We have another case of a family dog shot by police. The latest such incident occurred in Rains County, Texas where Cole Middleton says that an officer responded to his call about a burglary at his home and shot his dog upon exiting the police car. To make matters worse, Middleton alleges that the officer refused to finish off his cow dog Candy despite his pleas that she was suffering. They have identified the officer as Rains County Officer Jerred Dooley.
The moment of absolute betrayal was caught on film.
I was just on CNN discussing the decision in Schuette v. BAMN, reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and declaring that the citizens of Michigan have the constitutional authority to prohibit racial and other preferences in university admissions. We addressed this case this term in my Supreme Court class and the students voted not only in the same way as the majority today but predicted this result. What was surprising was the vote — 6-2. Only Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg voted to upheld the Sixth Circuit.
We have yet another story of a Saudi prince achieving a new level of debauchery or excess. Prince Fahd bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud reportedly went on a little hunting trip in Pakistan but he did not want to hunt the same game as just anyone. He is a Saudi Prince and needed something that others could not have. So he obtained a permit from the Pakistani government to hunt an internationally protected bird — the houbara bustard. He was given the right to hunt for 2 days and kill up to 100 houbara bustards so he hunted for 21 days and killed some 2,100 of the protected birds. If you are wondering what type of person who relish such destruction, you might want to ask what type of government would issue a permit to such a person. The answer is two of our closest allies.
Continue reading “A Royal Bustard: Saudi Prince Allowed To Kill 2,100 Endangered Birds In Pakistan”
While President Obama ran on a pledge to be the most transparent presidency in history, critics have charged that — as with promises to protect civil liberties and international law — Obama has done precisely the opposite of what he promised. His Administration has radically expanded the national security state while fighting every effort in court to challenge unchecked executive powers, including his successful effort to get Congress to dismiss dozens of public interest lawsuits over surveillance, torture, etc. The latest effort of the Obama Administration was to refuse to release even redacted version of legal memoranda on Obama’s use of drones to kill U.S. citizens. I have previously written about Obama Kill list policy in columns and blog posts. What is interesting is that the Obama Administration shows utter contempt for the federal courts in first claiming that any release of redacted classified legal arguments would endanger national security and then, after the district court yielded to the government, proceeding to discuss the very same information in public when it suited the Administration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally said enough. The problem is that the district court did not exercise its authority to reject the clearly excessive claims of the government. It is only because the government contradicted itself — not the facially overboard claims made before the district court. The case is New York Times v. United States Department of Justice, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7387. The case highlights the extreme hostility shown by the Obama Administration to both transparency and the media.
As part of our series of posts on the perils of the press, this one is truly a keeper.
We only recently passed the 20,000,000 mark last February but we just hit 21,000,000, according to WordPress. Congratulations everyone. This has been a banner year for the site with a continuing increase in traffic, links on other sites, and new voices on the blog. These milestones are coming faster and they give us a chance to look at the spread of our regular readers and commentators. As always, I want to offer special thanks for our weekend contributors: Mark Esposito, Eliane Magliaro, Mike Appleton, Larry Rafferty, Charlton Stanley and Darren Smith. The increasing traffic on the site is gratifying and reaffirms that there are many people looking for mature and civil debate. Even among the top ten sites, I believe that we offer a unique forum of different views and backgrounds in the discussion of law and politics (and a few quirky items).
There is an unfolding scandal involving one of the best known gamblers in the world, Phillip Ivey, Jr. who has been accused of card-cheating in baccarat to the tune of $9.6 million. What is striking to me is how such allegations are treated as civil rather than criminal matters, particularly given the allegations by Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa filed in its federal lawsuit against Ivey in using effectively marked cards. The casino reads like a new script for Ocean’s Thirteen with the use of flawed dice created at a Mexican factory. I could find no reference to the lawsuit (or another lawsuit by the Golden Nugget) on Ivey’s website.
Continue reading “Nine-Time Poker Champ Accused Of “Edge Sorting” To Win Millions”
This is a rather bizarre video that I saw on Reddit. As part of Easter, I had to post it.
Continue reading “The Easter Elm? Tree Rises Again After Cutting”
Colonel Sanders was accused in a book of a culinary court-martial with the release of William Poundstone’s “Big Secrets.” Poundstone looked at the claim regarding KFC’s secret ingredients (as well as claims from other companies regarding secret recipes). In the case of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), he did not find “eleven secret herbs and spices.” Indeed, he did not find eleven herbs and spices at all. Just four: flour, salt, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and black pepper. The allegation raises interesting questions over either consumer protection or product disparagement in torts. While it was first published in 2009, I thought (since we just covered this in class) it would be interesting to post.
The French National Assembly have moved toward changing part of the Napoleonic Code and finally recognize that pets are not simply “movable goods” but “living beings capable of feelings.” The new law would allow owners to sue over pain and suffering caused by negligence or wrongful killings. That leads to a rather interesting potential conflict with U.S. law.
The owner said that this dog went after a mole and came back looking like this.
Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Weekend Contributor
We have seen and heard the claims from Donald Rumsfeld and others that the leaked Senate torture report is off base because the enhanced interrogation techniques were not only legal according to the Office of Legal Counsel, but they also produced results. Putting aside the idea that just because an allegedly illegal act is claimed to have been successful in producing actionable intelligence, does not make it any more legal or illegal, is there a reason why we should listen to the participants who authorized the waterboarding and other torture procedures when they claim that all is well?
Now it seems that Donald Rumsfeld has company. “In an uncompromising and wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, his first public remarks since he was linked to the program in 2007, James Mitchell was dismissive of a Senate intelligence committee report on CIA torture in which he features, and which is currently at the heart of an intense row between legislators and the agency.
The committee’s report found that the interrogation techniques devised by Mitchell, a retired air force psychologist, were far more brutal than disclosed at the time, and did not yield useful intelligence. These included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation for days at a time, confinement in a box and being slammed into walls.
But Mitchell, who was reported to have personally waterboarded accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, remains unrepentant. “The people on the ground did the best they could with the way they understood the law at the time,” he said. “You can’t ask someone to put their life on the line and think and make a decision without the benefit of hindsight and then eviscerate them in the press 10 years later.” ‘ Reader Supported News Continue reading “The CIA Psychologist Who Designed the Torture Program Claims It Was Not Torture”
Submitted by Charlton (Chuck) Stanley, Weekend Contributor
This piece could easily have been titled, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis (below, left) discovers the Streisand Effect.
(Official Photo)
The same might be said of Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard. Sometime in February or early March, the Twitter account @Peoriamayor was created, with a picture and fake bio of Mayor Ardis. On or about March 10, the account was labeled a parody, clarifying that it was not really Jim Ardis’ account. That did not deter Ardis, who appears to be as thin-skinned as any politician we have seen recently. He recruited Police Chief Settingsgaard to track down whoever was behind the parody Twitter account.
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
First, there was Citizens United. Now, we have the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the McCutcheon case. It does appear that our country’s campaign finance laws may have been “eviscerated”—as noted by Justice Breyer when he wrote that, taken together with Citizens United, McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”
Corporations are people…money is speech. The more money one has to spend…the more “speech” one can afford to buy—especially where political campaigns are concerned.
Continue reading “Chief Justice Roberts and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission”