Image 01 Image 03

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

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

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. Good news.  The subpoenas issued in the secret probe have been quashed in a secret court ruling uncovered by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Secret ruling deals major setback to John Doe probe into recall elections:
Prosecutors in the John Doe investigation into spending and fundraising during the raucous Wisconsin recall elections were dealt a major procedural blow Friday, according to sources. The five-county investigation remains open, but subpoenas issued in the probe to conservative political groups supporting Gov. Scott Walker were quashed, sources familiar with the development said. The ruling — which is sealed — raises First Amendment concerns about the subpoenas. The Journal Sentinel has not turned up any Democratic candidates or liberal interest groups involved in the recall elections that have been contacted by John Doe prosecutors. "The John Doe is still open," said one individual familiar with the case. But other sources said Friday's ruling seriously undercuts the well-publicized probe, launched in the summer of 2012. Those familiar with the case said the decision was handed down by retired Appeals Court Judge Gregory A. Peterson, the presiding judge in the investigation who took over the case in November.

LATEST NEWS

College Insurrection posts are often inspired by a pithy synopsis of campus news by Professor Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit). So, with great joy, I wanted to share items from a new book featuring his wit, wisdom, and expertise on the subject of higher education, K-12 schooling, and possible technology-based transformations of how students learn that we may be seeing in the near future. One word for his newest publication, The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself: Compelling. I am the mother of a 6th grader who is currently attending public school. While my son's school is a good one, I find myself supplementing his education with trips to Kahn Academy (his math "coach" describes the program in a great article). A core theme in The New School is that online courses are one of the many new tools that will allow parents to customize an educational approach that makes sense for their children. In fact, he is an "early adapter" himself.
My daughter did most of her high school online, after spending one day in ninth grade keeping track of how the public high school she attended spent her time. At the end of eight hours in school, she concluded, she had spent about 2½ hours on actual learning. Switching to online school let her make sure that every hour counted. The flexibility also allowed her to work three days a week for a local TV-production company, where she got experience researching and writing for programs shown on the Biography Channel, A&E, etc., something she couldn’t have done had she been nailed down in a traditional school. And she still managed to graduate a year early, at age 16, to head off to a “public Ivy” to study engineering.
My boy will be doing an online course on robotics, which is a developing interest of his. He just informed me he wants to invent the "warp drive." This Halloween-time picture of us may explain why: Blake and Mom Star Trek In fact, this burgeoning industry in educational customization is counter to the 19th century approach that was the basis for today's American educational system, which was Prussian-inspired standardization during the Industrial Revolution.

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...

I have obtained a copy of a letter circulating in Congress denouncing the academic boycott of Israel by the American Studies Association. The authors of the letter hope to have at least 50 co-signers (maybe more), split roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Here is the text of the letter, with the initiating four Members of Congress inticated:
Mr. Curtis Marez President American Studies Association 1120 19th St NW, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Marez: 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. The ASA claims that the boycott “is in solidarity with scholars and students deprived of their academic freedom and it aspires to enlarge that freedom for all, including Palestinians.” We believe that this boycott accomplishes just the opposite. The university is an institution intended to foster, encourage, and inspire constructive dialogue and original thought. However, this boycott undermines academic freedom by prohibiting educational and cultural exchanges with Israeli universities and academic institutions.

Marissa Alexander will remain free on bail, ruled Circuit Judge James Daniel, albeit under tightens rules of release to account for the fact that "mistakes were made". The State, in the form of Andrea Corey's State Prosecutors office, had filed a motion this past Monday to...

It's not about Christie, it's about how other Republican candidates will be treated by the media....

Media Meme to follow: These are great times to be a liberal in the U.S. of A.  Elizabeth Warren has ignited a progressive surge! The Hill: Liberal identification spikes. Gallup: Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 Well yes, if by spike and new high you mean exactly 1 point higher than in 2008, and 2 points higher than in 2010-2011. Here's Gallup's explanation:
Americans continue to be more likely to identify as conservatives (38%) than as liberals (23%). But the conservative advantage is down to 15 percentage points as liberal identification edged up to its highest level since Gallup began regularly measuring ideology in the current format in 1992.... When Gallup began asking about ideological identification in all its polls in 1992, an average 17% of Americans said they were liberal. That dipped to 16% in 1995 and 1996, but has gradually increased, exceeding 20% each year since 2005. The rise in liberal identification has been accompanied by a decline in moderate identification. At 34% in 2013, it is the lowest Gallup has measured, and down nine points since 1992. Moderates had been the largest ideological group throughout the 1990s, and competed with conservatives for the top spot during the 2000s. Since 2009, conservatives have consistently been the largest U.S. ideological group. The percentage of conservatives has always far exceeded the percentage of liberals, by as much as 22 points in 1996. With more Americans identifying as liberals in recent years, and conservative identification holding steady, the conservative advantage of 15 points ties the 2007 and 2008 gaps as the smallest.
The key finding, however, is not in the headline, but in the breakdown.  Only Democrats have become more liberal, the rest of the country, particularly amond Independents, is as conservative as ever (emphasis added):

Marissa Alexander will learn on Friday if her current bail and home detention will be allowed to continue, or if it will be revoked, sending her back to jail until her re-trial. Alexander is currently on bail following her earlier conviction for aggravated assault with a handgun and the resulting mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years under Florida's "10-20-Life" statute.  Her defense to the charges seems to be largely based on the notion that she "only fired a warning shot," a claim we've previously shown to be disingenuous here: The Myth of Marissa Alexander’s “Warning Shot” As I’ve previously commented, Alexander never struck me as a reasonable candidate for bail, given her previous conduct while on bail (e.g., committing battery against her husband, Rico Gray, while under an order of protection to remain away from him) resulting in that earlier bail being revoked. See my previous commentary on the subject of Alexander’s bail here: Marissa Alexander’s Bail Hearing in “Warning Shot” Case Delayed To Next Week Marissa Alexander Released on Bail Nevertheless, On November 27, 2013, Circuit Judge James Daniel elected to grant Alexander bail again, albeit while noting that “the prior judge appropriately revoked the Defendant’s bond” and that “it is not this court’s customary practice to allow continued pretrial release for defendants who commit a crime while they are out on bond awaiting trial.” As part of that bail arrangement, however, Judge Daniel imposed a number of stringent conditions, including the following:

We have addressed Koch Derangement Syndrome before.  One of the most obsessive purveyors was Think Progress. Now Rachel Maddow has caught the bug, and it's eating away at her reputation as the intellectual giant, ahem, of MSNBC. She's come undone. The short version is that Maddow went all in claiming the Koch brothers were behind a Florida law requiring drug testing for welfare recipients.  Except that it wasn't true, and her explanation was lacking in logic or credibility. The logic is so convoluted it's hard to summarize.  Basically it involved participation by the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability (“FFGA”) in the State Policy Network (SPN), to which the Kochs contributed about $40,000 over several years.   FFGA defended the drug testing law.  Maddow blamed the Kochs. (Video here) This was the worst form of guilt by association -- that some group involved in an issue was a participant in a larger group to which the Kochs contributed.

Shurat HaDin, The Israel Law Center (ILC), founded by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, has had great success in suing on behalf of terror victims, and otherwise confronting anti-Semitism through the legal process. Among other things, ILC is suing an Australian academic for discriminating against an Israeli researcher as part of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement. (We featured that suit in our prior post, Academic boycotters don’t want done unto them what they did unto Israelis). Some of the points raised with regard to the difference between expressing an opinion as opposed to imposing a discriminatory boycott are similar to point made in my challenege to the tax-exempt status of the American Studies Association, although in a different context. ILC has taken note of the ASA academic boycott of Israel, and is representing several Israeli academics. ILC today sent a demand letter to the the incoming President of ASA (embedded at bottom of post), demanding that ASA cease and desist from discriminatory practices, or ILC will commence suit on behalf of a group of Israeli professors. (h/t Times of Israel) The letter reads in part:

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...

Several of most prominent promoters of the American Studies Association academic boycott of Israel attended a bizarre "redwashing" panel discussion in Beirut, at which they tried to delegitimize the Jewish people's indigenous history in Israel and connection to other indigenous peoples. I'll have much more on that insidious conference in another post, but for now you can read the posts by Jeffrey Goldberg and Prof. Jonathan Marks. These academic boycotters gave an interview to The Daily Star of Lebanon that is very revealing. They played upon classic anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish money controlling the press in trying to minimize the overwhelming rejection of the academic boycott throughout most of academia. ASA scholars stand firm by Israel boycott (emphasis added):
Since then, the organization has been forced to defend itself from a barrage of highly vocal critics who have accused the ASA of everything from anti-Semitism to threatening academic freedom. At the conference this week, however, many ASA members reiterated their strong support for the motion. “The boycott is also about the vision of a right to education for people; it’s about a right to democratic participation of all people and it’s about the right to land,” said Alex Lubin, a professor at AUB [American University in Beirut, on leave from University of New Mexico] and ASA member. Despite efforts to publish op-ed pieces explaining the ASA’s position, Lubin said the organization had “effectively been blocked out of [the] U.S. press.” The reason, he said, was “donor dollars that come to them [the publications] from the Israel lobby.” Lubin also said many Americans took issue with the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians and Native Americans.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will hold a press conference this morning at 11:00am, where he is expected to comment on the Bridgegate controversy. You can watch the press conference opening statement below. (Full transcript here) https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/421339032480514049 https://twitter.com/DrewMTips/status/421339226320277504 https://twitter.com/larryelder/status/421327394897551360

Call it the political equivalent of the "Polar Vortex". As we enter Day 244 of the Internal Revenue Service scandal of suppressing conservative groups by the unfair application of tax-exempt status rules, there is a development that is chilling the hearts of citizen activists everywhere. The IRS is planning to codify its tactics into truly heavy-handed regulations. Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works explains:
“While you were all celebrating Thanksgiving with family and friends, the Obama Administration was quietly releasing a new set of draconian IRS regulations that would make it virtually impossible for tea parties that want to participate in the political process to do their business. They’re going after conservative groups, they’re going after libertarian groups, and they’re going after citizen groups that want to organize people based on the values of the constitution; based on the ideas of freedom and have an impact on the political conversation.”
In a nutshell, the agency will be using one of the administration's favorite tactics: Redefining terms. There would be favorable rulings for groups promoting "social welfare."