 trillion spending bill in bipartisan compromise:
Congressional negotiators unveiled a $1.1 trillion funding bill late Monday that would ease sharp spending cuts known as the sequester while providing fresh cash for new priorities, including President Obama’s push to expand early-childhood education. The 1,582-page bill would fully restore cuts to Head Start, partially restore cuts to medical research and job training programs, and finance new programs to combat sexual assault in the military. It would also give all federal workers a 1 percent raise.... The White House and leaders of both parties praised the measure, which would fund federal agencies for the remainder of the fiscal year and end the lingering threat of a government shutdown when the current funding bill expires at midnight Wednesday.... The spending bill puts flesh on the bones of a bipartisan budget deal struck in December, when Republicans and Democrats agreed to partially repeal the sequester, heading off a roughly $20 billion cut set to hit the Pentagon on Wednesday and restoring funding to domestic agencies, which had already absorbed sequester reductions. Despite the increases, the bill would leave agency budgets tens of billions of dollars lower than Obama had requested and ­congressional Democrats had sought. That represents a victory for congressional Republicans, who, after three years of fevered battles over the budget, have succeeded in rolling back agency appropriations to a level on par with the final years of the George W. Bush administration, before spending skyrocketed in an effort to combat the recession.
So it's being portrayed as more of a Republican win? I think I'll need to digest it a little more before coming to that conclusion. One thing it does do is allow Republicans to focus like a laser on Obamacare for the 2014 elections.  Oh, wait:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 14, 2014 6 Comments
Based on its Quarterly publication, the American Studies Association as of last year had 80 Institutional Members. Since ASA announced its academic boycott of Israel, we have confirmed that 6 universities have dropped their Institutional Memberships, while 11 more have denied being Institutional Members despite being so listed. The updated list appears at the very bottom of this post. While over 190 university presidents have denounced the ASA academic boycott of Israel, many have decided either to keep the membership or to leave the decision to individual American Studies Departments.  Some others are switching the membership listing to their American Studies Departments, rather than the full University name. Anything other than a full termination of Institutional Membership, however, opens up the universities to legal liability for national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That potential liability is explained in a recent article by two attorneys at the Seyfarth Shaw law firm. Seyfarth Shaw is an 800+ international law firm with a 380+ attorney labor and employment law practice. On January 7, 2014, two Seyfarth Shaw attorneys published an article regarding the potential liability of university employers arising out of the ASA academic boycott. In their article, they make points similar to those I made in my challenge to ASA's tax-exempt status: The boycott constitutes national origin discrimination. While I approached it from the angle of whether such discrimination is a valid tax exempt purpose (it's not), the Seyfarth Shaw lawyers approached the problem from the perspective of employer liability under Title VII. Here are relevant portions of the Seyfarth Shaw analysis (emphasis added), including the recommendations of dropping institutional membership in ASA and evaluating whether boycott advocates can serve on hiring and tenure committees.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 14, 2014 14 Comments
The new "moderate" President of Iran has declared victory and international surrender (featured image above). But what are the terms of our surrender? According to Iran, we don't really know; according to the State Deparment, we will find out. Via L.A. Times, New Iran agreement includes secret side deal, Tehran official says :
Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, Iran’s chief negotiator said Monday.... A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that there was any secret agreement. "Any documentation associated with implementation tracks completely with what we've described," she said. "These are technical plans submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency," the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. "We will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available," Harf said.
Remember last fall when the Obama administration insisted it had not consented to Iran's right to enrich uranium, even though Rouhani was claiming we had consented? Q&A: Is there a 'right' to enrich uranium? Iran says yes, U.S. no How's that looking now? Again from the L.A. Times article:

Posted by Mandy Nagy on January 14, 2014 22 Comments
A Pew Research poll out Monday suggests that there has been little public interest so far in the recent coverage surrounding Chris Christie in the wake of the George Washington Bridge lane closures controversy. Views of Chris Christie Largely Unchanged in Recent Days From Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
The public paid far more attention to last week’s cold snap than to the controversy swirling around New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. There also has been little short-term change in opinions about Christie: 60% say their opinion of Christie has not changed in recent days, while 16% now view him less favorably and 6% more favorably. The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-12 among 1,006 adults, finds that just 18% paid very close attention to Christie’s apology on Jan. 9 for the highway lane closures ordered by his aides. By contrast, 44% very closely followed news about the cold winter weather that gripped much of the U.S. and 28% tracked news about the economy.
That might seem surprising (or not) to some, given all the endless media coverage of the Bridgegate story, including additional investigations now being reported. There was also this finding from the same Pew Research report:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 14, 2014 10 Comments
I reported last Friday on the draft Bipartisan Congressional letter to denounce academic boycott of Israel. The letter reads, in part:
We write in strong opposition to the American Studies Association’s (ASA) recent decision to boycott Israeli universities and academic institutions. While ASA has every right to express its views on policies pursued by any nation or government, we believe that the decision to blacklist Israeli academic institutions for Israeli government policies with which ASA disagrees demonstrates a blatant disregard for academic freedom.... Even more concerning is the singular targeting of Israel for boycott. Like all democracies, Israel is not perfect. But to single out Israel, while leaving relationships with universities in autocratic and repressive countries intact, suggests thinly-veiled bigotry and bias against the Jewish State.
As of Friday, there were 36 signatories. As of yesterday, the number had risen to 57.  [Update - see list at bottom of post for most current numbers and signatories] The final signature list should be released later this week. American civil society has been heard loud and clear, with major academic organizations and 190 University Presidents (as of this writing) rejecting the academic boycott. Now it is the time for American political society to be heard against the anti-Israel academic boycotters, as well. Is your House Representative on the list of signatories? If not, now is the time to reach out to their offices and find out why not. You can find your Representative and office contact information here: Find Your Representative. Tell them the letter is being coordinated through the offices of Representatives Peter Roksam and Ted Deutch.  Give them the link to this post if you send an email. Pick up the phone or send an email right now.  (I emailed my Rep. last night.)

