WASHINGTON — “No matter how the current nomination of Judge [Brett] Kavanaugh [, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee,] plays out,” said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford, “I suspect the court will be exceptionally eager to demonstrate how law is different from politics — that is, that it’s not a political body.”
“I expect many justices may make an extra effort to find common ground with unlikely allies,” he said. “The court’s legitimacy as an apolitical institution is going to be on the line to a greater degree, perhaps, than at any time in our lifetimes,” but while the court’s low-key docket may help serve as a balm, the cases it will hear could ripple widely, posing threats to potential prosecutions of Trump’s associates and perhaps eventually to abortion rights, and big cases are in the pipeline, including ones on gerrymandering, gay rights, and immigration.
The latest intrusion of politics into the Supreme Court is similar to one two years ago, when it started a new term with an empty seat after Senate Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. The term that followed set a modern record for consensus.
They didn't consider it because Scalia was murdered to make way for the Obama appointment.
That did not last long. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, joined the court last year, and his first full term was marked by a series of sharply divided conservative victories on major issues.
Now, as the court faces another transition, it has again put together a quiet docket, said Kannon Shanmugam, a lawyer with Williams & Connolly. “This term is loaded with meat-and-potatoes cases, not blockbusters,” he said. “This will be a year for the case books, not the history books. At a volatile time, the court has filled its docket so far with nonvolatile cases.”
Still, the new term will provide important clues about where the court is headed. For instance, the justices have agreed to hear an unusually large number of appeals asking them to overturn precedents. The outcome of those cases could provide hints about the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
One precedent at risk concerns the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which forbids subsequent prosecutions for the same crimes. The Supreme Court has made one exception, saying that the federal government and the states are independent sovereigns, meaning that the same conduct can be prosecuted separately in state and federal courts.
I'm a little wary about the government having two bites at the apple, but okay.
In 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, called for a fresh look at whether the exception makes sense. “The matter warrants attention in a future case in which a defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole USA,” she wrote.
Its answer may have implications for legal problems faced by associates of Trump. Should he pardon them for federal crimes, a Supreme Court ruling narrowing the definition of double jeopardy could complicate attempts by state prosecutors to pursue parallel charges.
Other precedents under attack concern whether lawsuits may be brought against state governments in the courts of other states, and procedures for suing in federal court over government’s use of eminent domain to take private property.....
Yeah, the government seizing your property isn't important.
Must be why the pre$$ is keeping quiet about it.
--more--"
As for loudness, there is this stumbling drunk that the Globe drank under the table:
"Yale classmate accuses Brett Kavanaugh of ‘blatant mischaracterization’ of his drinking" by Michael D. Shear and Robin Pogrebin New York Times October 01, 2018
WASHINGTON — The FBI moved on Sunday to quickly complete an abbreviated investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, even as Democrats demanded more information about the inquiry’s scope, warning that its apparent constraints could make it a “farce.”
As agents conducted their review, which involves interviewing four potential witnesses, a college professor in North Carolina became the latest in a series of former Yale classmates of Kavanaugh’s to accuse him of giving untruthful testimony by minimizing his use of alcohol when he was a student.
I wouldn't blame him if he wanted one now.
Chad Ludington, a professor, accused Kavanaugh of a “blatant mischaracterization” of his drinking in college. Ludington said he frequently saw Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption” during their student years.
“It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges,” Ludington said in a statement.
My printed story tells me he has donated to Democrats, so we shall see if this NYT rewrite excised that or not.
He said he planned to tell his story to the FBI at its office in Raleigh, N.C., on Monday. A spokesman for the White House declined to comment on Ludington’s allegations.
Makes you wonder why he waited all this time.
After all, Kavanaugh garnered impeccable credentials for the 12 years he sat on the second highest court in the land. How many people were harmed by this monster and his decisions as all these people sat silent?
Officials said the FBI’s “limited” supplemental background check of Kavanaugh could be finished by Monday morning. Set in motion late last week by three Senate Republicans, the inquiry was supposed to shed further light on accusations that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct during his high school and college years and help resolve the fierce national debate over whether he should win confirmation to the Supreme Court, but the investigation’s apparent narrow reach has infuriated the judge’s critics, who said he should be subjected to a wide-ranging examination of his drinking and possible sexual misconduct.
Oh, that's why this charge needed to be liquored up at this time.
I'm not saying Kavanaugh was never soused, and if he misrepresented to Congre$$, well, he wouldn't be the first (Brennan and Clapper come to mind); however, if the bar is now going to be inability to hold alcohol as a teenager and of being ashamed of that fact, it's over. We might as well appoint tee-totaling preachers to every prominent position -- except they, too, are rife with sexual misconduct.
I guess the only solution is to turn the government over to women (only certain kind of women, of course) and have all the men either castrated or killed.
The FBI was directed by the White House and Senate Republicans to interview the four people: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth, high school friends of Kavanaugh’s; Leland Keyser, a high school friend of one of Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford; and Deborah Ramirez, another accuser.
Ford, a California university professor, has accused Kavanaugh of trying to rape her during a high school gathering, and Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh at Yale, has said he exposed himself to her at a dorm room party. He has forcefully denied both allegations.
Ramirez has spoken with FBI agents, providing names of others who she said could corroborate her account, according to a person familiar with the matter who couldn’t discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
They found some people, huh?
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Kavanaugh denied that he had ever drunk alcohol to the point of blacking out, but Ludington, a former basketball player at Yale, said in a statement that he could “unequivocally say” that Kavanaugh had “not told the truth.”
He said Kavanaugh had often become “belligerent and aggressive” while intoxicated during his first two years at Yale. Ludington recalled one incident in which he said Kavanaugh threw a beer in someone’s face, “starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”
Ah, an angry drunk, and that should be pretty easy to run down and confirm. If a fight ended up with a metal friend in jail, there would be a police report at least, if not a newspaper article.
Kavanaugh's entire confirmation could hinge on this.
That description was challenged by Chris Dudley, a former NBA player and close friend of Kavanaugh who attended Yale and played basketball with Ludington. Dudley said he was certain that he “never, ever saw Brett Kavanaugh black out” from drinking, and “never, ever saw him act inappropriately toward any woman in the 35 years that I’ve known him.”
Dudley is from the same cla$$ so we dismiss his comments. Basketball players are always whining about foul calls.
The dueling statements emerged as the political combat around Kavanaugh’s confirmation process intensified. Democrats lashed out over the size and shape of the inquiry, saying it threatened to become a sham that would deepen the country’s divisions about Kavanaugh’s nomination.
The Dems complaining were Hirono of Hawaii and Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Democrats were to some degree in the dark about the inquiry’s parameters. In a letter to Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, and Christopher A. Wray, the FBI director, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, asked for a copy of the directive sent by the White House to the bureau laying out the scope of the investigation.
“If the FBI requests any expansion beyond the initial directive, please provide the names of any additional witnesses or evidence,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California wrote in the letter.
Oh, the IRONY after she sat on the alleged letter from Ford for two months!!!
I would expect the White House to fulfill her request about as fast as the DoJ and FBI respond to requests from the House Intelligence Committee regarding the Clinton emails and the Obama spying.
It is not unusual for the White House to specify the scope of a request for additional background information on a nominee. No evidence has emerged that the White House has forbidden any investigative steps, and President Trump has said he wants agents “to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion.”
Thus the Democrats are hurling more false charges. That's all they got.
The Democratic complaints about the inquiry have stoked Trump’s anger at McGahn and Senate Republicans for how they have handled Kavanaugh’s nomination, according to two people briefed on the matter.
I don't blame him, and after November he will have to work with them.
After Ford’s accusations came to light, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee invited her to testify. She riveted the nation Thursday as she recounted what she said was a rape attempt by a drunken Kavanaugh when they were in high school.
Did you see the look on their faces?
The next day, three Republican senators — Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — demanded the renewed background check before proceeding to a full Senate vote.
In a call to Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, nine days ago from his Bedminster, N.J., country club, Trump unleashed an expletive-filled tirade, telling McConnell that he had let the process get away from him.
That is what the New York Times says, and it is looking more and more like they made that up.
Trump told associates that the Republicans and McGahn had erred by not quickly holding a full Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination on Friday, after the Judiciary Committee advanced it along party lines, according to two people briefed on the matter. The president said that senators like Flake who were wavering about the nomination should have been forced to vote against Kavanaugh and suffer the political consequences, the people said.
Kavanaugh portrayed himself during a Fox News interview last week and in his Senate testimony on Thursday as enjoying a beer or two as a high school and college student, but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years.
A number of people who overlapped with Kavanaugh at Yale or at Georgetown Preparatory School, the Catholic high school he attended — and who contacted the FBI this weekend to share information about him or his fraternity — expressed frustration with the limited scope of the background investigation.
One of those people, Tad Low, who was a year behind Kavanaugh at Yale, said that he spoke to a low-level agent on Saturday but had heard nothing since, an experience repeated some other Yale graduates.
A Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh said he contacted the office of Senator Klobuchar to report concerns about what he saw as the judge’s dishonesty about drinking. The senator’s office told the classmate that his information would be passed on to the FBI, but by Sunday evening he had not been contacted by anyone at the bureau.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that accusations of heavy drinking were “directly relevant” to the sexual misconduct charges against Kavanaugh. He said, “If the FBI investigation isn’t artificially limited in scope by the president to become meaningless, it will have to look into these discrepancies.”
As Democrats tried to sound alarms that the White House may be constraining the FBI’s work, One key Democrat member of the party indicated that if his party the Democrats won control of the House in November and Kavanaugh made it through the Senate, he would have no choice but to more fully investigate the claims against him.....
There you go. Rather than working to improve the lives of the citizens of this country or end the rotten wars, they are going to immediately investigate and impeach!
They just guaranteed a Trump reelection if he makes it that far.
