#Due Process Clause

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Calling the Republican Party the “party of fertilization,” former President Trump continues to make false claims in a recent interview with a Detroit TV station, while simultaneously taking credit for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.

In an interview last week with FOX-2 Detroit following his Wednesday rally in Saginaw County, anchor Roop Raj asked Trump about the issue of abortion and how much it would impact the November election. The former president argued that the erasure of a 50-year precedent that provided women a constitutional right to an abortion was a positive development.

“I say what the people decide, and whatever it is, it’s within the state and what the people decide, and it’s working out,” said Trump. “For many, many years, people have said we’ve gotta bring this back to the states to decide, and that’s now working.”

Trump then outlined how different states were dealing with abortion rights, but appeared unaware that Michigan had already enshrined those rights in its constitution.

“All the states are deciding, and you know, for 53 years, people wanted to be able to get it out, Roe v Wade, get it out so the states can decide,” Trump said. “Your state [Michigan] will decide probably a liberal policy if it hasn’t already done it. … I think Michigan’s gonna actually be very loose. They’re gonna vote on it, and that’s gonna be the law.”

In 2022, Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved securing the right to an abortion and other reproductive rights, less than six months after the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause no longer provided a federal right to an abortion. Three of the six votes in favor of that decision were made by justices appointed to the court by Trump.

Trump also told Raj the GOP was “the party of fertilization because we are for the women,” referencing one of the issues that resulted from the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, namely in vitro fertilization (IVF).

“We wanna help the women because they were gonna end fertilization, which is where when the IVF, where women go to the clinics and they get help in having a baby, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. And we’re for it a 100%. They tried to say that they weren’t for it. They actually weren’t for it and aren’t for it as much as us, but women see that,” said Trump.

The IVF issue came to the forefront in February when the Alabama Supreme Court, citing the Dobbs decision nine times, ruled that embryos had the full legal rights of citizens. That left IVF clinics facing costly litigation, prompting a temporary halt to the procedure in that state until it passed a law extending criminal and civil immunity to IVF providers and patients. But because the measure didn’t declare when life begins, clinics there are still moving away from providing the service out of litigation concerns.

Trump’s claim that “they weren’t for it,” presumably meaning the Democratic Party, is false. In fact, Democrats like U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — a disabled veteran who used IVF to become a mother — had been warning since at least 2022 that IVF would be the next target of GOP-led legislatures and courts if Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Additionally, Senate Republicans have rejected attempts to protect access to IVF treatments, while a bill sponsored by House Democrats, H.R. 7056, the Access to Family Building Act, which would establish a federal right to access assisted reproductive technology, including IVF, remains bottled up in committee by the Republican-led chamber.

Trump continued to insist in the interview that abortion “was not that big of an issue,” and “should be largely taken off the table.”

He also continued to push the false claim that abortions were routinely being done in the final month of pregnancy, or beyond.

“Nobody wants to see abortions in the ninth month and the eighth month and the seventh month, and nobody wants to see abortions or, in this case, killing after the baby is born,” Trump told Raj. “Right now, that’s what the Democrats can do. They can have it in the seventh, eighth, ninth month, and they can kill the baby. In numerous states, they can kill the baby after the baby is born, and nobody wants that. Nobody.”

Since at least 2016, Trump has been making the claim of abortions in the final days of pregnancy or even killing babies after they are born, and it has been fact-checked time and again as false.

And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, less than 1% of all abortions are performed after 21 weeks of gestation — in the fifth month of pregnancy.

Raj asked Trump about Florida’s six-week abortion ban that went into effect last week.

“You have to understand, every legal scholar from all over the country, all over the world, they said ‘You have to get abortion out of the federal government, you have to take it away from the federal government, give it to the states’, and now that’s what we’ve been able to do. We’ve given it to the states, and some states have already decided, and people are satisfied with it.”

While there were certainly scholars who believed Roe had been decided incorrectly, they didn’t represent a majority, much less anything close to unanimity.

“Any claim that all legal scholars wanted Roe overturned is mind-numbingly false,” Rutgers Law School professor Kimberly Mutcherson, a legal scholar who supported the preservation of Roe, told CNN, which quoted several other legal experts in fact-checking that assertion as false.

“The people within the states … they seem to be very happy with the way it’s working out,” added Trump.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, since the overturning of Roe, 30 states have enacted abortion policies that range from restrictive to the most restrictive.

Raj also asked Trump about labor policies, unions, immigration and the war against Hamas in Gaza.

When asked about the success of union efforts in southern states, such as the UAW’s historic victory last month with Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., who voted by a nearly 3-1 margin to join the UAW, Trump instead talked about China building car plants in Mexico, insisted the public didn’t want all electric vehicles (EVs) and ended up in a diatribe against President Joe Biden.

“This character that’s destroyed our country, the worst president we’ve ever had, without question,” said Trump. “He’s destroying our country. What he’s doing with cars, he’s forcing the auto industry into China and other countries, and it’s so sad. And, by the way, Mexico is doing things that nobody can believe. They just started, and they’re doing them in conjunction with China, and it’s gotta be stopped. We can’t let that happen.”

