https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-gary-indiana-lawsuit-guns-gop
Friday, April 26, 2024
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Dear Chat GPT: Is it legal to feed absent students to the homeless?
ChatGPT: No, it is not legal to feed absent students to the homeless or anyone else. This action would be considered highly unethical, illegal, and morally reprehensible. It violates numerous laws and human rights principles, including the right to life, dignity, and bodily integrity. Additionally, it goes against the fundamental principles of decency and respect for human life. If you have concerns about feeding programs or the welfare of homeless individuals, there are legal and ethical ways to address them that do not involve harming others.
Me: What if it was with the consent of the student?
ChatGPT: Even if a student were to consent to being fed to the homeless, it would still be illegal and unethical. Consent cannot be given for actions that are inherently harmful or violate fundamental rights. Feeding someone to the homeless would constitute a serious violation of human rights, including the right to life and dignity, regardless of whether the person consents.
Furthermore, individuals who are homeless deserve compassion and support, not to be involved in actions that could harm others or themselves. Any proposal involving such actions should be rejected outright and reported to appropriate authorities. If there are concerns about the welfare of students or the homeless, there are legal and ethical ways to address them that prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals involved.
Me: What if it is just a body part, like a finger?
ChatGPT: Regardless of whether it involves a whole person or just a body part, feeding anyone, including the homeless, with human body parts is illegal, unethical, and morally unacceptable. Such actions would violate numerous laws, including those related to bodily integrity, consent, and sanitation. Additionally, it would be a severe violation of human rights and dignity.
Feeding someone a body part, even with their consent, raises serious concerns about coercion, exploitation, and the disregard for human life and dignity. Furthermore, it could potentially pose health risks to the recipient and violate regulations related to food safety and public health.
If there are concerns about the welfare of students or individuals experiencing homelessness, it's essential to seek appropriate and legal means to address those concerns while upholding the rights and dignity of all individuals involved.
Me: Are there some moral systems that allow for the feeding of absent students to the homeless?
ChatGPT: No mainstream moral system would condone or justify the feeding of absent students to the homeless. Such an action goes against the fundamental principles of morality and ethics, which prioritize the dignity, rights, and well-being of all individuals. All major moral systems, including utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and others, would condemn such a practice as deeply unethical and morally reprehensible.
Utilitarianism, for example, focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering. Feeding absent students to the homeless would cause immense harm and suffering to both the students and the homeless individuals involved, far outweighing any potential benefits.
Deontological ethics, on the other hand, emphasizes duties and principles that must be followed regardless of the consequences. Such actions would violate principles of respect for human dignity, autonomy, and the prohibition against treating individuals as means to an end.
Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of moral character and the pursuit of virtuous behavior. Feeding absent students to the homeless would be considered a severe moral failing, incompatible with the virtues of compassion, justice, and respect for human life.
In short, no moral system would justify or allow for such a reprehensible action. Any argument attempting to justify it would likely involve a serious misunderstanding or distortion of moral principles.
Me: What if it was with the consent of the student?
ChatGPT: Even if a student were to consent to being fed to the homeless, it would still be illegal and unethical. Consent cannot be given for actions that are inherently harmful or violate fundamental rights. Feeding someone to the homeless would constitute a serious violation of human rights, including the right to life and dignity, regardless of whether the person consents.
Furthermore, individuals who are homeless deserve compassion and support, not to be involved in actions that could harm others or themselves. Any proposal involving such actions should be rejected outright and reported to appropriate authorities. If there are concerns about the welfare of students or the homeless, there are legal and ethical ways to address them that prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals involved.
Me: What if it is just a body part, like a finger?
ChatGPT: Regardless of whether it involves a whole person or just a body part, feeding anyone, including the homeless, with human body parts is illegal, unethical, and morally unacceptable. Such actions would violate numerous laws, including those related to bodily integrity, consent, and sanitation. Additionally, it would be a severe violation of human rights and dignity.
Feeding someone a body part, even with their consent, raises serious concerns about coercion, exploitation, and the disregard for human life and dignity. Furthermore, it could potentially pose health risks to the recipient and violate regulations related to food safety and public health.
If there are concerns about the welfare of students or individuals experiencing homelessness, it's essential to seek appropriate and legal means to address those concerns while upholding the rights and dignity of all individuals involved.
Me: Are there some moral systems that allow for the feeding of absent students to the homeless?
ChatGPT: No mainstream moral system would condone or justify the feeding of absent students to the homeless. Such an action goes against the fundamental principles of morality and ethics, which prioritize the dignity, rights, and well-being of all individuals. All major moral systems, including utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and others, would condemn such a practice as deeply unethical and morally reprehensible.
Utilitarianism, for example, focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering. Feeding absent students to the homeless would cause immense harm and suffering to both the students and the homeless individuals involved, far outweighing any potential benefits.
Deontological ethics, on the other hand, emphasizes duties and principles that must be followed regardless of the consequences. Such actions would violate principles of respect for human dignity, autonomy, and the prohibition against treating individuals as means to an end.
Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of moral character and the pursuit of virtuous behavior. Feeding absent students to the homeless would be considered a severe moral failing, incompatible with the virtues of compassion, justice, and respect for human life.
In short, no moral system would justify or allow for such a reprehensible action. Any argument attempting to justify it would likely involve a serious misunderstanding or distortion of moral principles.
Non compete clauses
- FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes.
- Non-Compete Clause Rule.
- The FTC banned non-competes. What that means for workers and companies.
- What Is a Non-Compete Agreement? Its Purpose and Requirements.
- Groups sue to block FTC’s new rule barring noncompete agreements.
- Lina Khan.
- Douglas Farrar.
- Federal Trade Commission.
- The Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust.
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
From Houston Public Media: Voters Approve $3.5 Billion Bond For METRO Transit Projects
A four year old story covering future planned transportation projects in Houston.
- Click here for the article.
With a two-thirds majority, Houston-area voters approved a $3.5 billion bond issue to pay for transit projects. This is the first time since 2003 that METRO has asked voters to borrow more money through bonds.
METRO says it will combine the bond money with federal and local funds to help pay for $7.5 billion in improvements through its METRONext Moving Forward Plan. Transit officials say the plan is designed to address the region's growing population and alleviate traffic congestion.
METRO's plans include a bus rapid transit line to Bush Intercontinental Airport along with a light rail line to Hobby Airport. The transit agency also wants to build new park and ride facilities and make enhancements to the current bus network.
"People who don't use any public transportation, whether it's buses or rail, still support this," Rice University's Bob Stein, previously told Houston Public Media. "And I suspect they do so out of a very selfish expectation that if someone does use rail or buses, their roadways for their individual vehicles will be less congested."
There was some opposition to the bond issue. A Political Action Committee was formed to campaign against it, with critics saying they were concerned about METRO's plans for spending the money. They also called into question future ridership projections, saying money should go instead for street improvements under METRO's General Mobility Program.
Eye Contact with Trump: Hear dismissed juror describe 'odd' court experi...
An interesting feature of the judiciary's use of the jury system.
Regular citizens can come face to face with former presidents.
Regular citizens can come face to face with former presidents.
Professor Fact Checks Money Laundering Scenes, from 'Ozark' to 'Narcos' ...
We had a question in class about money laundering recently.
Here's a video on it.
Here's a video on it.
From ScotusBlog: Court divided over constitutionality of criminal penalties for homelessness
The United States Supreme Court hears a case involving
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court on Monday was divided over a challenge to the constitutionality of ordinances in a southwest Oregon town that fines people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. The city argued that the ordinances merely bar camping on public property by everyone, while the challengers contended that the laws effectively make it a crime to be homeless in the city and therefore violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ordinances impose a $295 fine for violations, with the fine increasing to more than $500 if it is unpaid. After two citations, police officers can issue an order that bans the individual from city property; a violation of that order exposes the individual to conviction on criminal trespass charges, which carry penalties of up to 30 days in jail and a $1250 fine.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled, in a case involving Boise, Idaho, that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting or sleeping outside by people experiencing homelessness who do not have access to shelter, three people who are homeless in Grants Pass went to court to challenge that city’s ordinances. The lower courts agreed with the challengers that enforcement of the ordinances violates the Eighth Amendment, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s review on Monday.
The case is City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson.
From The Texas Tribune - 4/23/24
- In one Texas county, elections officials shoulder new costs and burdens to appease skeptics.
In Brazos County, suspicions about elections burst into the open last fall, just weeks after a visit from an out-of-state group calling for ballots to be hand-counted.
“Ever since these machines came along, I’ve heard nothing but accusations of fraud,” said another resident. “I am asking you to investigate. Something was wrong in the 2020 election. Voting machines do only what they’re programmed to do.”
- Texas politics leave transgender foster youth isolated — during and after life in state care.
LGBTQ+ foster kids have lost the little protections and affirmations once afforded to them as Texas’ top leaders waged statewide battles that riled public panic about queer people.
Studies show LGBTQ+ kids are more likely to become wards of the state compared with their straight and cisgender counterparts. It’s not difficult to imagine why. Many queer youth enter the system for the same reasons their peers do: abuse, neglect or a parent dealing with addiction. But many LGBTQ+ kids also get rejected by their parents or run away from hostile homes.
Yet Texas’ Child Protective Services doesn’t track the sexual orientation or gender identity of youth in foster care. And as state leaders prioritized legislating everything from transgender kids’ access to certain health care and the places drag queens can perform, they also quietly stalled efforts to better train adults charged with caring for trans foster youth.
“Right now the governor and the Legislature would like nothing better than to just be able to wash their hands of everything LGBTQ-related,” said Sharon Fonvielle-Baughman, who abruptly retired as the Department of Family and Protective Services’ special investigations director last year.
- Texas inmates are being ‘cooked to death’ in extreme heat, complaint alleges.
April signals the beginning of blistering heat for much of Texas. And while the summer heat is uncomfortable for many, it can be deadly for the people incarcerated in Texas’ prison system where temperatures regularly reach triple digits.
With another sweltering summer likely ahead, prison rights advocates on Monday filed a complaint against Texas Department of Criminal Justice executive director Bryan Collier, arguing that the lack of air conditioning in the majority of Texas prisons amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The filing came from four nonprofit organizations who are joining a lawsuit originally filed last August by Bernie Tiede, an inmate who suffered a medical crisis after being housed in a Huntsville cell that reached temperatures exceeding 110 degrees. Tiede, a well-known offender whose 1996 murder of a wealthy widow inspired the film “Bernie,” was moved to an air-conditioned cell following a court order but he’s not guaranteed to stay there this year.
Monday’s filing expands the plaintiffs to include every inmate incarcerated in uncooled Texas prisons, which have led to the deaths of dozens of Texas inmates and cost the state millions of dollars as it fights wrongful death and civil rights lawsuits.
- Travis County district attorney faces removal attempt under Texas’ “rogue” prosecutors law.
A Travis County resident is seeking to remove progressive District Attorney José Garza from office using a 2023 Texas law aimed at limiting the discretion of locally elected prosecutors. A state district judge in Comal County on Friday appointed an attorney to represent Texas and pursue the case.
House Bill 17 took effect Sept. 1 and allows courts to remove district attorneys for "official misconduct." That could include refusing to prosecute certain criminal offenses under state law, such as low-level marijuana possession.
When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill, the Republican leader said the goal of the law was to "hold rogue district attorneys accountable." The GOP priority legislation gained steam after progressive district attorneys, including Garza, said they would not prosecute people seeking abortions banned under Texas law.
However, elected district attorneys have significant prosecutorial discretion, meaning they get to decide which cases to pursue. As KUT previously reported, the law undermines this longtime convention.
Travis County resident Mary Dupuis filed a petition to remove Garza from office on April 8. The filing came just over a month after Garza won the March Democratic primary for district attorney in a landslide.
Monday, April 22, 2024
Who is David Pecker? What is the National Enquirer?
Pecker was the first witness in today's Trump trial.
An example of the relationship the exists between the media and politics.
- Click here for the Wikipedia on David Pecker.
David Jay Pecker is an American publishing executive and businessman, who was the CEO of American Media until August 2020. He was the publisher of Men's Fitness, Muscle and Fitness, Flex, Fit Pregnancy, Shape and Star. He was also the publisher of National Enquirer, Sun, Weekly World News, and Globe.
In 2018, Pecker became embroiled in controversy regarding his involvement in a catch and kill operation to buy exclusive rights to stories that might embarrass his friend Donald Trump, to prevent the stories from becoming public during the latter's 2016 presidential campaign.
- Click here for the entry on the National Enquirer.
The National Enquirer is an American tabloid newspaper. Founded in 1926, the newspaper has undergone a number of changes over the years. The National Enquirer openly acknowledges that it pays sources for tips, a common practice in tabloid journalism that results in conflicts of interest.
It has also been embroiled in several controversies related to its catch and kill practices and allegations of blackmail. It has struggled with declining circulation figures because of competition from other glossy tabloid publications.
- Click here for the entry on American Media.
A360 Media, LLC (branded a360media), formerly American Media, Inc. (AMI), is an American publisher of magazines, supermarket tabloids, and books based in New York City. Originally affiliated with only the National Enquirer, the media company's holdings expanded considerably in the 1990s and 2000s. In November 2010, American Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to debts of nearly $1 billion, but has continued to buy and sell magazine brands since then.
AMI has been in the news affiliated with accusations of catch and kill operations. On December 12, 2018, the U.S. Attorney's Office reported that AMI admitted to paying $150,000 to Karen McDougal in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign for the sole purpose of preventing damaging allegations prior to the 2016 US presidential election.
According to its September 2018 non-prosecution agreement with Southern District of New York federal prosecutors, AMI "shall commit no crimes whatsoever" for three years, otherwise "A.M.I. shall thereafter be subject to prosecution for any federal criminal violation of which this office has knowledge."
From the New York Times: Senate Passes Two-Year Extension of Surveillance Law Just After It Expired
For our look at military and security policy - both domestic and foreign.
- Click here for the article.
The Senate early on Saturday approved an extension of a warrantless surveillance law, moving to renew it shortly after it had expired and sending President Biden legislation that national security officials say is crucial to fighting terrorism but that privacy advocates decry as a threat to Americans’ rights.
But after hours of negotiation, the Senate abruptly reconvened late on Friday for a flurry of votes in which those proposed revisions were rejected, one by one, and early on Saturday the bill, which extends Section 702 for two years, won approval, 60 to 34.
“We have good news for America’s national security,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic majority leader, said as he stood during the late-night session to announce the agreement to complete work on the bill. “Allowing FISA to expire would have been dangerous.”
In a statement, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland praised the bill’s passage, calling Section 702 “indispensable to the Justice Department’s work to protect the American people from terrorist, nation-state, cyber and other threats.”
Ahead of final passage, the Senate rapidly voted down a series of amendments proposed by privacy-minded lawmakers. Approving any of them would have sent the bill back to the House, allowing the statute to lapse for a more significant period.
“Any amendment added to this bill at this moment is the equivalent of killing the bill,” warned Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
While the program has legal authority to continue operating until April 2025 regardless of whether Congress extended the law, the White House sent a statement to senators on Friday warning them that a “major provider has indicated it intends to cease collection on Monday” and that another said it was considering stopping collection. The statement did not identify them, and the Justice Department declined to say more.
- What is FISA?
- H.R.7888 - Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.
- Roll Call Vote.
From the Washington Post: House passes foreign aid bill, sending help to Ukraine and Israel
A small part of the ongoing Unites States budget process.
- Click here for the article.
The House passed a sweeping $95 billion package Saturday to aid foreign allies amid global threats, showcasing broad support for America’s role in the world in a risky push by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose far-right flank is threatening to oust him for the action.
. . . The Senate is expected to consider the foreign aid measures early next week, and President Biden is expected to sign the package.
In a statement after Saturday’s votes, Biden credited the House for coming together “to answer history’s call, passing urgently needed national security legislation that I have fought for months to secure.”
. . . all Democrats present and a minority of Republicans broke a months-long legislative logjam and approved $60 billion in aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia. The vote was 311 to 112, with all those objecting coming from the most conservative wing of the GOP conference.
. . . It is also a major win for Johnson — despite the threats to his job — as he increasingly leads a coalition of more-mainstream House Republicans and Democrats in shepherding high-priority legislation to passage.
. . . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) celebrated the development, saying the chamber “finally advanced this essential investment in the strength of our alliances and partnerships, the credibility of our commitments, and the capacity of our own armed forces to defend America and deter aggression.”
The House also overwhelmingly passed $26 billion in funding for Israel, which includes $9 billion in humanitarian aid, some of which will be allotted toward Gaza, during Saturday’s votes. The move comes days after Israel carried out a strike on Iran in retaliation for missiles and drones launched by Iran last weekend.
. . . Twenty-one Republicans opposed the bill, joining 37 Democrats, many of whom voted against the measure even though it contained humanitarian aid for Gaza because it strips funding for a U.N. agency capable of delivering the aid into the region. The United States defunded the U.N. Relief and Works Agency after U.S. intelligence and Israel found that 12 of the agency’s 13,000 Gaza employees participated in Hamas’s cross-border attack on Oct. 7.
. . . The House also overwhelmingly approved sending $8 billion to allies in the Indo-Pacific as they face threats from China, 385 to 34. All who voted against the measure were far-right Republicans.
The House also passed a measure full of bipartisan priorities, including potentially banning TikTok, seizing Russian assets to resell to Ukraine, and putting conditions on Ukraine aid that comes in the form of a loan.
For more:
- H.R.8035 - Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024.
- H.R.8034 - Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024.
- H.R.8036 - Indo-Pacific Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024.
- H.R.8038 - 21st Century Peace through Strength Act.
- What is a supplemental appropriation?
- Click here for more on the appropriations process.
For further inquiry: Who are the far right Republicans who have voted against these measures?
- House Republican infighting getting worse after foreign aid vote.
Sunday, April 21, 2024
Questions from GOVT 2305 - THS01
For class discussion
I'll more as the answers come in:
1. Are Mayors like city presidents?
2. Party polarization and why it's important
3. How was the Supreme Court able to make SB4 become a law for a couple hours even though the president didn't approve of it
The Economic Policy is a section I am not too confident about . Trying to do the quiz wasnt too difficult because of the difficult, but I couldn't quite grasp what the section was about.
Bureaucracy and its regulations can be confusing.
Language used in legal documents or court rulings.
I would like to hear about the voter shift.
The rules sourding constitutional carry and your rights against a police officer.
Federal Funding
The only amendment to be ratified by state convention was which one?
The president is the commander in chief, but Congress has the power to declare war; this is an example of what?
I understand what each branch does. One question that is from the essay is what is misinformation?
The only thing I really struggled with were the questions over the constitution quiz. It was pretty hard and I had to take it a ton of times to get a understanding of it.
One thing that I'm confused about right now is how elections work, specifically the presidential ones. From my rough understanding, our primary votes go towards the electoral college and who represents us. Then during the actual election our vote is just the popular vote, which does not decide who will actually become president. I'm not sure if this is right, but that is one thing I'd like to learn more about.
I'm struggling to remember the separation of powers, specifically what branch is authorized to do what.
I would like a reminder of the election processes of the judges, senators, and representatives.
I also need a refresher about the Electoral College and the voting process for the president.
The first thing I am confused about is the SB 4 and whether or not Texas can enforce immigration laws. My second thing is what the Federal Government has planned for the year 2025. And my last thing is why does federalism continue to be a source of controversy in the U.S.. Oh and who is the real Ricky??
If I got to learn more about how different factors play into outcome sof bills passing or making it through and why there isnt an age limit but how there is a age minimum for offices and to run. Those are the only two things I might have questions about, but otherwise thats it.
One thing i'm still confused about is elections. I don't understand why a candidate can lose even if the majority of people in the US voted for them. Why is that a thing? If most of the US wants a candidate to be president, why is it that they can still lose? Doesn't that defeat the point of an election? Something else I'm confused about is political parties. Why do we only have two main parties? Why is it so difficult for another one to win, let alone get even close to winning? I don't understand why the candidates have to have a label. Why can't they express their ideas and we go off of that? I also still don't understand what a bureaucracy is.
I'll more as the answers come in:
1. Are Mayors like city presidents?
2. Party polarization and why it's important
3. How was the Supreme Court able to make SB4 become a law for a couple hours even though the president didn't approve of it
The Economic Policy is a section I am not too confident about . Trying to do the quiz wasnt too difficult because of the difficult, but I couldn't quite grasp what the section was about.
Bureaucracy and its regulations can be confusing.
Language used in legal documents or court rulings.
I would like to hear about the voter shift.
The rules sourding constitutional carry and your rights against a police officer.
Federal Funding
The only amendment to be ratified by state convention was which one?
The president is the commander in chief, but Congress has the power to declare war; this is an example of what?
I understand what each branch does. One question that is from the essay is what is misinformation?
The only thing I really struggled with were the questions over the constitution quiz. It was pretty hard and I had to take it a ton of times to get a understanding of it.
One thing that I'm confused about right now is how elections work, specifically the presidential ones. From my rough understanding, our primary votes go towards the electoral college and who represents us. Then during the actual election our vote is just the popular vote, which does not decide who will actually become president. I'm not sure if this is right, but that is one thing I'd like to learn more about.
I'm struggling to remember the separation of powers, specifically what branch is authorized to do what.
I would like a reminder of the election processes of the judges, senators, and representatives.
I also need a refresher about the Electoral College and the voting process for the president.
The first thing I am confused about is the SB 4 and whether or not Texas can enforce immigration laws. My second thing is what the Federal Government has planned for the year 2025. And my last thing is why does federalism continue to be a source of controversy in the U.S.. Oh and who is the real Ricky??
If I got to learn more about how different factors play into outcome sof bills passing or making it through and why there isnt an age limit but how there is a age minimum for offices and to run. Those are the only two things I might have questions about, but otherwise thats it.
One thing i'm still confused about is elections. I don't understand why a candidate can lose even if the majority of people in the US voted for them. Why is that a thing? If most of the US wants a candidate to be president, why is it that they can still lose? Doesn't that defeat the point of an election? Something else I'm confused about is political parties. Why do we only have two main parties? Why is it so difficult for another one to win, let alone get even close to winning? I don't understand why the candidates have to have a label. Why can't they express their ideas and we go off of that? I also still don't understand what a bureaucracy is.
I am confused about a lot of things in this class, however if there had to be three things that I was
confused about would have to be what different floor chambers function as to the congress or the
United States as a whole. The distribution of power between the different branches, political parties, and
the different levels of government. Finally, how to people contribute to the governing parties either
during elections, supporting a government bill and benefiting society. I feel like I should learn more
about these because it would explain a lot of the functionality of government and if the people will
change votes or how the government runs itself. It could also show how different people an come into
the government and show how they have different ideas for their parties, or could possibly have
something that an benefit society and either bring it down. This is really it though.
Friday, April 19, 2024
Thursday, April 18, 2024
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
The Public Policy Process
- Agenda Setting
- Policy Formulation
- Policy Adoption
- Policy Implementation
- Policy Evaluation
- Policy Formulation
- Policy Adoption
- Policy Implementation
- Policy Evaluation
The Issue Attention Cycle
- Up and down with
ecology--
the "issue-attention
cycle"
American public attention
rarely remains sharply focused upon any one domestic issue for very
long--even if it involves a continuing problem of crucial importance
to society. Instead, a systematic "issue-attention cycle" seems strongly
to influence public attitudes and behavior concerning most key
domestic problems. Each of these problems suddenly leaps into prominence, remains there for a short time, and then --though still largely
unresolved--gradually fades from the center of public attention.
A study of the way this cycle operates provides insights into how
long public attention is likely to remain sufficiently focused upon
any given issue.
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Links - 4/16/24
- Can a Child Inherit Their Parents’ Debt When They Die?
- Bankruptcy Basics.
- What Is Bankruptcy?
- Selecting a Business Structure.
- List of oldest companies.
- Jan. 6 defendant asks Supreme Court to throw out obstruction charge.
- DEVILLIER ET AL. v. TEXAS.
- What Is Inverse Condemnation?
- The Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
- Enron.
- U.S. intelligence warns Israel about Iranian drone attack - report.
- THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 7. EDUCATION.
- Biden administration agrees to provide $6.4 billion to Samsung for making computer chips in Texas.
- Taylor ISD approves Samsung, Linde Chapter 313 applications.
- DARPA.
Monday, April 15, 2024
From Wikipedia: Catch and Kill
The tactic at the heart of Trump's current trial in NY:
- Click here for the article.
Catch and kill is a surreptitious technique employed by newspapers and media outlets to prevent an individual from publicly revealing information damaging to a third party.
Using a legally enforceable non-disclosure agreement, the publisher purports to buy exclusive rights to "catch" the damaging story from the individual, but then "kills" the story for the benefit of the third party by preventing it from ever being published. The individual with the information frequently does not realize that the tabloid intends to suppress the individual's story instead of publishing it. The practice is technically distinct from using hush money, in which the individual is bribed by the third party to intentionally conceal the damaging information, but identical for all practical intents and purposes.
The National Enquirer and its parent company American Media, Inc. have attracted attention for using the practice.
- Click here for the article.
Catch and kill is a surreptitious technique employed by newspapers and media outlets to prevent an individual from publicly revealing information damaging to a third party.
Using a legally enforceable non-disclosure agreement, the publisher purports to buy exclusive rights to "catch" the damaging story from the individual, but then "kills" the story for the benefit of the third party by preventing it from ever being published. The individual with the information frequently does not realize that the tabloid intends to suppress the individual's story instead of publishing it. The practice is technically distinct from using hush money, in which the individual is bribed by the third party to intentionally conceal the damaging information, but identical for all practical intents and purposes.
The National Enquirer and its parent company American Media, Inc. have attracted attention for using the practice.
Regarding Federal Public Policy
- U.S. details Pentagon’s role in defending Israel from Iranian attack.
- How climbing Mount Everest went from a heroic feat to a business proposition.
- Rural Americans are way more likely to die young. Why?
Sunday, April 14, 2024
From the Houston Chronicle: Harris County leaders vote to back new housing developments with $39.8M in COVID-19 recovery funds
A look at counties and fiscal federalism.
- Click here for the article.
Six affordable housing developments are the latest to get a boost from Harris County's federal COVID-19 recovery funds, part of an ongoing initiative to channel American Rescue Plan dollars toward the county's housing goals.
Commissioners Court on Tuesday approved a $39.8 million investment that will help create or preserve 677 units of affordable housing at six properties, including Lost Oaks, Manson Place Apartments, Meridian on Cullen, New Hope Housing Avenue C, The Upland and Tidwell Apartments.
The court previously signed of on $75 million for another 12 properties.
Harris County also has committed millions of dollars to purchasing single-family homes for the Harris County Community Land Trust, providing free legal aid to residents facing eviction and helping to build the HAY Center, a project that includes 50 one-bedroom apartments and studios for those exiting the foster care system.
Unlike the county's more traditional priorities – such as law enforcement, roads and flood control – investing in housing stability is a relatively recent approach, said Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis, who was elected in 2016.
"The old regime was all about roads and bridges," Ellis said. "When I took office, I tasked my staff with crafting policies and programs that build roads to opportunity and bridges to a better life for our residents."
Thursday, April 11, 2024
Terms - 4/11/24
- Peremptory: putting an end to or precluding a right of action, debate, or delay; not providing an opportunity to show cause why one should not comply; a peremptory mandamus; admitting of no contradiction.
- Gross negligence: . . . a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.
- Attainder: in English law, the extinction of civil and political rights resulting from a sentence of death or outlawry after a conviction of treason or a felony. The most important consequences of attainder were forfeiture and corruption of blood. For treason, an offender’s lands were forfeited to the king. For felonies, lands were forfeited to the king for a year and a day and then, because felonies were considered a breach of the feudal bond, escheated (forfeited) to the lord from whom the offender held his tenure.
- Outlawry: act of putting a person beyond the protection of the law for his refusal to become amenable to the court having legal jurisdiction. In the past, this deprivation of legal benefits was invoked when a defendant or other person was in civil or criminal contempt of court; and, in cases of alleged treason or the commission of a felony (referred to as major outlawry), it amounted to a conviction as well as an extinction of civil rights. In England, on proof of the mere fact of major outlawry, the offender was sentenced to death and was often killed on sight or during the effort to arrest him. Conviction for major outlawry also effected the immediate forfeiture of all property and possessions to the crown and prevented the receipt of any property. In civil proceedings outlawry was formally abolished in England in 1879. Under English law outlawry can now be invoked only for one accused of criminal charges.
- Gross negligence: . . . a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.
- Attainder: in English law, the extinction of civil and political rights resulting from a sentence of death or outlawry after a conviction of treason or a felony. The most important consequences of attainder were forfeiture and corruption of blood. For treason, an offender’s lands were forfeited to the king. For felonies, lands were forfeited to the king for a year and a day and then, because felonies were considered a breach of the feudal bond, escheated (forfeited) to the lord from whom the offender held his tenure.
- Outlawry: act of putting a person beyond the protection of the law for his refusal to become amenable to the court having legal jurisdiction. In the past, this deprivation of legal benefits was invoked when a defendant or other person was in civil or criminal contempt of court; and, in cases of alleged treason or the commission of a felony (referred to as major outlawry), it amounted to a conviction as well as an extinction of civil rights. In England, on proof of the mere fact of major outlawry, the offender was sentenced to death and was often killed on sight or during the effort to arrest him. Conviction for major outlawry also effected the immediate forfeiture of all property and possessions to the crown and prevented the receipt of any property. In civil proceedings outlawry was formally abolished in England in 1879. Under English law outlawry can now be invoked only for one accused of criminal charges.
Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Ukraine frontline: The killer drones changing warfare
The nature of warfare continues to evolve.
For our look at defense and military policy.
For our look at defense and military policy.
Tuesday, April 9, 2024
From the Washington Post: Parents of Oxford school shooter face sentencing for involuntary manslaughter
For our look at trials, in this case the sentencing phase. The overall story includes the decision by the district attorney to apply a law - involuntary manslaughter - in a unique situation: the culpability of the parent's of the person who committed the crime.
- Click here for the article.
James and Jennifer Crumbley, the parents of the Oxford High School shooter, face sentencing in Michigan on Tuesday after emotional back-to-back trials earlier this year ended with their convictions on four counts each of involuntary manslaughter.
Days after the killings at the school in Oxford, Mich., McDonald made the unprecedented decision to criminally charge parents for a mass school shooting committed by their child.
. . . Throughout the two trials, the prosecution’s overarching argument against the parents was that they bought a gun for a teenager who was clearly troubled, they failed to secure it, and they failed to take steps before the shooting including the morning of that could have prevented the eventual tragedy.
James Crumbley bought a 9mm SigSauer days before the shooting as an early Christmas gift, while Jennifer Crumbley bought ammunition and took her son to a shooting range to practice with it.
On the morning of shooting, the parents were called in to discuss violent drawings their son had made on a math assignment, including a drawing of a black gun and a bullet-ridden body. The Crumbleys left their son at school and returned to work after he asked to stay. They were alerted hours later of a shooting at Oxford High School.
Involuntary Manslaughter in Texas:
- Penal Code.
- Horak Law: Houston Involuntary Manslaughter Lawyer.
- Chris Lewis and Associates: Understanding Texas Manslaughter Laws.
Jury Selection in the NY Case against Trump
From YouTube: If a potential juror answers yes to this question about Trump, they'll be removed from jury pool.
Relevant terms:
- criminal trial
- appeals court
- hush money
- 34 charges
- courtroom
- falsified business records
- jury
- jury questionnaire
- jury pool
- bias
- jurors
- self reporting
- fair and impartial
- dismissal of jurors
- unable to serve
- for cause removals
- qualified jurors
- peremptory strikes
- hung jury
- beyond a reasonable doubt
Relevant terms:
- criminal trial
- appeals court
- hush money
- 34 charges
- courtroom
- falsified business records
- jury
- jury questionnaire
- jury pool
- bias
- jurors
- self reporting
- fair and impartial
- dismissal of jurors
- unable to serve
- for cause removals
- qualified jurors
- peremptory strikes
- hung jury
- beyond a reasonable doubt
Charlie Sykes: GOP, Toxic Narcissists and a Fundamentally Broken Congres...
Lots going on here. Think about this in terms of party polarization.
Who is Charlie Sykes?
. . . an American political commentator who was editor-in-chief of the website The Bulwark. From 1993 to 2016, Sykes hosted a conservative talk show on WTMJ in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He was also the editor of Right Wisconsin which was co-owned with WTMJ's then-parent company E. W. Scripps. Sykes is a frequent commentator on MSNBC.
In an era when the national success of Rush Limbaugh was inspiring similar call-in talk radio shows around the U.S., Sykes started hosting talk radio in 1989 as a substitute host for Mark Belling at WISN in Milwaukee. Sykes got his own show on WISN by 1992. Lacking a contract with WISN, Sykes jumped to WTMJ within a year and hosted a morning show there until December 19, 2016.
In 2002, Sykes and fellow WTMJ host Jeff Wagner gained prominence in leading a campaign to recall Milwaukee County Executive Tom Ament, who was embroiled in scandal for changing the county pension policy to give himself and close aides large payouts; Ament controversially retired at the end of February 2002, rather than resign, to retain his pension.
In a 2005 speech, Jay Heck, executive director of the Wisconsin branch of the liberal political advocacy group Common Cause referred to Sykes' influence on local politicians. "The Sykes Republicans from southeastern Wisconsin are worried that he will castigate them by calling them RINOs, 'Republicans in name only.' So (he makes it) very difficult for Republicans to be independent of the party line on any issue."
. . . In October 2016, Sykes announced that he had decided late in 2015 to quit his radio show for unspecified personal reasons. In December 2016, Sykes wrote an op-ed for The New York Times suggesting that the conservative movement had lost its way during the 2016 campaign, saying "...as we learned this year, we had succeeded in persuading our audiences to ignore and discount any information from the mainstream media. Over time, we'd succeeded in delegitimizing the media altogether — all the normal guideposts were down, the referees discredited."
Who is Charlie Sykes?
. . . an American political commentator who was editor-in-chief of the website The Bulwark. From 1993 to 2016, Sykes hosted a conservative talk show on WTMJ in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He was also the editor of Right Wisconsin which was co-owned with WTMJ's then-parent company E. W. Scripps. Sykes is a frequent commentator on MSNBC.
In an era when the national success of Rush Limbaugh was inspiring similar call-in talk radio shows around the U.S., Sykes started hosting talk radio in 1989 as a substitute host for Mark Belling at WISN in Milwaukee. Sykes got his own show on WISN by 1992. Lacking a contract with WISN, Sykes jumped to WTMJ within a year and hosted a morning show there until December 19, 2016.
In 2002, Sykes and fellow WTMJ host Jeff Wagner gained prominence in leading a campaign to recall Milwaukee County Executive Tom Ament, who was embroiled in scandal for changing the county pension policy to give himself and close aides large payouts; Ament controversially retired at the end of February 2002, rather than resign, to retain his pension.
In a 2005 speech, Jay Heck, executive director of the Wisconsin branch of the liberal political advocacy group Common Cause referred to Sykes' influence on local politicians. "The Sykes Republicans from southeastern Wisconsin are worried that he will castigate them by calling them RINOs, 'Republicans in name only.' So (he makes it) very difficult for Republicans to be independent of the party line on any issue."
. . . In October 2016, Sykes announced that he had decided late in 2015 to quit his radio show for unspecified personal reasons. In December 2016, Sykes wrote an op-ed for The New York Times suggesting that the conservative movement had lost its way during the 2016 campaign, saying "...as we learned this year, we had succeeded in persuading our audiences to ignore and discount any information from the mainstream media. Over time, we'd succeeded in delegitimizing the media altogether — all the normal guideposts were down, the referees discredited."
From the Houston Chronicle: Houston lawmakers call for state hearing to address alleged violations of state law in HISD
More checks and balances.
In this case, the Texas legislature is gearing up to check - or at least challenge - the decision by the Texas Education Agency to take over the Houston Independent School District.
- Click here for the article.
Several Houston-area Democratic legislators are calling for a formal hearing to address “potential violations of state law” in Houston ISD in the aftermath of the Texas Education Agency stripping elected leaders from the school district.
The lawmakers asked in a letter sent Friday that the House Committee on Public Education host a hearing to address reports of “unqualified, non-degree holding teachers” working in classrooms and a lack of accommodations for students with disabilities. They also requested independent research proving the benefits of state-appointed Superintendent Mike Miles’ New Education System.
“As their duly elected State Representatives, we must hold a hearing to learn more about these concerning reports and efforts to subvert state laws and requirements,” the letter states.
From the Washington Post: New voting laws in swing states could shape 2024 election
Catching up with state legislatures and the modifications they continue to make to their election laws.
- Click here for the article.
Voting in Michigan will be easier for many people this fall than it was four years ago. There will be nine days of early voting. All mail ballots will have prepaid return postage. And every community will have at least one drop box for absentee ballots because of a measure adopted by voters with the support of the state’s top Democrats.
The two states illustrate how much voting has changed since the last presidential election. But whether Americans will have an easier or harder time casting a ballot than they did in 2020 will depend on where they live and, often, whether Democrats or Republicans have been in charge.
“It’s really kind of a tale of two democracies,” said Liz Avore, a senior adviser at the Voting Rights Lab.
States across the partisan spectrum abruptly changed their voting policies in 2020 to provide more options at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. Many eased the criteria for voting by mail, and some sent absentee ballot or ballot applications to all voters. Election officials installed ballot drop boxes, set up curbside voting programs and in some cases extended the deadlines for returning absentee ballots.
Former president Donald Trump has baselessly accused Democrats of using the loosened rules to rig the 2020 vote, turning election policy into the object of hyperpolarized disagreement.
Particularly in swing states, Republicans have generally pushed for tighter laws, such as voter ID requirements and limits on mail-in voting, in the name of election integrity. Democrats have advocated eliminating barriers that could suppress voter participation, including by making rules for registering to vote and casting ballots more flexible.
Some states have made the rules they established in 2020 permanent or further expanded options for voting. Others have enacted restrictions that go beyond what were in place before 2020 and made it easier to challenge others’ voter registrations and ability to cast ballots. Not all the rules are set yet; some could change because of last-minute legislation and a wave of litigation.
Nowhere are the changing rules more important than in the seven states most likely to determine the presidential election. Many of those states were decided by tiny margins in 2016 and 2020 and are again expected to be crucial.
Sunday, April 7, 2024
What is Case Law?
- Click here for the article.
Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.
In common law countries (including the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand), it is used for judicial decisions of selected appellate courts, courts of first instance, agency tribunals, and other bodies discharging adjudicatory functions.
From LII: Adjudication
The central job description of the judiciary.
- Click here for it.
Adjudication refers to the legal process of resolving a dispute or deciding a case. When a claim is brought, courts identify the rights of the parties at that particular moment by analyzing what were, in law, the rights and wrongs of their actions when they occurred.
Adjudication also refers to the judicial decision itself. The effects of a judgment are determined by the doctrine of former adjudication. Under this doctrine, a final judgment in a prior action serves to bar re-litigation of the issues relevant to that determination.
Current news regarding our governing institutions - 4/7/24
- Crenshaw moves to block EPA crackdown on hazardous materials.
- What is Houston Public Works? What to know about the biggest issues facing the department.
- Tensions flare at Houston City Council over voter-approved historic rule change.
- Judge again considering ordering a redo of a 2022 Harris County judicial election.
- North Texas federal judges say they’ll ignore new rule aimed at curbing ‘judge shopping’.
- Texas appeals court overturns voter fraud conviction for woman on probation.
Jury Duty!
I changed the date to mid May so we wont have to miss class.
Expect to see few of these come your way.
From Harvard Law Today: Taylor’s Version of copyright At a Harvard Law School event, an expert in digital exploitation of intellectual property says Taylor Swift singlehandedly shifted composition copyright considerations
Tying together stuff we're talking about in class with Taylor Swift.
It's what I do.
- Click here for the article.
In 2005, a teenaged Taylor Swift signed on to the Big Machine record label and became a global superstar by the time she left the company in 2018. By that time, she’d recorded six albums for the label, all multimillion sellers.
Rather than buy into this agreement, Swift announced she would remake the albums. Under her new record deal with Universal Music Group, she’d now own whatever masters she produced. Because she is usually the main songwriter, she would already have rights to the musical works. As the author and owner of her newest masters, Swift now has majority control of her work. Hence, Greenstein said, he’d need to pay Swift royalties if he played one of her songs during the lecture.
No major artist had previously invested the time and energy to re-record their catalogue, but Swift’s move paid off, as the new versions were major commercial and critical successes. When Greenstein asked the class whether they listened to the originals or to Taylor’s Version, most picked the latter.
“Does that sound good to Shamrock Holdings?” he asked, to negative response. “Congratulations,” Greenstein said, “You just passed Contracts 101.”
As a result, he said, Shamrock now owned something far less valuable. They could still sell the original albums, but there is now less demand for them. And because Swift holds licensing rights as the creator of the musical work, she can make sure that the lucrative licensing deals (for movies, television, etc.) go to her own versions rather than Big Machine’s.
Saturday, April 6, 2024
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
The case that helped fuel the rise of business corporations in the US.
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
. . . a landmark decision in United States corporate law from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the application of the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which predated the creation of the State.
