Bloglikes - Society en-US Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:03:27 +0000 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0000 FeedWriter More Ante Upping In New Jersey [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:10:32 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law California New Jersey DRB Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process
Justices grant stay, block Louisiana abortion law from going into effect

In June 2016, an eight-member Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that required doctors who perform abortions to have the authority to admit patients at a local hospital. The makeup of the court has changed significantly since then: In 2017, Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died a few weeks before the Texas case was argued, and Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But although the court by most measures has become more conservative, the justices today granted a request from abortion providers to block a similar Louisiana law from going into effect while the providers appeal a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in a dispute that some court-watchers regarded as a bellwether for the court’s possible direction in future abortion cases.

The Louisiana law at the center of the dispute was enacted in 2014 but has never gone into effect. It requires doctors who perform abortions in the state to have “active admitting privileges” – the authority to admit patients and to provide diagnostic and surgical services – at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they provide abortion care.

In 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law from Texas. Defending the law, the state argued that the admitting-privileges requirement was intended to protect the health of pregnant women, but Kennedy joined the court’s four more liberal justices in holding that there was no evidence that the requirement actually promoted that interest, while at the same time the law made it significantly harder for women to obtain an abortion.

A federal trial court agreed with the abortion providers that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional because it does “little or nothing for women’s health” but would “cripple women’s ability to have an abortion.” But last fall the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that ruling, setting the stage for the law to go into effect for the first time.

Last week the abortion providers went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to bar Louisiana from enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement until the providers can file – and the justices can rule on – a petition for review. Emphasizing that the Louisiana law is virtually indistinguishable from the Texas law that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional, the providers warned of serious consequences if the law is allowed to go into effect: There will not be any doctors in the state to perform abortions after 17 weeks of pregnancy, and there will be only one doctor available to provide abortions in the earlier stages of pregnancy. As a result, they argued, “some women could be completely denied the choice to terminate a pregnancy and forced to carry the pregnancy to term.” What’s more, they added, any clinics that are forced to close if the law goes into effect are “unlikely to ever reopen,” even if the law is later declared unconstitutional.

In a brief filed a few days later, the state urged the justices to stay out of the dispute and allow the law to go into effect. The state asserted that the law would have a very different impact than the Texas law that the justices had struck down, and a far less severe effect than the providers had prophesied. Because only one of the unnamed abortion providers challenging the law had actually experienced real problems getting admitting privileges, the state explained, “only one of Louisiana’s six abortion providers would cease practice as a result of” the law, and “none of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics would have to close.”

And in any event, the state assured the court, it did not plan to shut down abortion clinics overnight, as the providers had suggested. Instead, the state clarified, it “envisions a regulatory process that begins, logically, with collecting information from Louisiana’s abortion clinics and their doctors.”

Louisiana’s law was scheduled to go into effect on Monday, February 4. On February 1, Justice Samuel Alito gave the providers a short-term reprieve, barring the state from enforcing the law for a few more days to give the Supreme Court more time to review the briefs that had been filed. Alito stressed that his order did not “reflect any view regarding the merits of the petition” for review that the providers have said they intend to file.

In , the Supreme Court put the law on hold indefinitely – at least until the justices can rule on a petition for review, but, in all likelihood, until they can hear oral argument and rule on the law’s constitutionality. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices in voting to grant the stay, while four conservative justices – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – all indicated that they would have denied the providers’ request and allowed the state to enforce the law.

Kavanaugh also wrote a separate dissent from the order granting the providers’ request to block the law. The central question in the case, he reasoned, is whether the admitting-privileges requirement imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, which in turn hinges largely on whether three doctors who perform abortions at the state’s clinics can obtain admitting privileges – a question on which the lower courts reached different conclusions. Therefore, Kavanaugh explained, he would deny the providers’ request to bar the state from enforcing the law so that the three doctors and local hospitals could resolve the admitting-privileges question once and for all.

If the doctors cannot obtain admitting privileges, Kavanaugh stressed, they can return to court. But if they can, and they can continue to perform abortions, he suggested, the law would not impose an undue burden. By contrast, Kavanaugh emphasized, the Supreme Court’s approach – blocking the law and presumably reviewing the case next term — “will take far longer and be no more beneficial than the approach suggested here.”

With the law now on hold, nothing is expected to happen in the case until the providers file their petition for review, which is due in mid-April. If the justices decide to take up the case, which seems likely because the prospect that the Supreme Court will grant review is one of the criteria that the justices considered before granting the stay, oral argument would likely be held in the fall of 2019 or winter of 2020, with a decision by the end of June 2020.

This post was first published at Howe on the Court.

The post Justices grant stay, block Louisiana abortion law from going into effect appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:46:15 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Texas Featured Supreme Court Law Louisiana Kennedy Antonin Scalia John Roberts Howe Alito U S Court of Appeals Samuel Alito Anthony Kennedy Kavanaugh 5th Circuit What's Happening Now Brett Kavanaugh Neil Gorsuch Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito Neil Gorsuch
$20 million gift for health law at University of Florida [Author: Brian Leiter]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:39:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law University of Florida Brian Leiter
Divided court allows Alabama execution to go forward

A divided Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate after denying his request to have an imam at his side in the execution chamber, even though the prison would allow a Christian chaplain to be present in the chamber.

By a vote of 5-4, imposed yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The Atlanta-based court had put the execution of Domineque Ray, who was convicted of raping and murdering 15-year-old Tiffany Harville in 1995, on hold, reasoning that the prison’s policy of excluding the imam from the execution chamber while allowing a Christian chaplain likely violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, which bars the government from favoring one religion over another. But the justices reversed that ruling today, explaining that Ray had waited too long to challenge the policy: Although today’s execution date had been set back in early November, Ray didn’t go to court until January 28, 2019.

Justice Elena Kagan – joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the stay, calling it “profoundly wrong.” Allowing an inmate to have a Christian minister but not a Muslim imam by his side at his execution, Kagan wrote, “goes against the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality.”

Kagan pushed back against the majority’s suggestion that Ray’s execution could go forward because he had sought relief too late. Ray couldn’t have brought this challenge earlier, she explained, because he would not have known that his imam would not be allowed in the execution chamber until January 23, when the warden denied Ray’s request to have the imam in the chamber as his spiritual adviser.

Kagan stressed that the Supreme Court is “ordinarily reluctant to interfere with the substantial discretion” that federal courts have to issue stays. And in this case, she observed, “Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be violated at the moment the state puts him to death.” Although the 11th Circuit would have reviewed that claim, Kagan concluded, the Supreme Court instead “short-circuits that ordinary process” “just so the State can meet its preferred execution date.”

This post was first published at Howe on the Court.

The post Divided court allows Alabama execution to go forward appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:14:22 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Featured Supreme Court Law Alabama Atlanta Ray Sonia Sotomayor Howe Elena Kagan Kagan 11th Circuit What's Happening Now U S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Domineque Ray Tiffany Harville
Runner Kills Mountain Lion With His Bare Hands Via Eastern correspondent Fred, this report is bracing:

A Colorado trail runner is lucky to be alive after he was attacked by a mountain lion on the West Ridge Trail at Horsetooth Mountain Open Space near Fort Collins earlier this week. The man, who has not been identified, killed the mountain lion, which Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) said was a “juvenile” and weighed 80 lbs, according to The Washington Post.

“The runner did everything he could to save his life,” Mark Leslie, northeast region manager for CPW. “In the event of a lion attack, you need to do anything in your power to fight back just as this gentleman did.”

According to NBC News, the mountain lion, whose body was found “within a few feet of some of the man’s possessions” attacked the runner, “biting his face and wrist and causing serious but non-life-threatening injuries.” A necropsy found that the man had suffocated the animal in order to get away, according to The Washington Post.

While mountain lion attacks are rare, they do occur, which means it’s important to stay vigilant if you’re in their territory.

Since I don’t believe in luck, I’d rather put it that God blessed him that day.  Nick comments, dryly, “I think he could’ve outrun the cat but his massive stones slowed him down.”  Perhaps, and this guy is quite brave and quick-thinking, but it could have gone the other way.

Mountain lion attacks are rare.  I guess they are.  That’s what they say every time this happens, whether to a hiker, mountain bikers in Washington, or to a mountain biker in California trying to fix a broken chain.

Okay.  Rare.  And often deadly to humans.  Carry a gun wherever you are, whatever you’re doing.

In a startling discovery, this Idaho woman found herself grabbing a mountain lion (via Glenn Reynolds).

An Idaho woman was shocked to discover she was holding onto a male mountain lion when she yanked the creature off her dog last week.

The woman, who has not been identified, believed she was breaking up a “dog fight” between her pup and another pet outside her Mackay home when she suddenly realized she was actually grabbing a wild animal.

After realizing what she had in her hand, the shocked woman — who suffered scratches during the attack — called her husband for backup.

“The woman restrained both her dog and the mountain lion while yelling for her husband, who was still inside the house, to grab a gun. Her husband responded and quickly dispatched the mountain lion as she held on to it,” the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) described in a news release Monday.

Local police officers and a wildlife official arrived on the scene roughly 30 minutes later. The responding officer from the IDFG recovered the roughly 35-pound juvenile mountain lion’s body and confirmed the carcass would be sent to a nearby lab for testing.

I don’t know who’s tougher – him or her.  But remember, mountain lion attacks are rare.  They say that every time it happens.  It must be true, so no need to worry.

Or carry a gun.  Or maybe that’s bad advice.

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 21:30:33 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Colorado California Washington Animals Nbc News Military Idaho Fort Collins The Washington Post NICK Fred Mackay Glenn Reynolds Mark Leslie Mountain Lions IDFG Colorado Parks and Wildlife CPW Idaho Department West Ridge Trail
New York Resident Tries To Register Family Heirloom, Police Scrap It Via WoG, this:

A retired Army veteran looking to comply with state law is now fighting to keep a family heirloom from getting scrapped.

The Buffalo News reports that Andrew Ciepiela, 46, recently tried to register an old Iver Johnson revolver that has been handed down through three generations. That’s when the Erie County Pistol Permit Department told him the gun, made in 1917, was last registered in the 1950s by a sexagenarian and, as a “nuisance” firearm, it could not be registered to him, clearing the way for local police to destroy it.

“I wasn’t expecting any issue. It took me by great surprise,” said Ciepiela, who saw the matter as a case of “big government stomping on the little guy.”

That’s what happens when the government becomes the big bully on the block.  I’m sure they cried a river of tears over the family’s loss.

Speaking of nuisance, who’s the real one here?  Who else will be stupid enough to try to comply with onerous rules that destroy family property for no good reason?

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 21:08:05 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Military Army Gun Control Buffalo News Iver Johnson Ciepiela Andrew Ciepiela Erie County Pistol Permit Department
At the Green-Eyed Cafe...
... you can talk all night.
As for news of my left eye — it's 20/20.

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 20:22:21 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Eyes Law Drawing Rats Ann Althouse Green Eyed Cafe
Education Law Issues: Attendence Requirements I am confused regarding a transition IEP my son had April 2018 (2017/2018 school year). He was in 7th grade, age 13. He turned 14 THIS school yr. 2018/2019
When we rec’d the invitation it listed “Team” members: parents, spec ed teacher, Reg Ed teacher, LEA Rep/Chair, my son, AND transition liaison, Office of Vocational Rehab. We agreed & signed.
When we attended, the LEA Rep/chair, the transition liaison & Office of Vocational Rehab were not present. I inquired specifically about the liaison thinking it would be helpful for planning & was told it wasn’t important because NEXT year, 8th grade is when we discuss more on transition. Well we ran into a problem NOW regarding my son’s high school course planning. We were told by several people, members of the IEP team cannot be excused from a meeting without parent/student consent. I called a state consult agency and was told the same thing.
When I brought this to the attention of special education dept, I was told invited does mean required and the transition liaison and the Office of Vocational rehab did not need to be excused-as they were not “required” to be there. Furthermore, there was nothing they would have brought to the meeting because my son was only in 7th grade. They said nothing about the LEA Rep not being in attendance.
Here is the issue, my son almost missed some opportunities for 9th grade because there were recent deadlines to apply for certain high school programs. I also found out that course planning for 9th grade is being done this month. So if we waited until April this year for the next IEP meeting, it would have been too late to apply for certain programs and too late for course planning and the whole excuse of certain people not needing to be there last year before ANY deadline, especially course planning is ludicrous to me. How I feel is much different to what the law says. So I can file a complaint, but I want to be educated. I found some info online that may give merit to what I was told about invite vs required. In the situation described above, where NON required personnel are INVITED to attend a meeting, are they able to just not attend without our prior knowledge?
“When assembling an IEP team, a school is required by the regulations that implement the IDEA to include, at a minimum, a regular education teacher of the child, a special education teacher of the child, the parent(s), an agency representative who has the authority to commit resources, someone to explain evaluation results, and, when appropriate, the child. [34 C.F.R. § 300.321] Others are permitted to attend, but are not required, including, “at the discretion of the parent or the [school], other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate.” [34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(6)] The Commentary to the federal regulations offers additional guidance: “The public agency determines the specific personnel to fill the roles for the public agency’s required participants at the IEP team meeting. Whether other teachers or service providers who are not the public agency’s required participants at the IEP Team meeting can attend an IEP Team meeting is best addressed by State and local officials.” [34 C.F.R. Part 300, Analysis of Comments and Changes, Subpart D–Evaluation, Eligibility, IEP, Educational Placement, Federal Register, Vol.71, No. 156, p. 46675 (August 2006)]”]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:16:47 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Pennsylvania Education Law IEP Office of Vocational Rehab Office of Vocational IEP Team
Beer before wine not fine, scientists find after vomit-filled tests Research into old saying about alcohol consumption shows you get a hangover either way

Beer before wine, or wine before beer; whatever the order, you’ll feel queer. That, at least, is the updated aphorism drinkers will have to embrace now scientists have proved that drink order has no effect on the magnitude of one’s hangover.

Under carefully-controlled lab conditions, British and German researchers plied 90 volunteers with beer and wine to find out once and for all whether hangovers are worsened by the order in which drinks are necked.

Continue reading...]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:01:24 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Health Science Alcohol Society UK News World news Beer Health & wellbeing Wine Hangover Cures
T14 Law School Welcomes A New Dean — See Also Jenny Martinez Is Named Stanford Law Dean: Congrats on the new position. Lawyer Rematch:On the Virginia Lt. Governor sexual assault allegations. There'll Be No Partisan Balance On Delaware Courts: So says the Third Circuit. Regret Going To Law School? You aren't alone. Biglaw Raises! This time in Phoenix.]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2019 18:44:59 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Virginia Delaware See Also Jenny Martinez Donald Trump Nominates David Malpass To Bring Some Of His Bear Stearns Magic To The World Bank Thu, 07 Feb 2019 18:18:02 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Finance America World Bank Donald Trump David Malpass Behavior Regulation: Warehouse Worker on Medical Restrictions can a company hold employees on medical restrictions to the same working rate as the rest of their employees? i work in a warehouse where were required to pick/pack/etc at specific rates. this is difficult to maintain daily, all day long for most everyone. but even more so for those of us on restrictions with the pain we are constantly in. they have been writing us up for our "performance" not being up to par. and have fired others for it, one just last week. i am on my final written warning and was told i would be fired this week. but apparently i brought my rate up enough to save me for this week. however, i am still on my final warning for the next 6 months, so every week i have the pressure of wondering if i will be fired. at this point i dont even want to go into work tomorrow, im so fed up with this job and its lack of caring. but i want to be able to collect unemployment as ive been there 2 and half years. and they are notorious for denying everyone unemployment, no matter how they left the company]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:59:19 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Pennsylvania Employment and Labor "I browsed around and met Izzy Young, the proprietor. Young was an old-line folk enthusiast..." The madly complicated modern world was something I took little interest in. It had no relevancy, no weight. I wasn’t seduced by it. What was swinging, topical and up to date for me was stuff like the Titanic sinking, the Galveston flood, John Henry driving steel, John Hardy shooting a man on the West Virginia line.... [Izzy would] write about me in his diary. I couldn’t imagine why. His questions were annoying, but I liked him... Had also instructed me to be kind because everyone you’ll ever meet is fighting a hard battle. I couldn’t imagine what Izzy’s battles were. Internal, external, who knows? Young was a man that concerned himself with social injustice, hunger and homelessness and he didn’t mind telling you so. His heroes were Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Moby-Dick, the ultimate fish story, was his favorite tall tale...."
From Bob Dylan, "Chronicles: Volume One." I looked that up because I read in the newspaper "Izzy Young, whose New York music shop was ‘the citadel’ of folk revival, dies at 90" (WaPo).

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:54:53 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Law West Virginia Brooklyn Bob Dylan Titanic Young Jim Crow 1960s John Hardy Abraham Lincoln Dylan Galveston Izzy John Henry Moby Dick Ann Althouse Izzy Young Daniel De Foe Moll Flanders Izzy Frederick Douglass Moby Dick
This Firm’s History Of Mixing Biglaw And Politics Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:45:05 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Biglaw Trivia Question of the Day The Reason Why Legal Tech Remains The Domain Of The Legal Elite: It’s All About The Money Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:17:07 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Technology Law Legaltech New York Bob Ambrogi Solo Practitioners Small Law Firms Inspire.Legal Re-evaluating SWAT, Corruption alleged in UT-Dallas policing courses, Was Dallas PD staffing shortage spoken into existence?, and other stories Corruption alleged in UT-Dallas policing courses
For years, reported the Dallas Morning News, UT-Dallas allowed police officers to enroll for a course, skip all their classes, and walk away with As. Wow. How did anybody ever think this was okay?
Growing critiques of routine use of SWAT tactics
Check out Jessica Pishko's coverage of a dubious Austin SWAT raid. Notably, a study last year found that "Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime, but may harm police reputation." That observation certainly applies to the recent, botched drug raid in Houston.
Hostility to hiring hundred Harris prosecutors heightened
The Harris County DA's request for 102 new prosecutors is meeting with spirited opposition from local reform groups. Grits opposes such an expansion unless 1) the county approves commensurate, new resources for indigent defense, and 2) the funding pays for caseload reduction, not filing new cases.
Was Dallas PD staff shortage spoken into existence?
The idea that Dallas needs more police has repeated so often it's now taken as fact, reported the Dallas Observer's Stephen Young, in his excellent lede to a story on DPD officer staffing. The police union in Dallas is touting an officer staffing rate of 3 officers per 1,000 residents, which is FAR higher than most Texas cities. "The national median police staffing level for cities with populations over 500,000 is about 2.1 per 1,000 residents. Houston has 2.22 officers per 1,000 residents; Austin has 1.89; and San Antonio has about 1.4." In Dallas, it's 2.25. There's some evidence that hiring more police officers reduces crime; in fact, it's more effective than a lot of other strategies. But it's also clear that crime has declined decidedly over the last three decades, for a variety of other reasons that have nothing to do with police staffing. We know that because crime continued to go down as police staffing levels stagnated. So any relationship is at best indirect, or crime would have risen as staffing ratios declined.
'How Baylor Happened'
Jessica Luther and Dan Solomon, , dissect the Baylor football rape scandals and the permissive culture toward athletes at the university and local law enforcement that tolerated it for too long.
On blaming state government for local decisions
After Grits dissected the Cooke County Judge Jason Brinkley's critique of unfunded mandates in the criminal-justice system, showing that local costs rose because prosecutors had tripled prosecutions during an era of declining crime, the editor of the Gainesville Register asked if I'd submit my comments as an extended letter to the editor. I did and they ran here. You're welcome, Judge Brinkley. ;)
For the reading list
Here are links to a few academic articles on topics this blog covers that I'm posting here to read later:

[Author: Gritsforbreakfast]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:10:27 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Texas Law Austin Dallas Houston Dallas Observer Baylor San Antonio HARRIS Jessica Pishko Harris County Brinkley Cooke County UT Dallas DPD Gritsforbreakfast Jessica Luther Stephen Young Dallas Morning News UT Dallas Houston Hostility Dan Solomon Jason Brinkley Gainesville Register
Biglaw Firm Raises Associate Salaries! This Time Non-Major Markets Are Getting The Love Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:13 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Money Law Bonuses Biglaw Phoenix Perkins Coie 2018 Associate Salary Increase Time Non Major Markets US Supreme Court, voting 5-4, vacates Eleventh Circuit stay of execution in Alabama for Muslim death row prisoner The Supreme Court this evening, voting 5-4 along usual ideological lines, vacated the stay of execution entered yesterday by the Eleventh Circuit to allow the court to hear an Alabama death row defendant's religious liberty claims concerning who could be present at his execution.  The opinion of the majority of the court runs these two paragraphs:

The application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 6, 2019, presented to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to the Court, is granted.

On November 6, 2018, the State scheduled Domineque Ray’s execution date for February 7, 2019.  Because Ray waited until January 28, 2019 to seek relief, we grant the State’s application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  See Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U.S. 653, 654 (1992) (per curiam) (“A court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.”).

A two-page dissent, authored by Justice Kagan, and Joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, gets started and ends this way:

Holman Correctional Facility, the Alabama prison where Domineque Ray will be executed tonight, regularly allows a Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber. But Ray is Muslim. And the prison refused his request to have an imam attend him in the last moments of his life.  Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that there was a substantial likelihood that the prison’s policy violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, and stayed Ray’s execution so it could consider his claim on its merits.  Today, this Court reverses that decision as an abuse of discretion and permits Mr. Ray’s execution to go forward. Given the gravity of the issue presented here, I think that decision profoundly wrong....

This Court is ordinarily reluctant to interfere with the substantial discretion Courts of Appeals have to issue stays when needed.  See, e.g., Dugger v. Johnson, 485 U.S. 945, 947 (1988) (O’Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting). Here, Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be violated at the moment the State puts him to death.  The Eleventh Circuit wanted to hear that claim in full.  Instead, this Court short-circuits that ordinary process — and itself rejects the claim with little briefing and no argument — just so the State can meet its preferred execution date. I respectfully dissent.

Prior related posts:

[Author: Douglas A. Berman]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:43:58 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Supreme Court Law Court Alabama Johnson US supreme court Ray State Sotomayor Kagan Holman Correctional Facility O'Connor Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals Dugger Douglas A Berman Courts of Appeals Mr Ray GINSBURG BREYER Domineque Ray United States Dist Court for Northern Dist of Cal Rehnquist C J dissenting Here Ray
Magnetic north isn’t even close to where it used to be
  • Magnetic north has recently been moving north from Canada to Russia in a cold hurry.
  • It's moving about 33 miles a year instead of the usual 7 miles.
  • World navigation models had to updated ahead of schedule to catch up with it.


If you're reading this as you travel the arctic, odds are you're probably already a bit confused. Your compass has been, well, strange, lately. That's because magnetic north has been moving. Quickly. It's never been stationary, but recently it's been moving around 485 feet northward toward Siberia every day. That's about 33 miles per year, as opposed to the average 7 miles a year between 1831 and the 1990s, when its pace quickened.

Fortunately, experts say that if you're south of the 55th parallel, you won't notice much of a difference. However, for national defense agencies, commercial airlines, and others that rely on knowing what their compasses are pointing at, it's a much bigger deal. That's why the World Magnetic Model — a set of online reference calculators, software, and technical details — had to be updated recently ahead of schedule instead of waiting for the next planned revision in 2020.

North, north, and north

There are actually three flavors of north, and they're all in different places.

  • Magnetic north — is defined as the location on the Earth's surface where all of its magnetic lines point straight downward. If you look at a compass while you're there, the needle attempts to dip down; that's why it's also called the "dip pole." Magnetic north is always on the move in response to the constant motion of electrical charges in the Earth's liquid outer mantle, which produces Earth's magnetic field.
  • Geomagnetic north — is the northern focus of the Earth's magnetosphere, up in the stratosphere. It moves, too, but not nearly as much, since shifts in the Earth's magnetic field are more smoothed-out up there than on the ground. Its location is pretty stable, located above and off the northwest coast of Greenland.
  • True north, or geographic north — is the northern terminus of our lines of longitude. It's located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
What’s the hurry?

The suddenly accelerating movement of magnetic north has scientists wondering what's up — not because there's any danger we're aware of — because its behavior is one of the few opportunities they have to catch a glimpse of the dynamics inside the earth's molten outer core.

The most prominent theory is that the speed-up is being driven by, as Nature puts it, "liquid iron sloshing within the planet's core." Giant streams of molten iron and nickel continually twist and swirl in the outer core, a pressure cooker that can reach 9,000° F in temperature. The iron is the source of the magnetic fields that comprise the Earth's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is the barrier that keeps us protected from destructive ultraviolet solar radiation — its existence keeps Earth habitable. Planets with no magnetic barrier are unable to hold onto their atmosphere. Mars lost its magnetosphere 4.2 billion years ago.