Raj restated his question about growing union support in states like Tennessee that have been less than welcoming to organized labor in the past.

“Well, it could be happening,” Trump said. “I mean, it’s gonna be happening, but you gotta be very careful about what’s gonna happen in two years from now when China wants to take all of the jobs. Because frankly, then union or non-union, everybody’s gonna be hurt. Everybody.”

There have been concerns about Chinese automakers looking to avoid U.S. tariffs by building vehicles in Mexico and the Biden administration has addressed the issue. Last month, Reuters reported that under pressure from the U.S., Mexico was refusing to offer Chinese automakers incentives to build factories there such as low-cost public land or tax cuts for investment in EV production.

The report also quoted an official with the Office of the United States Trade Representative as saying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was negotiated during the Trump Administration, did not allow “a back door to China and others who may be seeking to access our market without paying … tariffs.”

On the topic of Israeli military attacks against Hamas in Gaza, in which more than 34,000 people have been killed according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza, Trump was asked how he would try and end the hostilities, and indicated he would give Israel a free hand.

“You gotta finish it off fast. You gotta get it done, and then you gotta have peace. And we’ll make peace fast. But you gotta get your work done and you gotta have peace. You know that Oct. 7 was terrible,” Trump said, referring to Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians that killed about 1,200 people.

The interview closed with Raj asking Trump if he would debate Biden on statewide television in Michigan.

“If you can get him, I’m there. I’ll go anywhere he wants to go,” said Trump. “What he’s done to Michigan is so bad. What he’s done to our country is so bad. What other man, what other person, would allow 15, 16 million people right now in our country? They came from prisons and jails. They came from insane asylums and mental institutions, not from South America, from all over the world, they’re pouring into our country at levels that nobody’s ever seen. Drug dealers. One stat before we go, Venezuela was very crime-ridden. They announced the other day 72% reduction in crime in the last year. You know why? They moved all their criminals from Venezuela right into the good old USA, and Biden let them do it. It’s a disgrace.”

“But, sir, where are those numbers coming from?” asked Raj.

“I guess I get them from the papers in this case. I think it’s a federal statement or well, they’re coming actually from Venezuela. They’re coming from Venezuela. That’s where they can’t come from,” said Trump.

Punishing sanctions imposed against Venezuela during the Trump administration have been blamed as at least one cause of the mass migration out of that nation. Trump also didn’t mention that one of his last acts as President was to give Venezuelan exiles in the U.S. illegally protection from deportation.

[todaysdocument]

Complaint, Ludtke v Kuhn, 12/29/1977. 

Journalist Melissa Ludtke sued MLB commissioner Bowie Kuhn over the Yankees’ policy of banning female reporters from the locker room. The Court found that the policy violated the equal protection and due process clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States

Series: Civil Case Files

File Unit: [Melissa Ludtke and Time, Incorporated v. Bowie Kuhn, Commissioner of Baseball, et al.]

Transcription:

[on top right side, rubber stamps,

first stamp; "77 CIV. 6301"

second stamp; "U.S. DISTRICT COURT, FILED DEC 29 1977. S. D. OF N. Y."

third stamp; "COMPLAINT JUDGE MOTLEY"]

[on top right side, handwritten, "1", circled.

handwritten inside of second stamp, under date, "12:01"]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------

MELISSA LUDTKE and TIME, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

BOWIE KUHN, Commissioner of Baseball,

LELAND MacPHAIL, President of the

American League of Professional

Baseball Clubs, THE NEW YORK YANKEES

PARTNERSHIP, ABRAHAM BEAME, Mayor of

the City of New York, JOSEPH

DAVIDSON, Commissioner of Parks and

Recreation for the City of New York,

and DENNIS ALLEE, Director of the

Economic Development Administration

of the City of New York,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------

[underlined] Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pur-

suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United

States Constitution, and by reason of the doctrine of pendent

jurisdiction.

2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000,

exclusive of interests and costs.

[underlined] Parties

3. Plaintiff Melissa Ludtke is a woman employed

[on bottom right of page, handwritten "1", circled]

[page 2]

time high of 40,781,061.

18. Time publications reflect the great public interest in baseball by devoting substantial editorial resources and news coverage to baseball.

19. The public interest in professional baseball extends far beyond the results or play-by-play descriptions of the games. For example, sports fans want to know how the players think how they played in a particular game, how the players relate to one another and to their owners, coaches and manager and, in general, what the players are like as human beings.

20. In response to that public interest and to increase fan interest and attendance, defendants Kuhn, MacPhail and the New York Yankees encourage and, together with the City, profit from news coverage going beyond the mere results of the games. Accordingly, they have permitted reporters access to players in the clubhouses of major league baseball teams immediately after professional baseball games.

21. Access to the clubhouses of major league baseball teams immediately after games, however, has been and continues to be limited to male reporters. Accredited female reporters, including plaintiff Ludtke, have been and continue to be barred from such access solely because of their sex.

-8-

[uboat53]

Okay, I had a conversation the other day that led me to put together something that's absolutely bonkers and I've got to tell people about it. Fair warning, this is a bit of LONG RANT (TM).

INTRODUCTION

I've been having discussions about guns and the 2nd Amendment recently because of the mass shooting (yet another) in Nashville. While discussing this, I got a bit into the overall understanding and jurisprudence of the 2nd Amendment in particular. As part of that conversation, the person I was talking to referenced James Madison's comments that the 2nd Amendment would prohibit even the regulation of the ownership of cannons.

(NOTE: I cannot find the actual source of this, all I can find is a bunch of pro-gun websites that reference it without citation. If anyone could find this I'd be very thankful.)

And that comment struck me as interesting because, as part of a backlash to recent pro-gun "originalist" rules by the Supreme Court, historians have been (accurately) pointing out that the founding era was awash with gun regulations [1]. Most states and localities regulated guns and other weapons very strictly and several even banned them entirely. So what gives?

APPLICATION

Well, I was interested in resolving the contradiction and it turns out it wasn't difficult to do so. You see, the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government, not the states or localities [2]. In fact, the Senate considered and rejected an amendment as part of the original Bill of Rights that would have applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment did prohibit the Federal Government from even the most basic of regulation, but it did nothing to prohibit any other level of government from doing whatever they wanted.

If we look at the understanding of the founding era, there was no standing federal army. In fact, the Constitution specifically put barriers that made it difficult to form one such as the requirement that money allocated to an army must expire after only two years [3]. The founders viewed the state militias as the proper place for military organization in peacetime and also as the best line of protection against any attempts by the federal government at tyranny [4].

The 2nd Amendment, then, was a guarantee that the federal government could not undermine the state militias that were viewed as a bulwark against tyranny.

That's why there's no contradiction between Madison's (alleged?) comment that the Federal Government cannot even regulate cannons and other government's laws completely banning firearms within their limits. The 2nd Amendment only applies in one of those cases.

ADDENDUM

But wait, why do we think that the Bill of Rights applies to the states? In fact, we know that it does because they're bound by the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech and no government support for religion clauses, right?

Okay, this gets complicated fast but stay with me.

In 1861-1865, we fought a war over whether people could be property and, thankfully, the right side of that question won. In order to secure that legacy, we passed three amendments to the Constitution, the 13th, 14th, and 15th, in 1865, 1868, and 1870. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment changed things.

You see, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [5]

But here's the question, what does "due process of law" mean? You'll note it isn't defined in the amendment and it's not overly clear from the rest of the Constitution. So, if you're a judge who's asked to interpret that, what do you do?

Well, starting in 1884, the courts began to look at the other parts of the Constitution. Specifically, they started looking at those parts of the Bill of Rights that deal with due process. In 1884, the Supreme Court considered the 5th Amendment's right to indictment by a grand jury, but decided that it did not apply to the states. However, in 1897, the Supreme Court looked at the 5th Amendment's protections protection against the taking of property without due compensation and applied it to the states via the due process clause.

Since then a number of parts of the Bill of Right have been applied to the states as well as to the federal government. This has come to be known as the incorporation doctrine [6].

WAIT, SO THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES APPLY TO THE STATES NOW?

Not quite. You see, parts of the Bill of Rights have been applied through various Supreme Court cases, but other parts haven't. At the time I write this in 2023, the 3rd, 7th, and 9th Amendments as well as parts of the 5th and 6th have not yet been applied to the states. The 10th Amendment doesn't apply to the states at all since it is generally understood to deal with the relationship between federal and state and not individual rights.

However, this is all still a work in progress. The most recent part of the Bill of Rights to be applied under the Incorporation Doctrine was the 8th Amendment's protection against excessive fines which was only just applied in 2019. Before that, the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms was only incorporated in 2010, and the others came about at various points in the 20th century with most of them in the 1960s. [6]

WAIT, CAN YOU SUM UP?

Yeah, this is probably good time for that.

1) In 1791, 10 amendments were made to the Constitution which prevented the Federal Government (and only the Federal Government) from abridging certain individual or state rights.

2) The 2nd Amendment, in particular, at that time, was understood to prevent the Federal Government from laying any regulations at all on arms, this being viewed as the responsibility of the state government.

3) In 1868 and 1870, further amendments were passed that prevented the states from violating certain rights without "due process" which was not defined.

4) Starting in the late 1800s and continuing to today, the Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses to require certain parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as to the Federal Government.

5) The one we're interested in is that, in 2010, the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states.

CONCLUSION

So, after all of this, I've got a few thoughts that are… interesting, to say the least.

I'm reasonably certain that reading the 2nd Amendment as a blanket ban on any regulation of weaponry is an accurate original interpretation. However, it's also clear that this understanding is premised on the idea that states should be able to regulate weaponry.

The fact that the 2nd Amendment is now applied to the states does not come from a clear reading of the Constitution, but comes from a Supreme Court ruling relating to a judicial doctrine that attempted to address an unclear clause in the Constitution.

