The USA is the only country in the world where that is a long term trend. I am happy with my government solutions in Canada 
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Let the riots begin!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...474e3e-a374-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html
BALTIMORE — Jurors deliberated more than 16 hours over three days but still could not reach a verdict in the trial of the first officer to face prosecution in Freddie Gray’s death, forcing an already-weary Baltimore to continue waiting for any resolution in a case that has strained this city for months.
On Wednesday afternoon, Judge Barry G. Williams declared a mistrial.
“You clearly have been diligent,” he told jurors. “You are a hung jury.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...474e3e-a374-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html
BALTIMORE — Jurors deliberated more than 16 hours over three days but still could not reach a verdict in the trial of the first officer to face prosecution in Freddie Gray’s death, forcing an already-weary Baltimore to continue waiting for any resolution in a case that has strained this city for months.
On Wednesday afternoon, Judge Barry G. Williams declared a mistrial.
“You clearly have been diligent,” he told jurors. “You are a hung jury.”
Well, I don't blame them for being upset.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Adios Lindsay Graham. Him leaving might help someone like Rubio or Bush (if he endorses either). Not that he had a ton of support, but South Carolina is an early and very important primary. His endorsement might have some weight into that primary. My assumption is after New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina there will be a mass exodus from the race.
I am typing this post from the DC airport looking out at the Capitol building ... Pundit for 2 hours here
I am typing this post from the DC airport looking out at the Capitol building ... Pundit for 2 hours here
I think he was at 10% in South Carolina, and that's about it. He could make a big difference there if he endorses. Other than that, there goes one of the mildly sane voices in the primary.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Sanity prevails. I hope this does get appealed to the Supreme Court so they can end this nonsense once and for all
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...arks-over-offensive-names-appeals-court-rules
======================================================
An Asian-American rock-band with an eyebrow-raising name has scored a big victory in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The court ruled that their name — The Slants — is private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The government, the court writes, has no business trying to regulate it.
At issue in the case was Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to deny or cancel a trademark if it is "disparaging" of persons, institutions or national symbols.
In a 10-2 decision, the court decided parts of that section were unconstitutional. Conferring a trademark, the court argues, does not make the band's name government speech.
Here's the comparison the majority uses: "The PTO's processing of trademark registrations no more transforms private speech into government speech than when the government issues permits for street parades, copyright registration certificates, or, for that matter, grants medical, hunting, fishing, or drivers licenses, or records property titles, birth certificates, or articles of incorporation."
The founder of the band, Simon Tam, has been fighting this battle for years. As our friend Kat Chow reported for Code Switch earlier this year, Tam understands that the name is offensive, but he views this as an opportunity to reclaim that slight.
On Twitter, Tam said that the decision was "the best present ever."
In its conclusion, the court says it realizes that its decision could mean more registrations of offensive marks.
"But much the same can be (and has been) said of many decisions upholding First Amendment protection of speech that is hurtful or worse," the majority wrote. "Whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others. Even when speech 'inflict great pain,' our Constitution protects it 'to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.'"
A similar case concerning the trademark of the Washington Redskins name is under review by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown Law, said that this decision is headed to the Supreme Court one way or another.
"This is the first real, serious constitutional treatment of the issue," Tushnet said. And since the Lanham Act was passed in 1946, First Amendment law has changed quite a bit.
For example, at the time when the Lanham Act was passed, there was no constitutional protection for commercial speech.
The 4th Circuit, Tushnet says, will read this decision carefully but it's impossible to predict how they will rule.
In a statement, Lee Rowland, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued before the court in October, praised the decision.
"Our First Amendment prevents the government from giving rights and benefits only to people engaged in the 'right kind"' of speech, and that principle holds just as true in the trademark system," she said in a statement. "It should be up to the public, not the government, to drive bad ideas from the marketplace."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...arks-over-offensive-names-appeals-court-rules
======================================================
An Asian-American rock-band with an eyebrow-raising name has scored a big victory in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The court ruled that their name — The Slants — is private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The government, the court writes, has no business trying to regulate it.
At issue in the case was Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to deny or cancel a trademark if it is "disparaging" of persons, institutions or national symbols.
In a 10-2 decision, the court decided parts of that section were unconstitutional. Conferring a trademark, the court argues, does not make the band's name government speech.
Here's the comparison the majority uses: "The PTO's processing of trademark registrations no more transforms private speech into government speech than when the government issues permits for street parades, copyright registration certificates, or, for that matter, grants medical, hunting, fishing, or drivers licenses, or records property titles, birth certificates, or articles of incorporation."
The founder of the band, Simon Tam, has been fighting this battle for years. As our friend Kat Chow reported for Code Switch earlier this year, Tam understands that the name is offensive, but he views this as an opportunity to reclaim that slight.
On Twitter, Tam said that the decision was "the best present ever."
In its conclusion, the court says it realizes that its decision could mean more registrations of offensive marks.
"But much the same can be (and has been) said of many decisions upholding First Amendment protection of speech that is hurtful or worse," the majority wrote. "Whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others. Even when speech 'inflict
A similar case concerning the trademark of the Washington Redskins name is under review by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown Law, said that this decision is headed to the Supreme Court one way or another.
"This is the first real, serious constitutional treatment of the issue," Tushnet said. And since the Lanham Act was passed in 1946, First Amendment law has changed quite a bit.
For example, at the time when the Lanham Act was passed, there was no constitutional protection for commercial speech.
The 4th Circuit, Tushnet says, will read this decision carefully but it's impossible to predict how they will rule.
In a statement, Lee Rowland, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued before the court in October, praised the decision.
"Our First Amendment prevents the government from giving rights and benefits only to people engaged in the 'right kind"' of speech, and that principle holds just as true in the trademark system," she said in a statement. "It should be up to the public, not the government, to drive bad ideas from the marketplace."
That reaction seems a bit extreme to me... the court got this one right, didn't they?
Pretty much. Would I suggest it is career suicide to name your patented thing after a racial slur? Yep. But hey, if you want to be stupid, go for it.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
12 clowns left in the clown car.
Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
I'm avoiding politics on here as well as race, religion, and war, but that does put a huge smile on my face!
Quietly lost in the New Years hubbub: Ben Carson's top 3 campaign aides - campaign manager, deputy campaign manager and communications director - quit on New Years Eve. That's usually a prelude to a candidate dropping out.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but this seems to be a reaction to Carson publically suggesting he was going to fire his top campaign staff that he bumbled out a couple days beforehand. He also took in the biggest fundraising haul of the last quarter - $22m, AKA $2m more than Ted "Telling bankers he won't worry about gay marriage" Cruz.
I think Carson limps into Iowa and quits after coming in 5th there.
I think Carson limps into Iowa and quits after coming in 5th there.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Moron
More than 1,200 emails from Hillary Clinton's private server during her time at the State Department have now been deemed classified, after the agency publicly released its eighth batch of the messages late Thursday.
The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.
While most of those were elevated to the “confidential” level, according to a State Department official, two in the most recent batch were upgraded to the “Secret” level, a more sensitive classification for issues that affect national security.
Clinton, after the scandal about her use of private email broke in March, initially said that there was no classified material on her email account. She has since stressed that she did not send any classified information and that no messages she sent or received were marked classified at the time.
More than 1,200 emails from Hillary Clinton's private server during her time at the State Department have now been deemed classified, after the agency publicly released its eighth batch of the messages late Thursday.
The agency released roughly 5,500 more pages of emails from the private email account that Clinton exclusively used during her four years at Foggy Bottom, with an additional 275 messages now upgraded to classified, bringing the total number of retroactively classified emails that moved through Clinton’s unsecured server to 1,274.
While most of those were elevated to the “confidential” level, according to a State Department official, two in the most recent batch were upgraded to the “Secret” level, a more sensitive classification for issues that affect national security.
Clinton, after the scandal about her use of private email broke in March, initially said that there was no classified material on her email account. She has since stressed that she did not send any classified information and that no messages she sent or received were marked classified at the time.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Interesting SC Cases (full list here https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015)
Evenwel v Abbott
The Texas Constitution requires that the state legislature reapportion its senate districts during the first regular session after every federal census. After the 2010 census, the legislature created a redistricting plan that was signed into law. However, a three-judge panel of the federal district court found that there was a substantial claim that this redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and issued an interim plan for the 2012 primary elections that was subsequently adopted and signed into law.
Plaintiffs Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenniger are registered Texas voters who sued and claimed that the interim plan that was adopted and signed into law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that the new districts do not adhere to the 'one person, one vote' principle, which the Supreme Court had previously held exists in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because they were apportioned based on total population rather than registered voter population, and while the new districts are relatively equal in terms of total population, they vary wildly in relation to total voter population. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim based on Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which allows total population to be the basis for district apportionment. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on the appeal.
Question
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that districting take into account the number of voters rather than the total population?
--------- my thoughts
The court has said before you can exclude total populate, a case where Hawaii wanted to exclude temporary residents (mainly military) for purposes of redistricting. On one hand, apportioning districts based on eligible voters (namely any US citizen over 18 with voting rights intact versus a general count which would include illegals, children, and people with voting rights stripped due to conviction) makes sense, on the other hand, this should be a state issue. My hope would be the court clearly states you can have apportionment based on eligible voters only, but does not require states to use that method. From a practical standpoint, using eligible voters would shift power away from urban areas to the suburbs/rural areas.
--
Bernard v Minnesota
Facts of the case
Police were called to the South St. Paul boat launch, where three men were attempting to pull their boat out of the water and onto their truck. William Robert Bernard, Jr., admitted he had been drinking and had the truck keys in his hands, but he denied driving the truck and refused to perform a field sobriety test. He was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI) and taken to the South St. Paul police station. Bernard was read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory as required by Minnesota state law. The Minnesota law requires a chemical test and refusal is a crime. Bernard refused and was charged with two counts of first-degree test refusal pursuant to state law. In a similar case, Danny Birchfield drove into a ditch in Morton County, North Dakota. When police arrived on the scene, they believed Birchfield was intoxicated. Birchfield failed both the field sobriety tests and the breath test. Birchfield was arrested, but refused to consent to a chemical test, and was charged with a misdemeanor for refusing to consent to a chemical test in violation of state law. In a separate incident, Steve Beylund consented to a blood alcohol test to confirm he was driving under the influence after being informed it was a criminal offense in North Dakota to refuse a blood alcohol test. The test confirmed he was over the legal limit, and Beylund was charged with driving under the influence.
All three men challenged the state statutes criminalizing refusal to submit to a chemical test and argued that the statutes violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when there was no probable cause that would support a warrant for the test. Both the Supreme Court of Minnesota and the Supreme Court of North Dakota determined that criminalizing the refusal to submit to a chemical test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Question
In the absence of a warrant, may a state statute criminalize an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test?
----- my thoughts. Drunk driving is obviously a problem, but taking blood should require a warrant. Sticking a needle in someone goes way beyond a sobriety test.
Betterman v Montana
Facts of the case
Brandon Thomas Betterman failed to appear in court on December 8, 2011, on charges of partner or family member assault, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On February 9, 2012, Betterman turned himself in and stated that he knew he was supposed to appear in court but claimed he had neither money nor transportation to get to the courthouse that day. He was convicted on March 15, 2012, and sentenced to five years. On April 19, 2012, he pled guilty to the charges of jumping bail. His sentence hearing did not occur until January 17, 2013, when he filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he was denied a speedy and fair trial due to the amount of time that had lapsed between his guilty plea and sentencing hearing. On April 29, 2013, his motion was denied, and on June 27, 2013, Betterman was sentenced to seven years for his bail-jumping charge. The Supreme Court of Montana held that the delay between Betterman’s plea and sentencing was unacceptably long but had not violated his rights to fair and speedy trial.
Question
Is it a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial to postpone sentencing for fourteen months after a guilty plea has been issued?
-- My thoughts. Way too long, I doubt the court will set a "this must happen in X time period" standard, but it needs to happen faster than this. There are way too many people sitting in jail awaiting a sentence and/or trial.
Fisher v University of Texas
Facts of the case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.
Question
Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
-- My thoughts .. race should not be a consideration for admissions. There are other ways to do this, economic status can be considered for example. Hopefully the court will finally end this practice once and for all, it has been moving in this direction for some time ... eliminating flat out quotas for example
Friedrichs v California Teachers Association
Facts of the case
California law allows unions to become the exclusive bargaining representative for the public school employees of that district and therefore have a great deal of influence over a wide range of conditions of employment. Once a union is the exclusive bargaining representative for the school district, it may establish an “agency shop” arrangement, which means that a school district may require a public school employee to either join the union or pay the equivalent of dues to the union in the form of a “fair share service fee.” Because the First Amendment prohibits unions from compelling nonmembers to support activities that are not exclusively devoted to negotiations, contract administration, and other duties as an exclusive bargaining representative, unions must send notices to all nonmembers laying out the breakdown of the chargeable and nonchargeable portions of the fee. To avoid paying for the nonchargeable portion of the fee, a nonmember must affirmatively opt out each year.
Petitioners are a group of public school employees who sued the California Teachers Association and other similar organizations as well as school districts and argued that the agency shop arrangement and the opt-out requirement violated the First Amendment. The district court held that precedent upholding those practices precluded its judgment on the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Question
(1) Do public-sector agency shop arrangements violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and assembly?
(2) Does the First Amendment prohibit the practice of requiring public employees to affirmatively opt-out of subsidizing nonchargeable speech rather than to affirmatively consent?
--- My thoughts. This is a huge one, I cannot stand public unions, they wield huge influence in some states/cities generally to the detriment of everyone else. For those complaining about police excess, there is no bigger obstacle to reform than the police union. As far as teachers, they protect bad teachers and oppose many reforms that would make education better. Beyond all that, the idea of a mandatory membership in what is essentially a state sanctioned political group is just flat out wrong and you practically cannot separate administrative fees from political activity. The court can make a major decision here that will benefit the entire country (minus the union bosses).
There are a ton of cases, some pretty important, but these are the ones I am following carefully.
Evenwel v Abbott
The Texas Constitution requires that the state legislature reapportion its senate districts during the first regular session after every federal census. After the 2010 census, the legislature created a redistricting plan that was signed into law. However, a three-judge panel of the federal district court found that there was a substantial claim that this redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and issued an interim plan for the 2012 primary elections that was subsequently adopted and signed into law.
Plaintiffs Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenniger are registered Texas voters who sued and claimed that the interim plan that was adopted and signed into law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that the new districts do not adhere to the 'one person, one vote' principle, which the Supreme Court had previously held exists in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because they were apportioned based on total population rather than registered voter population, and while the new districts are relatively equal in terms of total population, they vary wildly in relation to total voter population. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim based on Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which allows total population to be the basis for district apportionment. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on the appeal.
Question
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that districting take into account the number of voters rather than the total population?
--------- my thoughts
The court has said before you can exclude total populate, a case where Hawaii wanted to exclude temporary residents (mainly military) for purposes of redistricting. On one hand, apportioning districts based on eligible voters (namely any US citizen over 18 with voting rights intact versus a general count which would include illegals, children, and people with voting rights stripped due to conviction) makes sense, on the other hand, this should be a state issue. My hope would be the court clearly states you can have apportionment based on eligible voters only, but does not require states to use that method. From a practical standpoint, using eligible voters would shift power away from urban areas to the suburbs/rural areas.
--
Bernard v Minnesota
Facts of the case
Police were called to the South St. Paul boat launch, where three men were attempting to pull their boat out of the water and onto their truck. William Robert Bernard, Jr., admitted he had been drinking and had the truck keys in his hands, but he denied driving the truck and refused to perform a field sobriety test. He was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI) and taken to the South St. Paul police station. Bernard was read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory as required by Minnesota state law. The Minnesota law requires a chemical test and refusal is a crime. Bernard refused and was charged with two counts of first-degree test refusal pursuant to state law. In a similar case, Danny Birchfield drove into a ditch in Morton County, North Dakota. When police arrived on the scene, they believed Birchfield was intoxicated. Birchfield failed both the field sobriety tests and the breath test. Birchfield was arrested, but refused to consent to a chemical test, and was charged with a misdemeanor for refusing to consent to a chemical test in violation of state law. In a separate incident, Steve Beylund consented to a blood alcohol test to confirm he was driving under the influence after being informed it was a criminal offense in North Dakota to refuse a blood alcohol test. The test confirmed he was over the legal limit, and Beylund was charged with driving under the influence.
All three men challenged the state statutes criminalizing refusal to submit to a chemical test and argued that the statutes violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when there was no probable cause that would support a warrant for the test. Both the Supreme Court of Minnesota and the Supreme Court of North Dakota determined that criminalizing the refusal to submit to a chemical test was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Question
In the absence of a warrant, may a state statute criminalize an individual’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test?
----- my thoughts. Drunk driving is obviously a problem, but taking blood should require a warrant. Sticking a needle in someone goes way beyond a sobriety test.
Betterman v Montana
Facts of the case
Brandon Thomas Betterman failed to appear in court on December 8, 2011, on charges of partner or family member assault, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On February 9, 2012, Betterman turned himself in and stated that he knew he was supposed to appear in court but claimed he had neither money nor transportation to get to the courthouse that day. He was convicted on March 15, 2012, and sentenced to five years. On April 19, 2012, he pled guilty to the charges of jumping bail. His sentence hearing did not occur until January 17, 2013, when he filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he was denied a speedy and fair trial due to the amount of time that had lapsed between his guilty plea and sentencing hearing. On April 29, 2013, his motion was denied, and on June 27, 2013, Betterman was sentenced to seven years for his bail-jumping charge. The Supreme Court of Montana held that the delay between Betterman’s plea and sentencing was unacceptably long but had not violated his rights to fair and speedy trial.
Question
Is it a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial to postpone sentencing for fourteen months after a guilty plea has been issued?
-- My thoughts. Way too long, I doubt the court will set a "this must happen in X time period" standard, but it needs to happen faster than this. There are way too many people sitting in jail awaiting a sentence and/or trial.
Fisher v University of Texas
Facts of the case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.
Question
Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
-- My thoughts .. race should not be a consideration for admissions. There are other ways to do this, economic status can be considered for example. Hopefully the court will finally end this practice once and for all, it has been moving in this direction for some time ... eliminating flat out quotas for example
Friedrichs v California Teachers Association
Facts of the case
California law allows unions to become the exclusive bargaining representative for the public school employees of that district and therefore have a great deal of influence over a wide range of conditions of employment. Once a union is the exclusive bargaining representative for the school district, it may establish an “agency shop” arrangement, which means that a school district may require a public school employee to either join the union or pay the equivalent of dues to the union in the form of a “fair share service fee.” Because the First Amendment prohibits unions from compelling nonmembers to support activities that are not exclusively devoted to negotiations, contract administration, and other duties as an exclusive bargaining representative, unions must send notices to all nonmembers laying out the breakdown of the chargeable and nonchargeable portions of the fee. To avoid paying for the nonchargeable portion of the fee, a nonmember must affirmatively opt out each year.
Petitioners are a group of public school employees who sued the California Teachers Association and other similar organizations as well as school districts and argued that the agency shop arrangement and the opt-out requirement violated the First Amendment. The district court held that precedent upholding those practices precluded its judgment on the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Question
(1) Do public-sector agency shop arrangements violate the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and assembly?
(2) Does the First Amendment prohibit the practice of requiring public employees to affirmatively opt-out of subsidizing nonchargeable speech rather than to affirmatively consent?
--- My thoughts. This is a huge one, I cannot stand public unions, they wield huge influence in some states/cities generally to the detriment of everyone else. For those complaining about police excess, there is no bigger obstacle to reform than the police union. As far as teachers, they protect bad teachers and oppose many reforms that would make education better. Beyond all that, the idea of a mandatory membership in what is essentially a state sanctioned political group is just flat out wrong and you practically cannot separate administrative fees from political activity. The court can make a major decision here that will benefit the entire country (minus the union bosses).
There are a ton of cases, some pretty important, but these are the ones I am following carefully.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Pretty important moment for her, she seems to be pretty high on most lists for a VP pick.
===================================
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley will deliver the response to President Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address on Tuesday, her office confirmed.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked Haley to deliver the Republican response to Obama’s speech on Jan. 12. She described the entreaty as an honor and gave a sense of what she would speak about.
Story Continued Below
“This is a time of great challenges for our country, but also of great opportunities,” Haley said in a statement. “I intend to speak about both.”
Haley, a potential vice presidential pick, was reelected as South Carolina’s governor in November 2014. Born to Indian immigrants in Bamberg, South Carolina, she is the first female and first minority governor of the state. At 43, Haley is also the youngest governor in the country.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/haley-sotu-217369#ixzz3wPoVjR9i
===================================
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley will deliver the response to President Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address on Tuesday, her office confirmed.
House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked Haley to deliver the Republican response to Obama’s speech on Jan. 12. She described the entreaty as an honor and gave a sense of what she would speak about.
Story Continued Below
“This is a time of great challenges for our country, but also of great opportunities,” Haley said in a statement. “I intend to speak about both.”
Haley, a potential vice presidential pick, was reelected as South Carolina’s governor in November 2014. Born to Indian immigrants in Bamberg, South Carolina, she is the first female and first minority governor of the state. At 43, Haley is also the youngest governor in the country.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/haley-sotu-217369#ixzz3wPoVjR9i
Non-white high-profile female governor? I bet she's already been talked to by at least three candidates. But not Trump.