--more--"
So what's the next charge, he snorted condoms while in college?
The Globe is calling for a real investigation to get at the truth.
Also see:
Jeff Flake set to speak at Boston’s City Hall Plaza on Monday
He will be staying overnight as the city’s latest boutique hotel before he takes a few questions after his speech.
"As “S.N.L.” began its 44th season this weekend, its first opening sketch brought in Matt Damon to play Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh in a recreation of Thursday’s contentious testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Damon portrayed Kavanaugh as defiant, opening his remarks by saying: “I’m going to start at an 11. I’m going to take it to about a 15 real quick.” He was maudlin, breaking into tears whenever mentioning his former classmates and his notorious calendar, and constantly swigging from glasses of water. In character, Damon described himself as an optimist — “a keg-is-half-full kind of guy” — but also as someone who would fight for his nomination: “I don’t know the meaning of the word ‘stop,’” he said..... "
Neither does his friend Affleck (that's not what I heard and it broke my heart), and Damon was able to skate away from the Weinstein association without getting scathed (here is one of his willing conquests, btw, with the pervert Spielberg in attendance along with other untouchables).
"Third Kavanaugh accuser has history of legal disputes" Associated Press October 01, 2018
Julie Swetnick was accused of falsifying her work history (Michael Avenatti via AP).
WASHINGTON — Julie Swetnick, one of the women who has publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, has an extensive history of involvement in legal disputes, including a lawsuit in which a former employer accused her of falsifying her college and work history on her job application.
I'm so glad to see the pre$$ do the investigating all the bloggers have already completed.
As usual, they are weeks late and words short.
Legal documents provide a partial picture of a woman who stepped into the media glare amid the battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination for the nation’s highest court.
Court records reviewed by the Associated Press show Swetnick has been involved in at least six legal cases over the past 25 years. Along with the lawsuit filed by a former employer in November 2000, the cases include a personal injury suit she filed in 1994 against the Washington, D.C., regional transit authority.
Her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that court cases involving her have no bearing on the credibility of her claims about Kavanaugh. Avenatti said the suit from her former employer — it was dismissed a month after it was filed — was ‘‘completely bogus, which is why it was dismissed almost immediately.’’
He said that he ‘‘fully vetted’’ Swetnick before helping her take her claims against Kavanaugh public.
DID HE?
So what was she doing at a party with minors?
Ann Simonton, a nationally recognized advocate for rape survivors and director of Media Watch, a media literacy organization, cautioned that many sexual abuse survivors encounter chaos and trouble later in life — things can tarnish a survivor’s image but don’t necessarily speak to the legitimacy of the underlying abuse allegations. ‘‘This type of trauma will impact your daily life forever,’’ she said.
Swetnick has said she is willing to be interviewed by either Congress or the FBI.
Records in the lawsuit filed in late 2000 by her former employer, Oregon-based software company Webtrends, don’t indicate why it was dismissed. Avenatti said there was a settlement in the case but no money changed hands.....
What you come to find is the article is vague as to any of the cases, while omitting the restraint orders filed by a former boyfriend due to threats Swetnick made along the lines of killing his wife and baby -- as if the Globe is shielding her credibility for scrutiny.
--more--"
I hate to say people look nuts because you can't possibly no from a photograph, so I will leave to impression and judgement up to you.
In any event, the smelly reality is it is time to show Kavanaugh the door. There will be no privilege defense and no one is coming to his rescue. Time to either commit him or take him out back of the bowling alley and shoot him or have terrorists blow up his car.
He won't even be allowed to coach soccer anymore.
UNH police retract report of attempted robbery on campus
You mean a that "female student report to police that a man had cornered her behind the Memorial Union Building and that she foiled the robbery by drawing a knife from her backpack, which prompting the man to run away and drop her ID," never happened?
But you gotta believe, right?
For the record, I am for outfitting all women with guns or whatever weapon they would choose for themselves. I think you will find the assault cases take a serious dip, and if a few men get killed in the process, all the better. They probably deserve it anyway.
"A long-running pageant contest in Vermont has announced it is allowing boys to compete for the first time. The Rutland Herald reports Rutland County’s annual Pumpkin Princess Pageant will be now known as the Pumpkin Royalty Contest. Event organizer Nikki Adams says they wanted to add the male aspect because “gender doesn’t matter when it comes to being a good person.” Participating high schools will nominate their candidate for prince and princess among their junior and senior classes. This year marks the contest’s 53rd year."
I no longer believe that.
What I now believe is all men are evil and worthy of death while only some women are to be believed.
Like this one:
"For Warren, ‘engaged and enraged’ Democratic women strong base for potential presidential run" by John Hilliard Globe Correspondent October 01, 2018
A favorite of progressives and the party faithful, Senator Elizabeth Warren has appeared emboldened by the growing anger toward President Trump and his conservative base. That anger, particularly among women, was never more apparent than on Thursday, when Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was questioned about sexual assault allegations before a Senate panel.
As a high-profile Democrat, Warren is well-positioned to tap into the anti-Trump sentiment, particularly among female voters, said Ray La Raja, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
“I think she has seen that women in the Democratic party . . . are engaged and enraged, and that is a strong base for her,” La Raja said. Democrats want someone who is “a fighter, someone who is compelling emotionally,” he added.
It's not about facts or positions, it's about emotion. What a way to run a country -- or a life, for that matter!
Yeah, that kind of angry base meets with no condemnation and total approval from the Globe.
Noting the record number of women running for Congress this year, Rachael Cobb, chairwoman of the political science department at Suffolk University, said Warren appears to be putting up a “trial balloon,” ahead of what will likely be a crowded field for Democrats running for president in 2020.
“I think this is a critical event in American politics and will have long-lasting repercussions,” Cobb said.
Yeah, the investigation into the malfeasance and treason over at the DoJ and FBI will be delayed, and powerful committee chairmen will no longer be sitting atop those committees.
Warren is facing Republican state Representative Geoff Diehl in the Nov. 6 election. Diehl on Sunday said Warren should drop out, in light of her interest in a White House run.
“She owed it to the people to be honest with them long before yesterday. I’m renewing my call for her to drop out of this race now that it’s abundantly clear she’ll be spending the next two years ignoring the needs of the people of the Commonwealth focusing, instead, on her own political profile,” Diehl said in a statement to the Globe Sunday night.
No, no, no, only certain people have to be honest.
The ones that think like the pre$$ and Globe, not so much.
Warren’s office said Sunday night she will not drop out of the race and “she continues to fight for working families.”
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said Warren was doing a disservice to voters by eyeing the White House while running for reelection to the Senate.
“We have a senator who doesn’t want to be a senator running for the Senate,” Ford said. “It’s bizarre,” he added.
One national conservative strategist said Warren’s interest in the White House could harm Democrats running next month in more conservative-leaning areas of the country.
“I’m a little surprised by the timing. Interjecting herself into the national consciousness right now is not a good idea for Democrats nationally,” said Jon McHenry, who is based in Virginia.
The prospect of a Warren candidacy could pose a problem for centrist Democrats such as West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin ahead of the November midterms.
“Getting a lot of questions about Liz Warren is not a way to maintain those [centrist] credentials,” McHenry said.
I don't think a lot of people in the rest of the country give a damn about what some Massachusetts senator said, sorry -- regardless of her gender or presidential aspirations.
In Holyoke, Warren linked her potential candidacy to damage she sees President Trump doing to the country, and how Republicans handled sexual assault accusations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh.
Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers growing up in the Maryland suburbs. Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusations in a senate hearing last week. The FBI is now investigating the validity of the claims.
Warren said she watched “powerful men helping a powerful man make it to an even more powerful position,” as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 along party lines to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate.
At the town hall, she noted those who have “less power” go beyond women, and include the nation’s LGBTQ community, immigrants, seniors, and students saddled with debt.
You think identity politics is going to win you the electoral college still?
“This is about power . . . who’s got it and who doesn’t plan to let it go,” Warren said. “So I will tell you this: Today, I am angry.”
So she agrees with Lindsey Graham, 'eh?
--more--"
The Globe has already endorsed her.
"‘I’m a victim of sexual assault,’ Kellyanne Conway says" by Mihir Zaveri New York Times September 30, 2018
Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to President Trump, said Sunday that she was a victim of sexual assault and that the Supreme Court confirmation proceedings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh should not become a broader “meeting” of the #MeToo movement, suggesting instead that victims hold their assailants directly accountable.
Conway made the personal revelation during an interview with Jake Tapper on the CNN program “State of the Union” during which she largely derided the “partisan politics” of Kavanaugh’s hearing Thursday.
Christine Blasey Ford said during the hearing that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her decades ago when they were teenagers, an allegation he then angrily denied.
Many, including Democratic senators, have seen Ford’s testimony as a rallying cry for survivors of sexual abuse, saying that a vote for Kavanaugh would be an endorsement of not only the alleged behavior but of a culture that condones it and dismisses its victims.
Conway pushed back.
“I feel very empathetic, frankly, for victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment and rape,” Conway said. She then cleared her throat.
“I’m a victim of sexual assault,” she said. “I don’t expect Judge Kavanaugh or Jake Tapper or Jeff Flake or anybody to be held responsible for that. You have to be responsible for your own conduct.”
She was referring to Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, who had been confronted by two women who said they were sexual abuse victims about his intention to vote for Kavanaugh’s nomination. Conway said those women should “go blame the perpetrator.”
Tapper later said, “This is the first time I’ve ever heard you talk about something personal like that,” adding, “I’m really sorry that you went through that.” He asked a question, noting that Conway works for Trump, who has denied allegations of sexual misconduct.
“Don’t conflate that with this and certainly don’t conflate that with what happened to me,” Conway responded. “Let’s not always bring Trump into everything that happens in this universe. That’s mistake No. 1.”