Posted by Mandy Nagy on January 13, 2014 25 Comments
Administration officials released demographic information Monday for those who have signed up for Obamacare.  While the overall signup numbers are increasing, it's largely been older customers signing up so far. From the Wall Street Journal:
More than half of those signing up for private health plans on new insurance exchanges are 45 or older, the Obama administration said Monday, a sign that the rough rollout of the exchanges may have skewed early enrollment. In all, nearly 2.2 million people across the country signed up for individual coverage through Dec. 28, with a significant uptick in December after anemic numbers in October and November as consumers battled through technical problems. With the worst of those problems largely resolved at the federal HealthCare.gov website, attention is now shifting to the demographics of the new enrollees, which is likely to determine the long-term impact of the law. At the heart of the health overhaul law is a change in the way insurance is priced. Consumers no longer pay premiums based on their health risks, and health plans are limited in how much they can vary prices based on age. To keep prices in check in the new market, carriers say they need strong enrollment from younger people who are likely to be healthier, to balance out the bills that could be racked up by sicker and older people. If that doesn't happen, prices will likely spike sharply in subsequent years, actuaries say.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 13, 2014 88 Comments
We have written before about the deer sterilization program in Cayuga Heights, which borders the Cornell campus (most people think of it as Ithaca, but it's actually a separate municipality). Because Reproductive Health Care Is A Cervine Right:
I have written before about the moral angst sweeping the upscale Village of Cayuga Heights, bordering the Cornell campus and home to a large number of professors and staff, over how to control the out-of-control deer population. After years of debate, which tore the community apart, Cayuga Heights has come up with a solution:
The board of trustees passed a resolution Monday night to begin implementation of the phased options approach to deer management. The village will begin with the surgical sterilization of 20-60 does within a two-year period, followed by the culling of the remainder of the herd.
The cost per sterilization? Don’t ask:
The first phase of sterilization is estimated to take two years at an average cost of $1,200 per doe, according to the statement.
If they do for our health care system what they’ve done for the deer of Cayuga Heights, we’re sunk.
How did it work out? The Ithaca Journal reports, Cayuga Heights spends $35K to sterilize 12 does:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 13, 2014 27 Comments
The other day I tried to make the distinction between dislike of Chris Christie, and joining the media mob which eventually will turn on Republican candidates you like. I told you not to feed that beast. To defend Chris Christie:
This is not about Chris Christie. It’s about any number of other Republican candidates who will be met with the same faux-outrage and media-led obsession a year from now as the 2016 field begins to define itself. Don’t feed the beast.
It's getting worse, as the feds are piling on. Within days of Bridgegate, Eric Holder and the U.S. Attorney's Office were on the case.  Funny how quickly the feds move against a potential Republican contender. Now the feds are piling on some more by leaking that they are investigating this ad paid for with Sandy relief funds.  That ad, Jim Geraghty points out, was Approved by Obama Administration: Featuring a sitting Governor in tourism ads is completely routine. It gives a personal touch to the tourism campaign. Here are other examples (via Louise Mensch):

Posted by A.F. Branco on January 13, 2014 13 Comments

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 Mandy Nagy on January 13, 2014 10 Comments
A memorial ceremony and funeral for Israel's former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who passed away Saturday at age 85, will take place on Monday. From CNN:
A state memorial ceremony for Sharon is planned for Monday. World leaders, including U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, will attend the memorial, which will be followed by a funeral procession. The procession will include a stop in Latrun for a special meeting of the Israel Defense Forces and will end with a military funeral at Sharon's Shikmim Ranch.
In addition to Biden, other members of the U.S. delegation as announced are U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro; Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.; and Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel, according to FOX News. A live Twitter feed is embedded at the bottom of this post. Live video coverage from Israeli television is below:
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH