We previously discussed whether England was becoming a “Nanny State.” (here and here). As much as I love London (and Londoners), it appears to have plunged into realm of government regulation of virtually every aspect of life and family management. An example is the new directive from the British government to school officials that they can and should use their “common law powers” to search student lunches to remove and destroy “unhealthy or inappropriate.” Education minister Lord Nash issued the directive to cover unhealthy items listed by the school that are now barred. Teachers can now “confiscate, keep or destroy” such snacks.
Category: Constitutional Law
I am doing some coverage at CNN but, in addition to the predictable rejection of the lethal injection challenge, the Court handed down two major decisions. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court ruled 5-4 that states could effectively take away redistricting decisions from state legislatures — a key move to try to end the scourge of gerrymandering. In Michigan v. EPA, the Court again split 5-4 in ruling that the EPA must consider the costs to industry in setting environmental limitations — in the case involving arsenic emissions — under the Clean Air Act.
Continue reading “Good Day For Election Reformists; Bad Day For Environmentalists”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
While this might seem to some as a Tempest in a Tea Pot involving only a traffic infraction, the actions of a Seattle Police Department Motor Traffic Unit could put the city into a legal liability for a violation of free speech rights.
Several days ago, Daniel Gehlke saw motorcycle officers set up near the intersection of 14th Avenue South and South Washington and begin enforcing stop sign and speed laws. Mr. Gehlke then obtained a Rubbermaid container lid and wrote thereon the words “COPS AHEAD! Stop at sign and light!” He stood nearby the intersection displaying the lid to warn drivers of the traffic unit’s presence and recommend compliance with the law.
Unfortunately for Mr. Gehlke the traffic unit took exception to this and cited him under a Seattle Municipal Ordinance making the display of a sign “bearing any such words as ‘danger,’ ‘stop,’ ‘slow,'” and more… [with] Directions likely to be construed as giving warning to or regulating traffic.”
I am still doing commentary on today’s history ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. It was a remarkable day for all of us outside of the Court. As many of us quickly read through the opinions, hundreds of people broke out into song: singing our national anthem. It never sounded so beautiful or so meaningful. As I went live with Jake Tapper on CNN, I noticed a familiar reference however. The Chief Justice cited to the Sister Wives litigation now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I am lead counsel for the Brown family, which prevailed in striking down the criminalization of cohabitation in Utah. The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets also discussed our case.
Continue reading “Sister Wives Case Cited In Supreme Court’s Historic Same-Sex Marriage Ruling”
I spent most of the day opining in front of the Supreme Court and in studies on the 6-3 ruling in favor of the Obama Administration in King v. Burwell. I will not subject you to more of that analysis. I have previously indicated that I found the opposing view of the Halbig decision against the Administration to be compelling, though I have always viewed this to be a difficult question upon which people of good-faith could disagree. Yet, in both my prior congressional testimony and my columns, I have never accused the Administration of “jiggery-pokery” — largely because I was not sure what jiggery-pokery is. However, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has written a stinging dissent to King that contains the memorable accusation that the majority was engaging in “interpretive jiggery-pokery.”
Continue reading “Obamacare Spared Through “Jiggery-Pokery”?”
We have previously discussed efforts of politicians to add costs or otherwise harass owners and customers of strip joints for moral, social, or political reasons. Both feminists and religious right advocates have targeted the businesses. The latest such effort is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania state Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, who admits that he has introduced a new draconian measure to respond to faith-based groups. His bill would force strippers to register with the state, ban alcohol in strip joints and create a buffer zone between dancers and patrons (effectively barring “lap dances.”).
Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe has reported that he was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents Monday when attempting to reenter the country. The reason appears his widely published video showing him crossing the border repeatedly from United States and Mexico while dressed as Osama bin Laden. The video succeeded in capturing what critics have complained about for years: that the border remain wide open and that the Administration is misleading the public on the ease with which potential terrorists could cross into the United States illegally. Whatever the merits of that video, it does seem to me to be either a form of journalism or political speech. It was also very embarrassing for Customs and the Administration. That makes the action troubling if O’Keefe was told, as he states, that he will be detained from now on whenever he tries to reenter the United States.
