We have previously discussed difficult cases (here and here and here) where physical appearance is a job criteria — leading to claims of gender discrimination. Now, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson has ruled that cocktail servers known as the “Borgata Babes” at Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa can be required to keep their weight within proscribed limits as part of their job. Johnson ruled against 22 cocktail servers in a decision that found that these positions are part entertainment and part waitress — allowing the company to specify appearance requirements for women described as “eye candy.” The company required women not to gain more than seven percent body weight after their hiring. They wear cleavage-bearing bustiers and high heels at work.
Category: Society
For many years, there has been controversy over the funding of military chaplains and the preferences given certain faiths. The problem is that as much 23 percent of our military list no religious association or preference. While many simply have no religious association with a particular faith, some are agnostics, some are atheists, and some are generally humanists. It would seem logical to have some chaplains who can relate to those groups. However, members of Congress are irate and insist that chaplains must believe in a deity to be funded. They warm that humanist or secularist chaplains would be traumatizing dying soldiers about being “worm food” and dying without hope.
Continue reading “Congress Moves To Block Atheist Chaplains”
New York Democrats must have the weakest bench of leaders in the country. Otherwise, it is hard to see how two disgraced politicians in sex scandals could be leading in the polls to resume power. On one hand you have Elliot Spitzer who, while Governor, used call girls with regularity. He now appears to be praying himself into the comptroller’s office at churches and synagogues. Then you have Anthony Weiner who sent out disgusting pictures of his genitals to women, lied to the press and public, and engaged in conduct that would be at best considered sexual harassment and at worst stalking. Yet, he is leading in the polls for a race for mayor of New York. Now, Weiner is again before the public asking for forgiveness — this time for new pictures and messages sent after his resignation and the birth of his child by his ever forgiving wife. Some as recently as last summer. By the way, Weiner now appears to go under the nom de guerre of Carlos Danger. It is not clear if he will use that name as mayor or just use it when he sends women pictures of himself in various obscene poses.
Continue reading “Meet Carlos Danger: Man of Mystery and Messaging”
It is something of a doggie whodunit. Citizens in Olathe, Kansas are debating the killing of a six pound Yorkie named Precious. Carl Henrichson is accused of killing Precious by standing on her while he claims that he was protecting his larger Labrador dog from a neighborhood menace.
Continue reading “Precious: Victim or Villain? Kansas Town Debates Death Of Yorkie”
These are certain things that you will not easily find in U.S. media like Jimmy Carter declaring that we no longer have a functioning democracy in this country. Another is reading about Snowden as a whistleblower. The White House has been highly successful in telling media not to refer to Snowden as a whistleblower and enlisting various media allies to attack him as a clown and a traitor or mocking his fear of returning home. This week you had to read Moscow Times or other foreign sites (or a link on Reddit) to learn that Snowden has won this year’s Whistleblower Award established by German human rights organizations.
Continue reading “Snowden Is A Whistleblower . . . Just Not In The United States”
The American Civil Liberties Union seems a bit less unified in the aftermath of the Zimmerman acquittal. I remain a huge admirer of the ACLU and its inspiring legacy in fighting for civil liberties in America. I also have great respect for ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. However, the divisions evident on this civil liberties blog appears equally represented in that civil liberties institution. To the surprise of many, including myself, Romero sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that seemed to clearly invite a civil rights or hate crime prosecution of George Zimmerman. The ACLU however has long taken the view that such prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. When the federal government does not like the outcome of a high-profile case, it can use the very same facts to bring another prosecution under a different crime. After sending the letter, however, the ACLU staff appear to have objected and sent out a conflicting position that such successive prosecutions are violative of constitutional principles.
Continue reading “ACLU.2.0: ACLU Shifts Position On Civil Rights Action Against Zimmerman”
Submitted by Darren Smith, Guest Blogger
Does the US Government have rose colored glasses when it looks at itself administering justice for an individual after the demands of the public to instigate a prosecution are satisfied by an individual going to prison? One may look at a bit of history to see this more clearly. A chapter would be read by some in the case of Iva Toguri. Another might be that of George Zimmerman.
Continue reading “Seeing Justice Through Tokyo Rose Colored Glasses”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
There has been a large volume of discussion on this blog concerning the loss of our personal liberties and constitutional freedoms. One of the most important of those “freedoms” that seem to be at risk is the Freedom of the Press, especially in light of recent events.
“Following the amendment of a long-standing U.S. law, people in this country will now be exposed to news which is produced by the U.S. government. On Jul. 2, a change to the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act, came into effect, reversing a ban on the State Department and U.S. international broadcasting agencies which had prevented them from disseminating their program materials within U.S. borders. The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. federal government agency which oversees all U.S. government-supported media internationally, notes that individuals residing in the U.S. will now have access to vast amounts of new information.” Nation of Change Continue reading “Is Freedom of the Press Dead?”
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
As erudite and informed as I pretend to be, the fact is that there is much that is important that I either miss, or fail to see any significance in. The death of investigative reporter Michael Hastings showed me that because my first reaction to the news flash was “who is Michael Hastings?” Reading further into the story I discovered that he was the reporter who brought down General William McChrystal and that he was considered to be one of America’s premier investigative journalists. As I read that original story, the thought occurred to me that possibly Hastings’s death in an auto “accident” was not simply a case of reckless driving, but I initially dismissed that as merely the operation of my cynical mindset. Nevertheless, the thought nagged at the back of my consciousness and then I saw a story on http://whowhatwhy.com/ , my favorite investigative website, run by the renowned Russ Baker. The stories title: “The Michael Hastings Wreck-Video Evidence Offers a few Clues” http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/07/14/the-michael-hastings-wreck-video-evidence-offers-a-few-clues/
For my own benefit and perhaps yours, I’ve done a little research into who Michael Hastings was and what he did that deserves attention. I explore the possibility that his death was no accident. I admit that I have no proof beyond speculation. Hopefully I can give you enough information to make your own judgments. In a world where American Presidents openly arrogate to themselves the right to kill people deemed enemies of the United States, all things suddenly become possible. When the basic right of habeas corpus can be denied to American citizens, based upon unproven allegations of their being threats to this country, isn’t it possible for those with the power to detain and to eliminate individuals, to make decisions as to someone’s existence doing harm to this country? Finally, doesn’t this unconstitutional expansion of powers give individuals with government connections the leeway to take revenge on those who expose them? While I’m not privy to knowledge of the actions of those in power and can claim no inside information, I certainly can speculate based on the experience of my lifetime. This then is my speculation about the death and life of Michael Hastings in the context of current life in these United States. Continue reading “What Happened to Michael Hastings?”
Last night, I appeared again (here and here) on the PBS Newshour to discuss President Barack Obama’s comments about the Zimmerman trial. While I usually do not intrude on our weekend guest bloggers, I have received a few emails about a comment that I made about the Stand Your Ground law. I was commenting on the President’s statement that we need to reexamine the Stand Your Ground law and noted that the law was not in play at the trial. This led to a few emails objecting that I had ignored the jury instructions that they claim imposed the standard of the SYG law on the jury. I disagree and wanted to briefly explain. Most were civil and insightful and I thought, after our exchange, it would be good to post a brief discussion on this insular issue from the trial. There are important things to discuss in the aftermath of the verdict, as the President said, but we should be clear about our view of the underlying legal standards and trial record.
Continue reading “The Stand Your Ground Law And The Zimmerman Trial”
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
”Write that down,” the King said to the jury, and the jury eagerly wrote down all three dates on their slates, and then added them up, and reduced the answer to shillings and pence.”
~Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Few institutions of the English speaking peoples are held in the same esteem as juries in criminal cases. A full three quarters of those polled in the U.S. would want their case decided by a jury rather than a judge. Three in five Australians believe their jury system is working well. In the UK, juries enjoy support from 72% of the population and the same percentage rate the right to trial by jury as one of the most important in society. Compare that to the U.S. Congress’ approval rating of 15% or the President’s rating of 43% and you can see that in America we love juries.
And why shouldn’t we? After all, it was Jefferson who reminded none other than that firebrand of the Revolution, Thomas Payne, in 1789, that “trial by jury [is] the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Jefferson words surely were on the mind of Justice Byron “Whizzer” White when he wrote, “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge.”
But do modern juries live up to the billing? Are they the bulwarks of democracy seeking only truth or sad victims of a process designed to produce groupthink results due to systemic flaws? Are they staunch individuals committed to their position and determined to fight to the last man to prove it, or are they susceptible to influences both in and out of the deliberation room which have little or nothing to do with evidence and logic. In essence, are they seekers of truth or merely consensus?
Continue reading “American Juries: Seekers of Truth or Mere Consensus? Part I”
Marty the Magician may be able to make a rabbit appear from his hat but he might want to start practicing making it disappear. The magician recently received a letter from the Agriculture Department beginning “Dear Members of Our Regulated Community . . .” It was about his rabbit.
The Portland police and City Attorney are making an argument in federal court this month that gives another glimpse into the increasing claims of authority of police in our society. Scott Miller was stopped for jaywalking by Officer Dean Halley in 2010 and admitted that he committed the common violation of pedestrians. The officer however proceeded to handcuff him, tell him “you’re under arrest,” throw him into the back of a cruiser and then drove him a block away. He was in custody for about 30 minutes, but Deputy City Attorney William Manlove is arguing that citizens cannot sue because such acts do not constitute an actual arrest. They are something between a chat and custody, but not an arrest for purposes of legal action.
We often discuss the proper damages for failure to diagnose cancer, including the calculation of the reduction in survivability (area where we disagree with our English cousins in torts). How about a misdiagnosis of cancer when the patient is cancer-free? That is the issue that faced a jury in Texas where Herlinda Garcia, 54, went through the highly traumatic process of chemotherapy only to discover that she never had cancer to begin with.
My friend and colleague, Professor Don Clarke, does terrific work over at his Chinese Law Blog and has an extraordinary story this morning. A Chinese Law Professor is in hot water after making a series of statements about rape that truly shock the conscience. Tsinghua Law prof Yi Yanyou comments on the rape case of Li Tianyi, the son of a famous singer who is accused of raping a bar hostess. Yi pointed out that raping a bar hostess is not as bad as a real rape of a nice girl from a nice family. The response was predicable and justified. What is astonishing is that Yi doubled down on his theory of different categories of rape victims when people objected.