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 November 19, 2013 108 Comments
UPDATES: Judge finds probable cause (no surprise). Prosecutor discloses unreported prior choking incident about a week ago. State asked for $50,000 bond, and certain exclusion zones, no contact, no weapons possession, etc. Defense asked for $4,900 based on state bond schedule. Judge sets $9,000 bond. Can't return to girlfriend's residence, except if accompanied by law enforcement one time. [corrected - later in hearing judge said Zimmerman should send someone else.] Can't have contact with girlfriend. No possession of firearms. Will have tracking device. No traveling outsided Florida. Judge: "I'm not increasing your bond because of anything that happened in the past. As far as I'm concerned, this is a brand new case." [caption id="attachment_71235" align="alignnone" width="624"](George Zimmerman with his attorneys at November 19, 2013 bond hearing) (George Zimmerman with his attorneys at November 19, 2013 bond hearing)[/caption]

LATEST NEWS

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 19, 2013 19 Comments
We have addressed many times recently the misleading claim that support for the Tea Party Movement was at historic lows or reflected the near-end of the movement: The ABC News - Washington Post poll released just after midnight has generated headlines for the sharp decline in Obama's favorability ratings by just about every measure, and the growing unpopularity of Obamacare. But there is a hidden gem in the poll that is not receiving much attention.  Support for the Tea Party movement is at 38% for all registered voters, not far below the 41% approval rating and 46% favorability rating for Obama.  Moreover, 46% think the Tea Party has too little/just about right influence versus 43% who think it has too much influence.  49% think the Tea Party political views are about right or too liberal, versus only 40% who think too conservative. It's clear that support for Tea Party political views exceeds support for the movement, likely the result of years of demonization, culiminating in the recent Democratic Party eliminationist rhetoric directed at the Tea Party. In the serious of screen shots below, you can see some interesting details, including that Tea Party support comes from the more educated, and even has substantial support among non-whites, although lower than among whites.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 19, 2013 7 Comments
The Cornell Review, the conservative newspaper on campus, has a long history of serving up great interns for Legal Insurrection. You may remember Kathleen McCaffrey who was the first Legal Insurrection writer (other than me) and to whom we bid farewell in May 2012 after 1.5 years and over 300 posts (and who recently got married, congratulations!); Michael Alan (who wrote from time to time, and also took the video of the Syracuse Honor Flight return), and of course, Laurel Conrad our current intern, and President of the Cornell Review. So it is with much pleasure that we note The Cornell Review has received the Buckley Award from the Collegiate Network, part of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which supports conservative students on campuses around the country. [caption id="attachment_71186" align="alignnone" width="350"](L-R: Collegiate Network program officer Lillian Gerken; Cornell Review President Laurel Conrad and Editor-in-Chief Michael Navarro; Intercollegiate Studies Institute Pres. Chris Long) (L-R: Collegiate Network program officer Lillian Gerken; Cornell Review President Laurel Conrad and Editor-in-Chief Michael Navarro; Intercollegiate Studies Institute Pres. Chris Long)[/caption] Here's the statement read at the award ceremony:

Posted by New Neo on November 19, 2013 9 Comments
The insurance business would not be possible without some sort of "discrimination"---as in "the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment," rather than "bigotry or other arbitrary distinctions." Those with greater risk are usually charged higher than average premiums or are sometimes even refused coverage in the first place, in order to keep premiums reasonable for the rest. But the Obama administration and liberals as a whole have been using the word "discrimination" in that second manner, to signify something pejorative and/or arbitrary and unfair when referring to health insurance. They don't raise a hue and cry because life insurance "discriminates" against the elderly, or because flood insurance "discriminates" against those who live in flood plains. But they refer to health insurance as unfairly discriminatory when, for example, insurers limit coverage for pre-existing conditions. Compare and contrast these slogans: "Health insurance discriminates against people with pre-existing conditions!" and "Health insurance discriminates against smokers!"  Obamacare "discriminates" against smokers but not those with preexisting conditions.

