text:
While Hollywood's greatest musical films generally emerged from the Broadway stage, the artistic journey rarely has worked as well going in the opposite direction. The results of adapting hit movies for the theater are often poor imitations.
"Sister Act the Musical," now playing at the Saenger Theatre, proves to be quite the exception. The touring musical, based on Whoopi Goldberg's 1992 comedy, is an energetic delight and, quite unexpectedly, an uplifting joy.
Funny nuns have been a staple of comedy on both stage and screen for decades. For "Sister Act," the Mother Superior's question is "How do you solve a problem like Deloris?" After all, her ersatz novice is much more than a will-o'-the-wisp or a clown. When the would-be disco queen Deloris Van Cartier sees her mobster boyfriend kill a man, police put her in protective custody in a convent, where a showgirl lifestyle clashes with a solemn sensibility.
When she hears the nuns' any-note-will-do choir, Deloris steps up with soulful voice and spirit to transform the ensemble, and life in the convent and the parish itself.
Part of the musical's success is not treating the film script as sacred. While the book by Cheri and Bill Steinkellner (with added zingers by the ineffable Douglas Carter Beane) follows the basic plot of the earlier film, it transfers the setting to the 1970s. This distance to a slightly more innocent time amplifies the sweet nature of the story, as Deloris is just as transformed by her experience as the nuns around her.
As such, Deloris' character is softened from the role that Goldberg played so memorably in the film. Ta'Rea Campbell is a rising star to watch; she makes the role her own with a charismatic stage appeal that brings out Deloris' attitude and determination. She strikes the right balance of edginess with an underlying heart that makes her character arch even more believable.
And what a voice! Campbell sells each song vividly with a powerful belt, combined with an R&B flair that stirs the soul.
Across the board, this is one of the stronger touring casts local audiences have seen in recent years.
- What: Broadway in New Orleans continues its 2013-14 season with the musical adaptation of the hit Whoopi Goldberg film. The comedy stars Ta'rea Campbell, Lynne Wintersteller, Florrie Bagel, Chester Gregory, Ashley Moniz and Melvin Abston.
- Where: Saenger Theatre, 1111 Canal St.
- When: Performances at 7:30 on Wednesday and Thursday, 8 on Friday, 2 and 8 on Saturday, and 2 and 7:30 on Sunday, through Dec. 22.
- Admission: $36.65-$100.75, through Ticketmaster. For more information, go online at Neworleans.broadway.com.
Lynne Wintersteller stands out as the Mother Superior. She and Campbell are fine foils to each other. Wintersteller, however, takes the role farther, emphasized in a wonderful solo moment, "Haven't Got a Prayer," in which she wrestles with her tradition-bound faith and the struggles of facing the changes in her convent, and, indeed, the world around her.
The full ensemble of supporting nuns offer distinctive characterizations, not always easy to do dressed in full black habits, no matter how sequined they become through the course of the show. Florrie Bagel makes a big impression as Sister Mary Patrick, exuding a bubbly joy throughout. The mousy Sister Mary Robert draws an enchanting performance from Ashley Moniz. Her rendition of "The Life I Never Led" is both a heartwarming and roof-raising moment.
Other standout performances include Christopher Gregory as the cop who protects Deloris and has more than a legal interest in her well-being; his rendition of "I Could Be That Guy" charms. Melvin Abston plays the gangster Curtis straight out of "Superfly." Richard Pruitt draws laughs as Monsignor O'Hara, who apparently has dreams of being Barry White.
That '70s setting also allows composer Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater to create a rousing score that has the audience ready to dance in the aisles. They capture both a spirited Motown sound along with the infectious silliness of disco anthems, without falling to mere parody.
The show uses a somewhat larger band than most these days. Under the direction of Brent-Alan Huffman, the resulting big sound fills the Saenger nicely.
While "Sister Act" is not a groundbreaking show by any means, it makes for a pleasantly satisfying night of entertainment. Its underlying theme encouraging the pursuit of dreams, as well as finding a source of strength in faith, you'll leave the Saenger with a smile on your face and an extra kick in your step.


text:
|Blessed Pentecost
|Written by Michael Fones
|Sunday, 27 May 2007 06:29
"Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you." John 14:23, 26
The Holy Spirit is given to us not only so that we can remember what Jesus taught, but also to help us "keep his word."
For each of us, that means applying that word in the various environments and situations in which we find ourselves. The great saints are always creative people. Not necessarily artists working with marble or oil paints, but creative in terms of responding to or anticipating the needs of the humanity around them. Often they begin doing things that the rest of us look at as quixotic, idealistic, simplistic, or doomed to fail.
And then they succeed.
Or at least they make a difference in the lives they touch - a difference that is supernatural, as they use the gifts the Holy Spirit has given them so that people experience a glimpse of the healing power, love, providence, and joy of the risen Lord.
Barbara Elliott, one of our Called & GIfted teachers, and a great supporter of the Institute along with her husband, Winston, has written a book of contemporary saints who are making a difference in the inner cities of some of our largest metro areas. I encourage you to visit her website, "Street Saints," (click here) to get a glimpse of the inspiring lives of individuals who are truly living in the Spirit.
Perhaps they may inspire you to respond to a call God has placed in your heart.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
April 12, 1999
In an airtight plastic bag, combine marinade ingredients. Add lamb and turn to coat. Seal and refrigerate for 1 to 4 hours, turning occasionally. Soak six long bamboo skewers in cold water for at least 10 minutes. Drain lamb and put marinade in a small saucepan. Bring to a boil over medium-high heat and boil, covered, for at least 5 minutes. Preheat grill to medium-high. Separate each red onion wedge vertically into two parts, making 24 wedges. Separate artichoke hearts into 24 pieces. For each kebab, thread a skewer as follows: 1 piece onion, 1 meat cube, 1 piece artichoke, 1 tomato. Repeat three times for each skewer. Grill for 12-15 minutes, or until lamb is done to taste. Baste with hot marinade for last 5 minutes of cooking time. Makes 6 servings.
Prepare the pasta according to the directions. Two minutes before pasta is done, add asparagus to the cooking liquid. Drain the pasta and asparagus and toss with a little olive oil. Set aside. While the pasta is cooking, coat a 10-inch skillet with 1 Tbsp. of olive oil and heat over medium high. Add the mushrooms and cook until liquids are released and mushrooms begin to brown slightly, 5 to 8 minutes. Sprinkle the flour over the mushrooms and cook 1 minute. Add the milk gradually and stir constantly until the mixture is thick and bubbly. Add the mustard to the sauce and stir well. Add the ham strips, the cooked pasta, and the asparagus to the sauce and toss to combine. Season with salt and pepper; garnish with Parmesan cheese. Serve hot. Makes 4 servings.
Add oil to large nonstick fry pan over medium heat. Add mushrooms, garlic, and pepper flakes; cook, stirring, about 3 minutes and remove from pan. To fry pan, add chicken and cook about 3 minutes or until fork can be inserted with ease. Return mushroom mixture to pan, add lime zest, oyster sauce, and basil and heat through, about 3 minutes more. Place cooked rice on serving platter, top with chicken mixture and garnish with basil leaves. Makes 4 servings.


text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
- Connect2Classes
Connect with Us
Port commissioners to discuss industrial park name change
Commissioners for the Port of Bremerton will meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 26, at the Port Administration Offices, 8850 Highway 3, Bremerton.
On the agenda are a number of routine items including paying bills and transfer of funds. Commissioners will also hear an informational report on the 25th annual Blackberry Festival and related fly-in and car show.
One action item faces the board -- a possible name change of the South Kitsap Industrial Area to become the Puget Sound Industrial Center.
Commissioners support the name change to show that most of it was annexed to the city of Bremerton in 2008-2009, and so that it reflects marketing to a wider audience of potential tenants.
Staff reports also will be given at the meeting.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Oct 18 - Oct 25
Read the Oct 21
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.


text:
Don't let it get away!
Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.
Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.
There's never a dull week on Wall Street. Let's go over some of the news that will shape the week to come.
The new trading week kicks off just as earnings season is starting to heat up. One of the heavyweights reporting on Monday is Citigroup (NYSE: C ) .
The "too big to fail" banks have been generating plenty of attention in recent years, and it's not always for all the right reasons.
CSX (NYSE: CSX ) pulls into the station on Tuesday. Analysts see the rail transporter posting a quarterly profit of $0.43 a share, in line with what it earned during the same period a year earlier.
eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY ) bids for attention on Wednesday.
It's really not fair to continue to call the company eBay. Sure, its marketplace business is global and important, but PayPal is the eBay subsidiary that's been carrying the company in recent years. There are new challenges on that front, but it's hard to bet against PayPal's track record of holding off the competition.
Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD ) reports on Thursday, and it's not going to be pretty. The company already warned on Thursday night that it will post a roughly 10% sequential dip in revenue. That's pretty severe for a company that was expecting no more than a 4% quarter-over-quarter decline this summer.
The chipmaker blames market challenges and weakening demand for falling average selling prices and crushed gross margins. Investors may appreciate being tipped off a week early about the bad news, but that's not going to make Thursday's report any easier to take.
The week closes out with McDonald's (NYSE: MCD ) hoping to supersize its numbers. The world's largest restaurant operator held up well during the recession, but sales growth lately hasn't been all that impressive.
Maybe this month's Monopoly promotion will help. If not, it's never too late to bring back the cult fave McRib.
Check that calendar
If you like to stay on top of what happens next -- and I'm guessing you do, because you're reading this article -- how about checking out Motley Fool's top stock for 2012? It's a free report, but only for a limited time, so check it out now.


text:
Tooru Nemoto, Ph.D., Principal Investigator
Tooru Nemoto, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Center of AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS), Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Dr. Nemoto is a community psychologist who received his doctorate from New York University and his post-doctoral training in Health Policy at the Institute for Health Policy Studies, UCSF. His research efforts have mainly focused on drug abuse and HIV prevention, particularly among under-served and stigmatized populations, such as transgender persons, Asian female sex workers, and Asian and Pacific Islander (API) men who have sex with men (MSM), and on cultural issues in substance use and HIV prevention. Since Dr. Nemoto completed a post-doctoral training, he has been conducting a number of community-based research studies as the Principal Investigator. Currently, he conducts five studies: 1) HIV prevention intervention study for Asian female sex workers at massage parlors (Supported by NIH/NIDA: R01DA13896), 2) Drug abuse and HIV prevention targeting APIs (SAMHSA: H79TI14476), 3) Drug use and HIV risk behaviors among female sex workers in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and Bangkok, Thailand (NIDA Supplement: R01DA13896), 4) Drug use and HIV risk behaviors among transgenders (NIDA: R01DA11589), 5) Outreach and pretreatment for gender variant individuals (SAMHSA: H79 TI15807). As the Principal Investigator, Dr. Nemoto completed a number of research studies investigating drug use and HIV risk behaviors among APIs, transgender persons, and API MSM in collaboration with local substance abuse treatment and HIV prevention and AIDS service agencies. Through funding from the Japanese Foundation for AIDS Prevention, he has been collaborating with Japanese researchers in substance abuse and HIV prevention targeting Japanese youths, substance users, travelers in foreign countries, and HIV positives. He has published a number of research papers in professional journals and presented study findings at community forums and local, national, and international scientific meetings.
Mariko Iwamoto, MA, Project Coordinator
Mariko received her Master's degree in Social Psychology, focusing on cultural issues among Asian immigrants. She is the co-founder of the Domestic Violence Support Group for Japanese Victims at the Asian Women's Shelter in San Francisco. She has had extensive experience working with women and minority populations and is bilingual and bicultural in Japanese.
Alefiyah Pishori, Research Assistant
After receiving her Bachelors degree in Psychology and Government from Claremont McKenna College in May 2006, Alefiyah returned to the South Bay, where she grew up. She hopes to pursue a career in mental and public health, working with minority groups, especially Asian and South Asian Americans. In her free time, she likes to read, travel, go shopping, and spend time with her friends.
Christy Tam, Data Manager
Christy Tam emigrated from China to the United State with her family in 1990 and has lived in the bay area ever since. She graduated from San Francisco State University in 1998. Christy has three lovely young kids who always keep her busy, one 4 year old girl and two boys, 2 and 1 years old.
For HPEP or Sensitivity Training Program please contact:
Peggy Lee, Sensitivity Trainer
Peggy Lee is a Bay Area girl, born and bred. She grew up in Fremont and graduated from UC Berkeley in the summer of 2003 (although it feels like yesterday). She loves living in the city. She also loves fried dessert, film, and languages.
For TEPOT Health Educators please contact:
Yoonjung Kim, Health Educator
Yoonjung was born and grew up in South Korea. Before moving to the U.S., she worked on the program of Korean Overseas Volunteer, which is similar to the American Peace Corps program, in Thailand for a couple of years. She had a six-year long career as a journalist, and joined UCSF CAPS in 2005. She is currently in the MSW program at UC Berkeley with a concentration in community mental health. She loves world-travel and cross-cultural studies.
Natalie Sacramento, Health Educator
Natalie Sacramento grew up in Vallejo and went to school at UCLA. Though she enjoyed her time in Los Angeles, she is glad to be back here in the beautiful Bay Area. Natalie is a gradual vegan (but may never be able to give up real cheese), loves waking up early, and would like to travel more.
Koji Sakakibara, MA, Health Educator
Koji Sakakibara was born and raised in a medium sized city in Central Japan. After finishing his bachelor's in Law, Koji moved to the United States to pursue a master's degree in special education. Upon completion, Koji spent several years working as a teacher in addition to focusing on work with HIV+ Japanese nationals who were living in the United States. In December of 2004, Koji joined the TEPOT project as a health educator.
Last modified: January 20, 2011


text:
South America's awesome. I know it from pictures. More specifically, I know it from the pictures of their women.
I also hope to visit there someday and see those women. My life's goals are set high, you see.
Until then, let's take a look at some of those pictures—of women. I just want to be clear that you won't be seeing photos of the country's beaches or anything.
Here are the Top 25 Sexiest South American Sports Hotties.


text:
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Daily Read: Corey Robin on Dignity (and Whitney Houston)
Over at his eponymous blog, CUNY-Brooklyn Political Science professor Corey Robin has an interesting take on the controversial passage from Justice Thomas's dissent in Obergefell criticizing the "dignity" rationale of Kennedy's opinion for the Court by stating in part that slaves" did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. "
Robins's post, "From Whitney Houston to Obergefell: Clarence Thomas on Human Dignity," is worth a read, and even worth a listen if you are so inclined.
June 30, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Fundamental Rights, Race, Reconstruction Era Amendments, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Thirteenth Amendment, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, June 15, 2015
Does Immigration Marriage Case Foreshadow Same-Sex Marriage Case?
In United States Supreme Court's fragmented and closely divided decision in Kerry v. Din, the majority rejected the procedural due process argument of a naturalized American citizen to an explanation of the reasons supporting a denial of a visa to her noncitizen husband. Justice Scalia, writing for the plurality and joined by Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts, concluded that she had no cognizable liberty interest attributable to her marriage. Justice Kennedy, joined by Alito, would not reach the liberty interest issue because the process here was all that was due. Justice Breyer, dissenting, and joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, would affirm the Ninth Circuit and find that she had a cognizable liberty interest and that more process was due in the form of a more precise and factual explanation.
So what might this mean for Obergefell? Most obviously, the dissenting opinion by Breyer, and joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, articulates an expansive liberty interest in marriage under the Due Process Clause that could be easily imported into Obergefell. On Justice Kennedy's concurrence, joined by Alito, the clear signal is that Justice Scalia's refusal to recognize a liberty interest in marriage is not one to which they are subscribing - - - in this case. Given that Justice Kennedy, as author of the Court's opinions Windsor, Lawrence, and Romer v. Evans, is being closely watched as potential author of an opinion in favor of Obergefell, there is nothing in Din that would mitigate that judgment. As for the plurality, Justice Scalia's derogation of substantive due process has a familiar ring that might be echoed in his opinion in Obergefell, with an emphasis on history. While Justice Thomas is widely expected to agree with Scalia's position, does the Chief Justice's joining of Scalia's opinion in Kerry v. Din signal a disapproval of recognizing any liberty interest in marriage? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Consider this:
Unlike the States in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 (1978), and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987), the Federal Government here has not attempted to forbid a marriage. Although Din and the dissent borrow language from those cases invoking a fundamental right to marriage, they both implicitly concede that no such right has been infringed in this case. Din relies on the "associational interests in marriage that necessarily are protected by the right to marry," and that are "presuppose[d]" by later cases establishing a right to marital privacy.
Indeed, under this view, as the Court made clear in Zablocki, there must be a "direct and substantial" interference with marriage in order for there to be a liberty interest. The Court in Zablocki distinguished Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 (1977) - - - which the Court in Din does not cite - - - which found no constitutional infirmity with altering social security benefits upon marriage. In short, the marriage was not "forbidden," it was simply subject to certain regulations in another the complex social security scheme, not unlike the complex immigration scheme.
So for those who might attempt to predict the various positions of the Justices in Obergefell based on Kerry v. Din, there is certainly much "play."
June 15, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Family, Gender, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US), Theory | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Fifth Circuit on Texas's Abortion Law HB 2 Redux
The Fifth Circuit has issued its opinion in Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, as the latest in the continuing saga regarding the constitutionality of HB 2.
Recall that a divided Supreme Court previously vacated the Fifth Circuit stay of the district judge's injunction against portions of the law, thus reinstating the district judge's injunction at least in part.
This opinion dissolves the district judge's opinion except as to one clinic in McAllen, Texas, holding that HB2's admitting privileges requirement and ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements did not impose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions as a facial matter (and relying in part on Planned Parenthood of Texas Surgical Providers v. Abbott as a basis for res judicata). As applied, the court distinguished McAllen from El Paso, which has another abortion clinic nearby, albeit across the Texas state border in New Mexico.
It is unlikely this latest opinion will be an end to the litigation regarding HB2.
June 10, 2015 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Gender, Reproductive Rights, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Guide to the Amicus Briefs in Obergefell v. Hodges: The Same-Sex Marriage Cases
The United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 28 in the same-sex marriage cases, now styled as Obergefell v. Hodges, a consolidated appeal from the Sixth Circuit's decision in DeBoer v. Snyder, reversing the district court decisions in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee that had held the same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, and creating a circuit split.
Recall that the Court certified two questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
The case has attracted what seems to be a record number of amicus briefs. As we discussed last year, previous top amicus brief attractors were the same-sex marriage cases of Windsor and Perry, which garnered 96 and 80 amicus briefs respectively, and the 2013 affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which attracted 92. [Note that the "Obamacare" Affordable Care Act cases including 2012's consolidated cases of NFIB v. Sebelius attracted 136 amicus briefs.]
The count for Obergefell v. Hodges stands at 139. 147 [updated: 17 April 2015] 149 [updated] LINKS TO ALL THE BRIEFS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ABA WEBSITE HERE.
76 77 amicus briefs support the Petitioners, who contend that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.
58 66 67 amicus briefs support the Respondents, who contend that same-sex marriage bans are constitutional.
05 amicus briefs support neither party (but as described below, generally support Respondents).
According to the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 37, an amicus curiae brief's purpose is to bring to the attention of the Court "relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties." While such a brief "may be of considerable help to the Court," an "amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored."
An impressive number of the Amicus Briefs are authored or signed by law professors. Other Amici include academics in other fields, academic institutions or programs, governmental entities or persons, organizations, and individuals, often in combination. Some of these have been previously involved in same-sex marriage or sexuality issues and others less obviously so, with a number being religious organizations. Several of these briefs have been profiled in the press; all are linked on the Supreme Court's website and on SCOTUSBlog.
Here is a quick - - - if lengthy - - - summary of the Amici and their arguments, organized by party being supported and within that, by identity of Amici, beginning with briefs having substantial law professor involvement, then government parties or persons, then non-legal academics, followed by organizations including religious groups, and finally by those offering individual perspectives. [Late additions appear below]Special thanks to City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law Class of 2016 students, Aliya Shain & AnnaJames Wipfler, for excellent research.
April 16, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Equal Protection, Establishment Clause, Family, Federalism, First Amendment, Foreign Affairs, Fourteenth Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Fundamental Rights, Gender, History, Interpretation, Privacy, Profiles in Con Law Teaching, Race, Recent Cases, Reproductive Rights, Scholarship, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Standing, Supreme Court (US), Theory | Permalink | Comments (3)
Monday, March 9, 2015
Eighth Circuit Holds Missouri's "Disrupting a House of Worship" Crime Violates First Amendment
In its opinion today in Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, Inc. v. Joyce, the Eighth Circuit found that Missouri's "House of Worship Protection Act," Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.035, violates the First Amendment.
The statute provides that a person commits the crime of disrupting a house of worship if he or she "[i]ntentionally and unreasonably disturbs, interrupts, or disquiets any house of worship by using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services."
The panel's unanimous and relatively brief opinion, reversing the district judge, found fault with the statute as a content-based regulation, focusing as it does on "profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior." The panel rejected the state's argument that it was a mere time, place, or manner regulation subject to a lower level of scrutiny. Instead, the Eighth Circuit quoted the Court's decision in McCullen v. Coakley last Term that a statute "would not be content neutral if it were concerned with undesirable effects that arise from 'the direct impact of speech on its audience' or '[l]isteners' reactions to speech.'"
The Eighth Circuit then easily found that the content based statute did not survive strict scrutiny: "Even if the government interest in protecting the free exercise of religion were viewed as compelling, however, the content based prohibitions the Act places on profane or rude speech are not necessary to protect that freedom." There were content neutral alternatives to protect houses of worship from disruption, such as noise regulations and there was nothing in the record showing that any worship services have been disrupted in Missouri.
Thus, the facial challenge to the statute, brought by SNAP - - - a non profit organization which advocates for victims of sexual abuse by clergy and members who "regularly communicate their messages outside of a Catholic friary in St. Louis where a priest accused of child molestation resides" - - - was successful.
It does seem as if Missouri could amend the statute to pass constitutional scrutiny by excising the content-based language and leaving the noise related language.
[image via]
March 9, 2015 in First Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Sexuality, Speech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, March 2, 2015
Nebraska Federal Judge Declares Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Senior United States District Judge Joseph Bataillon has enjoined Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban in its state constitution and found it violates the Fourteenth Amendment in his Memorandum and Order today in Waters v. Ricketts.
Recall that the United States Supreme Court will be hearing the issue this Term, having granted certiorari to the Sixth Circuit's divided opinion in the consolidated cases of DeBoer v. Snyder. The Court previously denied certiorari to opinions from the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits all finding that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit has ruled similarly. The Eighth Circuit, in which Nebraska is located, has not issued a definitive opinion on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
Judge Joseph Bataillon's ruling sounds in both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He finds that marriage is a "fundamental liberty" and that the same-sex marriage ban is a facial classification based on gender. He also finds that Nebraska's state interests, including opposite sex parenting and protecting tradition, are insufficient. Throughout his analysis, he relies heavily on the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Baskin and the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Latta.
Interestingly, Judge Bataillon offers a prediction of the Court's conclusion:
The court finds the plaintiffs have demonstrated they will likely prevail on the merits of their claim. The court is persuaded that the Supreme Court will ultimately endorse, for one reason or another, the results obtained in the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuit challenges to same sex marriage bans.
Judge Bataillon supports this statement with an interesting footnote [15]:
This conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court's recent denial of a stay of an Alabama district court decision invalidating a same-sex marriage ban. See Strange v. Searcy, 2015 WL 505563 (U.S. Feb. 9, 2015) (denying of application for stay of an injunction preventing Attorney General of Alabama from enforcing Alabama laws as defining marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman) (Justice Thomas noting in dissent that the failure to stay the injunction "may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution [of the constitutional question it left open in Windsor]."); see also Armstrong v. Brenner, No. 14A650, 2014 WL 7210190 (U.S. Dec. 19, 2014) (denying stay of preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Florida's marriage exclusion); Wilson v. Condon, 14A533, 2014 WL 6474220 (U.S. Nov. 20, 2014) (denying stay of judgment finding South Carolina's marriage exclusion laws unconstitutional); Moser v. Marie, 14A503, 2014 WL 5847590 (U.S. Nov. 12, 2014) (denying stay of preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Kansas' marriage exclusion); Parnell v. Hamby, No 14A413, 2014 WL 5311581 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2014) (denying stay of district court decision declaring Alaska's marriage exclusion unconstitutional); Otter v. Latta, No. 14A374, 2014 WL 5094190 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2014) (denying application for stay of Ninth Circuit's judgment finding Idaho's marriage exclusion laws unconstitutional)
Also, the Supreme Court itself has telegraphed its leanings. See Lawrence [v. Texas] 539 U.S. at 605 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (stating that "principle and logic" would require the Court, given its decision in Lawrence, to hold that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage); see also United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2709 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (essentially stating that the majority opinion in Windsor makes a finding of unconstitutionality regarding state same-sex marriage bans "inevitable.")
The use of Scalia's dissenting opinions is yet another example of the Scalia's "petard" phenomenon.
Also interesting is Judge Bataillon's rejection of injury to Nebraska should there be a preliminary injunction:
All but one of the plaintiff couples are married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage. All of the couples have been in committed relationships for many years. Those that have resided in Nebraska have not caused damage to society at large or to the institution of marriage.
The preliminary injunction is effective March 9, at 8:00 am. Nebraska is reportedly appealing and seeking an emergency stay.
March 2, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Gender, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Judge Moore: federal courts have no power over state marriage law
In a Letter to the Governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley today, the Chief Justice of Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore (pictured) asked the Governor to continue to uphold the respect for different-sex marriage and reject the judicial "tyranny" of the federal district court's opinion last Friday finding the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. He writes grounds the sacredness of man-woman marriage in the Bible, and writes
Today the destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution. As of this date, 44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states. If we are to preserve that "reverent morality which is our source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement," then we must act to oppose such tyranny!
He argues that United States district court opinions are not controlling authority in Alabama, citing a case, Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Taylor, 28 So. 3d 737, 744n.5 (Ala. 2009), regarding a common law negligence claim rather than a constitutional issue. He does not argue the Supremacy Clause.
Justice Moore is no stranger to controversial positions, including promoting his biblical beliefs over federal law, and gained notoriety as the "the Ten Commandments Judge." Recall that Moore was originally elected to the Alabama Supreme Court with the campaign promise to "restore the moral foundation of the law" and soon thereafter achieved notoriety for installing a 5,280-pound monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. See Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2003). After federal courts found that the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1304 (M.D. Ala. 2002), aff'd, Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003), Chief Justice Moore was ordered to remove the monument. See Glassroth v. Moore, No. 01-T-1268-N, 2003 LEXIS 13907 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2003). After the deadline to remove the monument passed, Chief Justice Moore was suspended, with pay, pending resolution of an ethics complaint, which charged that he failed to "observe high standards of conduct" and "respect and comply with the law." Jeffrey Gettleman, Judge Suspended for Defying Court on Ten Commandments, N.Y. Times, August 23, 2003, at A7.
In 2012, Justice Moore was re-elected to the Alabama Supreme Court as its chief justice after almost a decade out of office during which time he served as "President of the Foundation for Moral Law."
[UPDATE: A great video produced by Christopher Scott and Mary Baschab, University of Alabama School of Law, Class of 2011 is here].
January 27, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US), Theory | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, December 22, 2014
Fourth Circuit Finds North Carolina's Anti-Abortion "Right to Know" Statute Violates First Amendment
[updated below]
In the unanimous panel opinion today in Stuart v. Camnitz, authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, the court agreed with the district judge that North Carolina's "Woman's Right to Know Act" violates the First Amendment. The Act required a physician "to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions."
The Fourth Circuit ruled that the statute is
quintessential compelled speech. It forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say. Moreover, the statement compelled here is ideological; it conveys a particular opinion. The state freely admits that the purpose and anticipated effect of the Display of Real-Time View Requirement is to convince women seeking abortions to change their minds or reassess their decisions.
The court rejected the state's contention that the statute was merely a regulation of professional speech that should be subject to the low standard of rational basis review. Instead, the court reasoned that because the statute was a content-based regulation of speech, it should be evaluated under an intermediate scrutiny standard akin to that of commercial speech.
Importantly, the court also acknowledged its specific disagreement with the Eighth Circuit's en banc opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (2012) and the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey (5th Cir. 2012). The Fourth Circuit states that its sister circuits were incorrect to reply on a single paragraph in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, and "read too much into Casey and Gonzales [v. Carhart]," neither of which, the court points out, were First Amendment cases.
As the court stated,
In sum, though the State would have us view this provision as simply a reasonable regulation of the medical profession, these requirements look nothing like traditional informed consent, or even the versions provided for in Casey and in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.82. As such, they impose an extraordinary burden on expressive rights. The three elements discussed so far -- requiring the physician to speak to a patient who is not listening, rendering the physician the mouthpiece of the state's message, and omitting a therapeutic privilege to protect the health of the patient -- markedly depart from standard medical practice.
It concluded,
Abortion may well be a special case because of the undeniable gravity of all that is involved, but it cannot be so special a case that all other professional rights and medical norms go out the window. While the state itself may promote through various means childbirth over abortion, it may not coerce doctors into voicing that message on behalf of the state in the particular manner and setting attempted here.
Most likely North Carolina will seek en banc review or petition for certiorari based on the conflicting opinions in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits.
UPDATE: On June 15, 2015, the United States Supreme Court's Order denied certiorari in the case now styled Walker-McGill v. Stuart, with a notation "justice Scalia dissents," but with no accompanying opinion.
[image via]
December 22, 2014 in Abortion, Current Affairs, First Amendment, Gender, Medical Decisions, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Reproductive Rights, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1)
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Ninth Circuit Upholds LA's Condom Mandate in Adult Films
In its opinion in Vivid Entertainment v. Fielding, a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district judge's denial of a preliminary injunction to Los Angeles Measure B, passed by voter initiative in 2012.
The central issue in the case was the so-called "condom mandate" that requires performers to use condoms during "any acts of vaginal or anal sexual intercourse." The opinion, authored by Judge Susan Gruber, and joined by Judge Alex Kozinksi and sitting by designation Judge Jack Zouhary, agreed with the district judge that the First Amendment challenge to the mandate was subject to intermediate scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit relied in large part on the "secondary effects" doctrine, finding that
The purpose of Measure B is twofold: (1) to decrease the spread of sexually transmitted infections among performers within the adult film industry, (2) thereby stemming the transmission of sexually transmitted infections to the general population among whom the performers dwell.
The court rejected the argument that strict scrutiny should apply nevertheless because Measure B was a "complete ban" on the protected expression, which plaintiffs would define as "condomless sex" ("condomless sex differs from sex generally because condoms remind the audience about real-world concerns such as pregnancy and disease . . . films depicting condomless sex convey a particular message about sex in a world without those risks). Citing Spence v. Washington (1974), the Ninth Circuit concluded that "whatever unique message Plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message." Moreover, in an interesting footnote (6), the Ninth Circuit distinguished between the expression and the conduct:
On its face, Measure B does not ban expression; it does not prohibit the depiction of condomless sex, but rather limits only the way the film is produced.
(emphasis in original). The panel opinion also discussed - - - and rejected - - - the arguments that Measure B was not sufficiently "narrowly tailored" in the intermediate scrutiny test because there was a voluntary testing and monitoring cheme for sexually transmitted diseases and that Measure B would be "ineffective" because producers could simply move beyond county lines.
The district judge did, however, find that certain portions of Measure B did not survive the constitutional challenge. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that Measure B was not subject to severance. The Ninth Circuit panel rejected the severance argument, but helpfully included as an appendix to its opinion a "line-edited version" of Measure B.Finally, the Ninth Circuit panel rejected the argument that the appellate court did not have Article III power to hear the appeal because the intervenors - - - including a Campaign Committee Yes on Measure B - - - lacked Article III standing. The panel distinguished Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case), noting that here it was not the intervenors that sought to appeal but the plaintiffs themselves who had invoked the court's power.
December 16, 2014 in Film, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexuality, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, December 12, 2014
Daily Reads: On Torture
With the publication of the more than 500 page "Executive Summary" of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program (searchable document here), the subject of torture is dominating many public discussions.
A few items worth a look (or second look):
In French, Justice Scalia's interview with Le Journal du matin de la RTS (videos and report) published today. One need only be marginally fluent in French to understand the headline: "La torture pas anticonstitutionnelle", dit le doyen de la Cour suprême US. (h/t Prof Darren Rosenblum).
The French report will not surprise anyone familiar with Justice Scalia's discussion of torture from the 2008 "60 Minutes" interview discussed and excerpted here.
The "ticking time bomb" discussion in Scalia's remarks is the subject of an interesting commentary by ConLawProf Rosa Brooks in Foreign Policy provocatively entitled "Tick, Tick, Bull, Shit."
And while Justice Scalia contended that defining torture is going to be a "nice trick," LawProf David Luban's 2014 book Torture, Power, and Law offers very explicit definitions, even as it argues that these definitions can erode as torture becomes "normalized," seemingly giving credence to Scalia's point.
December 12, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Executive Authority, Foreign Affairs, International, Interpretation, News, Scholarship, Sexuality, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Daily Read: Weatherby on First Amendment Rights of Trans* Youth
November 20, as President Obama acknowledged again this year, is "Transgender Day of Remembrance." While the commemoration often focuses on violence against trans* people, it also provokes consideration of legal remedies to end discrimination.
In her article posted on ssrn, From Jack to Jill: Gender Expression as Protected Speech in the Modern Schoolhouse, Professor Danielle Weatherby (pictured) takes up the issue of differential treatment in schools. Weatherby argues that the First Amendment has an important role to play in protecting gender expression:
With the majority of states and municipalities having enacted strong anti-bullying and anti-discrimination laws, and the judiciary on the cusp of deciding "the great bathroom debate," the impetus toward carving out new protections for transgender students is finally underway. Nonetheless, litigants on both sides of the debate are left confused, with little practical guidance directing their conduct.
Some litigants have advanced the innovative "gender expression as protected speech" argument in limited circumstances, such as challenges to a school's decree that a transgender girl student could not wear female apparel and accessories; an employer's refusal to allow a female employee, who was required to wear a pants uniform at work, wear a skirt; and even an employer's policy requiring a transgender woman to use the men's restroom until she proved through documentation that she had undergone sexual reassignment surgery. Yet, no transgender student has advanced the argument that her use of the girls' restroom, like her feminine dress, feminine preferences, and feminine mannerisms, constitutes symbolic expression deserving of protection under the First Amendment.
[manuscript at 50; footnotes omitted].
She argues:
An individual's conduct in using a restroom designated as either "male" or "female" or "man" or "women" expresses that individual's belief that she belongs in that designated category of persons. By choosing to enter a facility labeled for a specific gender group, that individual is effectively stating her association with that gender. Although no words may ever be uttered, there is a strong mental association between the designation affixed to a restroom door and the fact that only those individuals identifying with that designation would enter and use that facility. Therefore, since a transgender student's selection of a particular restroom is "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication," the conduct is expressive and sends a particularized message about the student's gender identity.
[manuscript at 55].
Weatherby cautions that schools should not yield to the "heckler's veto" and should protect the First Amendment rights of trans* students to expression. Ultimately, her argument is that such protection will eradicate the resort to violence.
November 20, 2014 in First Amendment, Gender, Scholarship, Sexuality, Speech, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Federal Judge in Puerto Rico Dismisses Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban
In his opinion in Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico Juan Perez-Gimenez dismissed the constitutional challenge to Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as "man and woman" and refusing recognition to marriages "between persons of the same sex or transexuals."
In large part, Judge Perez-Gimenez relied upon Baker v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court's 1972 dismissal of a same-sex marriage ban challenge "for want of substantial federal question." For Judge Perez-Gimenez, this dismissal remains binding precedent for several reasons. Judge Perez-Gimenez finds that Baker remains good law despite the "nebulous 'doctrinal developments" since 1972. He rejects the precedential value of Windsor v. United States in this regard: "Windsor does not - - - and cannot - - - change things." He acknowledges and cites authority to the contrary, but finds it unpersuasive. He specifically rejects the relevance of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari from circuit decisions finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional in light of the more solid precedent of Baker v. Nelson.
Judge Perez-Gimenez also grounds his adherence to Baker v. Nelson on the First Circuit's opinion in Massachusetts v. HHS, finding DOMA unconstitutional. The First Circuit's discussion of Baker v. Nelson is somewhat unclear, but Judge Perez-Gimenez rejects the argument that they are dicta and further reasons even if the statements are dicta, "they would remain persuasive authority, and as such, further support the Court's independent conclusions about, and the impact of subsequent decisions on, Baker."
Judge Perez-Gimenez articulates a perspective of judicial restraint, articulating deference to the democtratic institutions of Puerto Rico and adherence to stare decisis. But in the opinion's conclusion, he makes his own views clear:
Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is "exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship," Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.
Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial "wisdom" may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.
A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is "minimal marriage", where "individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties" the blueprint for their design? *** It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs' logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on "the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one's choice."
Undoubtedly, this issue is on its way to the First Circuit. The states in the First Circuit - - - Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine - - - all have same-sex marriage without federal court decisions, so this decision from the District of Puerto Rico will provide the First Circuit the opportunity to reconsider Baker v. Nelson and the applicability of its DOMA decision, Massachusetts v. Gill.
Although perhaps the challengers to the same-sex and "transsexual" marriages might seek to have the issue decided by the Puerto Rican Supreme Court.
October 22, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, October 9, 2014
First Circuit Finds Adult-Entertainment Zoning Regulations Unconstitutional
In its opinion in Showtime Entertainment v. Town of Mendon, the First Circuit reversed a grant a summary judgment for the Massachusetts town and found that the zoning bylaws infringed on Showtime Entertainment's "right to engage in a protected expressive activity" violated the First Amendment.
Judge Juan Torruella's opinion for the unanimous panel first confronted the issue of whether the challenge to the zoning bylaws should be viewed as a facial challenge or as an as-applied challenge. Here, there was "little practical distinction": there were only four plots of land within the "Adult Entertainment Overlay District" to which the bylaws applied. But because the relief sought was an invalidation of the zoning bylaws, the court treated the challenge as a facial one.
Additionally, the court discussed whether the town's actions should be judged as content-based, thus meriting strict scrutiny, or should be judged as content-nuetral, meriting intermediate scrutiny. The court withheld its conclusion, finding that the zoning bylaws failed even the more deferential intermediate scrutiny standard.
The problem for the Town was that its stated governmental interests - - - its proferred secondary effects - - - did not further a substantial governmental interest unrelated to the speech. These interests were two: the town's "rural aethetics" and traffic. The problem for the Town was that it sought to advance these interests only as to the Showtime Entertainment lot of the four lots and not as to the other lots occupied by a 6,900-square-foot self-storage facility, a drive-in movie theater with an estimated capacity of 700 vehicles,
and a 10,152-square-foot nightclub. While the court clarified that its inquiry was not strictly a "underinclusive" one: "Nonetheless, we rightly pay attention to underinclusiveness where it reveals significant doubts that the government indeed has a substantial interest that is furthered by its proffered purpose."
Thus, as to the "rural aesthetics," the court noted that there was no cognizable difference between a large building hosting adult-entertainment or another large building. The court also noted that counsel for the Town conceded at oral argument that "what's in the building" also mattered, thus seemingly acknowledging that this was a content-based regulation. The traffic concerns suffered a similar fate, with the court finding no distinct traffic concerns for this type of business than for others along this heavily traveled route.
In some secondary effects cases, courts merely defer to studies, but here the court discussed them specifically (noting it conducted an "independent review of the studies") and found them lacking. The studies had a common theme regarding the effect of adult-entertainment businesses on neighborhoods: the effect has a "limited radius." This undermined the Town's fallback argument that Showtime Entertainment effected the rural aesthetic of the town as a whole, rather than the non-existing rural aesthetic along the busy highway. Additionally, the court detailed the traffic studies, finding that they did not actually mention traffic, or were "largely anecdotal, rely nearly exclusively on personal perceptions rather than verifiable data, and include significant hedging language, such as indicating that increased traffic is merely a hypothesis." The court also stated that in "several cases, they also make apparent that the true, primary concern is not traffic, but the type of patrons thought to visit adult-entertainment businesses," thus becoming content-based.
The secondary effects doctrine has proven a controversial one, with some of the Justices who first proffered the notion later disavowing it. The First Circuit refreshingly gives the doctrine a rigorous application.
[images: the drive-in movie in Mendon via; the image of Mendon portrayed on its website via]
October 9, 2014 in Film, First Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Sexuality, Speech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
New Jersey Supreme Court Finds Constant GPS Monitoring of Sex Offender Unconstitutional as Ex Post Facto
In a closely divided opinion in Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, the New Jersey Supreme Court has found that its Sex Offender Monitoring Act (SOMA), passed in 2007, violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws under both the New Jersey and United States Constitutions when applied to a person whose crime was committed in 1986 and was released from prison not under any type of parole supervision.
George Riley, who is now 81 years of age, argued that the monitoring constituted punishment, rather than simply civil consequences. The majority of the court found that SOMA was penal in nature: it "looks like parole, monitors like parole, restricts like parole, serves the general purpose of parole, and is run by the Parole Board. Calling this scheme by another name does not alter its essential nature."
The majority also discussed the particulars of the GPS monitoring: the device combines the transmitter and tracking device into a single ankle bracelet that Riley experiences as heavy and causes pain when he sleeps; the device identifies Riley as a sex offender "no less clearly than if he wore a scarlet letter"; the device transmits prerecorded messages while Riley is in public; Riley must be "tethered" to an electrical outlet for one or two hours every sixteen hours and cannot be out of range of the GPS receiver; and the wearing of the GPS is not reviewable under SOMA.
The majority stressed that Riley was not otherwise subject to probation and parole, but had completed his sentence, thus distinguishing his situation from some of the other cases that had considered the GPS monitoring issue. However, the majority did note that "North Carolina Supreme Court in 2010 upheld against an ex post facto challenge a statute that provided for GPS monitoring of sexual offenders, regardless of whether the offenders had completed their sentences."
Importantly, the majority applied United States Supreme Court precedent in analyzing whether the New Jersey statute was punitive and specifically stated that the "New Jersey Ex Post Facto Clause is interpreted in the same manner as its federal counterpart." Thus, the state may clearly seek United States Supreme Court review of the state supreme court's holding in Riley. Whether or not it will is uncertain, but the division on the New Jersey Supreme Court as well as divisions among state courts may tip the balance toward asking the United States Supreme Court for review.
[image via]
September 23, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Criminal Procedure, Opinion Analysis, Sexuality, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Third Circuit Upholds New Jersey's Ban on Sexual Conversion Therapy Against First Amendment Challenge
The Third Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of New Jersey A3371 banning "sexual orientation change efforts" (SOCE), also known as sexual conversion therapy, on minors in its unanimous 74 page opinion in King v. Christie, Governor of New Jersey.
The Third Circuit affirmed the district judge's extensive opinion from last November and reached the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit did when reviewing a very similar California statute in Pickup v. Brown, albeit on different grounds.
The Third Circuit's opinion by Judge D. Brooks Smith (and joined by Judges Vanaskie and Sloviter), specifically disagrees with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that SOCE is "conduct" rather than speech, a conclusion the New Jersey district judge essentially adopted. The Third Circuit credits some of the reasoning of Ninth Circuit Judge O'Scannlain's "spirited dissent" from en banc review in Pickup as well the Supreme Court's Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The Third Circuit rejected the principle that there is a sustainable line between utterances that are speech and those that are treatment:
consider a sophomore psychology major who tells a fellow student that he can reduce same- sex attractions by avoiding effeminate behaviors and developing a closer relationship with his father. Surely this advice is not "conduct" merely because it seeks to apply "principles" the sophomore recently learned in a behavioral psychology course. Yet it would be strange indeed to conclude that the same words, spoken with the same intent, somehow become "conduct" when the speaker is a licensed counselor." . . . . As another example, a law student who tries to convince her friend to change his political orientation is assuredly "speaking" for purposes of the First Amendment, even if she uses particular rhetorical "methods" in the process.
Yet, the court concludes that although such utterances are speech, they are not "fully protected by the First Amendment" because they occur in a professional context. In speech that occurs pursuant to the practice of a licensed profession - - - including fortune-tellers, a case on which the court relies - - - the speech is entitled to less protection.
Precisely, it is entitled to the same level of protection as commercial speech, although importantly the Third Circuit is careful not to hold that this professional speech is commercial speech. In applying the intermediate scrutiny type standard derived from commercial speech, the court finds that the statute "directly advances" the government's interest in protecting clients from ineffective and/or harmful professional services, and is "not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest."
The court's distinction between professional and nonprofessional speech, however, may suffer from the same lack of bright lines that it finds with the conduct/speech distinction. The court stresses that professional speech occurs in the context of "personalized services to client based on the professional's expert knowledge and judgement." But in rejecting an argument that the New Jersey statute makes a viewpoint distinction, the court states that the statute
allows Plaintiffs to express this viewpoint, in the form of their personal opinion, to anyone they please, including their minor clients. What A3371 prevents Plaintiffs from doing is expressing this viewpoint in a very specific way—by actually rendering the professional services that they believe to be effective and beneficial.
The Third Circuit's opinion also considered the challenge that the statute was vague and overbroad, noting that the Plaintiffs themselves claim to specialize in the very practice they argue is not sufficiently defined. Similarly, the Third Circuit rejected the Free Exercise Clause claim, affirmed the district judge's conclusion on lack of standing to raise the claims of the minor clients (with some disagreement as to reasoning), and also affirmed on the intervention of an organization.
However, it is the free speech claim that it is the center of this controversy, with the Third Circuit carving out a "professional speech" category, in a disagreement with the Ninth Circuit (and on similar issues with other circuits as it notes), but clearly upholding the statute.
[images from "Ten Days in a Mad House, Nellie Bly, via]
September 11, 2014 in Courts and Judging, First Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Speech, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Seventh Circuit Declares Same-Sex Marriage Prohibitions of Two States Unconstitutional
The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in Baskin v. Bogan and Wolf v. Walker just last week. Today, the court issued its unanimous opinion affirming the district court findings that the same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin are unconstitutional.
The Seventh Circuit panel enjoined the states from enforcing the laws and did not issue a stay.
Judge Richard Posner (pictured right) who is perhaps the most well-known judge not on the United States Supreme Court and who attracted attention with his comments at the oral argument, perhaps not surprisingly wrote the 40 page opinion.
Posner begins by implying the state laws before the court are outliers:
Indiana and Wisconsin are among the shrinking majority of states that do not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, whether contracted in these states or in states (or foreign countries) where they are lawful.
The panel's decision is based entirely on equal protection doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment. Here's Judge Posner introducing the concept that
comes wrapped, in many of the decisions applying it, in a formidable doctrinal terminology—the terminology of rational basis, of strict, heightened, and intermediate scrutiny, of narrow tailoring, fundamental rights, and the rest. We'll be invoking in places the conceptual apparatus that has grown up around this terminology, but our main focus will be on the states' arguments, which are based largely on the assertion that banning same-sex marriage is justified by the state's interest in channeling procreative sex into (necessarily heterosexual) marriage.
However, Judge Posner's analysis draws heavily on his work in law and economics, implying that cost-benefit analysis deserves more attention that the "conventional approach" - - - which "doesn't purport to balance the costs and benefits of the challenged discriminatory law" - - - gives it. For Posner:
Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straight- forward to decide. The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.
Judge Posner doesn't cite his own 1992 book, Sex and Reason, but he could have. And the rhetorical style and much of the reasoning in this opinion echoes the book, which was widely debated.
Judges Williams and Hamilton apparently agreed.
If the cases go en banc or to the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see if any of the law and economics rationales are prominent.
September 4, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Equal Protection, Family, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Scholarship, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Louisiana Federal Judge Upholds State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Breaking the spate of federal decisions that have invalidated state same-sex marriage prohibitions, federal district judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana today upheld the constitutionality of that state's ban in his 32 page opinion in Robicheaux v. Caldwell.
Judge Feldman rejects the equal protection claim (the "most hefty constitutional issue") and the due process claim, as well as rejecting any heightened scrutiny within those claims and any extension of Windsor to state same-sex marriage bans. In applying rational basis, the judge found that the "central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents" and of "even more consequence," the "legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus," was sufficient.
The theoretical underpinnings of the judge's rationale are a preference for states' rights, democratically enacted provisions, tradition, and a judicial practice of being "circumspect."
Judge Feldman's opinion credits notions of formal equality and the slippery slope. For example, in rejecting the analogy to Loving v. Virginia, Judge Feldman writes: "no analogy can defeat the plain reality that Louisiana's laws apply evenhandedly to both genders--whether between two men or two women." This evenhandedness was precisely the argument Virginia unsuccessfully advanced in Loving when it argued that under its miscengenation statute, both whites and blacks would be prosecuted. At another point, Judge Feldman states:
Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will be reduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able to claim marriage. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phase of some "evolving understanding of equality," where what is marriage will be explored. And as plaintiffs vigorously remind, there have been embattled times when the federal judiciary properly inserted itself to correct a wrong in our society. But that is an incomplete answer to today's social issue. When a federal court is obliged to confront a constitutional struggle over what is marriage, a singularly pivotal issue, the consequence of outcomes, intended or otherwise, seems an equally compelling part of the equation. It seems unjust to ignore. And so, inconvenient questions persist. For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.
Judge Feldman acknowledged that his decision departed from the recent trend, but quoted from the dissenting opinion in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Bostic v. Schaefer.
As Judge Feldman also stated:
Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this Court is but one studied decision among many. Our Fifth Circuit has not yet spoken.
Whether or not the case is appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the issue seems sure to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
September 3, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Florida Federal District Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In his 33 page opinion today in Brenner v. Scott, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida found that Florida's same-sex marriage bans in the constitution as Article I §27 and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1) violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Judge Hinkle first determined that the "right asserted by the plaintiffs is a fundamental right as that term is used in due-process and equal-protection jurisprudence," noting that almost every court that has addressed the issue since the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Windsor has said the answer is yes, and concluded that that "view is correct." Given that there is a fundamental right, he continued:
That leaves for analysis the second step, the application of strict scrutiny. A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. A variety of justifications for banning same- sex marriages have been proffered by these defendants and in the many other cases that have plowed this ground since Windsor. The proffered justifications have all been uniformly found insufficient. Indeed, the states' asserted interests would fail even intermediate scrutiny, and many courts have said they would fail rational- basis review as well. On these issues the circuit decisions in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen are particularly persuasive. All that has been said there is not repeated here.
Judge Hinkle did take the opportunity, however, to specifically discuss the procreation argument, finding that "Florida has never conditioned marriage on the desire or capacity to procreate."
Like other judges, Judge Hinkle used Justice Scalia's dissenting language from Lawrence v. Texas to note that moral disapproval in the marriage context is the same as moral disapproval in the sodomy context.
Judge Hinkle's opinion then analyzed the requirements for a preliminary injunction, finding them satisfied. But he also held that a stay was warranted; it would have been difficult to rule otherwise in light of the previous stays, including the one just yesterday by the United States Supreme Court.
August 21, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, August 7, 2014
CFP: AALS on Sex, Gender, and Law
Call for Presentations and Papers
Association of American Law Schools
AALS Workshop on Next Generation Issues on
Sex, Gender and the Law
June 24-26, 2015
Doubletree by Hilton at the Entrance to Universal Studios
Orlando, Florida
Here's the CFP:
After more than forty years of formal sex equality under the law, this 2015 workshop will ask legal academics to look ahead to the future and identify, name, and analyze the next generation of legal issues, challenges, and questions that advocates for substantive gender equality must be prepared to consider. To this end, we seek paper and presentation proposals that not only pinpoint and examine future law-related concerns about gender equality but that also provide innovative new approaches to achieving equality for women and those who challenge gender norms in our society, with a particular attention to employment, violence against women, reproductive rights, women's poverty, and women in legal education.
Our hope is to build on the insights of the participants in the 2011 AALS Workshop on Women Rethinking Equality by exploring new and forward-looking ideas for scholarship, law reform, and advocacy that can bring about women's equality. An additional expectation is that each session will address the ways in which characteristics other than gender, including race, sexual orientation, immigration status, socioeconomic class, and disability, impact women's lives. We also anticipate that each session will analyze the institutional strengths and weaknesses of courts, legislatures, and administrative bodies for bringing about change and offer suggestions for legal reforms that can better meet women's needs. Our final goal is to provide a rich and supportive atmosphere to foster mentoring and networking among teachers and scholars who are interested in women's equality and the law.
The format of the workshop will involve plenary sessions, concurrent sessions drawn from this Call for Presentations and Papers, and a closing panel. The closing panel, also drawn from this Call, will consist of a brainstorming session to consider projects and proposals for proactive measures to bring about gender equality.
Concurrent Sessions
The concurrent sessions will feature presentations related to gender equality issues, with preference given to presentations by junior scholars and those proposals related to the topics of employment, violence against women, reproductive rights, women's poverty, and women in legal education. We will organize the presentations into panels based on the subject matter of the proposals. Each presentation will last for 15 minutes, followed by questions from the moderator and audience.
Interested faculty should submit a brief written description (no more than 1000 words) of the proposed presentation, along with his or her resume. Please e-mail these materials to firstname.lastname@example.com by September 15, 2014. We will notify selected speakers by November 1, 2014.
Brainstorming Proposals
The final plenary session of the conference will consist of 10-12 five-minute presentations of ideas for future projects that will advance gender equality in the law. Each selected participant will be limited to five minutes to present his or her idea or project. The presentations will be followed by audience feedback and comments. Although we will grant preference to presentations by junior scholars and those proposals related to the topics of employment, violence against women, reproductive rights, women's poverty, and women in legal education for the concurrent sessions, we welcome proposals for this brainstorming session on any topic related to gender equality.
Interested faculty should submit a written description of the proposed presentation (no more than 1000 words), along with his or her resume. Please e-mail these materials to email@example.com by September 15, 2014. We will notify selected speakers by November 1, 2014.
August 7, 2014 in Conferences, Equal Protection, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Federal District Judge Declares Kentucky's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In his opinion today in Love v. Beshear, Judge John Heyburn held that the Kentucky provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but stayed the issuance of an injunction pending a resolution by the Sixth Circuit.
Recall that in February, Judge Heyburn ruled in Bourke v. Beshear that Kentucky's statutory and state constitutional provisions defining marriage as limited to one man and one woman violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause when applied to same-sex spouses married in another state.
Today's opinion considers those same constitutional and statutory provisions - - - KY. CONST. § 233A; KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 402.005, .020(1)(d) (West 2014) - - - but in the context of a right to marry under Kentucky law. And, not surprisingly, today's opinion reaches similar conclusions to the earlier case of Bourke v. Beshear.
Judge Heyburn quickly concludes that Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), in which the Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question" a challenge to a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling concluding that a same-sex couple did not have the right to marry under the federal Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses, is not precedential. It "is difficult to take seriously the argument that Baker bars Plaintiffs' challenge," given that the rule for the precedential value of a summary disposition includes the exception "unless doctrinal developments indicate that the Court would rule differently now." As Judge Heyburn states: "Since 1972, a virtual tidal wave of pertinent doctrinal developments has swept across the constitutional landscape."
In considering these doctrinal developments and the applicable standard of scrutiny under Equal Protection doctrine, Judge Heyburn first considers the right at stake. He analyzes whether the right to marry is a fundamental right, but concludes that this precise question is one that "neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has answered." Heyburn declines to engage in "overreaching" on this issue, because the fundamental rights analysis is unnecessary given the analysis regarding sexual orientation classifications.
Judge Heyburn's conclusion on the level of scrutiny to be applied is intermediate scrutiny. Note that this is a departure from his earlier decision in Bourke to apply rational basis. Here, his conclusion - - - admittedly not supported by specific Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit precedent - - is that "homosexual persons constitute a quasi-suspect class based on the weight of the factors and on analogy to the classifications recognized as suspect and quasi- suspect." He reaches this conclusion by applying four factors: historical discrimination; the ability to contribute to society; immutable defining characteristics; and political powerlessness. Thus, the opinion would ordinarily then apply the intermediate scrutiny standard as articulated by the court: ""substantially related to an important governmental objective."
But Judge Heyburn takes a different path, similar to the one he took in Bourke v. Beshear:
Ultimately, Kentucky's laws banning same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional review regardless of the standard. The Court will demonstrate this by analyzing Plaintiffs' challenge under rational basis review.
In discussing Kentucky's profferred interests, Judge Heyburn writes that the state's "arguments are not those of serious people." Moreover, he concludes that the means chosen are not rationally related:
Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.
Judge Heyburn's last section of the opinion addresses Kentuckians, but in a much more restrained manner than his earlier opinion in Bourke. In Love v. Beshear, Judge Heyburn notes
Since this Court's Bourke opinion [in February 2014], the legal landscape of same-sex marriage rights across the country has evolved considerably, with eight additional federal district courts and one circuit court invalidating state constitutional provisions and statutes that denied same-sex couples the right to marry.
Heyburn cites the Tenth Circuit's opinion in Kitchen v. Herbert, as well as the district court opinions in Baskin v. Bogan (Indiana); Wolf v. Walker (Wisconsin); Whitewood v. Wolf (Pennsylvania); Geiger v. Kitzhaber (Oregon); Latta v. Otter (Idaho); De Leon v. Perry (Texas); DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan); and Bostic v. Rainey (Virgina).
He adds that with "this opinion, this Court joins their company."
It remains to be seen, however, whether the Sixth Circuit will also join this increasingly large assembly.
July 1, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


text:
Pastor Dixie & Ann Pebworth
Click to Watch
God's Shining Light Services
Sunday: Celebration Service 9:00 & 11:00 am
Praise & Worship w/
Broken Yokes
Powerful, Real Life, Biblical Preaching
Sunday: Bible School - 6:00 pm
Pastor John Litterell teaching
Tuesday: Celebrate Recovery 7:00 pm
Dinner at 6:00 pm - $3.00
A faith-based recovery program
Praise & Worship w/Once Lost
Large Group 7:00 pm
Small Group 8:00 pm
Wednesday: G.R.O.W 7:00 pm (Meal at 6 pm)
Growing Radically on Wednesday
Simply Sheila - Worship
Pastor Dixie Teaching
Various Classes
Friday: Fab Friday 7:00 pm
Pastor Jim Rutherford Preaching
Praise & Worship w/Broken Yokes
God's Shining Light Church
9897 E 11th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128
Pastor Dixie
God's Shining Light
Pastor Dixie
God's Shining Light
GSL Events
Wings of Freedom
Wings Angel Tree
Celebrate Recovery
Priesthood Tulsa Metro
GSL Counseling Center
God's Shining Light Church
As Pastor of God's Shining Light Church, I want to say:
At GSL, we want you to know ... first and foremost ... that GOD LOVES YOU!
No matter where you've been and no matter what you've done, it's a guarantee that GOD LOVES YOU! And, so do WE!
Regardless of your background, you'll be welcomed at GSL!
I can promise you this, you've never been to a church like God's Shining Light. You'll hear the best Praise & Worship you've ever heard and a word that will make a difference in your life right now!
God's Shining Light is not for everyone, but it might very well be just the kind of church YOU have been looking for!
I invite you to check us out!
Pastor Dixie
If you'd like to make a one time tax deductible gift to God's Shining Light Church or if you'd like to set up an automatically recurring tithe and/or offering, just click the Donate Now link below.
Content copyright


text:
A university official who had hired then-state Sen. Wayne Bryant (D-Camden) to a $35,000-a-year low-work job told a colleague it was "payback time" when Bryant steered a $200,000 state grant to the school in 2005, a witness testified in federal court today.
Full coverage from The Star-Ledger
Thomas A. Cavalieri, head of the Institute for Successful Aging at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's School of Osteopathic Medicine, testified at the federal corruption trial of Bryant and the school's former dean, R. Michael Gallagher.
Cavalieri said that he told the FBI in 2006 that when he asked Gallagher who had arranged for the institute to get a special $200,000 grant from the state budget, Gallagher said: "Let's put it this way; it's payback time."
Bryant and Gallagher are on trial on charges they schemed to trade the college job and the additional pension benefits it generated for Bryant for millions of dollars in special state funding for the Camden County school.
At the time, Bryant was chairman of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, and had direct control of $4 million to dole out to groups and individuals he selected, trial testimony has shown.
The trial, entering its third week, is scheduled to continue this afternoon with testimony from State Treasurer David Rousseau, who is a former Senate budget aide and deputy treasurer who helped implement the grants at issue.


text:
This week, we are either well-balanced or bipolar. Though Mike Tyson makes many happy for the wrong reasons, it's kind of nice -- given the upcoming documentary about him, "Tyson" -- that he's struggling for sobriety. We also learned that Razor Ruddock, one of Tyson's former opponents, describes himself as a boxer, fighter, and inventor on his website. A few years ago, Ruddock invented the Boxer Compactor, a trashcan that hates trash as much as Ruddock hates opponents' heads. The Compactor contains a 'scissor mechanism' "that is designed to enable the user to deliver 14 times as much force to the garbage in the can than they normally would. This means that pulling back on the handle with 30 lbs of force will deliver a 400 lbs crushing force to the garbage!"
Tyson has a video game; George Forman has a grill; Ruddock has a trashcan / bonecrusher. Should Muhammad Ali invent a marinade injector that "stings" a pork roast with 18 times the stinging power? I'll leave on that slightly manic note, before the pendulum swings the other way in this week's ARC OF JUDGMENT!