In other words, we haven't gotten to our current state of jurisprudence regarding gun rights through any well thought out understanding or agreement regarding the nature of guns in our society or any clear mandate from the Constitution, we've gotten here entirely by accident and through interpretation of unclear sections of the Constitution.

So… yeah… Make of this what you will.

Let me know what you think and I hope you at least found this interesting.

SOURCES

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

[katierosefun]

every once in a while, i feel a little bit annoyed with myself / question whether i can actually become an attorney . . . 

. . . and then i remember that one time a big corporate attorney tried to ask me whether interracial marriage is actually legitimate (”like, does the constitution actually allow that? because i’m a textualist”) in a random bar, and then i grit my teeth and get back to studying because if that asshat can become an attorney, then surely. surely--

[signipotens]

Observations:

No organic act has ever been passed by Congress to organize American Samoa

Pursuant to Rice v. Cayetano, Pacific Islanders, until such point as the United States Government chooses to recognize them as such, do not constitute a people with whom the United States has a trust relationship, and thus hold no Aboriginal title under the trust and authority of the United States

American Samoa, being both east of the International Date Line and east of the 180º meridian, is west of the Mississippi River

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 has never been repealed or overturned (while only sections 7 and 8 have been codified as 25 USC §174, Title 25 of the United States Code has never been enacted into positive law, and thus §174 merely supersedes the relevant sections of the Act and does not repeal it in its entirety)

Conclusion: Joe Biden can at any time divide all or some of American Samoa into territorial districts and then give those districts to any Indian or Alaska Native Tribal entity who wants them in exchange for equivalent Tribal territorial holdings (or other equivalent compensation) anywhere else in the United States

[simply-ivanka]

Trump’s Trial Violated Due Process

Trump was denied notice of the charges, meaningful opportunity to respond and proof of all elements.

By 

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley

Wall Street Journal

Whether you love, hate or merely tolerate Donald Trump, you should care about due process, which is fundamental to the rule of law. New York’s trial of Mr. Trump violated basic due-process principles.

“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge,” the Supreme Court stated in Cole v. Arkansas (1948), “and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, [is] among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal.” In in re Winship (1970), the justices affirmed that “the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” These three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump’s trial.

The state offense with which Mr. Trump was indicted, “falsifying business records,” requires proof of an “intent to defraud.” To elevate this misdemeanor to a felony, the statute requires proof of “intent to commit another crime.” In People v. Bloomfield (2006), the state’s highest court observed that “intent to commit another crime” is an indispensable element of the felony offense.

New York courts have concluded that the accused need not be convicted of the other crime since an “intent to commit” it is sufficient to satisfy the statute. But because that intent is, in the words of Winship, “a fact necessary to constitute the crime,” it is an element of felony falsification. Due process requires that the defendant receive timely notice of the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. It also requires that he have opportunity to defend against that accusation and that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to commit it.

Mr. Trump’s indictment didn’t specify the other crime he allegedly intended to commit. Prosecutors didn’t do so during the trial either. Only after the evidentiary phase of the trial did Judge Juan Merchan reveal that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York’s election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in a conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

To recap, the prosecution involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an “intent to commit another crime,” (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of “unlawful means.” It’s a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense.

To make matters worse, Judge Merchan instructed the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

Due process demands that felony verdicts be unanimous, but in Schad v. Arizona (1991), a murder case, the high court indicated that there need not be unanimity regarding the means by which a crime is committed. But a plurality opinion by Justice David Souter cautioned that if the available means of committing a crime are so capacious that the accused is not “in a position to understand with some specificity the legal basis of the charge against him,” due process will be violated. “Nothing in our history suggests that the Due Process Clause would permit a State to convict anyone under a charge of ‘Crime’ so generic that any combination of jury findings of embezzlement, reckless driving, murder, burglary, tax evasion, or littering, for example, would suffice for conviction,” Justice Souter wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, observing that “one can conceive of novel ‘umbrella’ crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-to-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.” Four dissenting justices argued that the In re Winship precedent requires unanimity regarding all elements of a crime, including the means by which it’s committed.

All nine justices in Schad, then, believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn’t receive fair notice of the basis of the charge. New York’s election law requires that the violation occur “by unlawful means,” so any “unlawful” act—including, in Scalia’s example, either robbery of failure to file a tax return—can qualify. That’s clearly overbroad. Thus, Judge Merchan’s instruction that the jury “need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were” was unconstitutional.

That isn’t all. Judge Merchan hand-selected three laws—federal election law, falsification of “other” business records and “violation of tax laws”—as the “unlawful means” by which state election law was violated. Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial. Mr. Trump tried to call former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith to explain why this law wasn’t violated, but Judge Merchan ruled Mr. Smith couldn’t testify on whether Mr. Trump’s conduct “does or does not constitute a violation” of federal election law, denying him a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Judge Merchan’s second “unlawful” means, falsification of other business records, is circular: A misdemeanor becomes a felony if one falsifies business records by falsifying business records. Further, the prosecution never alleged or provided evidence that Mr. Trump falsified “other” business records. The prosecutors likewise neither alleged nor offered evidence that Mr. Trump had violated tax laws, Judge Merchan’s third predicate.

Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, was entitled to due process. The Constitution demands that higher courts throw out the verdict against him. That takes time, however, and is unlikely to occur before the election. That unfortunate reality will widen America’s political divide and fuel the suspicion that Mr. Trump’s prosecution wasn’t about enforcing the law but wounding a presidential candidate for the benefit of his opponent.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

[legalkimchi]

Loving day

Today is Loving day. It marks the 57th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that struck down Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.

my parents were married in 1976. 10 years prior, their marriage would have been a crime.

Forgive me, i'm tired. i didn't sleep well.

I could wax poetically about how important to my, and my children's existence, this ruling is.

I could tell you how it enforced many of our rights through the use of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

I could tell you how obergfell and roe v wade were based on the reasoning of the due process clause of the 14th...

I could tell you how justice thomas, who is himself in an interracial marriage, questioned the validity of that right and reasoning.

It is all interconnected. Race, LBGT+ issues, our rights in general.

If you are LGBT, or poc, both, or whatever, you should know that your rights are being targeted. and it isn't in hiding. It isn't a secret.

You can see it on project2025. You can see it in Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs v Jackson women's health. It is out in the open. easy to find. spelled out.

Today is Loving day. and if you want to celebrate this day with me in the future, be sure you fight and support Obergfell, for our trans friends, for women's rights, and all the other interconnected issues out there.

Also: side note. Mildred Loving never wanted to be in the spotlight. She wanted to live a normal life after her and her husband's name became a rallying cry for civil rights. Her husband, Richard Loving, passed away in 1975 from a car accident. She passed away in 2008. Prior to that, on the 40th anniversary of Loving V. Virginia, Mildred Loving came out of her quiet life and said, "I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

She knew it was all connected. Let's honor her memory.

[fanfic-obsessed]

Not the Mama...or the Father

This takes place in a universe where Jango Fett survived Geonosis AND where Palpatine is defeated without Order 66 coming into being (the chips still existed, yes that is important).  

After the war ends there is an absolute legal quagmire regarding the clones. Their origins (Possibly commissioned by the Jedi, a Republic Entity, outside of Republic Space, on Kamino, using the DNA of a Non Republic Citizen for a Republic Army, paid for by means that no one has been able to identify-presumably illegal and/or embezzled) mean that acknowledging their sentience also means that everyone involved broke so many laws that prosecution would take a decades. This compounded by the fact that it is an all or nothing kind of situation, on paper the Jedi who did their best were tied to those crimes just as thoroughly as senators who abused the Guard.  While the Jedi, as a whole, would be willing to face that prosecution if it meant the clones would be considered sentient, they had rather less power than the Senators who did not want to face their crimes.  In the end the only way to get the support for the Clone Rights bill was to add a clause that the bill would not be considered retroactive. The clones would be considered sentient after the bill was turned into law but could not seek any kind of reparations, back pay, or even acknowledgement that their rights had been violated prior to the law. 

NOTE: It horrified everyone (though it should be acknowledged that the Jedi and the Clones were horrified for very different reasons than many of the Senate) when the Coruscant Guard successfully sued a number of Republic Senators, their aides, and several citizens for ‘sexual abuse of a non sentient’(It was a very odd lawsuit where Thire, who had taken to law with a frightening passion, was able to argue that the Clones could bring the suit as their own owners, since being sentient with a start start date essentially meant that they now owned themselves and the laws around abuse of non sentients are written so that new owners can sue past owners for abuse-written so that animal abuse could be fully prosecuted even years after the fact).  Criminal charges were even filed, though it was harder to get those charges through the system.

Jango Fett, due both to the Clones legal tangle and how it had to be resolved, could not be brought up on charges for his part in the creation of the clones, their training, and the chips. None of it was technically illegal.  The fact that all of the clones looked like him meant anyone who did not know better tended to consider the clones his children. At first Jango was just as quick to correct people, somewhat violently.  

However as more and more clones began to distinguish themselves he started to play into it. Saying how proud he was of his children and that his genetics must have been superior (incidentally giving Boba more than one complex in the process). Most of the clones have no idea what to do with this behavior, since acknowledgement by Prime was something that almost all of them wanted as children. Also he wasn’t really acknowledging any clone in particular.  He was simply soaking up the accolades of being associated with so many driven, accomplished people.

Though the Commander batches tended to be the most well known, every batch of clones had at least one or two members that distinguished themselves in a positive manner. 

Then comes the very public wedding of Commander Bly and Aayla Secura. While the two are very much in love it is also a political/PR move. The scandal of the Amidala/Skywalker marriage left the galaxy with a very skewed view of the Jedi and marriage.  The fact that Skywalker would go on to tell anyone who would listen that he was kicked out for falling in love made the issue worse.  (Commander Cody and Obi Wan were also considered for this PR move, however they were not quite at the point where they wanted to get married, also Anakin’s…reactions to the scandal of his marriage left some scars for Obi Wan. It would be quite some time before being perceived by a large crowd of beings-with the exclusion of the Jedi or the clones- would be something Obi Wan could tolerate) 

Though the Jedi wedding traditions are typically a private affair, with permission of the happy couple every tradition would be made into a public spectacle with explanations for the traditions. One such tradition is that a parental figure (generally the Master if it is a Jedi) for each member of those getting married would escort their children down the aisle, as it were. This was a way for the parental figure to signal their support, or at least acceptance, of the marriage. Within this tradition it was very noticeable when a particular parental figure did not show up…or was not invited. 

The public nature of the ceremony meant that Jango knew when and where to show up. He did not think much that he was not specifically invited, having bought into his own propaganda of being the father of the Clones. He arrives at the staging area, Boba in tow, to loudly announce that he was there to walk Bly down the aisle.  Very publicly. 

All preparation stopped for a moment, a silence descending that almost echoed. Then Bly scoffed loud enough to be captured by the recording equipment (Every moment of each tradition was being recorded by no less than three recording crews at all times, currently there are six recording the lead up to the ceremony). 

Derision dripped from every syllable coming from Bly’s mouth, “Why should I care about your approval of my life partner” (harkening back to the meaning behind the tradition).

Jango spluttered about being Bly’s parent.

Bly tilted his head, eyes distant as if looking into the past, “What was it you said, when you heard Ponds ask Alpha-17 for a name?” 

Jango looked perplexed, clearly not remembering the interaction. 

Wolffe stepped from crowd, “you said, ‘livestock doesn’t need a name’”

 Cody took his place at Bly’s side ‘You are no parent to us, you lost that title when you sold us.’

Bly nodded along, “Cody is walking me down the aisle (In the background Alpha grumbles that it is only because Cody is tricky little shit. All the clones in the room smother a grin as Cody shoots Alpha a smug smile-NOTE: There was a duel/tournament between fifteen Alpha and CC clones that were considered ‘older’ than Bly on who got the honor of escorting him down the aisle, since the explanation of what constituted a parent left them with the firm belief that any clone that is older than you could be considered such) and you, Prime, are not welcome. Go back to the son you claimed.”

The galaxy at large absolutely ate up the ‘You are not my father’ drama, which frankly served to humanize the clones, and their assorted Jedi, better than anything else.

[anarchywoofwoof]

here is your reminder that landlords are appealing to the Supreme Court to make rent controlled apartments unconstitutional

New York City landlords are preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court rejected their effort to void the state’s rent-stabilization law. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 6 dismissed two challenges to the law, one led by two real-estate trade groups, the Community Housing Improvement Program and the Rent Stabilization Association, and the other by a group of individual landlords. A three-judge panel unanimously held that rent stabilization did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s “takings clause” that the government cannot take private property without compensating the owner. It also rejected the claim that the law violated the 14th Amendment’s substantive due-process clause because it did not have a rational basis.

New York’s rent-stabilization law protects 2.5 million renters, and a ruling against it would also endanger rent controls in other states

they want you to be homeless and they want to profit from it.

[odinsblog]

🗣️ Please pay attention

Amazon argues that national labor board is unconstitutional, joining SpaceX and Trader Joe’s

Amazon is arguing in a legal filing that the 88-year-old National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional, echoing similar arguments made this year by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and the grocery store chain Trader Joe’s in disputes about workers’ rights and organizing.

The Amazon filing, made Thursday, came in response to a case before an administrative law judge overseeing a complaint from agency prosecutors who allege the company unlawfully retaliated against workers at a New York City warehouse who voted to unionize nearly two years ago.

In its filing, Amazon denies many of the charges and asks for the complaint to be dismissed. The company’s attorneys then go further, arguing that the structure of the agency — particularly limits on the removal of administrative law judges and five board members appointed by the president — violates the separation of powers and infringes on executive powers stipulated in the Constitution.

The attorneys also argue that NLRB proceedings deny the company a trial by a jury and violate its due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment. (source)

ICYMI, this is a case of corporations going, “7th Amendment Protections for me, but not for thee.”

It is strongly worth noting that in 2018 the John Roberts Court ruled 5-4 that companies can use forced arbitration clauses to stop people from joining together to fight workplace abuses - in effect denying individuals their 7th Amendment protections.

Subsequently, binding arbitration clauses used by corporations has proliferated; sneaking into all manner of common legal documents: personal banking applications, ordinary car loan applications, furniture purchases, and more. This is, unsurprisingly, a direct violation of the 7th Amendment that guarantees HUMAN BEINGS AND PEOPLE the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. Republicans and SCOTUS are perfectly okay with corporations having more rights than workers and using forced arbitration to block people from having access to jury trials—but God forbid if corporations don’t have their right to a jury trial.

This legislative push to bestow corporations with more rights than people, while simultaneously taking away rights from human beings, has been nothing if not thoroughly and methodically done. At this rate, no corporation will ever need to fear a class action lawsuit again.

Amazon, SpaceX and Trader Joe’s are union busting.

But this latest case against the NLRB isn’t just an attack on labor and worker’s rights, it’s a fascistic attack on the very heart of fairness and democracy itself.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Raskin argues DOJ can force recusals of Alito, Thomas in Jan. 6 cases | The Hill

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD.) argued that the Department of Justice could force the recusals of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in cases the court is facing related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

“Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection,” the Maryland Democrat said in an opinion piece in The New York Times published Wednesday. “Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.”

Raskin then noted that Alito and Thomas “could choose to recuse themselves,” but that “begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.”

“The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law,” Raskin continued.

Alito and Thomas have faced recent calls to recuse themselves from cases related to the Jan. 6 attack due to controversies over flags reportedly flown at Alito’s houses linked to the “Stop the Steal” effort, and Thomas’s wife’s reported involvement in that same effort.

“The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455,” Raskin said.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

The Hill has reached out to the Supreme Court.

[cantheykillmacbeth]

Phosphophyllite from Houseki no Kuni could kill MacBeth. (Any character probably could but Phos is especially qualified due to events that happen to him/her/them/it.)

Consulted a friend of mine about this one since they know a lot about this series:

[Transcript:

Oh shit real

Gender Clause (Gems have no gender, thus none of them are men) Unconventional Birth (Gems emerge from the cliff of Beginnings) No birthing parent, but Sensei, who acts as both teacher and parent to the gems, is he/him and could be argued to be a man

And I'm assuming the events that anon is referring to are either the Theseus Ship that happens (many many prosthetics / replacements as Phos continuously shatters and loses pieces of themselves) OR the fact that they are now technically Human+ due to that Theseus Ship process. Or just the fact that they commit genocide. Unclear.]

So, there you have it!

Yes, Phosphophyllite from Houseki no Kuni could kill Macbeth!

They apply for all three Clauses! Thank you for your submission!

[ummick]

Williams Chose Colapinto Because Schumacher "Isn't Special"

Decision to 'invest' in Williams' academy and simulator data behind choice of Franco Colapinto to replace Logan Sargeant in Formula 1

Williams team principal James Vowles recalled the decision process that will lead to Franco Colapinto making his F1 debut, as the team turned down options in Liam Lawson and Mick Schumacher. Although Schumacher was heavily linked to Logan Sargeant's seat in the wake of the Dutch Grand Prix, while Red Bull boss Christian Horner threw Lawson's hat into the ring, the team elected to install Colapinto alongside Alex Albon for the remainder of the year. Vowles explained that Lawson was discounted relatively quickly; the Kiwi driver had been an impressive stand-in for Daniel Ricciardo in 2023, and Red Bull adviser Helmut Marko is keen to find him a full-time drive; however, Red Bull wanted a recall clause as part of his reserve role, and Vowles did not wish to risk having to make another change. This led to a direct choice between Colapinto and Schumacher and, although Vowles noted that the German had improved since his time at Haas, he didn't foresee a significant performance argument in taking him, suggesting that he "isn't special," overall. "If we go through what our options were available to us, there were sort of three options on the table: one was Liam Lawson, one was Mick and one was Franco. With Liam, the contractual sort of position of Red Bull wouldn't have worked with me here at Williams so that didn't become an option for us in that circumstance. And then it's a tough choice, it really is, between [Franco and] Mick. "Mick has improved a lot from where he was in Haas, there is no doubt about it. He's a competent driver that I know he had his time, but he has done incredible work with Alpine, with Mercedes and with McLaren in the meantime. So the decision is do we put Mick in the car, which I think Mick would have done a good job, or do we invest in an individual that's a part of our academy, that's done hundreds to thousands of laps in our simulator, that's driven the car, and on the data that we can see from how he's performing, who's making significant steps? I think both would fall into a category of good and not special. I think we have to be straightforward about this. Mick isn't special. He would just be good." Vowles continued, adding that it would be remiss for Williams not to take an academy member, given the resources that have been invested into bringing younger drivers through the ranks. He praised Colapinto's efforts in F2 this season, noting that he was ahead of the highly-rated Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Oliver Bearman in the championship despite being in a smaller team in 2024. "I think [Schumacher] would come with a lot more experience than Franco does. But here's what I believe in, what Williams believes in and what's the core values of Williams. Williams has always invested in new generations of drivers and youth, and what I've been speaking about all the way through is the investment in the future of Williams. And the future of Williams isn't investing in the past, it's investing in talent that allows us to move forward as individuals. When you're putting that amount of finance into Academy, you've got to put your actions where your words are, as well, at the same time. Franco's ahead in the F2 championship of Antonelli, he's ahead of Bearman, he's at MP. With all due respect to MP, it's not Prema, it's not ART, and he's doing a good job. Now do I think we've put someone really in the deep end of the swimming pool? Absolutely, 100%. But if you listen to Franco's own words, you'll hear that he's ready for it, that he's ready for the challenge, and he knows what's in front of him."

[zvaigzdelasas]

Since Indonesia’s bloody anti-communist purge in the 1960s, politics in the archipelago nation have largely been dominated by centre-right forces. But a newly formed leftist party believes it can garner enough popular support to start changing that.

At a press conference in Jakarta on January 3, Indonesia’s Labour Party (Partai Buruh) chief Said Iqbal said his party’s electability was on the rise in the lead-up to the February 14 general election.

Said, who is also president of Indonesia’s Trade Unions Confederation, cited a recent survey by pollster Risetindo Barometer as evidence for his claim.

“An independent survey was conducted in 18 cities involving 1,200 respondents, and found 67.8 per cent of workers or 3,390,000 voters, both unionised and non-unionised, planned to vote for the PB,” he said. Said pointed out that the figure would correspond to 2.3 per cent of Indonesia’s total number of eligible voters. “This means we only have 1.7 per cent to go before crossing the 4 per cent parliamentary threshold to make it into the House of Representatives (DPR).”[...]

“PB [could] be the first centre-left party to accomplish this feat. Its success in qualifying for the election was in itself remarkable, given that another centre-left party, Prima, didn’t,” [...]

In 2020, President Joko Widodo signed the Omnibus Law aimed at easing business by cutting red tape. But unions and labour activists branded the legislation as a major setback for labour rights and protections. Some controversial clauses include reductions in the size of severance pay and paid leave. Activists also claim the law provides employers with new loopholes to deny workers permanent work status and other benefits.[...]

“Our party has decided not to back any of the three presidential candidates because our condition for support was a signed political contract spelling out the respective candidate’s commitment to revise the Omnibus Law,” he said.

None of the candidates agreed to do so, he said[...]

uruddin said his party’s strategy revolved around “real issues affecting people’s livelihoods” which have been neglected by the more established parties, citing the government-managed universal healthcare system (BPJS) as an example.

“While the BPJS seeks to cover the healthcare of all Indonesians, in reality around 20 per cent of the population is unable to access it, largely because they can’t afford the monthly dues,” he said.

Nuruddin said that at the city level in Surabaya, he had started lobbying officials to provide subsidies for poor residents – including itinerant construction workers, vagabonds and small traders – so that they could be covered under the scheme.

He said the PB had instigated a new mechanism in Indonesia’s electoral process known as “constituent recall”, under which voters could demand the removal of their representative if he or she were deemed to be in serious breach of voter aspirations.

9 Jan 24

[witchofthesouls]

Man, I keep going back to The Donor Clause AU because I really like the Camien nurse's voice, and now I just really want to delve into Caminus culture-wise.

Caminus is deeply religious and seems to be modeled as a theocracy since they completely venerate the Primes as true gods, especially Solus.

That has to have a major influence in their entire society, if not the most important one. Not just policies, but even shaping their communities, mannerisms, and behaviors.

And with additional details of their planet being resource poor and a dormant Titan that was Solus', we need more spirituality and religious shaping/imagery.

Cityspeakers being seen as minor celebrities or living patrons as those sparks are able to commune far deeper with a dreaming Caminus.

More cooperative and charity/social work. A necessity due to lack of resources and a spiritual one as Solus was a blacksmith deity - she didn't just forge weaponry but tools for the community as well. Can be linked to forge imagery, too, as it can take form as a hearth of a home. It would act both as a glue to bind every citizen and a warden to keep people in check.

Canon-wise, Camiens deeply support the arts to the point that each citizen should at least make attempts to fulfill some sort of performance. So what do they write and muse over? What are the themes, allusions, and tropes that grasp their souls? Do they emphasize the process or the result? Is their a difference?

The roles of faith healers and blacksmiths among them. Like, what if full-fledged medics on Caminus undergo rituals and processes to enhance compatibility with their Titan's systems to tap into his energy to channel into patients? Cityspeakers have the right to draw Caminus' facial patterns, but medics reserve the right to wear additional kibble to mimic Camimus' helm. Were blacksmiths considered holy sparks with their ability to shape newsparks to their true form?

Caminus didn't have Functionism, so what if citizens had to fulfill multiple roles or had far easier access to move across different fields?

How is death viewed and regulated? Do they recycle by splitting parts during prayer or use ceremony to send frames into a smelter? Is it assigned to Megatronus, who once courted Solus and was her killer? Are those assigned to care to the dead are viewed as tainted by Megatronus or Unicron?

[jadagul]

could you elaborate on that bit about the 14th amendment, if you don't mind?

So I heard this from @necarion so he can probably fill in more details.

But my understanding is that after the US Civil War, Congress wanted to do a bunch of stuff to protect civil rights and kill off Jim Crow racism style laws. And the explicit purpose of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were to say that Congress could make those laws.

So the fourteenth amendment says

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ... The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

And then the fifteenth says

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude— Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And these are really explicit claims that Congress can protect civil rights and voting rights by passing laws.

But the Supreme Court was much more racist and southern conservative than Congress was. So when Congress actually passed those laws, the Supreme Court said they were overreaches and exceeded Congress's power under the Constitution. Despite them passing actual amendments to say "we have the power to pass these laws."

In the process, SCOTUS basically read the Privileges and Immunities Clause out of the Constitution entirely. Which is why in the 1960s the incorporation had to work through "substantive due process", which is another example "good policy through kinda bullshit reasoning". But they wouldn't have needed to do it that way if they hadn't sworn up and down that the actual clause intended to have that effect meant nothing.