#the SCOTUS decisions are weighing on me

[margoshansons]

Guys…I’m so tired

I’m so burnt out

[yourartmatters-itswhatgotmehere]

❤️🤍💙 #RWRB #RWRBMovie #RedWhiteAndRoyalBlue

Casey being iconic-i just love Them so much!!

#CaseyMcQuiston

. https://twitter.com/ThisIsGSage23/status/1791335511728013403?s=19 .

"I just really wanted to explore both of those characters and I wanted to do it in a way that I hadn't really seen before, and also just like as a queer person I want to make queer art and that's what I'm drawn and that's what I'm interested in. So I kind of had these two different ideas, it was like one idea was that I would write a book about this rebellious first kid who's like figuring out that they're queer and what does that mean for their like political aspirations; and the other was about you know sort of a member of the royal family under all of this pressure to carry on this legacy and like what does that mean if they're gay. Um-And I'm just like kind of weighing these two different stories and deciding where I wanted to go and then I just kind of had this moment of like What If I didn't have to choose and it was the same story because they fall in love with each other? And-Um-You know in a classic bisexual fashion I was like I'm gonna have both, so I did!"

"It was really important to me that Alex was explicitly bisexual because like, you know, I really wanted the representation of like this bisexual character and then it was important to me that he was also Mexican like he is in the book and that he was played by a Mexican actor. (..) It was really important to me that, um, I didn't want any, I didn't want Alex or Henry, no matter how their stories were translated to the screen, I didn't want either of them to have any type of, um, like shame or resentment towards themselves for being queer, it was really important to me that the stakes of their lives and their like inner conflict was much more based on like the circumstances that they're in. It's like they don't hate themselves for being gay-or for being bi-they just wish that it was easier to be who they were in the world that they live in."

"..Taylor embodies that so beautifully. (..) I think he's just killer in that role. And Nick, I mean, if you like turned me upside down and shook me like he would fall out my brain as Henry (..) doesn't have blue eyes but they sure are sad eyes and that is exactly what they need to be."

"I see myself in Alex, tremendously, I'm very much in Alex, I relate to him so much, uh, truly, I think he's the most like me of all my characters."

"I very much would love screenwriting to become part of what I do, I'll say it that way."

BTW for everyone interested: Red, White & Royal Blue: Collector's Edition Henry PoV bonus chapter by Casey Mcquiston : https://www.tumblr.com/yourartmatters-itswhatgotmehere/752528941905018880?source=share

CMQ spotify (characters' playlists!!) https://open.spotify.com/user/p873j0jdmqn5hye7cakdnub7e/playlists

+ also queer history/facts from RWRB(Alex engaging with queer history)(thank you SO. MUCH. CASEY MCQUISTON!!)-GREAT POST here on tumblr!!-many links here, lots of information! (Waterloo Vase, Stonewall, SCOTUS decision 2015, Walt Whitman, Laws of Illinois 1961, The White Nights Riots, Paris Is Burning, THAT David Wojnarowicz photo 'If I Die Of AIDS-Forget Burial-Just Drop My Body On The Steps Of The F.D.A' https://www.tumblr.com/yourartmatters-itswhatgotmehere/757305651356729344?source=share (I encourage you to research more about David!!) , Thisbe & Pyramus, The V & A, James I & George Villiers and MORE!!) https://www.tumblr.com/yourartmatters-itswhatgotmehere/757308307835895808?source=share (Learning about things referenced in Red, White & Royal Blue, thank you @ elipheleh)

+https://www.vulture.com/article/casey-mcquiston-red-white-and-royal-blue-the-pairing-interview.html

+https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/taylor-zakhar-perez-casey-mcquiston-interview-red-white-royal-blue-1235975977/

.https://www.tumblr.com/yourartmatters-itswhatgotmehere/758778031058862080?source=share

+

[garudabluffs]

Jon Stewart, Jordan Klepper & Ronny Chieng Cover Trump's Hush Money Trial | The Daily Show

Apr 27, 2024 #DailyShow#JonStewart#Trump Jon Stewart weighs in on the media’s obsession with Trump’s every move during his trial, while Jordan Klepper and Ronny Chieng dig into student protests sweeping America, Tennessee voting to arm teachers in classrooms, Mike Johnson’s “courageous” decision on Ukraine, and more updates from the Trump trial.

746 Comments @jerryfischer5348

0 seconds ago to summarize/paraphrase the SCOTUS hearing : the Pope is INFALLIBLE; therefore, Potus 45 has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY! {exonerated, he's not lying,so we'll have to take him at his word}.[I've developed a program code for a Trump dial-a-trial Hotline so people can call-in to LEND moral support, & if others like to SEND financial support ~TRUST ME ~ I'll be sure he gets YOUR money!!

[jewrocker]

For the Sake of SCOTUS, Thomas Must Resign

Is it me, or is our Supreme Court beginning to resemble a chapter of the Proud Boys?

It's bad enough Amy Coney Barrett was just filmed at a GOP mega-conference completely dismissing the implications of a SCOTUS judge's wife doing everything she can to help to overthrow our Democracy, but what does it say about us as a nation when a Hollywood actor has the ability to ‘read the room’ and resign, but a sitting Supreme Court Justice defiantly refuses?

In the wake of CNN and the Washington Post breaking the shocking news that Virgina "Ginni" Thomas, wife of conservative SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, was caught doing everything she could to assist in overturning the 2020 election, legendary CBS anchor Dan Rather tweeted "What did Clarence Thomas know? And when did he know it?"

With all due respect to Mr. Rather, it matters not what or when Thomas knew. The revelation that his spouse was/is working in lockstep with conspiracy-pushing crackpots has all but eviscerated whatever modicum of impartiality remained with regards to a Supreme Court Justice who happened to be the lone dissenting vote against turning over Trumps records to the January 6 committee. And that's the ballgame.

In what world can a sitting SCOTUS justice continue to preside over cases with the air of impartiality while his wife is running around seeking to undermine the very Democracy on which he sits atop?

Keep in mind, it's not like Thomas hasn't been leaning to the Right a bit in his career. In his entire tenure on the bench, Thomas hasn't come down on the side of Democracy, or the Constitution, once. He has proven himself a rock-steady beacon of corporate conservative ideology - going as far as to dissent when the court invalidated the conviction of a black man tried six times for the same crime by the same prosecutor with juries that were either all white or nearly all white. Perhaps Thomas grew up in a house without mirrors? That would be the only rational explanation for his seemingly anti-black, bordering on racist, judgements. Nonetheless, it's now known that his wife has been caught red handed using her position to help coordinate the insurrection. And, beyond that, it’s now known she played a major role in advising the president as to which pro-fascist individuals to appoint to his administration. Some of whom were even too crazy for Trump. Let that sink in. We're not talking about a potentially illegal campaign contribution. The fact that the wife of a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice is a conspiracy-pushing zealot means that the career of her husband is all but over. The question now is, what happens next? Sadly, it appears only a small handful of Dems, AOC, Omar, etc., have shown they possess the guts to call for Thomas to resign, and last I checked, Speaker Pelosi isn’t one of them. This is beyond pathetic. Anyone not having the guts to call for Thomas to resign should resign, themselves. Not to mention, when your Congress has to pass a law forcing Supreme Court judges to "behave ethically," you know we're not in Kansas anymore.

Besides, Thomas retiring/resigning isn’t nearly enough. How many decisions has he weighed in on, including his lone dissent re: January 6, either with the influence of his wife and/or behind the scenes influence of Right-wing super PACs? Thomas needs to be impeached and an investigation into his conduct needs to be opened.

But, who are we kidding? This is “Amerika.” The land of zero accountability. The land where Senators who attempted to overturn an election are allowed to sit in judgement of the next SCOTUS nominee, as if it’s business as usual. The land where a Manchurian president can appoint three illegitimate hacks to the highest court in our land, attempt a coup, and, so far, get away with it. If you're thinking Merrick Garland will come to our rescue, think again. If he hasn’t yet held a small fish like Mark Meadows in contempt, we’re probably not going to see an investigation of a sitting SCOTUS judge on the part of DOJ. After all, the stack of contempt charges in Garland’s “subpoenas closet” are basically on the verge of busting its screws. To the point, even the folks on the January 6 committee have taken to breaking protocol and publicly calling for Garland to “Do his job.”

However, considering where we are at this point, does Thomas resigning even matter? We have a Supreme Court that's already tainted beyond repair, i.e., Mitch McConnell's stonewalling of a nominee for more than a year gave way to the subsequent stacking of Trump lackeys Kavanaugh and Barret - both of whom are superbly unqualified to sit on a park bench, let alone the highest court in our nation. As we watch a "supremely" qualified nominee in Ketanji Brown Jackson sit and endure a barrage of lunacy from this clown car of Republican Senators - many of of whom, themselves, are still hard at work trying to stop the Jan. 6 committee from getting to the truth - one can't help but feel embarrassed for our children and the world we're going to leave them.

Hopefully, Democracy/decency will prevail, but, given what we're bearing witness to on an hourly basis, it's not looking good. Especially, when you consider a Hollywood actor had the sense to resign, but a sitting SCOTUS judge continues to thumb his nose at us, as if he’s King Thomas. All this, in spite of knowing, full well, the damage his presence is doing to the Court, as well as our nation. That should tell you all you need to know about the character of Clarence Thomas. I would like to take this moment to apologize to Anita Hill. You were right all along.

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

Cnn news 'Start Here': Trump in London for NATO meetings and SCOTUS weighs gun rights case

Cnn news

Cnn news Here's what that it's in all probability you'll perchance perchance must know to open your day.

December 3, 2019, 10: 00 AM

7 min read

It is Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019. Let's open here.

1. NATO's 70th

President Donald Trump is in London for conferences with The United States's NATO allies to commemorate the military alliance's 70th anniversary as Apartment Democrats transfer at stout rush within the impeachment inquiry.

Before departing for the shuttle, Trump prompt reporters the White Apartment wouldn't participate within the Apartment Judiciary Committee's public listening to on Wednesday and blasted Democrats for the timing "in consequence of the total element is a hoax."

ABC News White Apartment Correspondent Karen Travers joins "Open Here" from London this day, "[Trump] doesn't admire that there can also very nicely be what they name the damage up show hide hide: the president assembly with world leaders and Apartment Democrats abet in Washington debating what the edge and the constitutional framework for an impeachment."

2. 'What's left of this case?'

The Supreme Court docket heard oral arguments in its first gun rights case in exactly a few decade on Monday referring to a recount to a New York Metropolis legislation that has since been rescinded.

About a of the justices wondered whether there became once aloof a case the least bit, based completely mostly on ABC News Senior Washington Reporter Devin Dwyer: "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who became once appropriate final month hospitalized for several days, became once abet leading the associated charge, requested the most critical build a question to out of the gate, said, 'What's left of this case?'"

3. Chicago high cop out

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot fired retiring Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson on Monday, citing "habits that is now now not most effective unbecoming nonetheless demonstrated a series of ethical lapses and incorrect decision-making."

She said her decision came after reviewing video proof and an inside of investigation into the night Johnson became once found asleep within the abet of the wheel of his parked automobile at a cease signal one weeknight in October.

Johnson at the muse blamed problems alongside with his remedy, nonetheless he later admitted to having "about a drinks" sooner than he became once found by officers. Lightfoot said Monday that he "intentionally lied to me several situations" concerning the story. Johnson had now now not commented on his dismissal as of Monday night.

"There became once clearly something in that video or in that inspector classic's file that showed to her that he became once no longer the man for the job," ABC News' Ryan Burrow in Chicago tells the podcast.

"Open Here," ABC News' flagship podcast, presents a easy watch at the day's high reviews in 20 minutes. Listen completely free every weekday on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn or the ABC News app. Agree to @StartHereABC on Twitter, Fb and Instagram for distinctive bellow material and voice updates.

In varied places:

'Urinary tract an infection': Frail President Jimmy Carter is abet within the sanatorium, one of many most as much as date stays for the 95-year-extinct Democrat.

'Imperfect negligence': Nashville police are investigating a privately operated juvenile jail where four young other folks, including two accused of assassinate, win been in a location to receive away during the front door, police said Monday.

'Bureaucratic route of': The Trump administration has launched $105 million in military wait on to Lebanon, a senior administration dependable said Monday night, after the help had been held up for months with out a rationalization.

'Very excellent city memento': Online retailer Amazon has pulled a unfold of macabre holiday embellishes featuring photos of the Auschwitz death camp posted by sellers on its platform.

From our friends at FiveThirtyEight:

'The winnowing continues with Steve Bullock and Joe Sestak': After the replace of well-known presidential candidates peaked at 24 in early July, there are in point of fact “most effective” 16 candidates final and Democrats win fewer presidential candidates than Republicans did at the cease of the 2016 most critical.

Doff your cap:

Sitting on her perch 160 toes above the Port of Los Angeles, Maria Adame gently maneuvers her crane as she offloads containers weighing over 50,000 pounds, stout of day to day items that appropriate made the scamper across the Pacific Ocean.

"All americans looks so miniature down there," Adame said. "You in point of fact feel nearer to God."

Adame, the West Flee's most effective female crane trainer and a longshoreman, has been working within the ports in consequence of the age of 22 when she became once a single mom of two.

"I outdated skool to trail there with my toddler within the stroller. I went for six months straight each day," she said.

When looking out abet, Adame said it brings tears to her eyes to look at how a ways she's advance nonetheless acknowledges the fight became once charge it.

"It is a ways a large accomplishment in recount to climb the ladder and affect it," she said.

[duaneodavila]

Can We Now Address Legacy Admissions? Or Will We Keep Focusing On Affirmative Action In A Silo?

“I used to be a honor-roll student, damn / Then I turned to a beast / The first time I someone get some blood on his sneaks / He had on Air Max 93s, but was slumped in the street / His mama crying, that did something to me, oh Lord / The sh*t I’m doing for my hood I won’t get an award.” — Meek Mills

The same people who criticize affirmative action often have no such comment for legacy admissions. It is all too convenient to forget how college admissions really work. It is harder to accept the realities of our current education system.

At the very least, Students for Fair Admission addressed legacy policies of Harvard in its suit against the University. While others, like The View hosts Ana Navarro and Sunny Hostin, have also expressed their frustration “with the people named in the [last week’s criminal complaint] filing, particularly the rich, white parents who allegedly gamed the system for their mediocre kids despite the system already being disproportionately in their favor.”

The question comes to many minds: Why the hell didn’t these rich parents just give the money to the proper university departments to get their kids into “the right” colleges? Even among the elite, there’s a spectrum. Some have millions to buy a building, while others can only bribe coaches and university-admissions officials with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Poor schmucks.

On an uneven playing field, privilege remains the most effective game plan. Are we grown up enough to admit this? Or are you still under the illusion America is a pure meritocracy? Inequality begets inequality. And we are only becoming more unequal.

As I have previously noted: “The score on your SATs or other exams is a better predictor of your parents’ income and the car they drive than of your performance in college.”

National College Access Network’s Executive Director Kim Cook states “[y]our ZIP code can really determine what your future will look like.” The majority of our country’s public students are now in poverty. The Economist warns that privilege in the U.S. has become increasingly heritable:

[America’s] education system favors the well-off more than anywhere else in the rich world. Thanks to hyper-local funding, America is one of only three advanced countries where the government spends more on schools in rich areas than in poor ones. Its university fees have risen 17 times as fast as median incomes since 1980, partly to pay for pointless bureaucracy and flashy buildings. And many universities offer “legacy” preferences, favoring the children of alumni in admissions.

A regular applicant to Harvard has an 11 percent chance of being accepted, but a legacy has a 40 percent acceptance rate. Daniel Golden says “the legacy preference was formalized early last century, in some cases partly to limit enrollment of Jews.

Today, the practice often has that effect on other groups. At the University of Virginia: 91 percent of legacy applicants accepted on an early-decision basis for next fall are white; 1.6 percent are black, 0.5 percent are Hispanic, and 1.6 percent are Asian. Among applicants with no alumni parents, the pool of those accepted is more diverse: 73% white, 5.6% black, 9.3% Asian and 3.5% Hispanic.” Not everyone is privileged, but at UVA, 91 percent of legacies sure have it good.

While affirmative action policies are argued and contested in courtrooms and on the front page of newspapers, we allow policies that promote the exact opposite to be rationalized and agreed upon in hallowed halls and behind closed doors.

Dean Kevin R. Johnson asks, “In these times, can a truly excellent law school have a homogenous student body and faculty? Can we truly — and do we want to — imagine a top-25 law school comprised of predominantly white men?”

Black enrollment is 6.9 percent at Yale, 5.5 percent at University of Chicago, and 3.6 percent at University of Michigan.

At none of the nation’s 15 highest-ranked law schools do black enrollments reach 9 percent. As I have previously mentioned, diversity has improved in legal education. Unfortunately, it has been almost exclusively at less prestigious law schools. The fact is our top law schools do have a homogenous student body and faculty. With that being said, are these schools truly excellent?

I don’t write these type of articles in a vacuum. And you shouldn’t read them in a silo either:

What Could Disrupt Diversity in Law? The Economy, Stupid. (December 2014)

‘Affirmative Action’ In Law: The Four-Letter Phrase (January 2015)

Minorities In The Legal Profession Have Increased By Less Than One Percent Since 2000 (December 2015)

Opponents Of Affirmative Action Will Get Another Bite At The Apple Next SCOTUS Term (July 2015)

Affirmative Action Is Here To Stay (For Now); How Will This Benefit The Legal Profession? (July 2016)

Asian Americans Are Being Used As A Wedge To Advance The Anti-Affirmative Action Agenda (August 2017)

As Asian Americans Become More Pivotal In The Affirmative Action Debate, Both Sides Weigh In (August 2017)

In an era of fake news, context is king. If you want to remain so quick to criticize affirmative action, then you should take the time to understand our entire education system, our society. As Ray Dalio often states: “Embrace reality and deal with it.” We need to work with reality as it is and not how it should be. In other words, we should be hyper-realists.

I, for one, am happy that the media is covering this college admissions scheme. In accordance with Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.” This latest higher-education headline provides the perfect opportunity to address the cronyism and nepotism that has impregnated our education system.

Why should we attempt to tackle all other aspects of college admissions, yet leave the nebulous legacy policies of yesteryear and those with such absolute-discretionary power to their own devices?

The only difference between those who are facing criminal charges and other parents of legacy admits, is that the indicted bribed the bouncers and staff instead of lining up their 17- and 18-year-old progenies in the VIP line at the backdoor.

Renwei Chung is the Diversity Columnist at Above the Law. You can contact Renwei by email at projectrenwei@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter (@renweichung), or connect with him on LinkedIn.

      Can We Now Address Legacy Admissions? Or Will We Keep Focusing On Affirmative Action In A Silo? republished via Above the Law

[vanilla-twilights]

Okay,let me just say, NO. This caption is a wildly inaccurate reduction of a very nuanced and narrow decision. The clickbait NY Times headline also doesn’t help. 

Now, I’m an attorney in the US. I’m also a bisexual poc and married to a woman and liberal af, so don’t think I’m on the wrong side of the lgbtq+ debate. But I also happen to be Wiccan and as a practitioner of a non-traditional religion, we’ll call it, I’m always very concerned with my first amendments rights to free exercise of religion. 

The majority decision essentially boiled down to the fact that the Colorado commission that the complaint was originally brought before done fucked up by being straight up hostile to the baker’s religion during the proceedings when considering the case. 

SCOTUS did NOT weigh in on the argument of whether using religion to turn away a customer was constitutional or not. A missed opportunity and an easy out, perhaps, but since they felt this needed to be reversed on the merits of another key argument of the case, they didn’t touch it.

But in direct contradiction to the reductionist caption above and the click bait headline the NY Times used, please see the below comment by Justice Kennedy who wrote the majority decision (the same justice, who, by the by, wrote the majority in Obergefell, the case recognizing same-sex marriage).

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

So the question is still out there, unresolved by the SCOTUS, but it’s pretty clear they don’t all actively hate lgbt people (Clarance Thomas and Neil Gorsuch excluded, I think. They can go suck an egg and their concurring opinion can burn in hellfire.).

What actually happened in this case? Colorado done fucked up. 

See the thing is, the government and government actors must act neutrally and respectfully in the face of religion, unless it has a really, dramatically important reason not to (this is called the strict scrutiny standard, which courts apply when weighing whether laws and government actions are following constitutional mandates).

However, in this case, two of the members of the commission openly made hostile comments towards this man’s beliefs, going so far as to bring up slavery and the holocaust in the face of his beliefs. SCOTUS objected to this open bias of religion, which the state did not have a sufficient reason to impose. 

That was all. Their holding in this case was essentially that the Colorado commission fucked up by displaying open hostility towards someone religion, when it’s not the government’s place to do so, and so the case had been previously ruled incorrectly on those facts.

And that’s all I have to say on this case.

just in time for pride month, the supreme court out here to remind everyone that they fucking hate lgbt people.

[lodelss]

SCOTUS Must Now Ensure LGBTQ People Are Not Turned Away From Taxpayer-Funded Programs

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal ban on sex discrimination in employment, protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination. The decision was based on a straightforward reading of the law: Discriminating against someone because they are LGBTQ is inherently sex discrimination. In his dissent, Justice Alito raised concerns about implications for employers with religious objections to hiring LGBTQ people, but the questions before the court in Monday’s monumental victory for LGBTQ workers did not involve whether the employers had a religious right to fire LGBTQ people. The court made clear that the scope of any religion-based defenses offered by Title VII, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the constitutional protections for religious exercise would be addressed in future cases.

The court will have a chance to weigh in on these questions sooner than you might think, since the next big LGBTQ rights case is already on the docket for the fall.

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services (CSS) is challenging a Philadelphia requirement that agencies contracting with the city to provide government services must not discriminate. The ACLU represents the Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride, and we are supporting the city’s right to require all of its contracted foster care agencies to accept all qualified families and put the best interests of children first.

CSS receives public money to provide foster care services, a core government service, and argues that because of its religious beliefs, it has the right to discriminate against same-sex couples interested in becoming foster families. CSS says both that the city’s policy singles it out for unfair treatment — even though CSS requires all foster care agencies to follow the same policy — and that the Supreme Court should make it easier for anyone with any kind of religious objection to refuse to follow any law, including our laws against discrimination. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against CSS, and the Supreme Court granted review in February.

Fulton isn’t the only case where these arguments are coming up, it just happens to be the one the court has already agreed to hear. In another case, Minton v. Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital system is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that rejected the health care chain’s claim that religious objections give it a right to deny gender-affirming healthcare to transgender people, in violation of California law. And in the long-pending case of Ingersoll and Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers, a business is once again asking the Supreme Court to rule that because the owner of the business has religious objections to marriages of same-sex couples, Washington State’s nondiscrimination law is unenforceable against the business with respect to its refusal to sell a same-sex couple flowers for their wedding.

If the question in the workplace discrimination cases brought by Aimee Stephens, Donald Zarda, and Gerald Bostock was what the law means, the question in these next cases is when and whether the law matters. Don’t get me wrong: It is a tremendous victory for the court to say that the plain words of the law protect LGBTQ people, just like everyone else. But that victory is fragile and will be eroded if the court furthers the agenda of the Trump administration by giving anyone who objects on religious grounds a free pass to violate the law.

Decades ago, the fight for our civil rights laws was led by Black people who demanded legal protections from rampant discrimination. Those bedrock civil rights laws have been under attack since their passage, including by demands for religious exceptions. The latest attacks on civil rights protections in the Fulton case and the others that follow it won’t just compromise the Bostock decision and LGBTQ rights. Members of minority faiths, women, and people of color are all at risk, and those who live at the intersection of multiple identities are even more vulnerable. These next cases are about whether laws intended to allow full participation in public life will continue to apply to us all, or if those who object can use their religious beliefs to humiliate, exclude, reject, and deny access and care. While we know well that legal protections don’t automatically translate into full equality, they are an important step, and a rule saying that anyone who wishes to discriminate can do so would gut those hard-fought laws.

Since it already has the Fulton case before it, we hope the court will take this opportunity to declare that there is no constitutional license to discriminate.

Published June 18, 2020 at 12:50AM via ACLU https://ift.tt/3fLbuD1

[nancydhooper]

SCOTUS Must Now Ensure LGBTQ People Are Not Turned Away From Taxpayer-Funded Programs

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal ban on sex discrimination in employment, protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination. The decision was based on a straightforward reading of the law: Discriminating against someone because they are LGBTQ is inherently sex discrimination. In his dissent, Justice Alito raised concerns about implications for employers with religious objections to hiring LGBTQ people, but the questions before the court in Monday’s monumental victory for LGBTQ workers did not involve whether the employers had a religious right to fire LGBTQ people. The court made clear that the scope of any religion-based defenses offered by Title VII, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the constitutional protections for religious exercise would be addressed in future cases.

The court will have a chance to weigh in on these questions sooner than you might think, since the next big LGBTQ rights case is already on the docket for the fall.

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services (CSS) is challenging a Philadelphia requirement that agencies contracting with the city to provide government services must not discriminate. The ACLU represents the Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride, and we are supporting the city’s right to require all of its contracted foster care agencies to accept all qualified families and put the best interests of children first.

CSS receives public money to provide foster care services, a core government service, and argues that because of its religious beliefs, it has the right to discriminate against same-sex couples interested in becoming foster families. CSS says both that the city’s policy singles it out for unfair treatment — even though CSS requires all foster care agencies to follow the same policy — and that the Supreme Court should make it easier for anyone with any kind of religious objection to refuse to follow any law, including our laws against discrimination. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against CSS, and the Supreme Court granted review in February.

Fulton isn’t the only case where these arguments are coming up, it just happens to be the one the court has already agreed to hear. In another case, Minton v. Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital system is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that rejected the health care chain’s claim that religious objections give it a right to deny gender-affirming healthcare to transgender people, in violation of California law. And in the long-pending case of Ingersoll and Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers, a business is once again asking the Supreme Court to rule that because the owner of the business has religious objections to marriages of same-sex couples, Washington State’s nondiscrimination law is unenforceable against the business with respect to its refusal to sell a same-sex couple flowers for their wedding.

If the question in the workplace discrimination cases brought by Aimee Stephens, Donald Zarda, and Gerald Bostock was what the law means, the question in these next cases is when and whether the law matters. Don’t get me wrong: It is a tremendous victory for the court to say that the plain words of the law protect LGBTQ people, just like everyone else. But that victory is fragile and will be eroded if the court furthers the agenda of the Trump administration by giving anyone who objects on religious grounds a free pass to violate the law.

Decades ago, the fight for our civil rights laws was led by Black people who demanded legal protections from rampant discrimination. Those bedrock civil rights laws have been under attack since their passage, including by demands for religious exceptions. The latest attacks on civil rights protections in the Fulton case and the others that follow it won’t just compromise the Bostock decision and LGBTQ rights. Members of minority faiths, women, and people of color are all at risk, and those who live at the intersection of multiple identities are even more vulnerable. These next cases are about whether laws intended to allow full participation in public life will continue to apply to us all, or if those who object can use their religious beliefs to humiliate, exclude, reject, and deny access and care. While we know well that legal protections don’t automatically translate into full equality, they are an important step, and a rule saying that anyone who wishes to discriminate can do so would gut those hard-fought laws.

Since it already has the Fulton case before it, we hope the court will take this opportunity to declare that there is no constitutional license to discriminate.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/scotus-must-now-ensure-lgbtq-people-are-not-turned-away-from-taxpayer-funded-programs via http://www.rssmix.com/

[usuallyleftnight]

On Tuesday, Melissa Zarda was dealing with two things at home in Kansas City, Missouri: the loud barking and mischief of her new foster puppy Winnie, a cattle dog/pitbull mix, while—above the din—relishing the hard-fought, historic victory she had just won in the Supreme Court in the memory of her beloved, deceased brother Donald.His was one of three cases featuring LGBTQ people fired for their sexual orientation or gender identity that SCOTUS yesterday ruled, 6-3, were illegal under the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The ruling—embracing the cases of gay men Zarda and Gerald Bostock and trans woman Aimee Stephens—has been hailed as one of the most significant in recent years, setting the protection of LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination in legal precedent.The Supreme Court’s Historic LGBTQ Ruling Is Now a Valuable Legal Weapon Against BigotryMelissa took on the case after Donald died in a base jumping accident in Switzerland in October 2014.“Don would be extremely happy and overjoyed by the decision,” Melissa told The Daily Beast. “I can see his face right now, I can see it so well, it’s like he is almost here. His face is absolutely beaming, and he had a smile bigger than any room anyway. He could light up a room. It’s been an amazing journey. I’m so glad he stood up. I’m so glad that Gerald stood up. I’m so glad that Aimee stood up. I’m just so pleased we’re here, talking about this right now.”“On a grander scale this case wasn’t just about Don,” Melissa said. “Don knew that too. I know this will impact millions of people for the good. To have Don’s memory and legacy on the right side of history like that is incredible.”Leading up to the publication of Monday’s decision, “I was nervous and scared,” Melissa said. “When you get used to all this bad news, you think, ‘OK, another one is coming,’ Maybe, when the decision was announced, it made me that much happier because I couldn’t quite believe it.” Her husband, Matt Cathlina, had been more optimistic, reminding Melissa of how positive she had left the Supreme Court the day the case was heard last October. “Our team did so good, they were so skilled,” Melissa said. “I knew we definitely had a chance.”“I woke up knowing it could be that Monday, but didn’t have any idea. I was refreshing the Supreme Court website over and over and not seeing anything. I was getting nervous.” Melissa went for a walk, came back, refreshed it more, and the site crashed, “meaning something big had probably happened.”Melissa wrote to the ACLU legal team, who wrote back that she, Don, the LGBTQ campaigners, had won.“I was overjoyed, my heart was racing, pounding,” Melissa said. “I think I was smiling and crying at the same time. I was doing 10 things at once: texting, crying, smiling, and laughing—it was like a shot of adrenalin. What’s happening with the country is so tragic and awful, we needed this shot of good news desperately right now.”She shared the news with Bill Moore, Don’s surviving partner, who teamed up with Melissa in leading the case, with legal backing from the ACLU alongside lawyer Greg Antollino and Pam Karlan of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Melissa also messaged her and Don’s mother Shirley, sister Kim, Matt, and their extended group of family and supporters. “It’s amazing, there are no words for how happy we are with this decision,” Melissa, a graphic designer, said. “So many LGBTQ friends and family members are so relieved that they will be safe from discrimination in the workplace, especially now when the economy isn’t well and unemployment is so high.”Shirley, Melissa and Don’s mom, didn’t understand “what a huge scale this was” until she saw the many articles about the case and TV news segments. “She is beyond excited,” said Melissa. “She is telling everyone she can. She is a proud mom. She was always an advocate for Don. This was so important to her. It has also brought up a lot of memories and emotion for her. She still struggles with Don’s death and his not being here.”“We have this euphoric happiness, but also a bittersweet sadness that he is not here to enjoy it with us. It’s hard, but also good news at a time when we need good news.”When it came to the ruling, Melissa was “pleased it was 6-3 and not closer. I was pleased that Gorsuch wrote the decision, and that he understood. I disagreed with Alito, saying this was legislating. For me, it couldn’t be clearer that this was the right interpretation of Title VII. It seemed as plain as day.”* * *As The Daily Beast previously reported, Donald Zarda was fired in 2010 from his job as a skydiver with Long Island company Altitude Express after coming out to a customer. The trial court found that Title VII did not cover sexual orientation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that holding, claiming that sexual orientation discrimination was a subset of sex discrimination. Like the funeral firm that employed Aimee Stephens, Altitude Express took the case to the Supreme Court—and lost. An “incredibly smart” young boy, Donald was always intrigued by airplanes and air travel, Melissa told The Daily Beast last year. Both his mother and father had pilot licenses. As an adult he spent a lot of time skydiving with friends and others who shared his passion. Melissa is scared of heights, and “a huge regret” was that she never jumped with her brother. He was warm, generous, and loving as a brother, and loved sharing his professional passion with others.Donald’s family was immediately supportive after he came out. “It was almost not an event,” said Melissa. He did so in his mid-20s. “I don’t think he was delaying telling us for any other reason than he was busy traveling the world and skydiving. He was not around that much.”He went back to school to get a degree in aviation-related management and administration. “Anything that involved being in the air was all he cared about.”His death had been devastating. “Even years later the emotion tied up with it is still that intense,” Melissa said last year. “He kept our family together. We’re still tight, but he was such a force. It has been a devastating loss, unbelievably hard.”Donald felt strongly that he was a victim of homophobia. “He absolutely was a fighter,” Melissa said. “He could not stand anything unfair. He felt he had been discriminated against, and was immediately prepared to fight. He knew it was wrong, and he was going after it. He wanted to stand up, in case it happened to anyone else.”“Don was devastated when he was fired,” Melissa told The Daily Beast after the SCOTUS decision. “His job and career and skydiving meant the world to him. He was afraid of what would happen after has fired. It was hard to get work elsewhere, and he worried he would be looked at as a troublemaker.”“He was confused and upset. He would call us, and we would console him and do our best to be there for him and support him. I would say this weighed very heavily on him in the last years of his life. Skydiving had been everything to him, and then this case became everything to him.”* * *In the wake of their Supreme Court victory, Melissa does not know yet if the family will pursue the case directly with Altitude Express. “We’ve barely had a chance to get any sleep. It’s good to bask in this victory and how wonderful it is, but if we wanted to focus our energy on what comes next there is so much work that needs to be done in getting the Equality Act passed. It’s sitting in Congress, when people are still being discriminated against in housing, education, health care, and credit. There is still a lot of work to do.”Donald would not have expected the case to go this far, Melissa said. “He would have been very surprised, but happy everything turned out the way it did.”Melissa said she was “ashamed” that before her brother’s experience she was “totally ignorant of the scale of discrimination out there. I couldn’t relate. When Don first called about what had had happened, I said, ‘Well, that’s illegal, duh.’ I had no idea. I said, ‘We know that’s illegal. You need to do something about that.’”Like many people, Melissa thought that surely anti-LGBTQ discrimination was already outlawed. The Supreme Court case highlighted how far the law has fallen behind social and cultural evolution. The stories sent to her by LGBTQ people who had been fired for their sexual orientation and gender identity “opened” Melissa’s eyes further, she said. “I am so grateful for that,” Melissa said. “I can’t pretend to know what they have been through. But I want to listen and be there for them and do what I can to help them. The case has definitely made me see outside of my bubble a little bit. It’s been a good perspective shift, and really heartwarming to get support from so many strangers.”Melissa noted that the vast majority of Americans believe that LGBTQ people should be protected from discrimination, as revealed in a CBS News poll, “so the Supreme Court decision was a long time coming and overdue.”Melissa plans to work on helping make the Equality Act law, as well as volunteering for other causes such as Black Lives Matter and animal rescue.“Too many people out there suffer discrimination,” Melissa said. “This is America, 2020. Nobody should be discriminated against.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/3d7AVwO

[thisdaynews]

Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/conservatives-blast-roberts-as-turncoat/

Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ stance on citizenship in the 2020 census has frustrated many on the right. | Mark Humphrey/AP Photo

legal

In 5-4 decisions on federal rules and citizenship question, chief justice joins court liberals and frustrates the right.

Chief Justice John Roberts just keeps on breaking conservatives’ hearts.

On two consecutive days this week, Roberts sided with the court’s liberal wing to deliver 5-4 rulings that deeply disappointed right-leaning lawyers and pundits who had been counting on near-certain victory from a court now stocked with a pair of Trump-appointed justices handpicked by conservative legal activists.

Story Continued Below

On Thursday, Roberts stunned many court watchers by invalidating a Trump administration decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.

Adding to the sting is the fact that the chief justice wasn’t just along for the ride on the closely watched ruling: He penned the majority opinion, which essentially accused Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of lying about his reasons for seeking to add the question on citizenship.

“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” Roberts wrote, backed by the court’s four liberals. He goes on to rip the government’s claims in the case as apparently “contrived” and “a distraction.”

A day earlier, Roberts was the sole GOP appointee to side with the liberal wing in a case many legal conservatives were hoping would deal a major blow to the much-loathed administrative state by overturning decades of precedent allowing federal agencies wide leeway to interpret their own regulations.

Among some conservatives close to Trump, the sense of anger and betrayal was palpable, with some on the right suffering painful flashbacks to Roberts’ 2012 decision to join with the court’s Democratic appointees and uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate even as all of his Republican-appointed colleagues dissented. The anger seemed especially acute with possible abortion-related cases on the horizon for the next term.

“I’m for impeaching the Chief Justice for lying to all of us about his support of the Constitution. He is responsible for Robertscare and now he is angling for vast numbers of illegal residents to help Dems hold Congress. Enough Deception from GOP judges on the Constitution,” American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp tweeted shortly after the Thursday ruling.

“I want to Impeach Roberts and Trump would get another pick. Sounds good to me,”’ Schlapp added. “Chief Justice John Roberts ‘fixed’ Obamacare and now he found an I significant [sic] excuse to allow those here illegally to help Dems keep the house majority. He lied to all of us and under oath in the Senate. It’s perfectly legal to ask citizenship ? on census.”

Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka also weighed in to express his disgust. “Chief Justice Roberts of the #SCOTUSbetrays the US Constitution again,” Gorka said on Twitter.

Conservative pundit and former GOP Senate candidate Dan Bongino echoed recurring conservative complaints that Roberts is looking to curry favor on the Washington dinner party circuit.

“John Roberts is terrified of the liberal op-ed columnists. They know they hold him captive. They can easily sway his opinions by issuing their ‘warnings’ to him through their columns,” Bongino wrote. “He’s not a judge anymore, he’s a politician.”

Not all conservatives were up in arms about Roberts’ perceived defection Thursday on the census case.

Former Reagan White House lawyer and radio host Hugh Hewitt noted that on the same day the census case came down, Roberts joined with the court’s conservatives in a 5-4 decision that decisively rejected any role for courts in remedying political gerrymandering. The chief justice also took the pen for the majority in that fight, flatly dismissing the idea of courts resolving such disputes.

Hewitt declared the gerrymandering decision to be far more consequential. “Conservatives coiled to condemn Chief Justice over citizenship question need to focus on this incredibly important, far reaching and absolutely correct decision,” Hewitt tweeted. “Would anyone preferring that #SCOTUS clearly uphold census question and at same time continue the decades of absurd ambiguity about the clearly-delegated-to-political-bodies re-districting power please raise their hands? I know you’d like both, but if you had to choose either?”

There is a degree of selective outrage at Roberts. Trump’s newest nominee to the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, sided with liberals in a series of 5-4, late-term decisions this year, but they were less high-profile. As Gorsuch ruled in favor of criminal defendants — including a child pornography convict — in a pair of cases related to sentencing, there was no outcry from the right that Trump’s pick was abandoning his backers.

Still, Roberts’ tendency to side with liberals in some cases embraced by many Republican activists seems to grate on many conservative lawyers, including some who helped lead the fight to confirm him.

“I still haven’t fully psychologically accepted the truth about Roberts,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice in an interview.

“He may in his heart think he’s a conservative, but he’s not going to be what conservatives want and liberals fear. … With each passing year — maybe this doesn’t happen every year, but we’ve seen enough of it, we kind of have to accept he’s roughly another Kennedy,” Levey said, referring to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Reagan appointee who dismayed conservatives by upholding abortion rights and leading the court to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Levey said the political polarization in the country may be prodding Roberts to go further than he otherwise would in trying to ensure that the court is viewed as moderate and not being buffeted by the political winds. Last November, when President Donald Trump made derisive comments about “Obama judges,” Roberts shot back with a statement declaring “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. … What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

“At the end of the day, Roberts wants the court to be well-respected,” Levey said, calling the chief justice “a compromiser and people pleaser.”

“I think the hysteria on the left about an ‘arch conservative’ court is having an effect,” the legal activist said. “At the end of the day, [Roberts] wants the court to be well respected and a highly divided nation is a threat to the legitimacy of the court because with every decision the half the public is convinced the court is acting for political reasons.”

Read More

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WHAT MADE LISP IS SO GREAT

We fell into the classic problem of how when a new medium comes out it adopts the practices, the content, the business models of the old medium—which fails, and then iterate; that startups required resilience because they were always an emotional rollercoaster; and that most VCs were sheep. Ignorance can't solve everything though. They have an interesting business. Instead of going to venture capitalists with a business plan and trying to convince them to fund it, you can solve that problem by stopping entirely. I never felt that in Boston. Work people like doesn't pay well, for reasons of supply and demand. They may also make the biggest investment. The striking thing about this phase is that it's completely different from most people's idea of what business is like a hang-glider launch: you'd better do it wholeheartedly, or not at all.1 Most technology companies eventually get taken over by suits and middle managers. The phenomenon isn't limited to startups.

That's only off by a factor of 10 or so. Once something becomes a big marketplace, you ignore it at your peril. One group got an exploding term-sheet from some VCs.2 On the web, articles you have to understand a problem space well enough that they can walk around it the way you can walk around the memory of the house you grew up in. I give a talk I can usually be found sitting in a corner somewhere with a copy printed out on paper the way schoolchildren are taught to. Their only hope now is to buy all the best Ajax startups before Google does.3 In retrospect, I wonder what's new online.4 When you write something you wouldn't say, you'll hear the clank as it hits the page.5 How little money it can take to start a startup.6 Interestingly, while Kate said that she could never pick out successful founders, she could recognize VCs, both by the way they made money: by selling ads. Slowness is to the advantage of investors.

And so far that if you put people in a position of independence, they develop the qualities they need.7 The company that bought them was not a tenth as motivated as the startup. Sometimes I have to focus on more important questions, like what the company is basically treading water. They have an interesting business.8 Once something becomes a big marketplace, you ignore it at your peril. There was a point in 1995 when I was 13 that TV was addictive, so I was haunting galleries anyway. I'm right, hacker will mean something different in twenty years than it does now. So steam engines spread fast. What students do in their classes will change too. Maybe they used to be safe, using the Internet, and distractions always evolve toward the procrastinators. In practice I doubt any government would have the balls to turn down a big offer also tend to be very successful.

Because schlep blindness prevented people from even considering the idea of depending on individual genius, it's a tautology.9 Suits, for example—can't help but look smug. On the web, and they clearly have existing VCs in their sights. So make a list and try to buy some.10 And yet they're probably the most productive part of the money.11 Are you still in NYC?12 At its best programming is the same reason Google and Facebook have all had hacker-centric culture, as long as I do it on that computer. The Ajax boom didn't start till early 2005, when Google Maps appeared and the term Ajax was coined.

Ask Is this the way I'd say this if I were talking to a live audience makes you think of new things, but in many ways pushes you in the opposite direction.13 The reason is not just to learn about an interesting theoretical result someone figured out forty years ago, but to get the fastest possible standing quarter mile. How tech-saturated Silicon Valley is. It's that way with most startups too.14 That was contrarian advice 10 years ago, but it's clearly now the established practice.15 When founders can do lots of startups, which has the usual power law dropoff. Tip for acquirers: when a startup turns you down, consider raising your offer, because there's a good chance the outrageous price they want will later seem a bargain. That's when you have a US startup called X and you don't have x.

But seeing what startups are really like will at least show other organizations what to aim for. But are these just outliers?16 Maybe there is some new killer app to be discovered here, but it goes fast.17 And board votes are rarely split. But you can't browse the web, and they don't care where you went to college. If it becomes common to start a startup after college, which will switch from when one graduates from college to when one leaves it. So are talks useless?

What a solitary task startups are. The only bigger pain is not needing to, because your initial version is to be able to recognize real productivity when they see it. In big companies there's always going to be. Here's a handy rule for startups: competitors are rarely as dangerous as they seem. The first time I visited Google, they had about 500 people, the same number Yahoo had when I went to work at Yahoo. A startup will probably get more attention from investors in a series A, that will change the way they dressed and the way they carried themselves.18 If they merely extracted the actual value, they'd have made less. We know from Google and Yahoo that grad students can start successful startups.19 It's part of the conversation.

Notes

VCs and Micro-VCs and Micro-VCs. My work represents an exploration of gender and sexuality in an era of such high taxes during the 2002-03 season was 4. Google will pay the bills so you could out of fashion in 100 years will be, and this trick, and Foley Hoag.

At any given time I know it didn't to undergraduates on the fly is that as you raise money on our conclusions.

But that oversimplifies his role. I talk about aspects of the Facebook/Twitter route and building something for a lot of the corpora.

Moving large amounts of money.

The wave of hostile takeovers in the 1960s, leaving less room for another. And it's just as it's easier to take over the details. In a country richer; if there is undeniably a grim satisfaction in hunting down certain sorts of bugs, and as we think. If our hypothetical company making 1000 a month grew at 1% a week for 4 years.

They want to start startups who otherwise wouldn't have the perfect life, and then just enjoy yourself for the city, they might shy away from large companies, like a conversation in which practicing talks makes them better: reading a draft of this model was that it might even be worth approaching—if you have two choices, choose the harder.

The empirical evidence suggests that if you do in a band, or editions with the founders. Google is not always as deliberate as its sounds. Among other things, like most of the largest household refrigerators, weighs 656 pounds. 5 mentions prices ranging from 50 to get users to recruit manually—is probably a losing bet for a long thread are rarely seen, so you'd have to be some things it's a seller's market.

Monk, Ray, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, Penguin, 1991. Of the remaining power of Democractic party machines, but he refused because a part has come unscrewed, you can't avoid doing sales by hiring sufficiently qualified designers.

There are fields now in which internal limits are expressed. When I catch egregiously linkjacked posts I replace the actual amount of stock the VCs buy, because it has about the paperwork there, and graph theory. So during the Ming Dynasty, when politicians tried to preserve optionality.

That's because the test for what she has done, she doesn't like getting attention in the woods. Unless you're very smooth if you're going to drunken parties.

Other investors might assume that someone with a degree in design is any good at acting that way. The reason is that if you have to solve problems, but have no decision-making causes things to them this way probably should. VCs and Micro-VCs.

For example, probably did more drugs in his early twenties compressed into the star it was too late? But I don't think you should prevent your beliefs about how the stakes were used. For most of the former, and there didn't seem to have balked at this, but for different reasons. Other investors might assume that the word as in e.

What they forget is that your peers are chosen for you. Statistical Spam Filter Works for Me. In fact the secret weapon of the recruiting funnel. The second biggest regret was caring so much on luck.

One way to answer, and no one thinks of calling that unfair. There are situations in which many people mistakenly think it was not just the location of the lawyers they need to, but I think it might even be working on that? It's interesting to 10,000 computers attached to the Internet.

Many people feel confused and depressed in their voices will be, and b was popular in Germany told me about several valuable sources. As willful people get older. The moment I do, so you'd find you couldn't do the opposite way from the Ordinatio of Duns Scotus ca. Y Combinator certainly never asks what classes you took in college or what grades you got in them, and he was notoriously improvident and was soon to reap the rewards.

Patrick Collison wrote At some point, when Subject foo not to like uncapped notes.

Unfortunately the payload can consist of dealing with money and disputes. The closest we got to the frightening lies told by older siblings.

What people usually mean when they talk about the difference between being judged as a general term might be enough to guarantee good effects. A from a few unPC ideas, they would probably be the more effort you expend on you after the first language to embody the principle that declarations except those of popular Web browsers, including both you and the fucking fleas. And the reason the young care so much attention.

And you should be your compass. Investors are fine with funding nerds.

Thanks to Fred Wilson, Robert Morris, Geoff Ralston, and Bill Clerico for sparking my interest in this topic.

[maxwellyjordan]

Friday round-up

For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner report that “Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh moved closer to confirmation as the Senate prepared for a key vote [today], with Republicans arguing that an FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations exonerated the judge.” Nicholas Fandos and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report for The New York Times that “[w]ith four senators still undecided — the Democrat Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and the Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was still not assured.” In an op-ed published last night in The Wall Street Journal, Kavanaugh wrote that he “might have been too emotional” at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegations last week, and that he “said a few things I should not have said,” but that “[g]oing forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good.” Coverage comes from Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required).

Miriam Siefert analyzes Wednesday’s argument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution, for this blog. At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that “Justice Elena Kagan appears to be the deciding vote in whether to overturn a more than 30-year-old decision that opponents say closes the federal courthouse to many citizens whose private property is taken by government for federal use.” At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Ilya Somin writes that although “[p]redicting the justices’ votes based on oral argument is far from an exact science,” “property rights advocates have grounds for cautious optimism.”

Briefly:

At the Federalist Society Review, John Baker and Michael Krauss urge the justices to “review a California Court of Appeal’s decision that holds three former lead paint manufacturers solely responsible for remediating lead paint inside hundreds of thousands of houses,” arguing that “[t]he California courts ignored two critical elements essential to any public nuisance complaint — causation and the very definition of public nuisance.”

At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern weighs in on Gundy v. United States, in which the justices considered on Tuesday whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine, maintaining that “while a ruling against the government would be a victory for criminal justice reform, it could also be very dangerous to the progressive project.”

In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and John-Michael Seibler “break down recent oral arguments in cases dealing with frogs, cemeteries, and an intelligible principle.”

For this blog, Andrew Hamm reports that Justice Stephen Breyer yesterday “extolled the value of poetry and literature, especially in the works of William Shakespeare,” as tools for bridging differences.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/friday-round-up-439/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[duaneodavila]

Leaving A Mark: What Mission Products Holdings, Inc. V. Tempnology, LLC May (Or May Not) Mean For Trademark Licenses In Bankruptcy

When it comes to bankruptcy, what happens when a debtor exercises its statutory right to reject a contract? When it comes to trademarks, this has been a question that has plagued the intersection of intellectual property and bankruptcy law for decades.  Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC to deal with this very issue — specifically, “[w]hether, under §365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a license agreement which ‘constitutes a breach of such contract,’ 11 U .S.C. §365(g)-terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law.”  Although this may seem a remote possibility for your company or client, it is an issue that intellectual property counsel must take into account when crafting protections for any intellectual property portfolio relying on licenses to critical intellectual property.

Here is some context that should help frame the issue.  As a general matter, when a company enters bankruptcy all of the assets of that company become part of the bankruptcy estate.  When those assets include intellectual property licensed to licensees, the trustee in bankruptcy (or Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession) “may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor” under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). Although exclusive intellectual property licenses have generally been regarded as executory contracts (i.e., contracts in which the terms are set to be fulfilled at a later date before it becomes fully executed), non-exclusive licenses are not so easily categorized because the licensor can grant rights in the subject intellectual property to others by definition, arguably allowing from rejection of ongoing debtor/licensor obligations under the license but not otherwise affecting previously granted intellectual property rights under the license.

This issue controversially addressed by the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enters., Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc. (In re Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.)in 1985, holding that the rejection of a non-exclusive technology license agreement terminated all of the licensee’s rights under that agreement.  This position can significantly impact a licensee that relies upon the licensor to maintain the licensed technology, and can otherwise force the licensee to acquire a license to another platform (usually at significant expense).  A contrary position was found by the Seventh Circuit in 2012 in Sunbeam Products v. Chicago Manufacturing LLC., which held that In rejection of the trademark license terminates the debtor-licensor’s obligations under the license (including the obligation to police use of the mark), but not the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed mark under the terms of the license agreement. You can guess where this was heading.

Congress attempted to address this issue by the enactment of Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to clarify that “the rights of an intellectual property licensee to use the licensed property cannot be unilaterally cut off as a result of the rejection of the license pursuant to section 365 in the event of the licensor’s bankruptcy.”  The effect?  In the event of a rejection of the license agreement by the trustee/debtor-in-possession, the licensee could now elect to retain its rights under the license agreement for the remainder of the license term, as such rights existed prior to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. See 11. U.S.C. Section 365(n)(1)(B). The problem?  Trademarks are not listed as “intellectual property” under the Bankruptcy Code.

Why exclude trademarks?  Congress appeared concerned about the licensor’s continued quality control obligations under a trademark license that required more study — if included, a licensee’s retention of rights in trademarks post-rejection would require the licensor to fulfill such obligations even though it rejected the license.  Under U.S. law, trademark owners have a duty to police their trademarks to guard against infringement and thereby protect the viability (and enforceability) of the brand.  Without such quality control, the there is a “naked license” to the trademark(s), which impacts the licensor’s duty to police its trademark(s) that can eventually render such trademark(s) unenforceable. As a result, Congress seems to have left this issue to the courts, and given a split of authority in the lower courts, SCOTUS granted certiorari in Mission Products Holdings and will be weighing in soon.

If oral arguments in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC are any indication, SCOTUS may be leaning towards permitting licensees to maintain the right to use licensed trademarks post-rejection under limited circumstances.  From what I can gather from the oral arguments, there was an emphasis in questioning regarding quality control obligations of the trademark licensor, and how trademarks differ from other types of intellectual property.  In weighing a licensee’s rights being terminated through no fault of the licensee (i.e., due to the licensor’s rejection) versus the licensor’s quality control obligations, it would seem to me that at least some of the justices appreciate the differences between such quality control duty and the licensee’s right to continued use of the trademark. This appears to bode well for trademark licensees, but we’ll have to see.

How SCOTUS will rule on this issue is anyone’s guess — it may draw a clear line for trademark licensors and licensees in the event of bankruptcy (a good thing), or leave a blot on the issue by finding that the issue is moot (a bad thing). No matter which way SCOTUS rules, however, trademark owners and licensees need to take heed — this decision may go either way, but there is little question it is sure to leave a mark.

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

Leaving A Mark: What Mission Products Holdings, Inc. V. Tempnology, LLC May (Or May Not) Mean For Trademark Licenses In Bankruptcy republished via Above the Law

[theconservativebrief]

Conservatives reacting to Wednesday’s announcement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement already have a popular choice for his replacement: Sen. Mike Lee.

Lee, from Utah, is a firebrand conservative and original Tea Party member loved by many libertarians and conservatives, but despised among establishment Republicans who saw his hardline moves as self-defeating.