The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system.
Thursday, April 4, 2024
From the Texas Tribune: Texas wind energy firms need more technicians. Can they drum up student interest without state support?
A look at the labor supply.
- Click here for the article.
. . . Texas leaders have publicly committed to creating pipelines for Texans to join well-paying, high-demand fields, but the state has done little to funnel more young people into wind energy jobs. Political backing for the wind sector has waned in recent years as Texas Republicans have rushed to prop up the oil and gas industry. Notably, state lawmakers ended a program last year that gave wind companies a tax break in exchange for making investments in local schools, giving them a chance to introduce the idea of a career in the wind industry early in students' lives.
Links - 4/4/24
- On May 11, 1976, an ammonia truck disaster killed 7 Houstonians and injured nearly 200.
- At its two-year anniversary, the bipartisan infrastructure law continues to rebuild all of America.
- H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
- Members - Texas Animal Health Commission.
- A Guidebook to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
- How to Address the Supply-Chain Staffing Crisis.
- Cyber Warfare.
- Allan Shivers.
- John Connally.
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security Public Org Chart - June 25, 2019.
Wednesday, April 3, 2024
Catching up with the Texas Tribune
The focus is on the governing institutions.
- Texas emergency director calls for firefighting air force after historic Panhandle fires.
- Influential conservative PAC wades into Texas Legislature primaries.
- Years ago, Texas hustled to get kids on state health care. Now it’s kicking them off.
- Texas emergency director calls for firefighting air force after historic Panhandle fires.
- Influential conservative PAC wades into Texas Legislature primaries.
- Years ago, Texas hustled to get kids on state health care. Now it’s kicking them off.
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
The Texas Tribune: House Speaker Dade Phelan’s immigration record central in bid to oust him
Catching up with the Texas speaker.
- Click here for the article.
Early in the 2023 legislative session, Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan vowed to present “a very innovative solution” to combat the surge in migrants attempting to enter Texas from Mexico — one that would test the limits of states’ roles in immigration enforcement.
HB 20 has since been overshadowed by Senate Bill 4, which lets any law enforcement officer arrest someone suspected of illegally crossing the border, a boundary-testing immigration law that has been put on hold amid legal challenges.
But the earlier proposal has resurfaced in the speaker’s own GOP primary as his critics blame him for its demise in their broader effort to paint the Beaumont Republican as soft on the border and overly deferential to Democrats. Phelan has slammed the attacks as “absurd” and “misleading” attempts to deflect from his oversight of other far-reaching border laws and a record $6.5 billion spending spree to pay for Abbott’s Operation Lone Star, which includes building a state border wall.
That has not stopped David Covey — the GOP activist and energy consultant who pushed Phelan into a May runoff for his House seat — from also condemning the speaker for not casting a vote on SB 4. Two of Covey’s most prominent backers, former President Donald Trump and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, have echoed the same attack.
House speakers rarely vote on legislation, and they control whether a bill can reach the floor — meaning SB 4 could not have passed without the green light from Phelan. The speaker argued as much in a post touting SB 4 as “the strongest border security law in the nation.” It would let authorities arrest people they suspect of illegally entering the state from another country and allow judges to order their removal, essentially granting deportation powers long reserved for the federal government.
The way immigration is playing into Phelan’s primary serves as a telling example of where things stand in Texas politics: the issue is being used as a cudgel to jeopardize the political career of a Republican speaker whose record includes an eightfold increase in Texas’ border security spending and passage of laws that dramatically expand state law enforcement’s immigration role.
Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said it’s no surprise that Covey is trying to convince voters he is more committed to border issues than Phelan, given that “poll after poll shows that immigration and border issues are a central concern for Republicans.”
Monday, April 1, 2024
Mother Jones: Does “And” Really Mean “And”? Not Always, the Supreme Court Rules.
A look at how the Supreme Court can haggle over words.
- Click here for the article.
Just when you thought “and” meant “and,” and “or” meant “or,” along comes the Supreme Court to deliver the unsettling news: Your grammar is all wrong.
For anyone who isn’t a legal scholar, a copy editor, or an obsessive grammar nut, the debate here can be tough to follow. At issue was whether “and” in a provision of the Trump-era First Step Act was intentionally or mistakenly written to conjoin requirements for eligibility. For thousands of defendants, relief from mandatory minimum sentencing rested on whether “and” should be read as combining the set of conditions after the words “does not have.” In the puzzling provision, a defendant is eligible for relief if:
the defendant does not have—
(A) more than 4 criminal history points…;
(B) a prior 3-point offense…; and
(C) a prior 2-point violent offense…
(“Points” refers to the system of sentencing based on points assigned to various types of crimes.)
As I reported last year, lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have (C)—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief. In its 6–3 decision, the court sided with the DOJ’s interpretation, dramatically narrowing the scope of the law. The implications are profound: More than 10,000 people imprisoned since the law took effect will lose the chance to reduce their sentences, and thousands more will face stiffer sentencing in the future.
So how did the justices reach this conclusion?
Taken at face value, the petitioner’s reading seemed obvious: He was eligible for relief because he didn’t meet all three conditions bundled by “and.” But the court disagreed, saying that any of the conditions satisfies the “does not” test because the law’s calculations would be incoherent otherwise. Someone with both the 3-point offense from (B) and the 2-point offense from (C) would have at least 5 points and automatically exceed the 4 points in (A), making (A) extraneous. To give (A) meaning, the court said “and” has to function as “or.” The ordinary meaning of “and” would so disjoint the law mathematically that the court ruled from context, not just text.
The court also found unpersuasive the ordinary-meaning argument that “and” is always conjunctive after a negative, like “Don’t drink and drive” means you could maybe do either but can’t do both. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan brushed that example aside. “For every negative statement [the petitioner] offers up, another cuts the opposite way,” she noted, citing a counterexample: “If someone says ‘I’m not free on Saturday and Sunday’…he most likely means ‘I’m not free on Saturday and I’m not free on Sunday’; he is not saying that although he cannot go away for a full weekend, he can make plans on one of those days.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)