Geophysicist Phil Livermore made the case at an American Geophysical Union meeting in Fall 2018 that what we're seeing is the latest action in an ongoing tug of war between two magnetic fields down in the swirling outer core. One is under Siberia, and one is under Canada. Historically, the Canadian field has been winning, keeping magnetic north in Canada. However, there's been a shift, he tells National Geographic, "The Siberian patch looks like it's winning the battle. It's sort of pulling the magnetic field all the way across to its side of the geographic pole."

Some scientists think that the acceleration may be an early sign that Earth's magnetic poles are about to flip, something that happens every every 200,000 to 300,000 years. Others see no evidence of that. Plus, flips occur over thousands of years, so there'd be no cause for alarm anyway.

Keeping an eye on magnetic north

The position of magnetic north is tracked by the European Space Agency's three Swarm satellites orbiting the Earth about 15 times a day — the satellites' readings are continually checked against ground readings to assess the pole's movements. Every five years, until now, at least, scientists have updated the math in the World Magnetic Model, whose goal is to "ensure safe navigation for military applications, commercial airlines, search and rescue operations, and others operating around the North Pole."

Given how things like this tend to play out over geologic time, it would surprise no one if more frequent model updates will be needed going forward.

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:29:38 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Science Russia Earth Nature Canada Military Aircraft Geology Innovation European Space Agency Siberia Mars North Pole Arctic Ocean Planet American Geophysical Union Disaster Relief Magnetism World Magnetic Model Phil Livermore Greenland True
Fake Lawyer Going To Very Real Jail Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:16:04 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Crime Law Phillip Asher Florida Blue Gets Legal Win Against Oscar Health In Exclusive Broker Dispute Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:49:06 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Law Florida Blue Health Care / Medicine Florida Blue Gets Legal Win Against Oscar Health "Ok then. My day has started. I just need to go read the article on the Delta airline napkin thing and I'll get out of bed." "A Florida politician allegedly made a habit of licking men’s faces. She has now resigned" (WaPo).
I had not noticed "the Delta airline napkin thing," but I looked it up. Here" "Delta nudged passengers to slip their number to their ‘plane crush’ on napkins. Now the airline is sorry." (WaPo).
Falling in love on an airplane is the kind of story you only ever hear in a bar or see in a Lifetime movie. But for a brief time this winter, Delta Air Lines wanted to help passengers make it a reality — by gently nudging them to hit on other passengers. With cocktail napkins.
“Be a little old school,” said the small print on the napkin, advertising Diet Coke. “Write down your number & give it to your plane crush. You never know ...” There was a little space on the napkin where flirtatious passengers could write down their name and another space for their number. The larger print said, “because you’re on a plane full of interesting people and hey,” again, “... you never know.”...

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:17:37 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Florida Law Advertising Delta Gestures Delta Air Lines Saliva Ann Althouse Creepiness WaPo Falling
That Moment When Your Law Firm Makes You Wish You Never Went To Law School Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:15:50 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Law Schools Small Law Firms Job Searches The Struggle “Savvy” Looks at Society’s Fakeness, and Advertising Looks Good In Comparison I think we’re living in a precarious age. Nothing in the modern media is what It appears to be. We’re surrounded by stories, personalities, and corporate entities that simply operate by the maxim that “the end justifies the means.” Especially if that means outright deception. Shiv Singh and Rohini Luthra, Ph.D. take a closer look […]

The post <i>“Savvy”</i> Looks at Society’s Fakeness, and Advertising Looks Good In Comparison appeared first on Adpulp.

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:13:36 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Uncategorized Advertising Society Shiv Singh Rohini Luthra
AI &amp; The Practice Of Law At The Crossroads: Where Are We Going? Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:46:48 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Technology Law UK AI Company Luminance Gets $10 Million Series B Funding The UK company Luminance, an artificial intelligence platform for contract review, today announced that it has completed a Series B funding round of $10 million, at a valuation of $100 million.

The funding was raised from existing investors Invoke Capital, Talis Capital and Slaughter and May. The funds will be used to support product expansion and global growth, the company says. The company closed a $10 million Series A funding in November 2017.

Launched in 2016, Luminance offers a document review platform for due diligence, compliance review, property lease abstraction and e-discovery early case assessment. Its technology is based on machine learning and pattern recognition techniques developed at the University of Cambridge to read and understand legal language.

The company says its platform is used by more than 130 law firms and in-house teams in more than 40 countries, including 14 of the global top 100 firms and three of the big four accounting firms. The company has offices in London, Cambridge, Chicago and Singapore, and recently opened a fifth office in New York.

In a statement announcing the financing, Emily Foges, Luminance CEO, said that 2018 was a year of significant achievement for Luminance. “We have expanded from one product to four, owing to the flexibility and innovative nature of our core technology. This has enabled a remarkable rate of global customer acquisition over the last 12 months and these funds will valuably support this continued expansion.”

Just the Beginning

During the recent Legalweek in New York, I met with Foges, who told me that she expects 2019 to be a year of significant growth for AI, as law firms no longer view it as experimental.

CEO Emily Foges

“Two thousand nineteen will be the year that most law firms move out of their experimental stage,” Foges told me. “What we’re seeing now is firms saying, ‘Now we get it.'”

During our meeting, Foges recounted the platform’s progression from a due diligence platform into compliance review, property lease abstraction and e-discovery.

But her longer-term vision is for Luminance to become “the AI platform for the legal profession,” she said. She wants to extend the life cycle of how legal professionals use the platform, so that as they move from one task to another, they are able to continue working within Luminance.

“I think we’re really just scratching the surface,” Foges said. “Our customers are now doing a lot of their work in a fraction of the time it once took, and doing work that they wouldn’t have pitched for before.”

“This is just the beginning,” Foges said. “It will get even more interesting.”

[Author: Bob Ambrogi]

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:31:59 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs UK New York London Law Singapore Uncategorized Artificial Intelligence University of Cambridge Bob Ambrogi LegalWeek Luminance Invoke Capital Talis Capital Cambridge Chicago Emily Foges Luminance CEO Foges Emily Foges
The Danger Of Remaining Silent On Mental Health Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:14:44 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Linkedin Mental Health Health / Wellness Brian Cuban Alyson Luftig Danger Of Remaining Silent On Mental Health Pill inspired by leopard tortoise could replace diabetic injections Capsule shape based on domed shell ensures insulin needle within aims at stomach wall

Scientists have developed a “needle pill” that could allow diabetics to take insulin without the need for daily injections.

The pea-sized capsule contains a small needle made of solid, compressed insulin, which is injected into the stomach wall after the capsule has been swallowed.

Continue reading...]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:00:16 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Science Society World news Diabetes
Symposium: Precedent dictates a win for the plaintiffs in this term’s partisan-gerrymandering cases

Guy-Uriel E. Charles is the Bennett Boskey Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law at Duke Law School. Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer is Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow at Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law.

In Lamone v. Benisek, a three-judge federal district court in Maryland concluded that Maryland Democrats intentionally moved 66,000 Republican voters out of Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District in order to turn a district that would more or less reliably elect a Republican member of Congress into one that would elect a Democrat. That court agreed with the plaintiffs, Republican voters who lived in the district, that the state intentionally diluted their votes. In Rucho v. Common Cause, a three-judge federal district court in North Carolina concluded that Republicans intentionally packed and cracked Democrats in constructing North Carolina’s 2016 congressional redistricting plan. That court agreed with the plaintiffs, Democrats who resided in each of the state’s 13 congressional districts, that the North Carolina plan violated the U. S. Constitution by intentionally diluting their votes.

If we are lucky, the Supreme Court will use Benisek and Rucho to decide whether political gerrymandering claims are justiciable — whether the federal courts can serve as a check on the political process and safeguard a baseline conception of the effectiveness of the right to vote — and not duck the issue as it did last term in Gill v. Whitford. If we’re really lucky, the court will decide the cases in favor of justiciability. And if the stars align just right, the court will also articulate a framework for resolving political-gerrymandering claims.

Sophisticated court-watchers are not expecting us to be so fortunate. They are, rationally, predicting a 5-4 decision in which the conservative justices decide conclusively that the Constitution does not forbid politicians from drawing district lines that dilute the votes of individual voters even if the goal is to maximize their political advantage and to punish the opposition party. But as scholars who have long argued that political-gerrymandering claims are justiciable because they raise the same constitutional harms that the Supreme Court has addressed in its prior precedents, we are cautiously, and perhaps foolishly, optimistic. The Constitution already protects individual voters from the intentional dilution of their votes, notwithstanding the political identity of the voters.

The Supreme Court has long struggled with the question of the justiciability of political-gerrymandering claims. Too long. However, the answer to the question whether political-gerrymandering claims are justiciable is not that hard. For more than 50 years, ever since the court decided Baker v. Carr, the landmark 1962 case in which voters from Tennessee complained that the state’s malapportioned state legislative districts violated the equal protection clause, the Constitution has served as an effective limit on the propensity of politicians to manipulate election districts for their own political gain. Then, as now, the Supreme Court had to decide whether these types of political cases are justiciable. The court in Baker overturned a 15-year-old precedent, Colegrove v. Green, and concluded that the Constitution imposes some basic ground rules on how democratic politics can and ought to be contested. It agreed with the Baker plaintiffs that the 14th Amendment precludes the government from drawing district lines in a manner that dilutes the votes of individual voters. The court equated vote dilution through malapportionment with ballot stuffing by the state or a decision by the government to arbitrarily count some votes and not others. As a consequence of Baker and a later case, Reynolds v. Sims, intentional vote dilution is now firmly actionable, at least in the context of malapportionment.

But the Supreme Court has never limited intentional-vote-dilution claims to the malapportionment context. In particular, the court has long recognized that the government violates the equal protection clause when it intentionally dilutes an individual’s right to vote because of the individual’s race. For example, in the 1973 case of White v. Regester, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s opinion holding that multi-member districts, in conjunction with other factors, can serve to dilute the votes of African-American and Mexican-American voters. Additionally, there is a long and robust line of cases, starting with the 1986 case of Thornburg v. Gingles, stating that racial vote dilution violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, the court has liberally applied its racial-vote-dilution jurisprudence in the context of political gerrymandering. That is, when there is a political gerrymandering that results in the dilution of the votes of African-American voters, those voters have a right of redress under the Voting Rights Act. And if the vote dilution is intentional, those voters also have a right of redress under the equal protection clause.

Thus, as a matter of precedent, the Supreme Court has long recognized that vote-dilution claims are justiciable. It has resolved vote-dilution claims in the context of malapportionment and it has resolved them in the context of political gerrymandering. To be sure, the political-gerrymandering claims involved racial vote dilution and not partisan gerrymandering. Nevertheless, there are two distinct and established lines of cases holding that vote dilution is cognizable as constitutional harm.

The Supreme Court can and should, in Benisek and Rucho, make clear that vote-dilution claims are cognizable whether the voters alleging a violation of their constitutional rights are voters of color or urban dwellers, Republicans or Democrats. There is no clear reason for recognizing vote dilution as a constitutional harm when the individual voters who allege dilution are urban dwellers, rural voters, Mexican Americans, white, or African Americans but not when they are Republicans or Democrats. The Supreme Court would never allow a state to require voter identification for voting only if the voter identifies as a Republican (or a Democrat). The court would easily strike down a law that allows Democrats (or Republicans) to register to vote on election day but requires Republicans (or Democrats) to register 20 days before an election. In Reynolds, decided in 1964, the court observed that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” If individual voters can show, as the voters in Benisek and Rucho demonstrated to the satisfaction of the respective lower courts, that the government diluted their votes because of their political identity, under a straightforward reading of the court’s precedents they have alleged a cognizable constitutional violation.

Critics of judicial supervision of partisan-gerrymandering claims have stated that unlike the malapportionment cases, for which the one-person, one-vote principle offered a clear, pseudo-mathematical and easily manageable standard, the partisan-gerrymandering cases do not have a similar standard waiting in the wings. Justice Felix Frankfurter consistently complained that judicially manageable standards are unavailing in dilution cases, though he was obviously wrong about that. This also explained Justice Anthony Kennedy’s reluctance in recent years to rule in favor of plaintiffs in political-gerrymandering cases. Judicial intervention requires standards for reaching a decision. To the critics, no such standards exist.

As a response, advocates of justiciability have turned to math, in particular the ill-advised and ultimately ill-fated efficiency gap, to demonstrate the availability of a manageable standard. But both the critics and the advocates misunderstand what the Supreme Court means when it asks for a judicially manageable standard. The court is not asking for a mathematical or empirical standard — those are relevant to show the existence and magnitude of the burden. Rather, the court is asking for a legal principle that is drawn from traditional legal sources — such as the text of the Constitution or the court’s past precedents — to resolve these cases.

Again, the Supreme Court’s past precedents are a useful guide. The court has long recognized that voting is a fundamental right. When the government dilutes an individual’s right to vote because of the individual’s political identity — because he or she is a Republican (or a Democrat) or because the government thinks that the voter might, unadvisedly in the government’s perspective, vote for a Democrat (or a Republican) — the government ought to provide a very good justification. This standard is familiar to first-year law students and is undoubtedly judicially manageable. For example, if the government assigned Democrats two votes and Republicans one, the Supreme Court would easily conclude that the government had violated the Constitution, specifically the 14th and the First Amendments.

The key to winning the political-gerrymandering cases is to help the Supreme Court to see that these cases are seamlessly consistent with what it has done before. This is not a new idea. In his concurring opinion in Whitcomb v. Chavis, Justice William Douglas observed that “the problem of the gerrymander is the other half of Reynolds v. Sims.” The lower-court judges in both Benisek and Rucho recognized that they could draw from the court’s past precedents to resolve political-gerrymandering claims. If the plaintiffs and their lawyers can convince the Supreme Court to do the same, they win.

* * *

Past cases linked to in this post:

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946)
Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 (U.S. Jun. 18, 2018)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)
Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971)
White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)

The post Symposium: Precedent dictates a win for the plaintiffs in this term’s partisan-gerrymandering cases appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thu, 07 Feb 2019 13:54:45 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Featured Maryland Supreme Court Law Congress Green Tennessee North Carolina Edward Baker White Carr Harvard Law School Maryland Democrats Sims Reynolds Gill Anthony Kennedy William Douglas Common Cause Thornburg Chavis Colegrove Felix Frankfurter Whitcomb Whitford Gingles Rucho Benisek Regester Guy Uriel E Charles Bennett Boskey Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law Luis E Fuentes Rohwer In Rucho Regester the Supreme Court Again the Supreme Court
Facing Impostor Syndrome As A Minority Woman In The Male-Dominated IP World just like you who feel this way, even if they project themselves with confidence.]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2019 13:13:58 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Advice Intellectual Property Women's Issues Impostor Syndrome Health & Wellness Minority Issues Krista L. Cox