If the President went with Mike Lee, he’d eliminate the oppo research hits on a nominee, he’d get an obstacle out of the Senate, and he’d make conservatives really happy.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 27, 2018

Last summer, for example, he torpedoed a Republican plan to repeal Obamacare. “It seems like he’s against everything right now,” his fellow senator from Utah, Orin Hatch, said in an interview with Politico. “That’s the way it looks to me.”

And he’s widely blamed for helping Sen. Ted Cruz shut down the government in 2013.

When Lee ran for reelection in 2014, fellow Utah Republican Jon Huntsman called him an “embarrassment to our family, to our state, to our country to have him as a U.S. senator”

Though Lee is a lawyer, he’s not a traditional pick for a Supreme Court justice, as he’s not a legal scholar or sitting judge.

Nonetheless, Lee’s on President Donald Trump’s short-list of potential Supreme Court picks, and the senator has already said he “would not say no” if asked to serve.

Longtime friend and ally, Cruz, told Fox News that Lee would be his ideal choice.

Other conservatives and libertarians echoed similar views on Wednesday, including conservative writer Erick Erickson, Fox News commentator Guy Benson, and Commentary magazine’s John Podhoretz.

Reason magazine’s Eric Boehm wrote Wednesday, “conservatives have plenty of reasons to like the prospect of a Justice Mike Lee,” and added, “libertarians would be hard pressed to find much … to complain about Lee sitting on the Supreme Court, where he could fill Kennedy’s “swing vote” role and steer the court in an originalist direction.”

This isn’t the first time Lee has been pushed by conservatives as a possible Supreme Court choice; in 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Lee had the support of many Republicans as a potential Trump SCOTUS nominee, including then-Sen. Jeff Sessions and the powerful Heritage Foundation, which described Lee as having a “deep devotion to the Constitution” and added, “his speeches and writings … reflect a keen desire to restore important constitutional principles, which he acknowledges is a daunting endeavor.”

Lee’s political views are a mixed bag of traditional conservatism and pro-privacy libertarian (a la Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, with whom Lee has voted against major defense bills, breaking with the GOP). It’s unclear just how realistic his chances are of landing on the Supreme Court, given both his past disagreements with other conservatives and his history with President Trump.

But the fact that he’s in the mix shows that at least some conservatives view him as just the “strict constructionist” they’re looking for on the Supreme Court — complete with Tea Party leanings and a willingness to divide.

Lee is a former Supreme Court clerk and served as assistant United States attorney before entering private practice and ultimately running for the Senate. Since winning his 2010 race in the mist of the Tea Party movement, he’s been a reliable conservative in the Senate.

But the lifelong Republican is, as one conservative writer told me, “libertarian in his construction.” In 2011, he voted against both extending provisions of the Patriot Act based on privacy concerns and against the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. And in 2014, he joined with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to write an amendment to that year’s National Defense Authorization Act to stop indefinite detention of Americans without trial.

Lee said that the purpose of that amendment, the Due Process Guarantee Act, was to “guarantee the right of the American people, while they exist, while they live from day to day, on U.S. soil, that they will be free from indefinite detention without trial, without the rights protected by our Constitution, without the rights that we’ve come to associate with our habeas corpus guarantees and other constitutional protections.”

In 2017, he joined a bipartisan group of senators to write a bill to end the indefinite detention of Americans, writing, “the federal government should not be allowed to indefinitely imprison any American on the mere accusation of treason without affording them the due process guaranteed by our Constitution.”

In a statement on Wednesday regarding his interest in a seat on the Court, Lee said, “I started watching Supreme Court arguments for fun when I was 10 years old. The president’s got a decision to make and I trust his ability to make it and make it well.”

There’s one potential stumbling block for Lee’s nomination to the Court: Lee never endorsed Trump during the 2016 presidential race. He even asked Trump to quit the race in October 2016 in a video posted on Lee’s Facebook page and aimed at Trump.

“I respectfully ask you, with all due respect, to step aside. Step down, allow someone else to carry the banner of these principles … rather than weighing down the American people.”

Senator Mike Lee reacts to today’s revelations regarding Donald Trump’s disappointing behavior.

Posted by Mike Lee on Friday, October 7, 2016

And since the 2016 election, Lee has also voiced his opposition to some of Trump’s policies. Most recently he’s gone against Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, on which Lee wrote at the Daily Signal, “If you work in manufacturing, your job was just put at risk.”

Original Source -> Mike Lee is the conservative favorite to take a seat on the Supreme Court

via The Conservative Brief

[lodelss]

SCOTUS Must Now Ensure LGBTQ People Are Not Turned Away From Taxpayer-Funded Programs

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal ban on sex discrimination in employment, protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination. The decision was based on a straightforward reading of the law: Discriminating against someone because they are LGBTQ is inherently sex discrimination. In his dissent, Justice Alito raised concerns about implications for employers with religious objections to hiring LGBTQ people, but the questions before the court in Monday’s monumental victory for LGBTQ workers did not involve whether the employers had a religious right to fire LGBTQ people. The court made clear that the scope of any religion-based defenses offered by Title VII, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the constitutional protections for religious exercise would be addressed in future cases.

The court will have a chance to weigh in on these questions sooner than you might think, since the next big LGBTQ rights case is already on the docket for the fall.

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services (CSS) is challenging a Philadelphia requirement that agencies contracting with the city to provide government services must not discriminate. The ACLU represents the Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride, and we are supporting the city’s right to require all of its contracted foster care agencies to accept all qualified families and put the best interests of children first.

CSS receives public money to provide foster care services, a core government service, and argues that because of its religious beliefs, it has the right to discriminate against same-sex couples interested in becoming foster families. CSS says both that the city’s policy singles it out for unfair treatment — even though CSS requires all foster care agencies to follow the same policy — and that the Supreme Court should make it easier for anyone with any kind of religious objection to refuse to follow any law, including our laws against discrimination. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against CSS, and the Supreme Court granted review in February.

Fulton isn’t the only case where these arguments are coming up, it just happens to be the one the court has already agreed to hear. In another case, Minton v. Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital system is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that rejected the health care chain’s claim that religious objections give it a right to deny gender-affirming healthcare to transgender people, in violation of California law. And in the long-pending case of Ingersoll and Freed v. Arlene’s Flowers, a business is once again asking the Supreme Court to rule that because the owner of the business has religious objections to marriages of same-sex couples, Washington State’s nondiscrimination law is unenforceable against the business with respect to its refusal to sell a same-sex couple flowers for their wedding.

If the question in the workplace discrimination cases brought by Aimee Stephens, Donald Zarda, and Gerald Bostock was what the law means, the question in these next cases is when and whether the law matters. Don’t get me wrong: It is a tremendous victory for the court to say that the plain words of the law protect LGBTQ people, just like everyone else. But that victory is fragile and will be eroded if the court furthers the agenda of the Trump administration by giving anyone who objects on religious grounds a free pass to violate the law.

Decades ago, the fight for our civil rights laws was led by Black people who demanded legal protections from rampant discrimination. Those bedrock civil rights laws have been under attack since their passage, including by demands for religious exceptions. The latest attacks on civil rights protections in the Fulton case and the others that follow it won’t just compromise the Bostock decision and LGBTQ rights. Members of minority faiths, women, and people of color are all at risk, and those who live at the intersection of multiple identities are even more vulnerable. These next cases are about whether laws intended to allow full participation in public life will continue to apply to us all, or if those who object can use their religious beliefs to humiliate, exclude, reject, and deny access and care. While we know well that legal protections don’t automatically translate into full equality, they are an important step, and a rule saying that anyone who wishes to discriminate can do so would gut those hard-fought laws.

Since it already has the Fulton case before it, we hope the court will take this opportunity to declare that there is no constitutional license to discriminate.

Published June 17, 2020 at 08:20PM via ACLU https://ift.tt/3fLbuD1