[Download the PDF here.]


text:
US, India adopt 'historic' nuclear agreement
AFP | July 28, 2007
The United States and India announced Friday that they have adopted an operating agreement for a landmark nuclear deal but the pact still has to be cleared by a skeptical US Congress.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Indian counterpart Shri Pranab Mukherjee in a joint statement hailed the civilian nuclear agreement as a "historic milestone" in relations.
President George W. Bush said he looked forward to working with the Democratic-controlled Congress to implement the deal, saying it marked "another step" in deepening ties with India, which he called "a vital world leader."
Congress in December approved landmark legislation allowing US exports of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India for the first time in 30 years, a move intended to reverse sanctions on the Asian giant for its nuclear tests.
But the operating agreement goes one step further, allowing India to reprocess spent fuel under safeguards by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the US pointman in the talks to frame the pact.
That right to reprocess spent US-sourced nuclear fuel has been given only to Japan and the European Union so far, and US lawmakers had expressed skepticism over safeguards needed to deter India from possibly diverting any nuclear material to its military weapons program.
Burns said that India had to first establish a new national nuclear reprocessing facility under strict safeguards and then the two countries would agree on a set of arrangements and procedures for such activity.
India had given firm assurances that all nuclear material reprocessed would be used "only for peaceful purposes," Burns said.
Indian national security advisor M.K. Narayanan said the deal was not an opportunity for India to increase its nuclear arsenal.
"I think it's time certain countries overcame the belief that we are interested in proliferation," Narayanan said in New Delhi.
On the fate of the deal if India fires another nuclear weapons tests, Burns said the US Atomic Energy Act has made it clear that the US president could suspend the deal under such circumstances.
He agreed that the pact, known as the "123 agreement," would come under tight scrutiny in Congress when forwarded to the legislature for a vote possibly by the end of 2007. But he emphasized that all provisions were in line with US law.
"This is a very big step and Congress is going to look at it very carefully," he said.
Copies of the agreement have not been made public and US lawmakers said the administration was afraid of letting them read the document.
"I can only surmise that it includes provisions they fear will raise the hackles of Congress," said Edward Markey, co-chairman of the House of Representatives Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation.
"Of course the administration will argue that they aren't breaking the law, but I think that folks up on the (Capitol) Hill have become increasingly skeptical of the administration's legal arguments," he said.
Markey was among 23 House lawmakers who sent a letter to Bush this week reminding him that "any inconsistencies" between the agreement and US laws "will call congressional approval deeply into doubt."
The United States would, under the pact, also support the creation of an "Indian strategic fuel reserve" and help India gain access to the international fuel market, Burns said, amid reports New Delhi wanted such a provision to guard against any supply cut-off due to nuclear testing.
"This language clearly contradicts the intent of the (US law), which was to cut off US assistance if India resumes testing and was not to help India build up a multi-year fuel supply," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the US Arms Control Association.
The operating agreement took about two years to complete.
The "next steps" would include India's negotiation of a "safeguards" agreement with the IAEA and the deal gaining support in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, Rice and Mukherjee said in their joint statement.
"Once these additional actions have been completed, President Bush will submit the text of the agreement to the US Congress for final approval," they said.
The deal could open up a whopping 100 billion dollars in opportunities for American businesses, according to the US Chamber of Commerce.
"TerrorStorm is something that should be seen by everyone, no matter what their stance/affiliation/political bent. " - Rich Rosell, Digitally Obsessed UK
Get TerrorStorm on DVD today
Infowars.com is Copyright 2007 Alex Jones | Fair Use Notice


text:
Keep the happy in the holidays: Experiment with expectations— published: 11-25-2013
HPRC's series on staying happy over the holidays started last week (read the first BLUF here). This week, try experimenting with your expectations in order to sail through the holidays with a smile.
If you have visions of the holidays being a certain way—with lots of fun, togetherness, love, joy, and no discord—you may feel disappointed when the reality turns out to be something else. It's natural to feel this way, but take stock of how your expectations perhaps contributed to your disappointment. Try experimenting with different ways of looking at things. For example, think about what's behind your holiday expectations. Is it really a happier holiday when you spend more money? Can the entire holidays be filled with fun? Can you get along with everyone all the time? Are your expectations realistic?
Afterdeployment.org describes how to foster realistic thinking and have a clearer lens to the world by focusing on what is probable instead of wasting time thinking about things that are unlikely. In other words, focus on what you can control, not what you can't. This can be particularly helpful for your relationships.
For more ideas on enhancing your relationships, check out HPRC's Relationship Enhancement section and, for other mind tactics, Mental Resilience section.


text:
This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
AN101 Prof. Hefner April 11, 2007 Becoming American and American Culture Outside Reading Report Societies and cultures around the world are shaped around individuocentric and sociocentric values. Individuocentrism, a concept that teaches people to see themselves as individuals, and sociocentrism, a concept that teaches people to identify with his or her culture (i.e. something that is larger than himself or herself) combine to define societies; however, no society is dominated completely by one or the other. For the Khmer youth, as described in Nancy Smith-Hefner's Khmer American , and Yemeni Americans, as described in Loukia K. Sarroub's All American Yemeni Girls , elements of individuocentrism and sociocentrism alike are represented in their lives. The Khmer youth strive to find a balance between encouraging the individual and honoring their family values, while the Yemeni girls attempt to unite the life they want to live at school with the life they have to live at home. The elements of individuocentrism and sociocentrism must be combined and balanced with the intent of immersing oneself in America's culture with the ultimate goal of truly becoming an American. The socialization practices employed by Khmer Americans in the early stages of childrearing are very individuocentric. In contrast to the typical overbearing manner in which Westerners raise their children, "parents thus focus on the infant not as an utterly new and natural being but as a preexisting social individual who brings from past lives inherent traits and abilities" (Smith-Hefner 64). Khmer parents carefully observe their
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
children in order to support the child's own unique form of development without imposing their own rules and ideas. Their children, they believe, were born from past lives and already have a predetermined way of growing and developing that should not be upset. The way in which Khmer mothers decide to raise their children is also individuocentric. Instead of trying to fit the child into a predetermined schedule, like many Americans do, the Khmer mother will create a schedule based on the child's needs. The child is free to want anything without having any restrictions or time limits. Once children have reached a certain age, though, individuocentric tendencies become sociocentric. It is at this time that a child becomes aware of his or her surroundings and begins to understand that he or she is part of something larger than him or herself. Khmer parents now expect this child to abide by the rules of the community and to act
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
- Spring '07
- Hefner
Click to edit the document details


text:
Action Packed Thriller At The Glen
WATKINS GLEN, N.Y. – Joao Barbosa held off a furious charge from Alex Gurney in the closing laps to win Sunday's Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series Sahlen's Six Hours of the Glen at Watkins Glen Int'l.
Barbosa drove the No. 9 Action Express Racing Corvette DP he shares with Darren Law around Gurney in lapped traffic with approximately 16 minutes left and pulled out to more than a three-second lead. Gurney didn't give up, slicing and dicing his way through traffic as he closed the gap in the final laps.
With three laps left Gurney's No. 99 GAINSCO/Bob Stallings Racing Corvette DP had all but caught Barbosa. Gurney shadowed Barbosa through traffic, but Gurney lost all of his momentum when a GT car blocked his path with two laps left.
Gurney gave it everything he had, but he simply ran out of time as Barbosa brought the No. 9 Daytona Prototype across the finish line only .238 second ahead of the No. 99 that Gurney shares with Jon Fogarty. It was the closest finish in the history of the six-hour endurance event.
"It was so competitive, everybody was at such a good pace," said Barbosa after his second victory of the season. "I saw an opportunity when the No. 99 got held up in traffic and I said it's now or never."
Gurney gave Barbosa all the credit for making a great move in traffic to snatch the lead away.
"That was pretty disappointing because the car was so good," Gurney said. "I caught that GT car at precisely the wrong point. Joao put a nice move on (me) and that was it."
The No. 8 Starworks Motorsport Ford-Riley driven by Sebastien Bourdais, Ryan Dalziel and Enzo Potolicchio completed the Daytona Prototype podium.
Robin Liddell put the Stevenson Motorsports No. 57 Chevrolet Camaro GT.R that he shares with John Edwards in victory lane in the GT class, easily outdistancing the No. 94 Turner Motorsport BMW M3 shared by Bill Auberlen, Paul Dalla Lana and Billy Johnson.
"I'm so proud of the guys, they did an awesome job today," Liddell said. "I'm just really emotional because we've been fighting so hard this year. We just never seemed to catch a break."
The No. 69 AIM Autosport Ferrari 458 shared by Emil Assentato, Anthony Lazzaro and Jeff Segal was third in the GT class.
SPEED SPORT Magazine "digital edition" now available for iPad and iPhone!
Get one year for just $12.99. Single issues (including back issues) are available for $2.99.
Click here to visit the iTunes App Store for details!