Wendy Joyce Terry, 43, the longtime prosecutor in Davidson County, North Carolina, was indicted this week in a bizarre case where she is accused of texting an offer to pay $20,000 to get an opponent to drop out of an election for a superior court seat. Putting aside the wisdom on texting bribes or payoffs, Terry is accused of texting the offer to district court Judge April Wood.
Curiosity may not have killed the cat but Mollivirus siberium might have . . . and might still. Scientists are about to “wake up” a 30,000-year-old virus found in the melting permafrost. They published their plan in in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal. What could possible go wrong, right? Just the plot of a dozen horror films.
There is a controversy in the United Kingdom where Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, the head of Brown Rudnick’s intellectual property group in Europe, has been accused from scores of critics of being a sexist, misogynistic monster. His offense? Carter-Silk had received a LinkedIn contact for Charlotte Proudman, 27. He responded by writing that he thought her photo was “stunning.” That led Proudman, a human-rights lawyer, to denounce his “unacceptable and misogynistic behavior” for complimenting the picture.
The House’s entire legal team would like, first and foremost, to express its gratitude and respect for Judge Rosemary Collyer in issuing this historic and profound decision. The opinion is attached below.
Continue reading “FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT HOUSE HAS STANDING IN HISTORIC CHALLENGE”
The Obama Administration has secured a settlement with Nebraska Beef Ltd., a Nebraska-based meat packing company, over discriminatory practices. However, the company’s improper actions involved a requirement for employees to show proof of legal status for employment. The company was targeted because it did not also require proof of legal status from U.S. citizens.
TSA screener Margo Lauree-Grant, 41, is the latest TSA employee to be arrested for theft or other crimes at an airport security area. Lauren-Grant is accused of stealing a $7,500 Diamond Master watch from a Canadian traveler after he placed it in a plastic bin. To make matters worse, Lauree-Grant is accused of then destroying the watch when security officials began to investigate.
One of the leading Hungarian broadcasters has fired a camerawoman after she was shown tripping a fleeing refugee man who was carrying his young son in his arms. The broadcaster and many Hungarian news outlets have been accused of highly negative coverage of the influx of refugees. The camerawoman has been identified as Petra László of N1TV.
There is a fascinating case out of Illinois where DuPage County judge Ronald Sutter has tossed out a lawsuit by Jennifer Cramblett, who sued after a sperm bank mistakenly impregnated her with sperm from an African-American rather than the white donor she selected. The result was a mixed-race baby. The response from the sperm bank was astonishing. They apologized and reportedly refunded only part of the cost to Cramblett and her partner Amanda Zinkon.
I have previously been critical of the blind application laws on sending sexually explicit photos and other laws to teenagers. While purpose of these laws is laudable, we have seen various cases of teenagers facing ruinous charges over consensual exchanges. A case in point is Cormega Copening, 17, and his girlfriend, Brianna Denson, who were charged as adults in February for sending “sexually explicit” photos of minors. However, they are the minors. They were 16. However, in some twisted logic, prosecutors have charged them as adults . . . for sending minors these photos . . . when the minors are themselves and they are being charged as a adults.
Chipotle has been hit by a national campaign featuring a grossly overweight young man and attacking the chain for high fat food. The ad tells readers that by eating two “all natural” Chipotle burritos a week, consumers could gain 40 pounds in a year. What is most notable however is the source for the campaign: an industry lobbyist named Richard Berman who appears miffed by the restaurant’s support of GMO-free, antibiotic-free food.
Continue reading “Chubby Chipotle Campaign Funded By Food Industry Lobbyist”
There is an interesting counterpart to the Kim Davis debate over the right of people to follow their religious beliefs in the denial of services to others. A Muslim flight attendant Charee Stanley says she was suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol in accordance with her Islamic faith. While there are clearly significant differences between a public official using her office to impose their religious views and an employee demanding accommodation in the work place, the controversy shows the increasing conflicts occurring between religious principles and public accommodation. We have seen this conflict most vividly in the controversy over Christian and Muslim bakeries and photographers declining to service same-sex weddings. We have previously discussed (here and here and here) the growing conflicts over businesses that decline to accommodate same-sex weddings and events in a clash between anti-discrimination and free speech (and free exercise) values. Despite my support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, I have previously written that anti-discrimination laws are threatening the free exercise of religion. Yet, these cases also raise concerns over rising burdens on both customers and businesses in having to deal with a myriad of different religious objections as in the ExpressJet case.
Defiant Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has appealed the contempt order that has left her languishing in jail. At the same time, her lawyer has argued that marriage licenses issued without her signature are invalid — an interesting question given the state’s requirement that her signature be affixed to every such license. Below is my recent Washington Post column on Davis and how she fits within our collective social and legal iconography. Defiance is a heroic value when it is Martin Luther King violating police orders and standing unbent before biting dogs and swinging batons. It was inspiring to millions when King cited St. Augustine to declare “an unjust law is no law at all”. Such figures stood against not just our prejudice but our laws in their defiance. As Henry David Thoreau stated “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” Those who transgress upon unjust laws today are often heralded as heroes tomorrow from early American patriots to abolitionists to suffragists to desegregationists. Even today many praise Edward Snowdon for his criminal actions in disclosing a massive surveillance system of U.S. citizens even though those same laws are designed to protect our national security. Yet, Davis is using her public office to impose her religious values on neighbors. That contrast led to the column below.
Continue reading “Kim Davis: Hero or Villain?”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
An attempt to solicit revenue for his church, Rev. Jesse Jackson received a strong rebuke. Though this happened last year, it is worth revisiting again.
While attending a protest rally organized by those voicing grievances against police misconduct and racial discrimination, the Rev. Jackson seized upon the moment to ask the crowd for $100.00 donations. Social media and even attendees of the event were vocal in the notion that the Reverend was abusing the moment for his personal, or rather it seems his organization’s, financial gain.
By: Cara L. Gallagher, Weekend Contributor, and Elliot Louthen
This is a beautiful but restless time of year for SCOTUS junkies. The gorgeous, late summer sun sinks faster out of the sky signaling not only the end of the (best) season but also the nearness of the next Supreme Court term. While this reality thrills us, it gives pause and arouses questions. Is it possible to ever have a term as exciting as the last? There’s no way, right? Truth be told, we recall having the same concerns after the close of the October 2011 term, so, yes, there’s a chance.
Rather than stare at the calendar like a watched pot pre-boil, we thought we’d pull out the highlight reel and review some of the big cases from June, starting with Obergefell v. Hodges, aka the same-sex marriage case. In the aftermath of the victory for gay rights, it was easy to overlook the complexities of the decision and focus solely on celebrating or cringing (if you want an inside view of the Courtroom read this post). But it was much more complicated than calling it a simple win or loss. Continue reading “Taking a look back: The highlight reel from Obergefell v. Hodges”
By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“Smith relegated our national commitment to the free exercise of religion to the sub-basement of constitutional values.”
-Michael P. Farris and Jordan W. Lorence, “Employment Division v. Smith and the Need for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” 6 Regent U.L.Rev. 65, 66 (1995)
Several years following the ratification of the Constitution, a man named Jonas Phillips was subpoenaed to testify on behalf of a defendant in a criminal case in Pennsylvania. The problem was that the trial was scheduled for a Saturday and Mr. Phillips was a devout Jew. He refused to be sworn on the Jewish Sabbath and was subsequently held in contempt and fined ten pounds, despite invoking the protection of the Pennsylvania constitution, which provided that “no human authority can in any case whatsoever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience. . . .” Stansbury v. Marks, 2 Dall. 213 (Pa. 1793). Fortunately, the defendant waived Mr. Phillips’ appearance and the fine was discharged.
Jonas Phillips’ “rights of conscience” were deemed subordinate to the orderly administration of the judicial system in a state which boasted one of the most religiously tolerant constitutions in the young nation. Therefore, when the Supreme Court held in 1878 that rights of conscience likewise could not be raised as a defense to a charge of bigamy, the ruling was hardly earthshattering. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). And the decision over one hundred years later in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), appeared to confirm a principle that had largely guided free exercise jurisprudence since the nation’s founding: the Religion Clauses do not mandate religious exemptions from valid laws intended to be binding upon all of us. Yet the Smith decision produced a harsh political and academic reaction, resulting in legislation that has radically altered the free exercise landscape. How did that happen?