LEGAL INSURRECTION QUICK TAKES

Political Donations From Faculty at U. Idaho Favor Democrats by Margin of 419 to 1

Family of College Student Killed by Illegal Alien in Chicago Speaks Out at Vigil

Hundreds of College DEI Officers Attend Conference to Complain About ‘Chaos’ Caused by Trump

LA United School District Engulfed in $22 Million Fraud Scandal

Student Leader at CSU-Fresno Speaks Out Against Petitioners on Campus

Student Newspaper at Chicago School Launches ‘ICE Tracker’ After Illegal Charged With Murdering Student

SEE MORE

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 19, 2013 6 Comments

Spotted in Ithaca. The sticker on the right, partially removed, says "Shut Vermont Yankee Now," in reference to the nuclear power plant. She's about to get her way, that is, if they can figure out how to shut it down....

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 41 Comments
Martin Bashir said he hoped someone would shit and piss in Sarah Palin's mouth. Seriously. The absurd logic was that because Palin compared the national debt to slavery, she deserved to be given a horrific slave torture. Many people, including the folks at Twitchy, debunked the notion that comparing indebtedness to slavery was unusual. Slave references, much like the overused Nazi comparisons, are all too common, including by Bashir. Should we wish that everyone who uses a strained Nazi analogy should have their skin peeled off them and turned into lamp shades? Even in the low world of MSNBC, this was low. MSNBC didn't seem to mind much, though. What a cesspool MSNBC has become. Really MSNBC executives, what is wrong with you? Have you lost your minds? Are you so corrupted by your ideology? Lean forward? How about rehab for your business strategy instead. But the firestorm of controversy has forced Bashir into an apology.

Posted by Mandy Nagy on November 18, 2013 2 Comments
(Featured photo: Tweet) Cutting through the clutter on Twitter during severe weather and other disasters in the midst of breaking news seems to be getting more and more difficult these days. As tornadoes struck the Midwest over the weekend, devastating towns and killing several people, there were unfortunately also the usual instances of trolling with fake photos that ultimately tricked many on social media, some even making their way to media outlets. Mediabistro’s TVSpy blog reported that an “iwitness” submission of a doctored photo that included a fake tornado, a UFO and Bigfoot made its way onto a local Indiana TV station website.  (Spotted by Indianapolis Star reporter Eric Weddle and reported by Jim Romenesko). https://twitter.com/ericweddle/statuses/402273991668146176

Posted by A.F. Branco on November 18, 2013 3 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 William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 30 Comments
Supreme Court Justices occasionally issue statements in connection with the Court's decision not to accept a case for review.  Sometimes the statement is in the nature of a dissent, other times just to make a point. Justice Alito has issued a blistering statement in connection with the Court's denial of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Martin v. Blessing.  Justice Alito did not disagree with the decision not to take the case in light of the fact that the issue involved appeared isolated. The issue was the practice of U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in the Southern District of New York in requiring that class action counsel ensure that attorney staffing of the case reflect the racial and gender of the class.  That practice, apparently unique to Judge Baer, sparked a lengthy statement by Justice Alito warning that if the Court of Appeals does not address the situation, future Supreme Court review may be warranted. Think about it for a second.  While Judge Baer's intent undoubtedly is to bring diversity to the case, what if the class itself is non-diverse?  What if the class constituted almost entirely white males, would Judge Baer insist that only white male attorney staff a case?  I think not. Justice Alito's statement was part of an Order list issued this morning.  I have extracted Justice Alito's Statement, which is embedded at the bottom of this post.  Here's an excerpt (emphasis added):
The petition in this case challenges a highly unusualpractice followed by one District Court Judge in assessingthe adequacy of counsel in class actions. This judge insiststhat class counsel “ensure that the lawyers staffed on the case fairly reflect the class composition in terms of relevant race and gender metrics.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a. The uniqueness of this practice weighs against review by this Court, but the meaning of the Court’s denial of the petition should not be misunderstood.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 20 Comments
Almost exactly one year ago reports surfaced that Valerie Jarrett was engaged in "secret" negotiations with Iran as Obama's personal emissary. The reports originated with Iranian bloggers, and was reported also by The New York Times. The Obama administration categorically denied the reports. Now Israeli television is reporting similar involvement, via the Times of Israel, ‘Geneva talks a facade, US-Iran worked secretly on deal for past year’:
The Geneva negotiations between the so-called P5+1 powers and Iran are a mere “facade,” because the terms of a deal on Iran’s nuclear program have been negotiated in talks between a top adviser to President Barack Obama and a leading Iranian nuclear official that have continued in secret for more than a year, Israeli television reported Sunday....