Continue reading “Controversial Filmmaker O’Keefe Detained At Border By Customs”
I have written columns and blogs through the years about the disturbing trend on U.S. campuses toward free regulation and controls. In the name of diversities and tolerance, college administrators and professors are enforcing greater and greater controls on speech –declaring certain views or terms to be forms of racism or more commonly “microaggressions.” The latter term is gaining support to expand the range of controls over speech and conduct to include things that are indirect or minor forms of perceived intolerance. The crackdown seems most prevalent in California where lists of “micro aggressions” seems to be mounting as a macroaggression on free speech. The new list of verboten terms out of University of California (Berkeley), headed by Janet Napolitano, captures the insatiable appetite for speech regulation. The school has asked faculty to stop using terms like “melting pot” or statements like “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” They are now all microaggressions. Not only are school buying into the concept of microaggressions and speech regulation, but they are shaping a generation of students who seem to look for any possible interpretation of terms to take offensive at.
A male student identified as “John Doe” has sued Amherst College for allegedly denying him due process and ignoring evidence that he says proved another students Sandra Jones, lied about an alleged rape at the college. This is the second such lawsuit accusing the school of stripping students of due process in the handling of sexual harassment or assault claims. I have previously written about my concerns over the heavy-handed measures that the Obama Administration has forced on universities over the objections of faculty and students alike in such cases.
In 1991, President Bush announced the start of military operations to free Kuwait from the ravages of dictatorship after the invasion of Iraqi forces. He promised to restore Kuwait and its people to freedom. In the years following the liberation however Kuwait’s government has repeatedly shown that real freedom was confined to its ruling family and not average Kuwaitis. The sentencing in absentia of Rana Jassem al-Saadun is only the latest example. The female rights activist was given three years in jail for simply repeating parts of a speech by an opposition leader that was critical of Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, Kuwait’s authoritarian leader.
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling permitting the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) to designate a number of open positions within its prison system that are available solely for female candidates.
The Court held that the DOC articulated a well-founded and researched interest in designating a specific number of female only positions to address issues related to privacy interests of women inmates and to reduce the number of sexual improprieties involving male employees, especially within the state’s prison facility for women located in Washington. The state also articulated successfully the need to employ female only positions for the normal and regular operation of its women’s prisons.
We have previously discussed “policing for dollars” or “churning” where they seize cash, particularly on highways, as suspected drug money even without actually arresting or charging the drivers. It raises a huge amount of money for police departments and has been widely criticized as abusive. The latest victim of churning appears to be Charles Clarke, 24, who was on his way to take classes at the University of Central Florida. He was stopped at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in Hebron, Ky. with his life savings that he was taking with him for safe keeping and to support his education. Since he could not “prove” the source of the money, agents seized the $11,000 and, despite dropping all charges against him, has thus far refused to return the money despite Clarke’s efforts.
Kentucky Judge Steven D. Combs in Pike County has been temporarily suspended after an array of charges of bizarre comments and actions, including calling officials such names as “Fishface,” “cokehead,” and “Dumbo.” Worst yet, he threatened to put a “bullet in the head” of the next police officer who pulled him over. A temporary suspension until resolution of the 10 charges seems quite modest punishment but his counsel, Stephen Ryan, still conveyed Combs’ “disappointment” with the action taken by the Judicial Conduct Commission.
We previously wrote about the decision of the University of Illinois to withdraw the employment of Professor Steven Salaita due to his publication of anti-Israel views on Twitter. I raised concerns over the decision as punishing an academic for views expressed outside of the classroom. It appear that the American Association of University Professors has the same concerns. The AAUP has passed a censure of the University — a significant sanction for a university that has strived to be included among the top school.
Continue reading “Illinois Sanctioned By AAUP Over Termination of Professor For Anti-Israeli Views”
We have been discussing the crackdown on free speech in the West, particularly in England, France, and Canada. It is a rising concern that seems to be lost on Montana legislators and prosecutors who want to follow the path of speech criminalization. The Montana criminal defamation statute criminalizes speech that exposes religious, racial, and other groups — “to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace” — an absurdly broad standard that would make a Sharia judge blush.