I just want to take a minute to express my utmost respect for this woman who is too often sold short by the pre$$. She was the first woman to ever head a campaign that won the presidency. Somehow that historic accomplishment is forgotten by the ma$$ media, and she is also as smart as a whip.
In an interview with MSNBC in 2016, Conway said that when she was younger, she knew members of Congress who were “rubbing up against girls, sticking their tongues down women’s throats who, uninvited, who didn’t like it.”
It appears to be okay as long as it is Democrats doing it.
At Politico’s Women Rule Summit more than a year later, Conway referred to that interview, saying that some members of Congress had tried to “shove their tongue down my throat or rub or do worse,” but asserted that “nobody wanted to hear about it” because she was aligned with Trump.
Yeah, she is in that Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick category.
You know, the women you can't believe.
“Every time that happened to me, when I was younger and in the workplace, every time that happened to me, I always told a friend, I always told a female relative,” she said. “There is shame involved because you tend to think it’s on you, ‘It’s your fault,’ somehow.”
Conway said at the summit that she never saw those men as powerful after the encounters. “I looked at them as weak and pathetic,” she said.
She has a remarkably perceptive attitude, too.
It was not clear if those experiences were the basis of her comments to Tapper.
She told Tapper she found Ford “compelling” and “credible,” but she suggested that perhaps Ford was misremembering who was responsible for the assault, and expressed support for Kavanaugh.
“They both could be right that something truly awful happened to her in the summer of 1982 by someone, somehow, somewhere, and that Judge Kavanaugh was not involved,” she said.
Victims often maintains that they identified the right man even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
Conway said that all victims of sexual assault should be heard in courts of law and in criminal or civil proceedings. She emphasized that the Senate proceedings were not a criminal trial, but a hearing on whether Kavanaugh was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
“But we do treat people differently who are either the victims or perpetrators of this based on their politics and based on their gender,” Conway said.
She did not go into further detail about her own experience and could not immediately be reached for comment Sunday.
Pre$$ wants all the salacious details.
--more--"
It must be hell going back to that house at night.
UPDATE: "There's a conspiracy theory that once Kavanaugh loses on the basis that arrogant entitled frat boys can't be on the Supreme Court, Trump then pulls an even more conservative woman nominee out of his back pocket, who sails through the process without the slightest notice of politics but simply on the basis that she isn't an arrogant entitled frat boy. Kavanaugh, literally a scapegoat, isn't lost - he goes back to his old position - and the principle is established, again, that irrelevancies trump over real-world consequences." -- xymphora
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
"Trump administration may propose a major weakening of mercury emissions rules" by Coral Davenport New York Times September 30, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has completed a detailed proposal to dramatically weaken a major environmental regulation covering mercury, a toxic chemical emitted from coal-burning power plants, according to a person who has seen the document but is not authorized to speak publicly about it.
Looks like bad chemistry to me.
The proposal would not eliminate the regulation but is designed to put in place the legal justification for the Trump administration to weaken it and several other pollution rules, while setting the stage for a possible full repeal of the rule.
Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who is now acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to send the proposal to the White House soon.
It would be one of the most significant moves in the Trump administration’s march of rollbacks of Obama-era health and environmental regulations on polluting industries, particularly coal. Weakening the mercury rule — which the EPA considers the most expensive clean air regulation ever put forth, in terms of annual cost to industry — would represent a major victory for the coal industry.
That Obama put in place in December of 2016 after eight long years in office.
They don't tell you that.
Mercury is known to damage the nervous systems of children and fetuses.
A rollback would represent a victory for Wheeler’s former boss, Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., one of the largest coal companies. Murray, who was a major donor to President Trump’s inauguration fund, requested the rollback of the mercury rule soon after Trump took office, in a written “wish list” he handed to Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
The proposal would also hand a victory to former clients of William Wehrum, the EPA’s top clean air official and chief author of the plan. Wehrum worked for years as a lawyer for companies that run coal-fired power plants.
He's grounded in the business.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
The proposal also highlights a key opinion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the embattled Supreme Court nominee.
He is getting dragged into every article!
The coal industry initially sued to roll back the mercury regulation, but in 2014 lost its case in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion in that case, highlighting questions about the rule’s cost to industry.
Should a legal battle over the proposed regulatory rollback go before the Supreme Court, some observers expect that Kavanaugh, if elevated to a seat on the high court, would side with the coal industry.
Don't worry, he won't be deciding anything.
Specifically, the proposal would repeal a 2011 finding by the EPA that when the government regulates toxic pollution such as mercury from coal-fired power plants, it must also, when considering the cost to industry, take into account the additional health benefits of reducing other pollutants as a side effect of implementing the regulation. Under the mercury program, the economic benefits of those health effects, known as “co-benefits,” helped to provide a legal and economic justification for the cost to industry of the regulation.
And yet they let the Flint water go to sh*t.
For example, as power plants have complied with the rule by installing technology to reduce mercury emissions, they created the side benefit of reducing pollution of soot and nitrogen oxide, pollutants linked to asthma and lung disease.
That's why you could breathe easier.
The Obama administration estimated it would cost the electric utility industry $9.6 billion a year to install mercury control technology, making it the most expensive clean air regulation ever put forth by the government. It found that reducing mercury brings up to $6 billion annually in health benefits — a high number, but not as high as the cost to industry.
However, it further justified the regulation by citing an additional $80 billion in health benefits from the additional reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide that occur as a side effect of controlling mercury.
The new proposal directs the EPA to no longer take into account those “co-benefits” when considering the economic impact of a regulation.
--more--"
Related: Shell, partners approve huge $31 billion LNG Canada project
{@@##$$%%^^&&}
Looks like it is back to court:
"Supreme Court rules for police officer in excessive force case" by Adam Liptak New York Times April 02, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for an Arizona police officer who shot a woman outside her home in Tucson. The court’s decision was unsigned and issued without full briefing and oral argument, an indication that the majority found the case to be easy, but in an impassioned dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had gone badly astray.
“Its decision is not just wrong on the law; it also sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public,” she wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.”
If they think their life is in danger.
The case started in 2010 when three police officers responded to a 911 call reporting that a woman had been seen acting erratically by hacking at a tree with a knife.
They saw Sharon Chadwick standing in the driveway of a house. A second woman, Amy Hughes, emerged from the house, holding a kitchen knife. She stopped 6 feet from Chadwick.
Although the officers did not know it, the two women were roommates. Hughes was not moving, spoke calmly, held the knife at her side, and made no aggressive movements.
Chadwick later said she did not feel threatened and that Hughes had appeared composed.
The officers drew their guns and told Hughes to drop the knife, but it is not clear that she heard them. Officer Andrew Kisela opened fire, shooting Hughes four times.
Screaming and bleeding, Hughes asked, “Why’d you shoot me?”
She survived and sued the officer for using excessive force. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, allowed the case to proceed.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields officials from suits over violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.
That looks like police state fascism to me!
The majority did not decide whether Kisela’s actions violated the Constitution, but it did say there was no clear precedent that would have alerted him that opening fire in what he said was an effort to protect Chadwick amounted to unconstitutionally excessive force.
Time to take a knee.
In dissent, Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the majority’s reasoning was perplexing.
“Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that only one officer had opened fire.
Sotomayor said a jury should have been allowed to decide the case.
“Because Kisela plainly lacked any legitimate interest justifying the use of deadly force against a woman who posed no objective threat of harm to officers or others, had committed no crime, and appeared calm and collected during the police encounter,” Sotomayor wrote, “he was not entitled to qualified immunity.”
--more--"
I would expect more of these cases as police forces shrink and the workload grows.
Related:
Dorchester man arrested after police find guns and drugs inside home
Victim of police involved shooting in NH allegedly died with gun in hand, police say
Man, woman found shot to death in Woonsocket, R.I., home
Police recover body of missing swimmer off Truro coast
They also found another whale dead.
Time to get out of town:
"Supreme Court rules for car dealerships in overtime case" by Jessica Gresko Associated Press April 02, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that car dealerships’ service advisers, like car salesmen and mechanics, are exempt under federal law from overtime pay requirements.
The court ruled 5-4 that service advisers, who greet customers and propose various repair services, are salespeople. The case affects the more than 18,000 dealerships nationwide. Together, they employ more than 100,000 service advisers.
The case before the high court involved a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Encino, Calif., and several current and former service advisers. Each side had a different interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says that ‘‘any salesman . . . primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles’’ doesn’t have to be paid overtime.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that the ‘‘ordinary meaning of ‘salesman’ is someone who sells goods or services’’ and that service advisers ‘‘do precisely that.’’
In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that because service advisers ‘‘neither sell nor repair automobiles’’ they should not be exempt from overtime payments.
The issue came to the high court after the Department of Labor changed its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2011. For the three decades up to then, the department operated under the view that service advisers didn’t have to be paid overtime.....
You know what the answer is, right?
They never complain about overtime.
--more--"
Related:
Hundreds of migrant children quietly moved to a tent camp on the Texas border
There are U.S. citizens living in tent camps all across this country, and the pre$$ rarely, if ever, covers it.
Also see:
"California Governor Jerry Brown signed the nation’s toughest Net neutrality measure Sunday, requiring Internet providers to maintain a level playing field online. Advocates hope the move will have national implications, prompting Congress to enact national neutrality rules or encouraging other states to follow suit. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission repealed rules that prevented Internet companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see. California’s law is likely to face a legal challenge. Telecommunications companies lobbied hard to kill it or water it down, saying it would lead to higher Internet and cellphone bills and discourage investments in a faster Internet. They said it’s unrealistic to expect them to comply with regulations that differ from state to state. Net neutrality advocates worry that without rules, providers could create fast lanes that favor their own sites and apps or slow lanes that make it harder for consumers to see content from competitors. That could limit consumer choice or shut out upstart companies that can’t afford the fast lane, critics said. The California measure prohibits Internet providers from blocking or slowing data based on content or from favoring websites or video streams from companies that pay extra. It also bans ‘‘zero rating,’’ in which providers don’t count certain content against a monthly data cap — generally video streams produced by the company’s own subsidiaries and partners. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have adopted Net neutrality regulations, but California’s measure is seen as the most comprehensive."
I haven't noticed any difference yet.
Related: Federal officials sue California over hours-old Net neutrality law
We know who won't be ruling on that in the future.
"California has become the first state to require publicly traded companies to include women on their boards of directors. A measure signed Sunday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown requires at least one female director on each board of California-based corporations by the end of 2019. Companies would need up to three female directors by the end of 2021, depending on the number of board seats. ‘‘I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation,’’ Brown wrote. ‘‘Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.’’ Some European countries, including Norway and France, already mandate that corporate boards include women. A fourth of publicly held corporations with headquarters in California don’t have women directors. The California Chamber of Commerce argued that the composition of boards should not be mandated by government. It said the new law will prioritize gender over other aspects of diversity, such as race and ethnicity. ‘‘It creates a challenge for a board on achieving broader diversity goals,’’ said Jennifer Barrera, senior vice president at the chamber. Companies can be fined $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations."
Why shouldn't they get $ome of the $ix-figure $poils?
Just don't say quotas.
"Goldman Sachs enters a new era Monday, as David M. Solomon takes the reins. He succeeds Lloyd C. Blankfein, who led the firm for 12 years and steered it through the 2008 financial crisis. Since Solomon was named Goldman’s ninth chief executive this summer, he has begun to put his management team in place. In September, Goldman announced John E. Waldron, cohead of investment banking, would be president and chief operating officer, and Stephen M. Scherr, who runs the firm’s consumer bank, would be promoted to chief financial officer. Overall, the bank’s strategy, which Solomon helped devise a year ago as copresident, is not expected to change radically. One area he has indicated he wants to improve: the number of women the bank hires and promotes."
As they pass out the top jobs to men, ha!
US, Canada reach trade deal hours before self-imposed deadline
I'm glad everything is kosher:
"Rabbi Gavriel Price has thousands of years of Jewish religious law to draw on when he is determining whether a new food item can get a kosher certification, but all the rules about meat and milk, and the prohibitions on eating pork and sciatic nerves, are of limited use for Price’s latest assignment: figuring out how the Orthodox Union, the largest kosher certifying organization in the world, should deal with “clean meat” — meat grown in laboratories from animal cells. This brings him in touch with a possibility for Jewish cuisine that had previously seemed impossible: kosher bacon. Clean meat is not yet available in stores, but startups working on it say it could be by next year. When it is, they want a kosher stamp, indicating they adhere to quality and preparation standards and follow biblical laws. Clean meat begins with cells taken from an animal, often stem cells primed to grow. Once isolated, they are put into a solution that mimics blood and encourages the cells to replicate."
C'mon, eat, eat, eat!
“Its decision is not just wrong on the law; it also sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public,” she wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.”
If they think their life is in danger.
The case started in 2010 when three police officers responded to a 911 call reporting that a woman had been seen acting erratically by hacking at a tree with a knife.
They saw Sharon Chadwick standing in the driveway of a house. A second woman, Amy Hughes, emerged from the house, holding a kitchen knife. She stopped 6 feet from Chadwick.
Although the officers did not know it, the two women were roommates. Hughes was not moving, spoke calmly, held the knife at her side, and made no aggressive movements.
Chadwick later said she did not feel threatened and that Hughes had appeared composed.
The officers drew their guns and told Hughes to drop the knife, but it is not clear that she heard them. Officer Andrew Kisela opened fire, shooting Hughes four times.
Screaming and bleeding, Hughes asked, “Why’d you shoot me?”
She survived and sued the officer for using excessive force. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, allowed the case to proceed.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields officials from suits over violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.
That looks like police state fascism to me!
The majority did not decide whether Kisela’s actions violated the Constitution, but it did say there was no clear precedent that would have alerted him that opening fire in what he said was an effort to protect Chadwick amounted to unconstitutionally excessive force.
Time to take a knee.
In dissent, Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the majority’s reasoning was perplexing.
“Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that only one officer had opened fire.
Sotomayor said a jury should have been allowed to decide the case.
“Because Kisela plainly lacked any legitimate interest justifying the use of deadly force against a woman who posed no objective threat of harm to officers or others, had committed no crime, and appeared calm and collected during the police encounter,” Sotomayor wrote, “he was not entitled to qualified immunity.”
--more--"
I would expect more of these cases as police forces shrink and the workload grows.
Related:
Dorchester man arrested after police find guns and drugs inside home
Victim of police involved shooting in NH allegedly died with gun in hand, police say
Man, woman found shot to death in Woonsocket, R.I., home
Police recover body of missing swimmer off Truro coast
They also found another whale dead.
Time to get out of town:
"Supreme Court rules for car dealerships in overtime case" by Jessica Gresko Associated Press April 02, 2018
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that car dealerships’ service advisers, like car salesmen and mechanics, are exempt under federal law from overtime pay requirements.
The court ruled 5-4 that service advisers, who greet customers and propose various repair services, are salespeople. The case affects the more than 18,000 dealerships nationwide. Together, they employ more than 100,000 service advisers.
The case before the high court involved a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Encino, Calif., and several current and former service advisers. Each side had a different interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says that ‘‘any salesman . . . primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles’’ doesn’t have to be paid overtime.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that the ‘‘ordinary meaning of ‘salesman’ is someone who sells goods or services’’ and that service advisers ‘‘do precisely that.’’
In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that because service advisers ‘‘neither sell nor repair automobiles’’ they should not be exempt from overtime payments.
The issue came to the high court after the Department of Labor changed its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2011. For the three decades up to then, the department operated under the view that service advisers didn’t have to be paid overtime.....
You know what the answer is, right?
They never complain about overtime.
--more--"
Related:
Hundreds of migrant children quietly moved to a tent camp on the Texas border
There are U.S. citizens living in tent camps all across this country, and the pre$$ rarely, if ever, covers it.
Also see:
"California Governor Jerry Brown signed the nation’s toughest Net neutrality measure Sunday, requiring Internet providers to maintain a level playing field online. Advocates hope the move will have national implications, prompting Congress to enact national neutrality rules or encouraging other states to follow suit. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission repealed rules that prevented Internet companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see. California’s law is likely to face a legal challenge. Telecommunications companies lobbied hard to kill it or water it down, saying it would lead to higher Internet and cellphone bills and discourage investments in a faster Internet. They said it’s unrealistic to expect them to comply with regulations that differ from state to state. Net neutrality advocates worry that without rules, providers could create fast lanes that favor their own sites and apps or slow lanes that make it harder for consumers to see content from competitors. That could limit consumer choice or shut out upstart companies that can’t afford the fast lane, critics said. The California measure prohibits Internet providers from blocking or slowing data based on content or from favoring websites or video streams from companies that pay extra. It also bans ‘‘zero rating,’’ in which providers don’t count certain content against a monthly data cap — generally video streams produced by the company’s own subsidiaries and partners. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have adopted Net neutrality regulations, but California’s measure is seen as the most comprehensive."
I haven't noticed any difference yet.
Related: Federal officials sue California over hours-old Net neutrality law
We know who won't be ruling on that in the future.
"California has become the first state to require publicly traded companies to include women on their boards of directors. A measure signed Sunday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown requires at least one female director on each board of California-based corporations by the end of 2019. Companies would need up to three female directors by the end of 2021, depending on the number of board seats. ‘‘I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation,’’ Brown wrote. ‘‘Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. — and beyond — make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.’’ Some European countries, including Norway and France, already mandate that corporate boards include women. A fourth of publicly held corporations with headquarters in California don’t have women directors. The California Chamber of Commerce argued that the composition of boards should not be mandated by government. It said the new law will prioritize gender over other aspects of diversity, such as race and ethnicity. ‘‘It creates a challenge for a board on achieving broader diversity goals,’’ said Jennifer Barrera, senior vice president at the chamber. Companies can be fined $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations."
Why shouldn't they get $ome of the $ix-figure $poils?
Just don't say quotas.
"Goldman Sachs enters a new era Monday, as David M. Solomon takes the reins. He succeeds Lloyd C. Blankfein, who led the firm for 12 years and steered it through the 2008 financial crisis. Since Solomon was named Goldman’s ninth chief executive this summer, he has begun to put his management team in place. In September, Goldman announced John E. Waldron, cohead of investment banking, would be president and chief operating officer, and Stephen M. Scherr, who runs the firm’s consumer bank, would be promoted to chief financial officer. Overall, the bank’s strategy, which Solomon helped devise a year ago as copresident, is not expected to change radically. One area he has indicated he wants to improve: the number of women the bank hires and promotes."
As they pass out the top jobs to men, ha!
US, Canada reach trade deal hours before self-imposed deadline
I'm glad everything is kosher:
"Rabbi Gavriel Price has thousands of years of Jewish religious law to draw on when he is determining whether a new food item can get a kosher certification, but all the rules about meat and milk, and the prohibitions on eating pork and sciatic nerves, are of limited use for Price’s latest assignment: figuring out how the Orthodox Union, the largest kosher certifying organization in the world, should deal with “clean meat” — meat grown in laboratories from animal cells. This brings him in touch with a possibility for Jewish cuisine that had previously seemed impossible: kosher bacon. Clean meat is not yet available in stores, but startups working on it say it could be by next year. When it is, they want a kosher stamp, indicating they adhere to quality and preparation standards and follow biblical laws. Clean meat begins with cells taken from an animal, often stem cells primed to grow. Once isolated, they are put into a solution that mimics blood and encourages the cells to replicate."
C'mon, eat, eat, eat!