White House spokesman Bernadette Meehan was quoted by Haaretz as saying that the report was “absolutely, 100 percent false.”

The report, which relied on unnamed senior Israeli officials, said the US team to the secret talks was led by Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. Her primary interlocutor, the report said, was the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi. The talks have been taking place in various Gulf states.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 11 Comments

In June of 2009, when what became Obamacare was in its earliest discussion stages, we noted that Deception and Tyranny Were The Key To Health Care Reform. We are seeing how that is being exposed through the knowingly false sales pitch that you could keep your...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 17, 2013 40 Comments
As the sham sales pitch and flummoxed policy behind Obamacare are exposed the attempts to portray opposition as a reaction to Obama's race are ramping up with renewed vigor. Yet the evidence is becoming more clear that it is not race that is the problem, it's Obama. Fouad Adjami has a perceptive column (h/t Hot Air), When the Obama Magic Died:
A nemesis awaited the promise of this new presidency: Mr. Obama would turn out to be among the most polarizing of American leaders. No, it wasn't his race, as Harry Reid would contend, that stirred up the opposition to him. It was his exalted views of himself, and his mission. The sharp lines were sharp between those who raised his banners and those who objected to his policies. America holds presidential elections, we know. But Mr. Obama took his victory as a plebiscite on his reading of the American social contract. A president who constantly reminded his critics that he had won at the ballot box was bound to deepen the opposition of his critics. A leader who set out to remake the health-care system in the country, a sixth of the national economy, on a razor-thin majority with no support whatsoever from the opposition party, misunderstood the nature of democratic politics. An election victory is the beginning of things, not the culmination.
It started long before Obamacare.  It started at the earliest point in Obama's presidency, the Stimulus.

Posted by Laurel Conrad on November 17, 2013 14 Comments
In an ironic twist, Bill Clinton is now distancing himself from Obamacare. In an interview earlier this month, Bill Clinton told online magazine Ozy:
I personally believe, even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.
However, this is a far cry from Hillary Clinton's previous support of Obamacare.  As Professor Jacobson pointed out on Wednesday, Hillary was more pro-mandate than Obama. Now, likely in looking forward to the 2016 election, the Clintons have suddenly changed their tune. But with an established track record of supporting Obamacare, will Hillary be able to successfully distance herself from the policy's unpopularity? Here are just five examples of Hillary's support for the Obamacare:

1.  Hillary was "very pleased" by Supreme Court decision

Hillary Clinton's initially reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare by saying:
I am very pleased- that's how I hoped it would turn out. I think it's a great moment just to think about what this will mean for the millions and millions of Americans who have already benefitted from the Affordable Care Act, and so many more will continue to do so. There will be a lot of work to do to get it implemented and understand what the opinion says, but obviously I was quite pleased to hear the results.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 17, 2013 20 Comments
The students who shouted down Ray Kelly at Brown University have received some support on campus, most notably from three faculty members, Linda Quiquivix, Naoko Shibusawa, William Keach. The Brown administration, however, was not at all pleased and is convening a panel to examine whether to commence disciplinary action against the shout-downers for violating campus policy. There also has been widespread condemnation of the shout-down from students, who according to one poll, overwhelmingly were against the shout-down, but not against a protest outside the lecture hall. Brown Daily Herald poll Ray Kelly protest The majority of students at Brown appear able to distinguish that which Profs. Quiquivix, Shibusawa and Keach, and the student protesters themselves are unable to do: It's one thing to protest, it's another thing to shout-down. The shout-downers are in a hole, so they have decided to keep digging, with an "anonymous" column in The Brown Daily Herald, Organizers and supporters of the demonstration against Ray Kelly: Standing for racial justice: A public statement . It is a model of how grievance politics and loopy leftist social power theories pervert campus politics.  There was nothing that prevented the students from presenting their own views; they could have held a counter-lecture, protested outside (which they also did), or done any number of things to get their view across and present counter-arguments.  Instead, they opted to prevent Kelly from speaking, and thereby crossed a line which apparently is invisible to them. Read the whole thing, here's an excerpt:
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH