That’s how our Attorney General describes people — illegal immigrants, specifically.
Snapshot from DOJ website:
It’s not definitive, but this is a huge step. The Seventh Circuit ruled 8-3 that a woman who was denied a job because she was a lesbian had a cause of action under Title VII. Title VII is the civil rights law which prevents workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Congress has frequently considered amending Title VII to add the words “sexual orientation” to the list of prohibited characteristics, yet it has never done so.
In an opinion which many critics will call “legislating from the bench”, the 7th Circuit majority in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, ruled that Title VII discrimination is applicable because “it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation. ‘” This is undeniably true. If Ms. Hively had been a man with a preference for women, there would have been no issue with her being hired. But she is a woman. Therefore, this has to do with gender.
The dissent argues, predictably:
[Plaintiff’s attorney] is advancing a creative new legal argument for reinterpreting Title VII, deploying the comparative method not as a method of proof (its normal and intended function) but as a thought experiment with the end of imbuing the statute with a new meaning that it did not bear at its inception.
That’s a rather typical conservative judicial interpretation (unless we are talking about the word “arms” in the Second Amendment).
Anyway, this is a big step forward, and I expect that the Supreme Court will visit this soon. Here is the full opinion:
As we watch Attorney General Jeff Sessions not remember, then remember, but only sort of kind of remember whether or not he talked with the Russians around the same time they were hacking into the DNC, and as we learn about more and more meetings between the Trump campaign team and the Russians even though they all denied those meetings, there are other things happening, including the Trump White House’s revamping of the travel ban, which failed so gloriously a few weeks ago.
The question is, why is the new revised ban taking so long? And the answer is: there isn’t any credible national security rationale for it. Unlike on the campaign trail, when you’re governing, you actually have to have justification for what you’re proposing, or you often run into trouble.
Last night,Rachel Maddow revealed a second Department of Homeland Security document which further undercuts the substantive case for Trump’s ban, which would restrict entry into the country by refugees and migrants from select Muslim-majority countries. The new internal Department of Homeland Security document that reached this key judgment:
We assess that most foreign-born, US-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States, limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of national security concerns.
So… remember when Trump on the campaign trail asked that we stop all Muslims from coming into the country until we can assess “what’s going on”?
Well, we now know what’s going on. They are not coming IN radicalized; they (and by “they”, I mean a teeny tiny fraction of them) are becoming radicalized AFTER they get here, probably because of assholes like Trump who are bigots.
Anyway, the hard-to-find full document is here:
On July 25, 2015, Joe Torres and Kayla Norton, joined about a dozen other people in a convoy of pickup trucks waving large Confederate flags as they drove around Douglas County, a suburban Atlanta community. Most of them belonged to a group called “Respect the Flag.”
This was only a few weeks after Dylann Roof attended a prayer service at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, then shot and killed nine people, all African Americans.
The convoy of trucks passed by the victim’s residence where the victims were grilling hot dogs and hamburgers while hosting a child’s birthday party featuring a bouncy castle, snow-cone machines, and a DJ. They yelled racial slurs.
The drivers parked the trucks near the house and the slurs continued. Torres retrieved a shotgun from his vehicle, pointed his shotgun at the group of African American party-goers and stated he was going to kill them while his friends stated that “the little ones can get one too,” referring to the young children at the party.
Norton was accused of making similar threats. The victims said some member of Torres’ group was armed with a knife and a tire tool.
Most of the group was arrested and made some sort of plea deal. But Torres and Norton were sentenced yesterday. Torres was sentenced to 20 years, with 13 years in prison, after a jury convicted him on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of making terroristic threats and one count of violating of Georgia’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. Kayla Norton was sentenced to 15 years, with six years in prison. She was convicted on one count of making terroristic threats and one count of violation of the Street Gang Act.
Look how sad they are.
I suspect they weren’t sad until they actually got caught.
At the sentencing hearing, Kayla Norton apologized for her role in the incident saying, “I want you all to know that is not me. That is not me, that is not him. I would never walk up to you and say those words to you. I’m so sorry that happened to you. I am so sorry.”
The problem is that she did walk up and say those words.
Oh well. No sympathy here. Actions have consequences. I’m sure they will make many friends among the mixed-race populations in prison.
Don’t normally quote from the conservative Redstate blog, and I rarely agree with Patterico (the author) on anything. But this analysis is so good — so spot on — that I am reprinting it in full:
As you have no doubt heard, the Ninth Circuit today issued an opinion upholding the District Court’s TRO halting much of Trump’s order on immigration. This post analyzes the decision, which can be read here. Throughout, I’ll grade my own previous predictionsabout the ruling.
My overall impression is that this is a sound legal ruling — and that Donald Trump is personally to blame for it. By allowing Steve Bannon & Co. to write the order in a sloppy and overbroad manner, and further allowing them to decide that it applied to green card holders, Trump issued an the order that was bound to fail.
Perusing Twitter tonight, I see that many people who support the policy behind the order (as I do), but who have not followed the legal arguments closely, are saying this is just another leftist Ninth Circuit decision. But the order is a unanimous “per curiam” (through the court) ruling. It was joined by a judge appointed by George W. Bush who, at oral argument, expressed skepticism towards the idea that the order was motivated by religious bias, and seemed receptive to the argument that these countries might pose a threat.
The Twitter lawyers point out that this was not a ruling on the merits — and that’s right . . . but the merits still factored into the decision. A subtle point — brought up in the oral argument but missed by many observers — is that once the District Court entered the injunction, the burden shifted to the Government to show on appeal that it was likely to win in the trial court. The Court held that the Government had failed to make that showing. This portion of the ruling, then, does relate to the merits. The Court also held that the Government failed to show irreparable injury, since the TRO put the U.S. back in the same state of affairs that had existed for years.
According to the opinion, the executive order’s principal potential flaw was that it may have deprived a substantial number of people of due process, in three ways (the following paragraph describes the states’ arguments, which the Government failed to rebut for purposes of this appeal):
First, section 3(c) denies re-entry to certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders without constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond. Second, section 3(c) prohibits certain lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visaholders from exercising their separate and independent constitutionally protected liberty interests in travelling abroad and thereafter re-entering the United States. Third, section 5 contravenes the procedures provided by federal statute for refugees seeking asylum and related relief in the United States.
The decision to interpret the order as applying to lawful permanent residents was reportedly made by Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. This was clearly the most troubling aspect of the order to the judges — as well as the aspect of the order that stood out to most objective observers as the dumbest part of the order. As I said in my analysis of the oral argument: “I think even Judge Clifton would be on board with staying the executive order to the extent it applies to LPRs [lawful permanent residents].” What I didn’t predict outright was that Judge Clifton would find this enough to join an opinion upholding the entire TRO; I had expected that he would file a concurring opinion agreeing that the TRO was appropriate as applied to LPRs, but only as to LPRs.
The Government argued that the issue of the application of the executive order to LPRs was moot, because the White House counsel had interpreted the order as not covering LPRs. But the court was not convinced, noting that the White House counsel is not the President — and, since the Administration had given so many contradictory statements on this point, nobody can be certain that they won’t apply it to green card holders again:
[I]n light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings
Basically, the court said the order is clearly illegal in denying re-entry to LPRs and non-immigrant visa holders, and they aren’t going to rewrite the order (or let the White House counsel rewrite it) to conform to the law. That’s the President’s job. The court said that the Government’s different proposals for limiting the scope of the TRO still resulted in potential due process violations.
The lack of due process for LPRs was the central aspect of the opinion, and it was completely avoidable. The fault lies with Donald Trump.
As to the argument that Trump was targeting Muslims, the Court’s language seemed carefully crafted to maintain the unanimous nature of the opinion. I predicted there were two votes for a finding of possible religious discrimination, based on Trump’s repeated statements during the campaign that he wanted a Muslim ban — but Judge Clifton was clearly skeptical of this claim. The Court dealt with this by saying: “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions” (language clearly inserted by Judges Canby and Friedland) but refused to use this as a ground to uphold the TRO, instead reserving the issue for later, after further litigation in the District Court (an evident concession to Judge Clifton to get him on board with this opinion).
This means that Donald Trump’s mouthing off about a Muslim ban wasn’t the reason for today’s decision — but it could still have legal consequences down the line.
In other aspects more of interest to lawyers than others, the court (as predicted) found standing based on the states’ proprietary interests, and treated the injunction as an appealable preliminary injunction rather than a TRO proper, because of the length of the briefing schedule. (These are also aspects I predicted correctly based on the oral arguments.)
In summary, this is a solid legal opinion and I don’t see it being reversed by the Ninth Circuit en banc or by the U.S. Supreme Court. The judges did their jobs and they did them well. They won’t get a lot of credit for this from political partisans, but they’ll get it from me.
Redstate by the way is now a conservative blog in exile. In a world of Brietbarts and Infowars, it remains a bastion of logical reasoned conservatism. It is a credible opposition to the progressivism that I espouse — with emphasis on the word “credible”.
Here, for posterity’s sake, is the full opinion:
On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order that bans some refugees and immigrants from entering the US.
It hits ‘pause’ on Syrian refugees coming into the US. And also temporarily shuts the door on citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Initially, the ban even applied to people with valid visas or green cards. Over the weekend, at least 100 travelers were detained at airports across the country. Including an Iraqi man who once worked as an interpreter for the US gov. So the ACLU sued the White House. And a federal judge blocked anyone who was being held at US airports from being deported. Thousands of people protested across the country, especially at airports.
That the ban may be unconstitutional because it could violate religious freedoms. See: prioritizing letting in Christian refugees coming from places like Syria. Plus, some experts say the order won’t help protect the US, since people from these banned countries aren’t the ones who have carried out deadly attacks in America in recent years. And some people — including GOP lawmakers — say Trump’s move might end up helping terrorist groups recruit more members in the future.
The ban still stands. But the White House has backtracked juussst a little bit. Yesterday, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said that green card holders aren’t affected by the ban. Meanwhile, more than a dozen Attorneys General are saying ‘see you in court, Mr. President.’
America is a country built by immigrants and religious freedom is a constitutional right. Even though Trump said yesterday that the US has always been the “land of the free,” his moves have some people worried that the founding principles of the US could be at risk.
The ban is arbitrary, which is a nice way of saying it has no basis in reality. Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.
Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during that time period — so we HAVE been catching them.
And more than that, it actually CREATES a security risk…
ISIS calling Trump order the “blessed ban” because proves war w/ Islam. Good thing Fox viewers know more bout what helps ISIS than ISIS does
— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) January 30, 2017
Oh, but that wasn’t all.
(1) Reince Priebus issued a statement that the omission of Jews from the statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day was deliberate and is not regretted.
(2) Rudy Giuliani told Fox News that the intent of yesterday’s order was very much a ban on Muslims, described in those words, and he was among the people Trump asked how they could find a way to do this legally.
(3) CNN has a detailed story (heavily sourced) about the process by which this ban was created and announced. Notable in this is that the DHS’ lawyers objected to the order, specifically its exclusion of green card holders, as illegal, and also pressed for there to be a grace period so that people currently out of the country wouldn’t be stranded — and they were personally overruled by Bannon and Stephen Miller. Also notable is that career DHS staff, up to and including the head of Customs & Border Patrol, were kept entirely out of the loop until the order was signed.
(4) The Guardian is reporting (heavily sourced) that the “mass resignations”of nearly all senior staff at the State Department on Thursday were not, in fact, resignations, but a purge ordered by the White House. As the diagram below (by Emily Roslin v Praze) shows, this leaves almost nobody in the entire senior staff of the State Department at this point.
As the Guardian points out, this has an important and likely not accidental effect: it leaves the State Department entirely unstaffed during these critical first weeks, when orders like the Muslim ban (which they would normally resist) are coming down.
The article points out another point worth highlighting: “In the past, the state department has been asked to set up early foreign contacts for an incoming administration. This time however it has been bypassed, and Trump’s immediate circle of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus are making their own calls.”
(5) Yesterday witnessed a reorganization of the National Security Council: Bannon and Priebus now have permanent seats on the Principals’ Committee; the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both been demoted to only attending meetings where they are told that their expertise is relevant; the Secretary of Energy and the US representative to the UN were kicked off the committee altogether (in defiance of the authorizing statute, incidentally).
All of this is objectively horrific, but there are some silver linings, most notably, the public protests. They sprang quickly, they sprang fast, and they were huge! it felt almost like Arab Spring. And it makes the Trump White House very out of touch, as well as corrupt.
You do have to wonder how Steve Bannon is expected to continue to shine in Trump’s eyes. He has not delivered the adoring masses to Trump, as shown by the inauguration size, as well as the size of the protests. Photo ops about great executive orders turn into catastrophe. It’s a constant state of damage control over there. Trump’s vanity and idiocy are sufficient that it may take him some time to realize this. But once he does, it’s bedtime for Bannon, who will be defenestrated without ceremony.
Well, actually, the machinations of Bannon may have brought ONE person out: Six people were killed last night in a terrorist attack on a Quebec City mosque.
Right wing blogs and media instantly jumped to the conclusion that Islamists were responsible for the shootings, as they always do. But today we’re learning more about the sole suspect in this terrible attack: he’s a far right anti-immigration fan of Donald Trump and French fascist leader Marine Le Pen. This guy:
It has been a year and a half since Walter Scott’s death. I wrote about it here… but basically, he was running from a cop and was shot IN THE BACK As HE WAS RUNNING AWAY. The video makes this crystal clear:
There’s even indication that the cop planted evidence on/near the body. Yes,. look at the video.
But despite an unarmed victim, forensics proving he was shot multiple times in the back, a police officer who made a false report, and clear video showing the entire debacle, Slager was not convicted of murder or manslaughter in his trial this week. A lone juror spared him that fate with a refusal to convict. That triggered a mistrial.
Something is horribly wrong with the system.
Fortunately, the prosecutor will retry the case. Again. For the THIRD time.
Even operating under a standard in which police officers get the benefit of every reasonable doubt, it seems hard to understand why the cops involved wouldn’t have been convicted of manslaughter. The fact that neither was convicted is the latest evidence that the system as it now exists does not reliably punish cops for even egregious killings.
The policy debate around policing has lately focused on the tactics and rhetoric of Black Lives Matter (while mostly ignoring its excellent Campaign Zero roadmap for policy reform). Whatever conservatives think of Black Lives Matter, it is long past time that more of them join with libertarians and liberals in an effort to address this problem: Armed agents of the state are killing American citizens at rates far higher than other developed countries, and even when videos show them killing unarmed individuals, some are somehow getting away with it.
In a rare win for progressives, the Secretary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reportedly told Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Archambault that the current route for the Dakota Access pipeline will be denied.
According to MSNBC, the Corps of Engineers will conduct an environmental study to see how the pipeline can be rerouted to lessen any potential environmental impact. However, the pipeline will not cross the Missouri River under Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Reservation.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell released a statement Sunday afternoon in support of the decision.
“The thoughtful approach established by the Army today ensures that there will be an in-depth evaluation of alternative routes for the pipeline and a closer look at potential impacts, as envisioned by NEPA,” Jewell said in the statement.
“The Army’s announcement underscores that tribal rights reserved in treaties and federal law, as well as Nation-to-Nation consultation with tribal leaders, are essential components of the analysis to be undertaken in the environmental impact statement going forward.”
The protesters had been facing a Monday deadline to vacate their encampment near Cannon Ball, ND.
“We will not fight tonight, we will dance!” Rami Bald Eagle, Cheyenne River Lakota Tribal Leader shared the great news, with much celebration breaking out among the people.
Thousands of U.S. Veterans have boots on the ground at the Standing Rock Protest, many more than expected. Tim King, former editor of Salem-News.com, is there and heard the announcement.
U.S. military Veterans have been standing “out front” for a couple of days with more of their brothers and sisters-in-arms arriving daily. No, they do not have weapons.
The bitter cold has not chilled the passion behind stopping the pipeline. The many members of “Veterans Stand for Standing Rock,” brought supplies such as gas masks, earplugs and body armor, to stand firm as a unit to protect protesters from the police and their rubber bullets.
But instead, tonight they dance. It looks like the Americans have won, after all.
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II reacted to the announcement, calling it a sign that President Barack Obama “is listening.”
“We are encouraged and know that the peaceful prayer and demonstration at Standing Rock have powerfully brought to light the unjust narrative suffered by tribal nations and Native Americans across the country,” Archambault said. “We call on all water protectors, as we have from the beginning, to join our voices in prayer and to share our opposition to this pipeline peacefully. The whole world is watching and where they see prayerful, peaceful resistance, they join us.”
Water protectors have been camped out near the construction site of the pipeline since April and have dogged the pipeline work at every step. More than 400 people have been arrested as they stood their ground against pepper spray, mace, rubber bullets and sound cannons, among other violent methods.
Public Policy Polling looks at why Governor McCrory lost here in North Carolina in what was obviously a banner year for Republicans:
What happened in the summer of 2013 to make McCrory so permanently unpopular? He allowed himself to be associated with a bunch of unpopular legislation, and progressives hit back HARD, in a way that really caught voters’ attention and resonated with them.
Medicaid Expansion? 56% of voters wanted it to move forward, only 26% wanted it blocked.
Sneaking in abortion legislation by putting it in a bill about motorcycle safety? 8% of voters supported that, 80% opposed it.
Guns in bars? 17% in support, 73% opposed. Guns in parks? 29% in support, 65% opposed. Guns on college campuses? 25% in support, 69% opposed.
Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit? Only 30% of voters wanted to do that, 42% thought it should be kept.
Cut unemployment benefits? Only 29% of voters agreed with changes in the law, 55% were opposed.
Reduce the early voting period in North Carolina by a week? Just 33% of voters wanted to do that, 59% were against it.
Straight party ticket voting? 68% of voters wanted it continued, only 21% wanted it eliminated.
McCrory spearheaded or went along with all of this. And he might have gotten away with it without much impact on his image. Most voters don’t pay close attention to state government.
But the Moral Monday movement pushed back hard. Its constant visibility forced all of these issues to stay in the headlines. Its efforts ensured that voters in the state were educated about what was going on in Raleigh, and as voters became aware of what was going on, they got mad. All those people who had seen McCrory as a moderate, as a different kind of Republican, had those views quickly changed. By July McCrory had a negative approval rating- 40% of voters approving of him to 49% who disapproved. By September it was all the way down to 35/53, and he never did fully recover from the damage the rest of his term.
Moral Mondays became a very rare thing- a popular protest movement. In August 2013 we found 49% of voters had a favorable opinion of the protesters to only 35% with an unfavorable opinion of them. And their message was resonating- 50% of voters in the state felt state government was causing North Carolina national embarrassment to only 34% who disagreed with that notion.
Pushing back hard on McCrory worked. The seeds of his final defeat today were very much planted in the summer of 2013. And it’s a lesson for progressives in dealing with Trump. Push back hard from day one. Be visible. Capture the public’s attention, no matter what you have to do to do it. Don’t count on the media to do it itself because the media will let you down. The protesters in North Carolina, by making news in their own right week after week after week, forced sustained coverage of what was going on in Raleigh. And even though it was certainly a long game, with plenty more frustration in between, those efforts led to change at the polls 42 months after they really started.
While I agree with the “keep pounding” advice, and the positive impact of progressive movements like Moral Mondays, the analysis overlooks one HUGE aspect of McCrory’s loss: HB1, the so-called bathroom bill. It became a national issue, and put North Carolina on the map as Bigotry Central. Even if you didn’t care about whether or not transgenders could use this or that bathroom (and I think “not caring” probably describes the majority of NC voters), you did care when sports teams and leagues like the NCAA started boycotting your city. I think most North Carolinians didn’t like McCrory for that.
Trump voter going on a tirade
This incident is the just the latest in a recent spate of obscene and racist tirades by Trump supporters. Last week a Trump fan abused black employees of a Miami Starbucks and over the weekend a viral video showed a Delta Airlines passenger screaming about “Hillary bitches.” Yesterday Delta apologized for not removing the man. Also this weekend a Colorado home supply store fired its manager for calling a customer a “faggot who voted for Hillary.”
Hey! Look! It’s President-Elect Donald Trump! And who is with him? Why, that’s Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. This was yesterday as they were meeting at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster NJ.
I wonder what that was all about. Kris Kobach is a central figure in the nativist movement and the architect of Arizona’s notorious “papers please” law.
Oh wait. What’s our boy Kris holding?
Can we zoom in on that?
Closer? Turn 90 degrees clock– uh, can you sharpen that up a ,little?
Looks like some kind of plan…..
The document is arranged in a numbered format. The first point reads, “Bar the Entry of Potential Terrorists.”
The document calls for updating and reintroducing the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. The program was implemented in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but largely suspended in 2011.
“All aliens from high-risk areas are tracked,” the document reads.
The document then calls for “extreme vetting questions” for “high-risk aliens”; echoing Trump’s campaign rhetoric. High-risk aliens would be questioned about support for Sharia law (Islamic religious law), jihad, the equality of men and women and the U.S. Constitution.
The document also asks for reducing the intake of Syrian refugees to zero.
The rest of the page is either partially or totally obscured by Kobach’s hand and arm. When the photograph was taken, Kobach was standing outside with Trump – it is highly unlikely Kobach wasn’t aware he was being photographed.
The document contains obscured references to the arrest and removal of illegal aliens, “386 miles of existing actual wall,” the post-9/11 PATRIOT Act, and voter rolls. “Draft amendments to National Voter —” can also be seen, perhaps a reference to the National Voter Registration Act.
Good to know.
No, it doesn’t. Not even a close call.
Let’s just all get on the same page.
This is happening:
Trump surrogates are already citing Japanese internment camps from WW II as “precedent” for Muslim registry pic.twitter.com/DVnjtom0mc
— Brendan Karet (@bad_takes) November 17, 2016
And the obvious question is…. would it be constitutional for the government to require citizens to register based on their religion?
The OBVIOUS answer should be NO, and the reason most people instinctively know it would be unconstitutional is to do a thought experiment: substitute “Christian” for “Muslim” and see how that flies.
I’m going to set aside the obvious invidiousness of the proposed registry, as well as the obvious difficulties in enforcing registration. Instead, I’m just going to focus on Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the case that Trump surrogates are citing as “precedent”.
Korematsu was the case involving Japanese-American internment during World War II. Roosevelt ordered that George Takei and his family and other Japanese-Americans leave their jobs, friends, businesses, etc. and report to “camps” for the duration of the war. These were American citizens, living on the West Coast, of Japanese descent. It came about as the result of a presidential executive order — Executive Order No. 9066 to be exact.
Fred Korematsu was born in Oakland, California, in 1919, the third of four sons to Japanese parents Kotsui Aoki and Kakusaburo Korematsu who immigrated to the United States in 1905. When the internment order came down, he refused to comply and went into hiding in the Oakland area. He was arrested on a street corner in San Leandro on May 30, 1942, after being recognized as a “Jap”. He was tried and convicted of violation of a military order – specifically, the military order for internment given under the authority of Executive Order 9066.
That military and executive orders were challenged and the US Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans, with three dissents.
Korematsu is still good law, so I revisited it. Why did the Supreme Court find such an order to be constitutionally valid?
One reason was precedent. One year earlier, in a case called Hirabayashi v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a curfew which applied only to the Japanese.
But addressing the race issue, the majority wrote only this:
It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers — and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps, with all the ugly connotations that term implies — we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.
Basically, they are saying — “we’re at war”.
The dissent by Justice Roberts was having none of it:
This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night, as was Hirabayashi v. United States,320 U. S. 81, nor a case of temporary exclusion of a citizen from an area for his own safety or that of the community, nor a case of offering him an opportunity to go temporarily out of an area where his presence might cause danger to himself or to his fellows. On the contrary, it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. If this be a correct statement of the facts disclosed by this record, and facts of which we take judicial notice, I need hardly labor the conclusion that Constitutional rights have been violated.
And that is essentially the difference. We’re not at war with the Muslims — there has been no declaration of Congress to that effect. Furthermore, there is no “military urgency” now like there was following the bombing of Pearl Harbor (it is more than 15 years after 9/11). Two good reasons right there.
Then you have something that you didn’t have in Korematsu, which was a case about heritage. The proposed Muslim ban isn’t about heritage; it is about religion. “Muslim”, after all, simply means an adherent to the religion of Islam. Islam knows no national origin or skin color. Cassius Clay, a black American, didn’t come from another country. Yet he was a Muslim (which he became Muhammad Ali).
So if this is registry of religious beliefs, — welcome First Amendment.
There’s simply on way in hell this Supreme Court would be cool with registering Muslims. It would be unanimously shot down, even without overturning Korematsu.
In fact, that would be a nice way to start the Trump presidency. With a 8-0 loss in the Supreme Court.
And how is this affecting men and boys in this country? Because I can tell you that the men in my life do not talk about women like this. And I know that my family is not unusual. And to dismiss this as everyday locker-room talk is an insult to decent men everywhere.
The men that you and I know don’t treat women this way. They are loving fathers who are sickened by the thought of their daughters being exposed to this kind of vicious language about women. They are husbands and brothers and sons who don’t tolerate women being treated and demeaned and disrespected. And like us, these men are worried about the impact this election is having on our boys who are looking for role models of what it means to be a man…
Because let’s be very clear: Strong men — men who are truly role models — don’t need to put down women to make themselves feel powerful. People who are truly strong lift others up. People who are truly powerful bring others together.
That is precisely why Michelle’s remarks yesterday were such an antidote to the ugliness we are seeing in the Trump campaign. She not only touched women’s hearts and said it was OK to feel the hurt. She demonstrated what it means to stand up to it all and say, “No…this is NOT normal.” And she reminded us all how authentically strong men behave.
The Guardian’s Ijeoma Oluo wrote about the events of the night (you need to click through to see the photo described below):
A line of police officers stand in the dark on a Charlotte, North Carolina, highway. They look like an occupying force with their helmets and face shields and various weaponry strapped all over their armored clothing. A large bus illuminates them with its headlights. The front of the bus declares in bright lights: “NOT IN SERVICE”.
It’s as if these police responding to protests of Tuesday’s shooting death of Keith Scott are carrying with them a lighted banner that declares what black Americans already know: they are not in service. Not for us.
It’s the message that police have always been sending black Americans. Blacks make up about 13% of the US population, and yet accounted for 27% of the approximately 1,146 people killed by police in 2015. “Not in service” is the message we got when Tamir Rice was killed, when Freddie Gray was killed, when Eric Garner was killed. This was the message we got when Terence Crutcher was killed this week while asking for service. We understand that if our police force really does exist to protect and serve, it does not exist to protect and serve us.
From what I saw (on national TV) last night, and from reports of friends who were there, the Charlotte police got rambo’ed up too quickly last evening, getting in riot gear long before there were signs of violence and destruction. While this had the effect of dispersing the more gentle elements of the remaining protesters, it predictably agitated others, turning them into… well… agitators.
I don’t condone or excuse those who destroyed property or threw tear gas back at police. I am also sympathetic to those police injured last night. But the key word in the previous paragraph is “predictably”. The police knew, or should have known, that their show of force and resoluteness would bring about what eventually happened.
The job of police, both as an individual and as a force, is to DE-escalate dangerous or potentially dangerous situations. Something about their training (at least for some of them) has failed to stress that, and instead, it is about escalation. With predictable results.
I think they are continuing this mistake with the curfew and declaration of a state emergency (bringing in the National Guard). A return to normalcy is what is needed. The mayor and the police are not signaling a return to normalcy with these actions. I don’t know what will happen tonight, but I don’t expect it to have calmed down in the face of this overdone “response”.
Yeah, it is exciting to be in a semi-big swing state. The candidates keep coming through. It’s like the New Hampshire primaries in the old days.
A new PPP poll on North Carolina came out this morning.
Bottom line: Donald Trump 45, Hillary Clinton 43, Gary Johnson 6.
Clinton/Trump head to head is tied at 47:
That’s okay news since Trump had pulled ahead in some NC polls these past few weeks.
The PPP poll took some deep dives and discovered a few things:
(1) Undecideds. Among undecideds for President in NC, 62% would take 4 more years of Obama to only 5% who prefer Trump. If undecideds in NC voted Clinton/Trump the same as their Obama/Trump preference, Clinton would lead state 50/48. The problem for Clinton with undecideds in NC, even though they like current direction of country, is her favoritism rating is 10/75. Trump’s favorability among undecideds in North Carolina is literally 0, with 79% seeing him unfavorably.
(2) More Obama Please. The key to the race in NC is voters who want to continue Barack Obama’s direction, but dislike Hillary Clinton. Overall in NC 51% of voters would prefer continuing Obama’s leadership to 46% who prefer Trump’s direction.
(3) Equally (dis)lilked. Clinton and Trump have identical favorability numbers in NC: 40/55.
(4) Bigots Be Here. 30% of Trump supporters have a higher opinion of David Duke than Hillary Clinton. 47% of Trump voters were “not sure” who they prefer. Meanwhile, 44% of Trump supporters are “not sure” about their opinion on LGBT people. 29% unfavorable. Only 27% favorable.
(5) Idiots Be Here Too. 71% of Trump voters in NC think if Clinton wins it will only be because the election was rigged, 17% say it will be because she got more votes
(6) Release The Tax Returns. 63% of voters in North Carolina think Trump needs to release his tax returns, only 24% don’t think he needs to.
(7) Governor’s Race Is Solid Democrat. For first time ever, there is a clear leader for Governor- Roy Cooper 46, Pat McCrory 41, Lon Cecil 2. Independents are the story here: McCrory won them 2:1 in 2012. This time Cooper leads 44-33 with them. 11%
(8) HB2 Wildly Unpopular. 52% of voters in North Carolina want HB2 repealed, only 32% support keeping it on the books. This has less to do with the economic harm than with acceptance of th4e LGBT community. Only 19% of NC voters view LGBT people negatively. 47% positive, 34% don’t care.
(9) Senate Race Has Gotten Tight. The NC Senate race tied – Richard Burr and Deborah Ross both at 41%, Libertarian Sean Haugh at 4%:
It is kind of cool to have a blog for this long — I can go back and look at past reflections of past events.
I write about my 9/11 experience here. I had left New York by the time 9/11/2001 happened, but, like everyone else in the country, I experienced that day. For me, I came to lump it in with 2/26/1993, the date of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
It is remarkable how things have changed. I deal everyday with people who were children when 9/11 happened. The World Trade Center site is a beautiful memorial, museum, and tourist site. I don’t bemoan that — using that public space as a space of education and commemoration is perfectly fitting. And it is all in the shadow of the Freedom Tower, representing, if nothing else, that the beat of NYC goes on despite what happened on that terrible day.
A lot of ink and pixels being spilled about Star Trek and its cultural impact. Many of these articles are personal, and I was going to write one myself.
But here’s the thing about Star Trek — you either get it or you don’t. And if you are a child of the 1970s like me, you get Star Trek in a way that I could not convey to you in words. It’s just one of those things that binds. You loved the original series, loved the animated series, hated the first movie, were relieved at the second movie and the fourth, came to love The Next Generation, were a little troubled to see the cult phenomenon become so mainstream, and are fine with new reboot, although, it’s just not the same as when you discovered that original series and played it in the backyard. The world is different now, you are different now, and Star Trek is different now — and they don’t seem to fit like they used to.
And you either get that or you don’t.
Live long and prosper, indeed, Star Trek.
Many people are saying that last night’s “Immigration Policy” speech by Trump in Phoenix Arizona was historical. I’m one of those people. Just WHY it was historical is a point of contention.
To me, the speech was historical because it contained the 21st century version of some of the worst ills of the world’s past. Divisiveness and demagoguery. Mad red0faced ranting. I really felt like this was somewhere in Germany in 1939.
The country has heard this nationalistic refrains before.
Trump spun a dystopian tale that painted all immigrants as people to be feared, people to be rounded up and hauled out of this country.
He said immigrants would need an “ideological certification” that confirms they “share our values.” I mean… fuck, that’s some scary Big Brother shit.
He again approvingly referenced President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s deportation program “Operation Wetback,” a cruel and deadly disaster from the 1950s, suggesting that Trump’s version of that program would be even tougher.
The crowd cheered.
He claimed there are 2 million “criminal aliens” in America and then said, preposterously, “Day one, my first hour in office – those people are gone!”
Saying that some think the word “deport” is not politically correct, Trump mocked: “You can call it whatever the hell you want, they’re gone.”
Loud. Spewing insults and absurd claims. Red-faced and nationalistic. It was Trump as we know him to be.
It was a hate speech. You could see the hands of Steve Bannon, who runs the far-right “news” site Breitbart and is now CEO of Trump’s campaign, all over it, as if Trump was barfing out the comments section under one of the site’s white nationalist screeds.
Moderate Republicans who have been praying daily for their nominee to grow into a plausible candidate had to be sickened by what they saw Wednesday night.
That wasn’t a speech on immigration policy, as the campaign had promised. That was Donald Trump thumbing his nose at the establishment and at all the pundits who suggested he was “softening” his stance on immigration.
That was an angry man catering to a base that shares his anger, a base that mistakenly believes it constitutes an electoral majority.
Trump’s swoop from supposed statesman in Mexico to manic hate-monger in Arizona was jarring. Truly.
How bad was it? High-profile Hispanic supporters of Donald Trump have pulled or are considering pulling their support after last night’s raging speech:
Jacob Monty, a member of Trump’s National Hispanic Advisory Council, has resigned, and Alfonso Aguilar, the president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said in an interview that he is “inclined” to pull his support.
“I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump when I believed he was going to address the immigration problem realistically and compassionately,” said Monty, a Houston attorney who has aggressively made the Latino case for Trump. “What I heard today was not realistic and not compassionate.”
He withdrew from the board following Trump’s speech in Phoenix, which was heavy on calls for border security and emphasized that all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.
We need to start talking — not about the damage that a Trump presidency would do to this country — but about the damage Trump’s candidacy is doing to this country. Some media outlets are trying to break down Trump’s with all sorts of seriousness, and — for fear of looking biased — are afraid to do what needs to be done: an outright condemnation of Trump’s words. This wasn’t policy — it was hate. As the New York Times editors noted today:
To mock him for emptiness is almost too easy. But the fear and loathing that he has tapped into, that so easily won him the nomination, are real. . . Tornadoes are hollow at the center, too, and they do a lot of damage.
Indeed. This is a blood soaked white nationalist politics that has caught fire with a significant minority of the electorate. There’s no reason to imagine that changes before November. Or after.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
With Trump in control of the golden door, that lamp goes dark.
All eyes on Trump today.
It’s a day when he is set to give his big immigration speech, which should help to clarify his muddled position. He used to be for the wall and mass deportation, but in the past few days, he’s hinted at NOT mass deporting 11 million “illegals” (as he calls them) — which is impossible anyway. He has suggested touchback provisions (they leave and then come right back, except we leave the “bad ones” out) or something else… everything has been suggested except what the majority of Americans are in favor of… a path to citizenship (or amnesty). His on-TV surrogates insist — with no credibility — that Trump is not changing from his hardline position, even as he indicates that he is indeed softening. The whole thing is an exercise in ambiguity, just enough to satisfy his base but also appear to appease people with Trumpian doubts.
That speech is tonight.
But the BIG news — one that his advisers are saying is a potential “gamechanger” — is Trump’s visit to Mexico today. This was prepared within the last 24 hours. President Peña Nieto of Mexico had invited both campaigns to visit. Trump took up the offer.
I, along with many others, consider this to be high risk, high reward. And to be honest, I’m not sure what is going on. Trump and Nieto will meet privately and talk. Both will say something about their meeting…. and…. that’s it?
What do is a “win” here for Trump? Unless he comes back with a check for $200 billion earmarked for “the wall”, I don’t see what he has to gain. Maybe some in the Trump campaign thinks it raises his stature, particularly on a day when he is giving a speech on immigration. I don’t see how though. Trump has been bashing Mexico for over a year. I mean, here’s the statement that literally launched Trump’s campaign — 218 words into his first speech:
“When Mexico sends their people … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump later added:
“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
So, it seems, visiting Mexico would lower his stature if you believe in Trump.
Maybe the Trump campaign thinks it is like a “Nixon goes to China” thing. Except Trump isn’t Nixon and Mexico is (unlike China in the 1970s) an ally and trade partner. And Trump’s advisers are certainly no Kissingers. But Trump DOES think Mexico is the enemy.
When will the U.S. stop sending $’s to our enemies, i.e. Mexico and others.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2014
It’s just hard to see what Trump gets out of this.
More importantly, you have to wonder about Nieto’s motives. He probably didn’t think it would work out this way. He invited both candidates; he expected only Clinton would respond (if anybody). That plan backfired — that’s my guess.
Still, is is happening. Nieto is very unpopular in Mexico. Polling at 23% favorability, he is in the midst of a plagiarism and corruption scandal. Meeting with Trump, who is also hated by Mexicans for obvious reasons, seems to be a stupid move, UNLESS Nieto has something up his sleeve. Peña Nieto has every reason to play the tough guy and earn Trump’s wrath. Everyone in Mexico hates Trump, so standing up to him, or even embarrassing him, would be a political win.
But the same might be true of Trump. His base would certainly go wild at the prospect of Trump having a beef with the president of Mexico. The last thing they want is a cordial get together that suggests some kind of future rapprochement. And if Trump plays it right, a meeting that could be spun as an insult to America might even help him with swing voters.
Then again, maybe Trump desperately wants Peña Nieto’s respect, and wants this meeting to demonstrate that he’s not just a bomb thrower who can’t be trusted with international relations.
Because the whole endeavor is fraught with unpredictability, Josh Marshall has what seems like the most sensible take — “Can Trump Be This Stupid? Not A Trick Question”:
… It’s a general rule of politics not to enter into unpredictable situations or cede control of an event or happening to someone who wants to hurt you. President Nieto definitely does not want Donald Trump to become President. He probably assumes he won’t become president, simply by reading the polls. President Nieto is himself quite unpopular at the moment. But no one is more unpopular than Donald Trump. Trump is reviled. Toadying to Trump would be extremely bad politics; standing up to him, good politics…
Remember that the central force of Trump’s political brand is dominance politics. Trump commands, people obey. Trump strikes, victims suffer. It will be extremely difficult for him to manage anything like this in the Mexican capital. He comes with a weak hand, no leverage and the look of a loser. All Peña Nieto needs to say is no.
Again, when you’re in a campaign under constant scrutiny you do your best to control every situation, reduce the risk of unpredictable, embarrassing or damaging events. You try not to cede control to others. You especially try not to cede near total control to someone who has every interest in the world in harming you. The maximal version of that ‘big thing you’re not supposed to do’ is precisely what it looks like Trump is doing.
Trump’s Razor helps here. It’s tempting to assume that there’s some angle Trump has here, some plan or understanding with Peña Nieto to make this not as silly a decision as it appears to be. I’m tempted because how could they think this was a good idea? Trump’s Razor tells us to resist this temptation. “The stupidest scenario possible that can be reconciled with the available facts.” I think that’s what we have here. It’s as stupid as it looks. Who knows? Maybe Trump will handle this deftly and it’ll be a huge success. But Trump’s Razor has yet to fail me. So I’m going to stick with it.
It is hard to know what Trump’s thinking is, or if there is any thinking at all. [UPDATE: He is apparently not bringing along his press corps, which is both unprecedented and unusual for a presidential candidate going abroad. Makes the whole trip even stranger]
If I were Peña Nieto, I would meet Trump at the airport, and with the Mexican press pool there, hand Trump one of his Mexico-made Trump shirts, shake his hand, and walk away.
In the meantime, we need to build that wall to keep Trump down there.
Anyway, you look at it — Trump wins this news cycle… perhaps he will wish otherwise.
UPDATE: Conservative fan fiction
You know, if @realDonaldTrump comes back from Mexico tomorrow with a big check from Mexico to pay for the wall…that’s game, set, match.
— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 31, 2016
Tweet from former Mexican ambassador to China:
— Jorge Guajardo (@jorge_guajardo) August 31, 2016
UPDATE #2: Viewing the outrage in Mexico about this meeting, Josh Marshall is having additional thoughts.
It would be one thing if Pena Nieto had some grand and tightly organized plan to humiliate Trump. But the evidence of the last 24 hours suggests he’s winging it perhaps every bit as much as Trump himself. Having two clumsy political actors together on the same literal and figurative stage in a highly volatile situation is not one geared to good outcomes. It seems to me like you have a good chance that neither player has much of any idea what he’s doing, and Pena Nieto is already under the gun because of the furious reaction to the news that started last night.
This confrontation of panic, confusion and poor planning is magnified by a less noted factor. Organizing a foreign trip for a President or would-be president is a highly complicated affair, especially when you figure in security needs. It never gets done on a day’s notice. We’re now hearing that the US Embassy in Mexico City strongly counseled against the idea. Those folks tend to be quite apolitical and logistics focused. We can’t rule out the possibility that Trump’s entourage shows up at the wrong palace or isn’t able to make it back to Arizona in time for the speech.
Also, Trump is not bringing the press along.
I think, at the end of the day, the actual visit might just turn out to be a big nothingburger. We won’t know what happened or what was said, allowing both Peña Nieto and Trump to spin what happened today (and its purpose) to each’s political advantage: messages that will be crushed in the next news cycle.
A new national PPP poll of likely voters puts Hillary Clinton 5 points ahead of Trump nationally, about on par with other polls of late (especially ones that follow likely, as opposed to registered, voters).
But deep down in their survey results, it seemed they planted an interesting question to Trump supports:
Well done, PPP.
UPDATE: Speaking of the PPP poll, Trump retweeted an obvious fake tweet.
Some people are saying this is the best speech of her campaign so far, as she finally takes off the gloves and calls Trump racist (in so many words)
The response has been generally good on the left, although many would point out that the GOP was basically racist, and Clinton should have called out the whole damn party. I think that the GOP has been complicit in racism by being silent about its more extreme members who clearly cater to that disgusting sentiment. I’m not sure that amounts to racism, but perhaps so.
After all, let’s look at a timely news item coming out of West Virginia — something embarrassing for WV’s Attorney General:
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey fired a spokeswoman Thursday, after it was revealed that she took part in a video called “The Stop White Genocide Video” that recites slogans of white supremacists.
Carrie Bowe, who was Morrisey’s assistant communications director, appears throughout the video, speaking about white genocide, a white nationalist conspiracy theory that alleges immigration and integration will cause whites to become extinct.
The YouTube video, first uploaded in December 2012 by someone with the screen name of “Johnny Mantraseed,” boasts that it was banned in 18 countries and was once removed from YouTube. It was re-posted to YouTube in 2013 and has been viewed more than 260,000 times.
Throughout the video, Bowe, who started working for Morrisey in January 2015, repeatedly states, “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” a phrase coined by well-known white supremacist Bob Whitaker, who lives in Charleston, South Carolina.
She has since taken to Facebook (of course) to say she had no idea what the final video would look like, as if that somehow excuses her for saying the following on video:
“If I tell you the ongoing truth about genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and ‘respectable conservatives’ agree that I’m a Nazi that wants to kill 6 million Jews,” Bowe says.
Bowe also says white children in schools are being misled.
“Throughout elementary school, junior high, high school and college, I was told that my race, the white race, was the cause of all the world’s problems,” Bowe says in the video. “Now, many of you have jobs where minorities say things that would get you as a white person instantly fired.”
The four women ask viewers to “recite The Mantra,” a series of phrases embraced by segregationists.
“Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody,” another women in the video says, the first phrase of “The Mantra.”
Here’s my favorite part:
Bowe, who made $40,000 as a Morrisey aide, served as his acting press secretary in September 2015. She also helped manage his field office staff members.
Before Morrisey hired her, she was member relations director with the conservative Family Policy Council of West Virginia.
That’s the state level version of the Family Research Council.
The conservative Family Policy Council of West Virginia is asking Wheeling leaders to release any and all documentation of the proposed protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents with a Freedom of Information Act request.
The request states that any such ordinance would elevate “changeable” sexual behavior to a special level of legal protection. The Charleston-based council’s president, Allen Whitt, said this ordinance has already likely been drafted under residents’ noses, despite Mayor Glenn Elliott assuring no such legislation is anywhere near a draft, let alone fully realized.
“That is misinformation. It is untruth,” Whitt said. “Their position is to pass a city ordinance. We’ve seen this multiple times. That’s a straight up lie.”
The council describes itself as a “leading conservative policy group championing social issues,” such as religious freedom.
If you were to say there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between alt-right, the klan, and good old fashioned “family values” conservatism, I don’t think many could refute that outright.
In any event, Clinton was obviously trying to woo moderate Republicans who cannot identify with Trump’s blatant racism, so she wasn’t prepared to go that far.
And Clinton’s speech has sent Trump into a fit (“no, CLINTON is the REAL racist!”).
Unfortunately, CNN is chastising both candidates for getting into the mud. The problem with “both sides do it” of journalistic equality is that one side actually has a basis for doing it.
Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) left a threatening voicemail for a Democratic state lawmaker on Thursday, using obscene language and challenging the lawmaker toprove the governor is racist.
LePage believed that state Rep. Drew Gattine (D) accused him of being racist after the governor said he kept a binder full of drug traffickers arrested in Maine and that more than 90 percent of them were black or Hispanic. In an interview with the Portland Press Herald, Gattine denied he had made the claim.
In the voicemail, obtained by the Press Herald, LePage directed several obscenities toward Gattine.
“Mr. Gattine, this is Governor Paul Richard LePage. I would like to talk to you about your comments about my being a racist, you cocksucker,” LePage said. “I want to talk to you. I want you to prove that I’m a racist. I’ve spent my life helping black people and you little son-of-a-bitch, socialist cocksucker. You, I need you to, just freakin’, I want you to record this and make it public because I am after you. Thank you.”
Listen for yourself:
That’s….. not…. good.
In January, LePage said men with names like “D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty” were dealing drugs in Maine and impregnating white women. Earlier this week, he said the binder he kept proved he isn’t racist because it supported his statements about the racial makeup of the traffickers.
LePage released a statement today, saying he was angry and apologizing for his language.
“When someone calls me a racist, I take it very seriously. I didn’t know Drew Gattine from a hole in the wall until yesterday. It made me enormously angry when a TV reporter asked me for my reaction about Gattine calling me a racist. It is the absolute worst, most vile thing you can call a person,” he said. “So I called Gattine and used the worst word I could think of. I apologize for that to the people of Maine, but I make no apology for trying to end the drug epidemic that is ravaging our state.”
The governor also said that he never intended to harm Gattine.
“When I said I was going after Gattine, I meant I would do everything I could to see that he and his agenda is defeated politically. I am a history buff, and I referenced how political opponents used to call each other out in the 1820s — including Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democratic Party. Obviously, it is illegal today; it was simply a metaphor and I meant no physical harm to Gattine,” he said.
Gattine did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment on the incident, but he told the Press Herald that LePage’s voicemail was “inappropriate and uncalled for.”
“What I said to the television reporter today is that the kind of racially charged comments the governor made are not at all helpful in solving what the real problem is,” Gattine told the Press Herald. “And that is, we have a crisis in the state of Maine of people overdosing on heroin and prescription drugs and we are not doing enough with respect to treatment and prevention.”
After leaving the voicemail, LePage publicly attacked Gattine and invited a television crew and Press Herald reporter for an interview in which he said he wished he could duel Gattine.
“When a snot-nosed little guy from Westbrook calls me a racist, now I’d like him to come up here because, tell you right now, I wish it were 1825,” he said, according to the Press Herald. “And we would have a duel, that’s how angry I am, and I would not put my gun in the air, I guarantee you, I would not be (Alexander) Hamilton. I would point it right between his eyes, because he is a snot-nosed little runt and he has not done a damn thing since he’s been in this Legislature to help move the state forward.”
LePage and Gattine have clashed on a number of issues, according to the Press Herald, including the governor’s effort to get rid of food stamps in his state.
Gattine wasn’t the only target of LePage this week. On Wednesday, he called Khizr Khan, the father of a killed American soldier, a “con artist” for criticizing GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Ever since he announced his presidency, Trump has been firm about two things: (1) “We’re going to build a wall” keeping Mexicans out of the U.S. (and Mexico will pay for the wall) and (2) “We’re going to deport all illegals so fast…..”
In fact, Trump’s stance on immigration may be the only consistent part of his campaign.
Except maybe not. Something happened, and Trump’s planned speech on Thursday regarding immigration got postponed.
Apparently, the Trump campaign has realized that deporting 3% of people living in America by a “deportation force” (as Trump called it) would make the transportation of Jews in Hitler’s Germany look like a family vacation. How do you move 11 million people, tearing families in half? Well, you can’t, and Trump realizes that now (all of a sudden).
So what do we get? On O’Reilly last night Donald Trump essentially said he’d continue President Obama’s deportation policy, which supporters and immigration critics both agree does not slack on deportations one bit. Only Trump says he’d pursue Obama’s policy “perhaps with a lot more energy.”
Trump: “We’re going to obey the existing laws. Now, the existing laws are very strong … What people don’t know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country, Bush the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I’m gonna do the same thing.”
Except, of course, people DID know that Obama had deported lots of people. Donald didn’t.
Newly-minted Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tried to put the best face on it by explaining that crafting good policy takes time. “Immigration is a very complex issue and to get the solutions right, to come out with your specific plan, should not be rushed. He is taking in the wisdom of many different counselors on this issue.”
When Fox’s Megyn Kelly pressed Conway on whether Trump still plans to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US, she said the policy is still “basically the same. First, secure the borders and actually apply and enforce the law. Secondly, you have to deport those who have committed crimes.”
Alas, this is as Trump himself was explaining, basically Obama policy: enforce the current laws and give priority to deporting those who have committed crimes and present a danger to the community.
This is unquestionably why the Thursday immigration policy speech was canceled. The campaign can’t figure what it’s policy is. He promised to deport all the illegal aliens in one year; now he has to walk all that back and basically embrace the Obama policy. But that degree of flip-flop is too abrasive and dramatic. There is no way to do that gracefully, and hence, the campaign is in a bit of a fix.
UPDATE: In response to suggestions that he is toning down is deportation views, Trump disagreed and said: “They are going to be out of this country so fast your head will spin.”
Well, my head is spinning – he’s right about that.
What kind of a place is Fox News? These allegations keep on coming.
[C]ommencing in February 2016, Bill O’Reilly (“O’Reilly”), whom Tantaros had considered to be a good friend and a person from whom she sought career guidance, started sexually harassing her by, inter alia, (a) asking her to come to stay with him on Long Island where it would be “very private,” and (b) telling her on more than one occasion that he could “see [her] as a wild girl,” and that he believed that she had a “wild side.” Fox News did take one action: plainly because of O’Reilly’s rumored prior sexual harassment issues and in recognition of Tantaros’s complaints, Brandi informed Cane that Tantaros would no longer be appearing on O’Reilly’s Fox News show, The O’Reilly Factor.
Perhaps the most shocking encounter of all was a Spring 2015 meeting between Tantaros and Fox News Senior Executive, Defendant William Shine (“Shine”), during which Tantaros sought relief from Ailes’s sexual harassment… In response, Shine told Tantaros that Ailes was a “very powerful man” and that Tantaros “needed to let this one go.” Yet, after Ailes was revealed to be a sexual predator and forced to resign, Shine was promoted to Co-President of Fox News. Shine’s inexplicable elevation sends the message that it will be “business as usual” at Fox News when it comes to the treatment of women
Here’s the whole thing:
And what it is, too….
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is set for a hearing at 1:30 p.m. (2:30 EST) today on charges he violated Alabama’s ethical standards for judges.
Moore is asking the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to dismiss the ethics complaint filed by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission. The Judicial Inquiry Commission is asking for a summary judgment against Moore and his removal, instead of moving the matter to a trial.
The JIC alleges Moore’s January 2016 order and his conduct surrounding it encouraged Alabama’s judges to disregard clear federal law.
Moore issued an order in January to Alabama’s probate judges, concerning same-sex marriage. Moore told the probate judges a ban on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples was still in effect until the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling.
But Moore’s order came more than six months after the U.S. Supreme Court in its Obergefell decision had ruled state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
In a response filed with the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, Moore’s attorneys argue he was simply following the law and established procedure in his order, not defying the Supreme Court.
A thematic deception that infuses the JIC brief is that the Chief Justice ordered the probate judges that they ‘had a duty, under Alabama law, not to issue same-sex marriage licenses,’” the filing argues. “The Chief Justice, however, did not on his own initiative direct the probate judges to follow Alabama marriage law.
“Instead he instructed them that ‘[u]ntil further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court’ they were still under a state-court injunction issued by that Court. He neither endorsed nor criticized that injunction. Because consideration of the effect of Obergefell on that injunction had been pending before the Alabama Supreme Court for six months, the Chief Justice considered it prudent to remind the probate judges that the injunction still remained in effect pending its review.”
Moore was removed from the bench as chief justice in 2003 after refusing a federal court order to remove a 10 Commandments monument from the state judicial building.
Moore was re-elected chief justice in 2012.
Local news earlier:
A very late update from AL.com:
Suspended Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore will go on trial next month on judicial ethics charges after the Alabama Court of the Judiciary late Monday issued an order that denied Moore’s request to dismiss the charges.
The court, in a brief one-page order, also denied a motion by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission that sought an order removing Moore from the bench without a trial.
Nude photos of Mrs. Trump, recently published in the New York Post, raised some questions regarding her immigration status at one time, before she married Donald Trump. If true, Trump may have literally married an undocumented worker who lied to enter the country under false pretenses and then failed to disclose that lie when later getting a green card and eventually gaining U.S. citizenship.
While Trump and her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said she came to the United States legally, her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.
The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.
Representatives of the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization did not address detailed questions about the timing and circumstances of Melania Trump’s arrival in the country, but campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to the emailed questions by stating, “Melania followed all applicable laws and is now a proud citizen of the United States.”
Oh, well if the Trump campaign says it, it must be true.
In a January profile in Harper’s Bazaar, Trump said she would return home from New York to renew her visa every few months. “It never crossed my mind to stay here without papers. That is just the person you are,” she said. “You follow the rules. You follow the law. Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa. After a few visas, I applied for a green card and got it in 2001.”
In a February interview with Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump repeated that characterization of her early years in the United States. “I never thought to stay here without papers. I had visa. I travel every few months back to the country to Slovenia to stamp the visa. I came back. I applied for the green card. I applied for the citizenship later on.”
The Trump campaign and Trump Organization representatives did not address questions about the type of visa Trump first used to enter the country, but it has been widely reported that she came here on an H-1B work visa. Writer Mickey Rapkin, who interviewed Melania for a May profile in the luxury lifestyle magazine DuJour, said she confirmed as much to him. “When I interviewed Melania, I mentioned that she’d come to New York on that H-1B visa, and she nodded in agreement,” Rapkin wrote in an email to POLITICO.
Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.
Instead, Trump’s description of her periodic renewals in Europe are more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa, which typically last only up to six months and do not permit employment.
If someone were to enter the United States on one of those visas with the intention of working, it could constitute visa fraud, according to Andrew Greenfield, a partner at the Washington office of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, a firm that specializes in immigration law.
Does this matter now? Apparently so:
Visa fraud would call into question a green card application and subsequent citizenship application, said immigration lawyers — thus raising questions about Melania Trump’s legal status, even today, despite her marriage to a U.S. citizen.
I don’t think we have heard the last of this.
UPDATE: As I was writing this….
— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) August 4, 2016
That’s nice, but it doesn’t address what she was doing in 1995.
As 18-year-old Texan Karlie Hay celebrated being crowned Miss Teen USA 2016 last Saturday, social media users began circulating tweets containing the N-word that were linked to an account bearing her name. The offending tweets were posted in 2013 and 2014.
That Twitter account is now private and locked, but Hay issued an apology early Sunday morning on her public Miss Texas Teen Twitter account – although her statement didn’t specifically acknowledge the racial slurs.
“A few years ago, I used language that is inexcusable, and I sincerely apologize for my actions,” Hay wrote. “At the time, due to a number of personal struggles, I was in a place that is not representative of who I am now.
“Through hard work, education, maturity and thanks in large part to the sisterhood that I have come to know through pageants, I am proud to say that I am today a better person. I am honored to hold this title and I will use the Miss Teen USA platform to promote messages of confidence, inclusion and perseverance.”
This did not admit the direct question — did she use those words on social media?
The Miss Universe Organization responded to the backlash in a statement to ABC 13.
“As Karlie stated, she was in a different place in her life and made a serious mistake she regrets and for which she sincerely apologizes,” the statement read. The organization condemned Hay’s language but showed its support for Hay by saying it is “committed to supporting her continued growth.”
This did not satisfy those on social media, nor does it satisfy me.
Actions have consequences. Life lesson number one.
Also, the Internet never forgets. Life lesson number two for the modern times.
You want to be a role model for teens? Then you take the fall so at least THIS younger generation learns, Miss Hay.
Just give it to one of the other finalists. It’s not like anyone is going to tell the difference.
Fifty years ago today, Charles Whitman, a 25-year-old engineering student and former Marine armed with a small arsenal of weapons, killed 13 people and wounded over 30 more during a shooting rampage atop the University of Texas Tower in Austin. The episode casts a long and complicated shadow. It is considered by some to have marked the beginning of the era of mass shootings; for others, the armed civilians who engaged Whitman that day suggest one way to limit the scope of such attacks.
As survivors and mourners gather to mark the anniversary on Monday, a campus-carry law that allows firearms in university buildings in Texas will also go into effect.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit invalidated North Carolina’s stringent new voting restrictions, holding that the law violates both the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The North Carolina measure, the Fourth Circuit held, has a discriminatory impact on black voters, impermissibly burdening their voting rights under the VRA. More boldly, the court also held that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent, designed by the Republican legislature to curb black voting rights in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This dual finding of discriminatory impact and intent makes the Fourth Circuit’s decision the boldest judicial rejection of voting restrictions in years.
As the court explains, North Carolina passed its omnibus voting bill, SL 2013-381, almost immediately after the Supreme Court freed the state’s voting laws from federal “preclearance”—meaning that after nearly 50 years under supervision, the state was finally free to change voting laws without federal oversight. The legislature promptly “requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.” And “upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected black voters.” The new law created draconian requirements for valid voter ID, eliminating those IDs most commonly used by black voters; cut back early voting and killed same-day registration; eliminated preregistration for teenagers; and eliminated out-of-precinct voting for voters who accidentally showed up at the wrong precinct in the correct county.
Every single one of these restrictions disproportionately burdened black voters; indeed, as the Fourth Circuit writes, SL 2013-381 seemed to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.” (Meanwhile, there is essentially no evidence that voter fraud ever occurs in North Carolina.) The evidence that the legislature enacted SL 2013-381 for precisely this purpose—to hamper black voting rights—is almost overwhelming. Indeed, the state even acknowledged that it had eliminated one early voting day, a Sunday, because it was a traditional “souls to the polls” day, when black voters were provided transportation from church to the polls. “Counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic,” the legislature said—so, in response, it did away with one of two days of Sunday voting. This, the Fourth Circuit writes, is “as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times”:
The State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race—specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.
But really, the North Carolina legislature littered its voting law with almost comically obvious smoking guns. Black voters, the court explains, are also more likely to utilize same-day registration, preregistration, and out-of-precinct voting. The legislature knew this when it enacted SL 2013-381; it had “requested a racial breakdown” of different voting methods, and, as the Fourth Circuit notes, discovered:
The legislature’s racial data demonstrated that, as the district court found, “it is indisputable that African American voters disproportionately used [same-day registration] when it was available.” … [I]n-person assistance likely would disproportionately benefit African Americans. SL 2013-381 eliminated same-day registration.
And on and on it goes—each restriction, the court persuasively explains, was crafted to crack down on voting methods favored by black voters. These “seemingly irrational restrictions unrelated to the goal of combating fraud,” the Fourth Circuit writes, can only be explained by discriminatory intent. And the legislature’s highly suspect behavior in enacting SL 2013-381—rushing it through, on party lines, as soon as it was freed of federal oversight—raises serious constitutional red flags. “Indeed,” the court writes, “neither this legislature—nor, as far as we can tell, any other legislature in the Country—has ever done so much, so fast, to restrict access to the franchise.”
As a result of the law’s discriminatory intent and impact, the Fourth Circuit concludes, each of its central provisions must be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause and the VRA.
It is a very hard rebuke to the lower court. Now, I know Judge Schroeder, the lower court judge who found that there was no discrimination intended when North Carolina passed its new voter laws. He is a thorough and competent judge, and certainly no racist. But not being a Southerner, he just doesn’t see certain things which the older Southern gentlemen of the Fourth Circuit did see. As the Fourth Circuit wrote, “the [lower] court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective lef the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”
This is a HUGE win for North Carolina (the people, not the current government) with national repercussions.
It will no doubt go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, with a 4-4 split, it will probably be upheld.
The 83 page opinion is below:
Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist who was trying to help an autistic patient who had wandered away from a group home, did everything right when confronted by cops with guns drawn.
— WSVN 7 News (@wsvn) July 20, 2016
Frankly, I say he should have known better than to be a behavioral therapist trying to help an autistic patient in the middle of the day like that.
Editors’ Note: The Christian Post has not taken a position on a political candidate before today. We are making an exception because Trump is exceptionally bad and claims to speak for and represent the interests of evangelicals.
We the senior editors of The Christian Post encourage our readers to back away from Donald Trump.
As the most popular evangelical news website in the United States and the world, we feel compelled by our moral responsibility to our readers to make clear that Donald Trump does not represent the interests of evangelicals and would be a dangerous leader for our country.
Trump claims to be a Christian, yet says he has never asked for forgiveness.
While God, in His wondrous creativity, has drawn people to Himself through the saving grace of Jesus Christ in many different ways, there are certain non-negotiable actions needed to become a Christian: One must repent of their sins and follow Christ as Lord and Savior. Trump doesn’t talk this way, even when urged to.
Further, his words and actions do not demonstrate the “fruit of the spirit.”
Trump is a misogynist and philanderer. He demeans women and minorities. His preferred forms of communication are insults, obscenities and untruths. While Christians have been guilty of all of these, we, unlike Trump, acknowledge our sins, ask for forgiveness and seek restitution with the aid of the Holy Spirit and our community of believers.
On Sunday, Trump’s apparent reluctance to disavow David Duke until late in the day was extremely distasteful. The Ku Klux Klan is an evil, unholy movement representing the worst of America. Anyone who will not immediately denounce their support is unfit to be president.
At last official count, there were expected to be a total of 18 black delegates at the Republican National Convention this week. Yes, eighteen, or roughly 0.7 percent of the 2,472 national delegates in Cleveland.
According to the best estimate we have, the share of black delegates at this week’s GOP convention is lower than any time it has been in more than a century (and possibly even longer)—including during a dozen or so conventions that took place back when there were still legally segregated water fountains and lunch counters in our country.
What is odd to me is this: the new ad uses some of the same language of the old one. Except they decided not to use this: “I mean, when the head of the Ku Klux Klan, when all these weird groups, come out in favor of the candidate of my party, either they’re not Republicans or I’m not.”
A great line that really SHOULD be said again in this year’s version.
You don’t want to slander the dead, but if this is true, then I suppose it wouldn’t be a slander.
What am I talking about? An awkward but somewhat convincing article that Lorne Ahrens, one of the five Dallas cops killed last week by Micah Xavier Johnson, was a white supremacist.
Let’s be clear. Murder is murder. Even if Ahrens was a white supremacist, he died at the hands of a murderer. Period.
But if true, does it not add to the dialogue about a racism problem in our police force? Was this man a hero? You read the article and decide for yourself.
“They’re not protesters. You know, these are thugs, they’re rioters. And yeah, I’m calling out the media, saying quit claiming that these rioters are people. They’re stomping on a flag — figuratively and literally — shouting ‘death to cops’, celebrating violence.” – Sarah Palin on Black Lives Matter Protesters
Dallas police now believe that Micah Johnson, who shot and killed 5 Dallas police following a Black Lives Matter march, was actually planning some sort of mass attack, but advanced his plans to take advantage of the BLM march. His house was full of bomb making equipment, far too much to have put together in recent days. He had received “defensive” combat training in Dallas two years earlier.
And most troubling, writing on his wall in blood.
This man was a time bomb. It’s almost like he didn’t need a reason to go off.
Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man, was standing in the parking lot selling CDs as he had for years when two white cops arrived on Tuesday night. By Wednesday morning he was dead and protesters were in the city’s streets. Calls erupted from Congress and the NAACP for an independent investigation into the shooting, which the Justice Department announced within hours.
Abdullah Muflahi owned the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge where all this happened. He was a friend of Sterling and allowed him to sell CDs in front of the story. Muflahi walked out the front door when he saw the officers talking to Sterling and said there was no “altercation,” as police claimed, until the cops tasered and tackled Sterling. That’s when Muflahi took out his phone and started recording. (Warning: Graphic video)
I was on Twitter last night reading about this, and the protests, when something came across the transom.
Another shooting of a black man by cops. A traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, near Minneapolis. The victim’s name is Philando Castile.
The video begins after the shooting occurred and shows the man, slumped and bloodied, against the woman who was recording. Her young daughter sat in the back seat. The video streamed live on a private Facebook account belonging to Lavish Reynolds, and the clip was passed rapidly among Twitter, Facebook and YouTube users, becoming significant news online before traditional outlets — even those in the Minneapolis area — caught up.
The woman, presumably Lavisjh Reynolds, began by calmly narrating what was happening as she trained the camera on Mr. Castile, whom she described as her boyfriend, and on at least one officer who was pointing a gun through the driver’s side window.
“Please, officer, don’t tell me that you just did this to him,” she said. “You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir.”
Reynold’s daughter, who was in the back seat, appears several times in the video. Near the end of the 10-minute clip, as the two are sitting in the back of a police car, she comforts her mother, saying, “It’s O.K., Mommy. It’s O.K. I’m right here with you.”
The terror in the voice of the cop is palpable, while Lavish Reynolds (at least in the beginning) is calm and reasoned. Castile dies in the video.
Reynolds can be heard throughout the video repeating that they were stopped for a broken tail light, that the officer requested Castile’s driver license, and that Castile was shot when he went to retrieve his license for the officer. She also states on the video that he worked for St. Paul public schools and did not have a criminal record. According to Castile’s mother, he was the cafeteria supervisor at a St. Paul Montessori school.
The Minnesota governor has asked for a federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Castile.
The Washington Post is tracking the number of people killed by police in the America. There were 990 in 2015. There were 506 showing for 2016 now. There is something terribly wrong.
And because it is a presidential campaign year, expect this: Hillary will talk about it, and Trump will use it as an excuse to pat policemen on the back.
But I suspect nothing much will happen.
This is fundamentally a dispute about facts and a sexual harassment case which, whoever is right, needs to be understood and adjudicated on its own terms. But sexual harassment, sex in the workplace and the much broader issue of coercion and the concept of consent are hot button political, legal and cultural issues today. We can’t ignore the fact that Fox News is one of the institutions at the center of charged atmosphere.
It’s not too much to say that in the Fox News bubble, and certainly among many Fox News viewers, sexual harassment is barely even a real thing. It’s a charge that temperamental or uptight women bring against gregarious or just non-PC guys either because of their ‘uptightness’ or to leverage some professional advantage. That’s an unvarnished way to put it, but it is the mindset that informs huge amounts of Fox News coverage and chatter and the same for many, though obviously not all, Fox News devotees.
I’m not a fan of Carlson, but to her credit, she never swallowed the Fox News ethos on sexual harassment.
At around 50 seconds into the video, the four-year old on my shoulder starts singing a patriotic song that she made up.
Something about “America” and how the fireworks appear every day and every night….
The Associated Press reports:
North Carolina lawmakers took steps Thursday to set aside a half-million dollars for the legal defense of a law limiting protections for LGBT people as a judge sought to streamline a cluster of lawsuits it has inspired.
Republican lawmakers were mapping out the end of the session, including possible changes to the law known as House Bill 2, which has attracted high-profile critics including the NBA. The session could end this weekend.
But there was no appetite to change the provision requiring transgender people to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in schools, universities and many other public buildings. The law also excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from statewide anti-discrimination protections.
Legislative leaders were weighing possible adjustments, while trying to determine whether there’s enough support to get the legislation to Gov. Pat McCrory’s desk. McCrory has urged lawmakers to repeal a provision preventing workers from using state law to sue over workplace discrimination.
That half-million dollars comes from a disaster relief fund and its transfer must also be approved by the state House.
By the way, the NC legislature has been drafting legislation to “refine” the HB2 bill — basically, it will issue an official document that would recognize a person’s gender reassignment. The new document, which is treated as the equivalent as a birth certificate in the draft legislation, is referred to as a certificate of sex reassignment. But it only applies where the person’s birth state does not do amend birth certificates — i.e., only for transgender people born in Tennessee and Idaho.
In other words, it does nothing.
LGBT activists denounced the attempt by North Carolina Republicans to “refine” the anti-transgender section of HB2. Yesterday the NBA and the Charlotte Hornets joined in. Their message:
“We have been engaged in dialogue with numerous groups at the city and state levels, but we do not endorse the version of the bill that we understand is currently before the legislature. We remain committed to our guiding principles of inclusion, mutual respect and equal protections for all. We continue to believe that constructive engagement with all sides is the right path forward. There has been no new decision made regarding the 2017 NBA All-Star Game.”
This morning, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state to about 10 from what was once a high of roughly 40.
The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. It applied a skeptical and exacting version of that decision’s “undue burden” standard to find that the restrictions in Texas went too far.
The decision on Monday means that similar restrictions in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
The decision concerned two parts of a Texas law that imposed strict requirements on abortion providers. It was passed by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature and signed into law in July 2013 by Rick Perry, the governor at the time.
One part of the law requires all clinics in the state to meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
“We conclude,” Justice Breyer wrote, “that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”
I’m not surprised by the outcome, nor am I surprised by swing justice Kennedy joining the “liberals” on the court. Frankly, the Texas restrictions were NOT intended to support women’s health. If you saw who proposed those restrictions (longtime Texas anti-abortion legislators) and listened to their rhetoric, “health of women” was a sham rationale. Their real objective was to make abortion clinics so regulated that they could not afford to make the required changes, and eventually close down. In fact, to date, twenty abortion clinics have closed down under those regulations.
So, yes, a victory, and it would have been a victory even if Scalia was alive and on the court. But it does underscore the importance of the election and who gets to pick the next justices.
WHEN TEXAS SECEDES….
The conversation with Uncle Sam will be something like:
You aren’t going to close your military bases, are you? Well, yes.
You aren’t going to close the borders and enact border checks, are you? Well, yes.
You aren’t going to require visas for Texan patriots to visit the US, are you? Quite possibly.
You aren’t going to end all of those transfer payments you make? Hell yes.
What about the Social Security owed to our residents? Interesting question, isn’t it.
There aren’t going to be tariffs between our nations, are there? Everything is negotiable.
My child just married an American. Will he be able to live in the US? That’s complicated…
… and you won’t get sued for copyright infringement, as long as you follow these guidelines, just released by CBS and Paramount:
I have had a girlfriend with bipolar issues, and another who has since developed identity diffusion disorder* (formally known as multiple personality disorder). I’ve worked with informal counselling of families and friends of people stricken with mental illness. Because of that, I can attest to the fact that it is no picnic to be in their shoes, or anywhere near their shoes (especially when they are not taking care of themselves).
This is why I am so enamored of Maria Bamford who not only handles her affliction head on, but turns it into a comedy both VERY funny and VERY personal. Her illness is played for laughs. It’s not the first to do this (“Orange Is The New Black” does this too), but Bamford goes the extra mile by letting the audience know that her mind, while humorous from a distance, is actually pretty scary too. And she seems to make the audience understand that mania, while enthralling and objectively empowering, actually is dangerous to the point of being life-threatening. Watching her, you know that Bamford has worked to maintain her stability, knowing what is good for her and what isn’t, but you also know that it is work (and pills and therapy and….) that never ends.
In a scene toward the end of the first season of Lady Dynamite, the Netflix comedy starring Maria Bamford, Maria shares her concern about her lack of friends with her life coach, Karen (played with perfectly vapid sincerity by Jenny Slate). At first, Karen answers with well-worn therapy jargon, telling Maria, “The only friendship you need to be concerned with is the one with the gal in the mirror.” Maria presses her, saying, “I’m just worried, because the only two friends I have left who will still be friends with me are Dagmar and Larissa”—to which Karen cheerfully responds, “Yeah, because you’re bipolar and you’re incredibly hard to stay friends with. I mean, people are really just going to fall by the wayside. And that’s life … for you.”
What’s remarkable about this exchange is not Karen’s apparent callousness in the face of her client’s troubles. In fact, by the episode’s end, Maria abandons her goal of “no friend left behind,” realizing that not all friendships are worth the sacrifices required to keep them. What makes this scene, and Lady Dynamite as a whole, so refreshing, is that Karen is exactly right. Maria isn’t an easy person to be friends with. She is thoughtful and eager to please, but her good intentions don’t always make up for her bad decisions. And her desire to help those around her can’t prevent her brain from turning stress into mania, or stop the destructive behavior mania incites.
Maria’s life coach is just one of the many voices of harsh truth throughout the show’s 12-episode season. Some of these truth-tellers are more tactful than others. In the blue-tinted scenes representing Maria’s time in Duluth, MN, taking part in psychiatric outpatient therapy after a severe manic episode, her parents are shown to be kind and patient, but also matter-of-fact about her illness. When her mom scolds her dad for going out just as Maria arrives home, he replies to them both, “I thought we weren’t going to treat her differently just because her frontal lobe went on the fritz.” Her obnoxious best friend from childhood adds her own insight, musing: “Isn’t that funny, all the fame and fortune of Hollywood can’t save ya, if your brain done broke.”
Many of the tone-deaf comments Maria hears regarding her life with Bipolar Disorder (“Actually, I’m Bipolar II,” she tells her life coach, to which her life coach replies, “Right, which means you’re twice as hard to stay friends with.”) are played for laughs. But the humor is that much sharper for its proximity to truth. One of the major themes of the season, and one of the most sincere and affecting elements of Maria’s character, is her struggle to honestly state her own feelings, especially when they are unpleasant or scary. Whether she’s agreeing to act in ad campaigns of increasing absurdity (the most memorable of the bunch being the Bamford Pepper Stepper Pepper-Bot, a backpack-sized robot that feeds whole bell peppers to the jogger wearing it) or buying a nicer house than she needs to please her childhood friend’s aggressive real estate agent (a convincingly intimidating June Diane Raphael), Maria’s inability to say what she really thinks threatens to destroy not only her career, but also her closest friendships and romantic relationships.
While the desire to avoid conflict clearly isn’t new for a TV character (pick almost any sitcom of the last several decades and you’ll clearly find plenty of storylines set into motion by one character withholding information from another), Maria’s fear of sharing her thoughts is based on more than a simple desire to be liked. The character of Maria, like the real Maria Bamford, has good reason to fear how other people might react to her true thoughts., She perceives the world through a lens that is hers alone. This unique view is what makes her such a great comic, and what has earned her such a respected perch within L.A.’s alternative comedy scene. Her albums and specials are full of jokes that range from absurdly hilarious to disturbingly dark, often told in a number of different voices (outside of stand-up, Bamford’s greatest success has been in doing voice work for commercials and animated programs). She is physically small and outwardly cheerful, which highlights by contrast her frequently grim comedic observations. This apparent contradiction is what makes Maria the character, and Lady Dynamite the series, feel so refreshing amid a wide range of half-hour shows featuring stand-up comedians. And it is also what singles out Lady Dynamite’s depiction of mental illness from every other show on television.
Depictions of mental illness on TV have generally grown increasingly nuanced and considered in recent decades, with prestige dramas from The Sopranos to Homeland, treating mentally ill protagonists with seriousness and respect. In the past year, comedies like You’re the Worst, and Crazy Ex Girlfriend have presented characters who are highly functional, frequently charming, and relatively successful, despite living with ongoing symptoms. But Lady Dynamite goes even further. Instead of treating mental illness as an obstacle for a character to overcome, or a device to explain otherwise nonsensical actions, Lady Dynamite builds it into the very fabric of its world. It mines tragedy for comedy, showing us a character who is herself struggling to find the humor within her own terrible pain. It’s the rare comedy that shows us that the reality of mental illness is that darkness can coexist with creativity and fun and hope.
Like Type 1 Diabetes, Crohn’s Disease, or fibromyalgia, Maria’s mental illness will never go away completely. Even after months of psychiatric care, Maria returns to Los Angeles knowing the risk of a manic episode or a suicidal depression isn’t entirely behind her. She actively tries to do the things she knows will help her stay healthy, but the dark realities have not changed, and neither has her desire to make people like her. (When her mother tells her not to look to others for approval, Maria replies, “But that’s literally what standup is, looking for approval from strangers.”).
The wisest advice Maria receives over the course of the first season comes from another comically blunt therapist. While taking part in an art-therapy group at the Duluth psych ward, Maria tries to stop two other patients who are arguing over the magazine cut-outs for their vision boards. Maria says, “Hey, we’re all here to get along.” Without missing a beat, the group therapist corrects her, saying, “No, Maria, we are not. We are all here to better ourselves and sometimes that means expressing your negative emotions in a constructive way.” Trying to set an example, the therapist goes on to tell her patients that they stress her out so much that she sometimes contemplates taking “all the pills” in her desk. She laughs as she says this, patting another patient on the shoulder.
Maria is generally realistic, but she is also an optimist. She believes that happiness, healthy relationships and basic human kindness are not only worth striving for, but are achievable. Her challenge, and the challenge of Lady Dynamite, is balancing that hope and desire for good with the realities of her suffering. The entire show is an exercise in following the art-therapy teacher’s advice: finding a way to use the fear and pain of mental illness to construct something that ultimately brings joy. Just as in life, the truth can be painful, but it can also be incredibly funny.
* No “You sure can pick ’em” comments please.
Three big cases remain outstanding on the SCOTUS docket: one on abortion, one on immigration, and one on affirmative action. The last one was just handed down moments ago.
In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes. After finding differences between the racial and ethnic makeup of the university’s undergraduate population and the state’s population, the University of Texas decided to modify its race-neutral admissions policy. The new policy continued to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes. For the remainder of the in-state freshman class the university would consider race as a factor in admission.
Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, so she competed for admission with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher’s application.
Fisher filed suit against the university and other related defendants, claiming that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university argued that its use of race was a narrowly tailored means of pursuing greater diversity. The district court decided in favor of the University of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Fisher appealed the appellate court’s decision.
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions?
This is decidedly a compromise; Kennedy’s opinion says that UT must continue to reassess its need for any kind of race-conscious affirmative action, and that it is justified only by a robust record showing that other means of addressing diversity concerns have failed. But there is also a pretty meaningful shift away here from the trajectory of Fisher I. That case faulted the lower court for giving too much deference to the judgments of the university; this decision affirmatively states that “Considerable deference is owed to a
university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”
From end of majority opinion: “The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admission policies.”
This is, I think, the first time Kennedy was on the pro-affirmative action side.
Strong dissent from Alito.which begins :””Something strange has happened since our prior decision in this case…”. 50 page dissent is being read by Alito.
SCOTUS had the Fisher case in 2013. One suspects Roberts and Alito now wish they hadn’t punted it back to the 5th Circuit. When Fisher I came through, this happened:
The peanut gallery:
Fisher has spent about eight years trying to dismantle affirmative action at a school she wasn’t qualified to get into anyway
— Adam Serwer (@AdamSerwer) June 23, 2016
In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, along with criteria for determining when prosecutors can choose not to enforce immigration laws under DACA. People who qualify for DACA may apply for work authorization. In 2014, DHS established a similar process for parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents as well as expanding DACA by making more people eligible. The new program was known as the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.
Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA and argued that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it had not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and because it was arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which clarifies the President’s power. The district court held that the states had standing to file the suit and temporarily enjoined the implementation of DAPA because the states had established a substantial likelihood of success on the notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the states had standing as well as a substantial likelihood of success on their substantive and procedural claims.
The per curium opinion in its entirety reads “The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court”
This means that Texas has standing and the case can go forward. When decisions are tied, this means that it has precedent in that circuit only and not nationwide.
While some outlets are reporting that the court’s action essentially kills the programs, it’s more accurate to say that it blocks them presently while their future remains uncertain. (It also has no effect on Obama’s original deferred action program for DREAMers announced in 2012.)
Since the split left in place a nationwide injunction that was unilaterally issued by a federal judge in the Fifth Circuit on Obama’s immigration programs—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—that injunction will almost certainly invite legal challenges in other circuits.
It is a loss, to be sure, but not a permanent one.
And although not one of the big three, the Dollar General case caught my eye.
Samantha Bee can give the background:
Dollar General Corporation (Dollar General) operates a store on land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Tribe). The store operates pursuant to a lease and business license agreement with the Tribe. In the spring of 2003, John Doe, a 13-year-old member of the Tribe alleged that he was sexually molested by the store manager, Dale Townsend, while he was working at the store as part of an internship program that the Tribe runs and in which the Townsend agreed to participate.
In 2005, Doe sued Townsend and Dollar General in tribal court. Both defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the tribal court denied the motions. The Choctaw Supreme Court upheld the denial of the motions by finding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Montana v. United States, which allowed a tribe to regulate the activities of nonmembers who enter into a consensual arrangement with the tribe, applied in this case. The defendants then sued the Tribe in federal district court and sought injunctions to stop the suit in tribal court. The district court granted the injunction for Townsend but not for Dollar General because the company had failed to carry its burden to show that the Montana decision did not apply in this case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Does a tribal court have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers?
The per curium opinion in its entirety reads “The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court”
Meaning the child molester cannot be tried in the Indian court, but Dollar General can.
I saw “Hamilton” with the original cast (except Anthony Rannells was substituting for J Groff) last October, a couple of months after it opened. I knew it would be big and a tough ticket to get in a few months, but I had no idea. Check this out.
Of course, these are tickets for one week from now, and Lin-Manuel and Leslie Odom and others are leaving after the first week in January. So, I kind of get the price inflation, but still…..
In its original statement following the Orlando shootings, the Republican National Committee made an attempt to acknowledge that the attack specifically targeted LGBT Americans—a sad attempt, but an attempt nonetheless. But meh, who really cares about that aspect anyway? So they finally just edited gays out altogether. Rebecca Ruiz reports on the line that was just too dangerous to include:
“Violence against any group of people simply for their lifestyle or orientation has no place in America or anywhere else,” it said.
The RNC’s reference to gender identity and sexual orientation was vague and awkwardly worded. Still, the sentence stood out in a statement that otherwise declined to clearly identify Pulse nightclub as a gay destination or describe the victims as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer.
But by Monday, the statement had been updated. It was missing that key sentence and contained no explanation for the revision.
RNC spokesperson Lindsay Walters later explained the change:
Walters said the revision was meant to be more inclusive because it invoked a common humanity and referenced all Americans instead of singling out LGBT people.
Right! Including LGBT folks by explicitly excluding them. Note to GOP: even straight people have a lifestyle and orientation, if you think about it.
This might get unnoticed, but it shouldn’t. It will have long-standing repercussions about the Internet:
WASHINGTON — High-speed internet service can be defined as a utility, a federal court has ruled, in a sweeping decision clearing the way for more rigorous policing of broadband providers and greater protections for web users.
The two-to-one decision from a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday came in a case about rules applying to a doctrine known as net neutrality, which prohibit broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of internet content to consumers.
Those rules, created by the Federal Communications Commission in early 2015, started a huge legal battle as cable, telecom and wireless internet providers sued to overturn regulations that they said went far beyond the F.C.C.’s authority and would hurt their businesses.
The court’s decision upheld the F.C.C. on the historic declaration of broadband as a utility, the most significant aspect of the rules. That has broad-reaching implications for web and telecommunications companies and signals a shift in the government’s view of broadband as a service that should be equally accessible to all Americans, rather than a luxury that does not need close government supervision.
What the internet providers (and some Republicans) wanted to do was to basically treat some Internet data as “more important” than others. They could charge higher rates to, say, CNN, so that CNN would get on a faster lane to your computer than say, a blog.
But this ruling allows the FCC to promulgate and enforce rules that will allow all Internet data to be treated equally (hence, net neutrality). Had the service providers got their way, the Internet would look VERY different.
To almost nobody’s surprise, Hamilton took the most nomination this year at the Tonys, with a record-breaking 16. The Best Featured Actor in A Musical has 3 of the five nominees from Hamilton. I saw Allegiance, which I thought was fairly good, so I am surprised it didn’t get a nod anywhere. Would have loved to have seen George Takei get a best featured actor in a musical, but Hamilton took many of those spots.
Full list below with my selections in red
King Charles III
School of Rock—The Musical
Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible
Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge
Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Best Revival of a Musical
The Color Purple
Fiddler on the Roof
She Loves Me
Best Book of a Musical
Bright Star – Steve Martin
Hamilton – Lin-Manuel Miranda
School of Rock—The Musical – Julian Fellowes
Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed – George C. Wolfe
Best Original Score (Music and/or Lyrics) Written for the Theatre
Music: Steve Martin and Edie Brickell
Lyrics: Edie Brickell
Music & Lyrics: Lin-Manuel Miranda
School of Rock—The Musical
Music: Andrew Lloyd Webber
Lyrics: Glenn Slater
Music & Lyrics: Sara Bareilles
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Play
Gabriel Byrne, Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Jeff Daniels, Blackbird
Frank Langella, The Father
Tim Pigott-Smith, King Charles III
Mark Strong, Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Play
Jessica Lange, Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Laurie Metcalf, Misery
Lupita Nyong’o, Eclipsed
Sophie Okonedo, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible
Michelle Williams, Blackbird
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Musical
Alex Brightman, School of Rock—The Musical
Danny Burstein, Fiddler on the Roof
Zachary Levi, She Loves Me
Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton
Leslie Odom, Jr., Hamilton
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Musical
Laura Benanti, She Loves Me
Carmen Cusack, Bright Star
Cynthia Erivo, The Color Purple
Jessie Mueller, Waitress
Phillipa Soo, Hamilton
Reed Birney, The Humans
Bill Camp, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible
David Furr, Noises Off
Richard Goulding, King Charles III
Michael Shannon, Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Best Performance by an Actress in a Featured Role in a Play
Pascale Armand, Eclipsed
Megan Hilty, Noises Off
Jayne Houdyshell, The Humans
Andrea Martin, Noises Off
Saycon Sengbloh, Eclipsed
Best Performance by an Actor in a Featured Role in a Musical
Daveed Diggs, Hamilton
Brandon Victor Dixon, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Christopher Fitzgerald, Waitress
Jonathan Groff, Hamilton
Christopher Jackson, Hamilton
Best Performance by an Actress in a Featured Role in a Musical
Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple
Renée Elise Goldsberry, Hamilton
Jane Krakowski, She Loves Me
Jennifer Simard, Disaster!
Adrienne Warren, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Best Scenic Design of a Play
Beowulf Boritt, Thérèse Raquin
Christopher Oram, Hughie
Jan Versweyveld, Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge
David Zinn, The Humans
Best Scenic Design of a Musical
Es Devlin & Finn Ross, American Psycho
David Korins, Hamilton
Santo Loquasto, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
David Rockwell, She Loves Me
Best Costume Design of a Play
Jane Greenwood, Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Michael Krass, Noises Off
Clint Ramos, Eclipsed
Tom Scutt, King Charles III
Best Costume Design of a Musical
Gregg Barnes, Tuck Everlasting
Jeff Mahshie, She Loves Me
Ann Roth, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Paul Tazewell, Hamilton
Best Lighting Design of a Play
Natasha Katz, Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Justin Townsend, The Humans
Jan Versweyveld, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible
Jan Versweyveld, Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge
Howell Binkley, Hamilton
Jules Fisher & Peggy Eisenhauer, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Ben Stanton, Spring Awakening
Justin Townsend, American Psycho
Best Direction of a Play
Rupert Goold, King Charles III
Jonathan Kent, Long Day’s Journey Into Night
Joe Mantello, The Humans
Liesl Tommy, Eclipsed
Ivo Van Hove, Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge
Best Direction of a Musical
Michael Arden, Spring Awakening
John Doyle, The Color Purple
Scott Ellis, She Loves Me
Thomas Kail, Hamilton
George C. Wolfe, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Andy Blankenbuehler, Hamilton
Savion Glover, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
Hofesh Shechter, Fiddler on the Roof
Randy Skinner, Dames at Sea
Sergio Trujillo, On Your Feet! The Story of Emilio and Gloria Estefan
August Eriksmoen, Bright Star
Larry Hochman, She Loves Me
Alex Lacamoire, Hamilton
Daryl Waters, Shuffle Along, Or the Making of the Musical Sensation of 1921 and All That Followed
The guy has comic chops
For nearly a 20 minutes Tuesday night, CNN political commentator and Donald Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord tried to defend the presumptive GOP nominee’s racist rant against a federal judge.
It didn’t go well at all. Instead, seven other panelists raked Lord over the coals.
Asked whether he would denounce what Trump said as racism, Lord said, “It wasn’t racism. He is calling attention to racism. Hello!?”
Lord added: “If I thought he was a racist, I would not be here.”
On January 18, 2015, at about 1 a.m., two male Stanford graduate students were riding their bikes through campus when they spotted a man on top of a woman near a dumpster. The woman did not appear to be moving. The students approached the man, who fled, leaving the woman, unconscious and partially naked, on the ground. One of the students chased him and held him down while the police was called. The man was identified as Brock Turner.
Outrage remains understandably high over the sentence of “the Stanford rapist”. My recent tweets have pointed out some of the most offensive things about this case (besides, obviously, the rape itself). The light six-month sentence given to the Stanford student. His father’s plea for mercy, saying that his son shouldn’t be jailed for the rape in light of the fact that he only got “20 minutes of action” (yes, that’s a direct quote). There’s nothing about the Stanford rape case that isn’t stomach-turning.
But there is a lighthouse on the island — the letter of the victim. Long, but with preserving. Great opening line, and it gets better. I’ve placed it below the fold.
Gov. Pat McCrory announced Thursday that his office and four outside attorneys would represent North Carolina in the federal government’s challenge of House Bill 2, hours after making a political issue of a court document filed in the case by his Democratic challenger.
An exchange of political volleys Thursday started when the Republican governor portrayed Attorney General Roy Cooper – who has said he would not defend the law – as reversing himself by responding to the complaint by the Department of Justice.
Cooper’s office had filed the response on Friday, with a deadline to respond looming and no other private attorneys representing North Carolina at the time – raising the possibility that the state could have been left unrepresented or had a judgment entered against it for lack of response. The filing asked for an extension of the deadline.
On Thursday, Cooper’s campaign called McCrory’s criticism misleading, reiterating Cooper’s opposition to the law and that he wouldn’t defend it.
McCrory’s campaign then called on Cooper to resign as attorney general “for gross incompetence.”
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the federal Department of Justice brought the lawsuit last month, naming as defendants the state, McCrory, the state Department of Public Safety and the UNC system and its board of governors.
Put another way, McCrory was going to blow off the deadline in the DOJ lawsuit, so Cooper filed a response to the complaint. Cooper agrees with the DOJ, so McCrory was not happy with the nature of the response.
Basically, it was a set-up. McCrory wanted to make Cooper look bad by making Cooper stick to his guns and not defend the case. When Cooper did file a (conceding) response, McCrory could then claim that Cooper was incompetent.
Except it really doesn’t seem that way. It seems that Cooper saved McCrory from a default judgment.
After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request Tuesday to reconsider a previous ruling affirming the rights of a Virginia transgender student, Gov. Pat McCrory’s defense of HB2 has a hit a major road block.
The intermingling of the two cases in question—the pivotal Virginia case (G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board) decided in favor of transgender student Gavin Grimm, and McCrory’s HB2 defense, McCrory v. United States—charts a course for the future demise of HB2’s bathroom provision.
Here are the basic facts governing McCrory’s case in defense of HB2:
1) North Carolina falls within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which means the Virginia ruling siding with a transgender student’s right to use their bathroom of choice applies to the Tar Heel State.
2) Grimm’s case was decided on the basis of sex discrimination prohibitions included in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law that McCrory’s lawsuit against the federal government fails to address, writes Ian Millhiser.
The Justice Department’s letter concludes that HB2 violates three separate federal laws, Title VII, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. McCrory’s complaint claims that the state is not violating the first of these two laws, but it is conspicuously silent regarding Title IX. […] McCrory’s silence regarding Title IX may be an acknowledgement that any effort to defend his states actions under Title IX is doomed.
3. Now that the Fourth Circuit has declined to rehear G.G., the only other avenue for reversal of the ruling is the Supreme Court, which seems unlikely to overturn it—if the justices even decide to take up the question.