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 Amy Miller on October 12, 2014 6 Comments
Last week, the Wall Street Journal released a report on Barack Obama's latest push to fulfill his most famous campaign promise---achieving the permanent closure of U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senior administration officials are saying that the President is serious about coming through on the Gitmo closure, and is considering taking executive action to get the job done. The Wall Street Journal's report reveals Obama's two most likely routes to bypass Congress:
He could veto the annual bill setting military policy, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, in which the ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. is written. While the veto wouldn’t directly affect military funding, such a high-stakes confrontation with Congress carries significant political risks. A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously. Presidents of both parties have used such signing statements to clarify their understanding of legislative measures or put Congress on notice that they wouldn’t comply with provisions they consider infringements of executive power.
Similar efforts are likely on immigration, "climate change" and other areas where Obama is unable to obtain congressional approval. Whichever option he chooses, he's sure to meet with political backlash that won't be limited to anger at the White House. Although the 2014 midterms will be behind us by the time the President makes the choice to act, the use of executive action on the issue could have a detrimental effect on democrats seeking election (or re-election) in 2016.

LATEST NEWS

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 12, 2014 213 Comments
Well, this is interesting. I came across the University of Miami Law School Summer 2014 edition of their law review, and noted that it had a particular focus on Stand-Your-Ground. Awesome! I dug right into the Foreword, "Stand Your Ground” in Context: Race, Gender, and Politics," by University of Miami School of Law Professor Donna Coker. As you might expect, it was chock full of the race, gender, and political facets of Stand-Your-Ground, none of which is really in my wheelhouse.  It did, of course, talk about several of the recent (and upcoming) self-defense cases, including Zimmerman, Dunn, and Alexander--none of which, of course, actually are Stand-Your-Ground cases, but whatever. Here's a sample of prose to give you a taste of things, for those of you who daren't click on the link above for the entirety of it:
If the phenomenon of violent crime is "classed," surely the social construction of criminality is more so. Professor Jones calls attention to the intersections of gender, race, class, and youth in the popular imagination of the "thug," which he argues is evidenced in George Zimmerman's assessment of Trayvon Martin and is perpetuated by Zimmerman's supporters.  Jones deftly demonstrates that the identity ascribed to young Trayvon Martin by Zimmerman's supporters--and Zimmerman--is an intersectional identity defined by race (black), age (youth), gender (male), and class (poor): "[t]he same moral panic, which once targeted all blacks, has refocused on black males in urban areas with saggy pants and hoodies," images that are "deeply associated with criminals and crime."  The references in the blogosphere to Trayvon as a "thug, vandal, burglar, pothead and/or drug dealer" illustrate this widely held association.
(internal footnote references removed) So, there's 17 pages of that kind of stuff, if you're interested. I have to confess I didn't make it all the way through myself, as I bumped up across an interesting factual claim with regard to the Zimmerman trial.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 12, 2014 30 Comments
This is a fascinating glimpse into the progressive mind. Paul Krugman was interviewed on ABC's This Week and just couldn't say enough about what a great president Obama has been. Ryan Lovelace of National Review has the story:
Krugman: Obama One of the Most Successful Presidents in American History On ABC’s This Week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said President Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in modern American history, ranking third behind Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Krugman explained his reasoning by saying that Obama has made important changes to the economy, implemented new environmental policies, and accomplished health-care reform. And on foreign policy, Krugman said, “He hasn’t done anything really stupid and that is a big improvement over his predecessor.” Krugman wrote an article for Rolling Stone magazine noting how his perception of the president has changed, and why he now believes Obama to be one of the “most successful presidents in American history.”
Here's the video segment: Krugman recently wrote an article for Rolling Stone Magazine outlining his position:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 12, 2014 6 Comments
You may not fully appreciate this unless you are from my former home State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. As mentioned here before, twice-convicted former Providence Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci not only is running for Mayor a third time (as an Independent), he is leading in the polls. Buddy's first conviction during his first term as Mayor was for beating his wife's alleged paramour with a fireplace log and assaulting him with a lit cigarette. His second conviction was for running a criminal enterprise (under the RICO statute), namely, Providence City Hall. Mike Stanton, author of the definitive chronicle of Buddy's years in office (The Prince of Providence book and later movie), has a column in The New York Times this weekend, Good Buddy, Bad Buddy:
Stories of the Good Buddy and the Bad Buddy are legion, and legend. He moved rivers. He took bribes. He built a mall. He was accused of raping a woman at gunpoint in law school. He championed WaterFire, the festive floating bonfires on downtown rivers. He assaulted a guy and tried to jab a lit cigarette in his eye while a police bodyguard stood by. He raised a city’s self-esteem. He turned City Hall into a cesspool. The judge who sentenced him to five years in prison, for running City Hall as a criminal enterprise, called him Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. (The ever witty Buddy cracked, “He didn’t give me two [expletive] paychecks.”) He belongs to that great American pantheon of rogues whose corruption was tolerated because of their populist appeal to voters and the perception that they “got things done” — Boss Tweed, Huey Long, James Michael Curley, Edwin Edwards.... A city is like a woman you make love to, he once said. But he was an unfaithful lover.
Yet Buddy remains a beloved figure because he was larger than life, a superb retail politician, and the man who transformed Providence from a dying industrial city into the jewel of New England.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

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

Maine School Administrator Objects to Dogs in the Classroom, Citing Muslim Views

SEE MORE

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 12, 2014 85 Comments
No, of course not, because we have it under control. Oh, wait, 'Heroic' Health Worker Becomes Second U.S. Ebola Case:
A Texas health care worker who cared for Liberian Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan at a Dallas hospital has tested positive for the disease, hospital officials said Sunday. The worker became infected despite wearing full protective gear while treating Duncan, who later died from the disease, during his second visit to the hospital. If the preliminary diagnosis is confirmed by the Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, it would be the first known case of the disease being contracted or transmitted in the U.S. "That health care worker is a heroic person who provided care to Mr. Duncan," Dallas Judge Clay Jenkin said at a news conference Sunday morning.
No need to worry, NIH official: 'The system worked':

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 12, 2014 8 Comments
The last time we checked in with former White House spokesman Jay Carney he was predicting doom for Democrats in the midterms. It looks like he hasn't changed his mind. It's also interesting to note that Carney is acknowledging the fact that so many Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama. From the Washington Free Beacon:
Jay Carney: ‘No Question’ It Will Be A Good Year For Republicans, Bad Year For Democrats “The Democratic candidates have to thread this needle very carefully,” Carney said. “It is true that when you have an unpopular president of your party, you don’t want to be associated with him.” Carney acknowledged that a number of candidates are jumping the Obama ship and going to great lengths to distance themselves from the president, but warned them against “going too far.” “Look, it’s not a good dynamic for Democrats out there,” Carney said. “The goal has to be, in this cycle, to run local and state races and not have their races be nationalized. Because if they’re nationalized, they’re going to be hurt by the overall perception of president Obama right now.”
Here's Jay Carney on Don Lemon's CNN show: Carney may be onto something.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 11, 2014 6 Comments
Remember when a recent Des Moines Register poll showed Republican Joni Ernst up by 6 points over Bruce Braley, and Democrats had a complete meltdown? And I shouted Sooey! A new poll shows that the gap has closed, with Ernst up 1 point, via Des Moines Register:
Iowa's blitzkrieg U.S. Senate race is now a 1-point contest: Republican Joni Ernst is at 47 percent, and Democrat Bruce Braley is right at her heels at 46 percent with likely voters, a new Iowa Poll shows. As armies of Democratic activists go door to door urging Iowans to fill out absentee ballots, they're piling up votes for Braley, who was 6 points down just two weeks ago. "Braley's catching up," said J. Ann Selzer, the pollster for The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll, which was conducted Oct. 3-8. But Ernst has made gains, too. She's 3 percentage points higher than two weeks ago, when she was at 44 percent.
That's obviously good news for Democrats that the gap has closed. But both candidates gained points, which means there are fewer undecided voters. That Ernst is up at all, and consistently so, is good news for her. The poll shows that Obamacare is unpopular:

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 11, 2014 22 Comments
In a recent appearance on MSNBC, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank suggested an inconsistency between Republican desires to remove Obama from office, and Republican complaints that the Secret Service was not adequately protecting Obama from harm. Why is that inconsistent? Can't we both oppose a president and want to protect the President? The Presidency is greater than the man or his policies. Noah Rothman of Hot Air reported:
Milbank: Why would GOP want Secret Service to protect Obama? Among the fears Milbank suggests the GOP is aggravating for political gain are concerns that the Secret Service is underperforming. “They’re even making a campaign issue of the Secret Service,” The Post columnist said, “saying things are so bad that even the President of the United States, the President of the United States we would like to remove from office by the way, is not being adequately protected by the Secret Service.” First, what a shocking and offensive insinuation to make. Yes, Republicans (and Democrats, I’d venture) can oppose a president of the opposite party and also not want any harm to come to them. Second, the suggestion that voicing concerns about the increasingly apparent incompetence in the Secret Service amounts to fear mongering is just as insulting.
Here's a video of the exchange: Of course, this could be a classic case of media projection.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on October 11, 2014 3 Comments
In the wake of news that my future congressional representative may be someone with sound fiscal awareness, and since I am nothing if not optimistic, I took a glace at the status of the California governor's race today. This race pits our state's longest serving governor, Jerry Brown, against the Republican Neel Kashkari, who served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability. Kashkari is one of those rare candidates I like more as the campaign season progresses. In part, it is because he has been innovative on the campaign trail. Cal Watchdog's James Poulos has this assessment.
... Rather than offering the media a retread of tales of California Republicans’ past, Kashkari has presented a surprising spectacle. Wealthy political novices from business backgrounds, such as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, have tried to unseat top-tier Democrats before. They failed — leading national political journalists to question why the state GOP was willing to tolerate such a bad investment. Kashkari, who is not personally short on cash, has raised a far more modest campaign chest. But his small budget has become a buzz-building advantage. Not only has it fueled the kind of stunt-driven campaigning that grabs headlines, it has given state Republicans a feeling that neither donors nor the party have thrown good money after bad. And it has changed the media narrative, differentiating Kashkari from the political losers who have come before him.
Unhappily for the rest of the country, most of my fellow citizens are not as impressed. Real Clear Politics has the snapshot of the race I provided above, indicating the polls have budged little since I last covered the topic: LI #11 Governor's Race

Posted by Amy Miller on October 11, 2014 30 Comments
On November 4, Colorado residents will have to decide whether or not to change their criminal code to include an "unborn human being" in the definition of a "person." Proponents of the measure, dubbed "Amendment 67," say that the goal of the initiative is to protect pregnant women, but opponents say it's nothing more than a veiled attempt to ban abortion in Colorado. This isn't Colorado conservatives' first attempt at adding personhood protections for the unborn to state law; similar initiatives have failed twice before. However, this amendment works differently in that it changes its approach in defining the amendment's scope of protection. colorado personhood Via the Washington Post:
Earlier versions defined a fetus as a person from the moment of fertilization, or from the moment of biological development. In both cases, abortion rights activists convinced voters to reject the measures, which they said would have limited a woman’s right to choose.

Posted by Andrew Branca on October 11, 2014 15 Comments
Marissa Alexander was back in the news, as her lawyers try to preclude state prosecutors from getting truthful but damaging evidence against her before the jury (details on this below). With her trial now only about 6 weeks away, the misinformation machinery will be spinning up to top speed. As a reality-based counterweight I thought it might be useful (and fun) to refresh our recollection on the truth behind Marissa Alexander and her (self-acquired) legal travails. Without further ado, here are three big lies about the Marissa Alexander case that you--or, if not you, too many others--believe to be true.

1. Marissa Alexander Merely Fired a Warning Shot Into the Air

I’ll start with the best one first: the notion that Alexander merely fired “into the air” as a warning shot. Literally speaking, of course, any time one fires a gun one is firing it “into the air”—unless, I suppose, one is firing the gun under water. Substantively, however, this statement is an outright and deliberate lie, and proven to be a lie by both the further misleading characterization of the shot as being “fired into the ceiling” and the forensics evidence shared by the prosecutor’s office with the media and public. The term “warning shot” is, of course, intended to convey the firing of a shot in a “harmless” direction, or at least not deliberately near any particular person. The purpose is to forcefully communicate the will to fire more accurately and with greater effect if necessary to stop the other person’s offensive conduct.
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH