text:
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Massachusetts Extends Right to Counsel in Private Guardianship
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a parent in a private guardianship proceeding is entitled to counsel as a matter of due process. (The court previously ruled that a parent in a private adoption proceeding enjoyed that same right.) The case provides a categorical right to counsel under Massachusetts law, and thus stands in contrast to the case-by-case approach to a parent's federal due process right to counsel in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services.
The case, Guardianship of V.V., involved a guardianship proceeding between a minor's mother and great-grandmother. The mother was not initially represented by counsel when the lower courts awarded guardianship to the great-grandmother, although the mother obtained a lawyer later in the proceedings.
By the time the Supreme Judicial Court had a chance to rule, the case had become moot. That's because the minor was back with the mother. (The court said that the case was not moot on account of the mother obtaining a lawyer later in the proceeding. The court said the point was that the mother didn't have an attorney at the initial guardianship proceeding.) Still, the court said that the issue was capable of repetition but evading review--that it was an issue sure to come up again, and, because of the quick turn-around in guardianship cases, likely to evade appellate review.
The court held that the weighty interests and due process considerations in guardianship proceedings meant that parties to a guardianship proceeding had a categorical right to counsel. The court also noted that the state, by statute, provided counsel to parties to a guardianship proceeding where the state is a party, and that the same interests are at stake in a private guardianship proceeding.
February 10, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Comparative Constitutionalism, Fundamental Rights, News, Opinion Analysis, Procedural Due Process, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Illinois Governor Lodges Full Frontal Assault on Public Sector Fair Share
Newly elected Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner (R) late yesterday issued an executive order that halted enforcement of the fair share provisions in state union contracts with state employees. At the same time, he filed a preemptive federal lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that his EO was constitutional.
The pair of moves (especially the unusual lawsuit) can only be understood as a full frontal assault on whatever is left of public sector fair share under the First Amendment after last Term's ruling in Harris v. Quinn. (And there's not much left.) Indeed, the lawsuit seems specifically engineered only to put Abood, the 1977 case upholding public sector fair share requirements, before the Court again and to topple it once and for all.
"Fair share" fees are those fees charged to nonunion members in a union shop. They're designed to cover union expenses that benefit all employees (union or not), like collective bargaining. The Supreme Court ruled in Abood in 1977 that fair share fee requirements do not violate the First Amendment (as compelled speech and association), because they are justified in order to avoid free-riding by nonunion members (that is, nonunion members who benefit from the union's activities, but fail to pay union dues) and to promote labor peace. Without fair share fee requirements, public sector unions could be hard-pressed to gain membership or collect any fees. That's because without fair share requirements every individual employee might rationally think that he or she could duck out of union membership and fees and free-ride on the union's bargaining. If enough employees think this, the unions could disappear.
The Supreme Court in recent years has chipped away at Abood, first in Knox v. Service Employees (2012) and then in Harris v. Quinn (2013). Abood's definitely holding on by just a string, but the Court hasn't specifically overruled it.
Governor Rauner's actions seem designed to do just that. Rauner's EO, halting fair share enforcement, is based on his worry that "the collective bargaining agreements force some employees to subsidize and enable union activities that they do not support," and "Illinois state employee unions are using compelled "fair share" fees to fund inherently political activities to influence the outcome of core public sector issues."
But Illinois law permits the collection of fair share fees only for nonunion members' "proportionate share of the costs of the collective bargaining process, contract administration and pursuing matters affecting wages, hours and other conditions of employment . . . ." 5 ILCS 315/6. It does not permit collection of fair share fees for other activities, like political advocacy. Thus, Illinois law is fully constitutional and comports with Abood. (Again, even if Abood is on its way out, it's still the law of the land.) Still, Governor Rauner's EO takes it head-on.
To punctuate the EO, Governor Rauner then filed a preemptive suit against the unions in federal court seeking declaratory relief that his EO is constitutional. This sounds like a nonjusticiable political question, or like Rauner lacks standing, or like the whole thing isn't yet ripe. (Shouldn't the unions be suing?) But Rauner has an answer for this (strange as it sounds): The EO renders null and void the fair share provisions in the state's collective bargaining agreements, thus creating a controversy between the Governor and unions.
The aggressive EO and the strangeness of the suit can only mean that Governor Rauner is taking on public sector fair share and Abood full force--that he's doing it because he wants his name on the case overturning Abood.
February 10, 2015 in Association, Cases and Case Materials, First Amendment, News, Speech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, February 9, 2015
Supreme Court Denies Stay of Alabama Same-Sex Marriage While Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Continues the Argument
Over a dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, the Court denied the application for a stay in Strange v. Searcy. Recall that in January, Alabama District Judge Callie V.S. Granade entered an injunction against the enforcement of the state's constitutional amendment and statutes banning same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.
The controversial Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore has reacted negatively to the federal court opinion, including penning a letter to the Governor arguing that the state should not - - - and need not - - - comply with the federal order. That letter prompted an ethics complaint filed against Roy Moore from the Southern Poverty Law Center arguing that:
Chief Justice Roy Moore has improperly commented on pending and impending cases; demonstrated faithlessness to foundational principles of law; and taken affirmative steps to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. For all these reasons, we respectfully request that this Judicial Inquiry Commission investigate the allegations in this complaint and recommend that Chief Justice Moore face charges in the Court of the Judiciary.
On February 3, the Eleventh Circuit denied the stay of Judge Granade's injunction and Judge Moore issue a 27 page memorandum addressed to Alabama Probate Judges with the intent to
assist weary, beleaguered, and perplexed probate judges to unravel the meaning of the actions of the federal district court in Mobile, namely that the rulings in the marriage cases do not require you to issue marriage licenses that are illegal under Alabama law.
Judge Moore's argument that the state need not comply with federal decisions has prompted some commentators to make comparisons to Alabama's position during the Civil Rights Era, including a thoughtful WaPo piece by ConLawProf Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr. at University of Alabama Law School.
The dissenting opinion from Justice Thomas (joined by Scalia) did not mention Judge Moore by name, but did include a decisive nod to some of Moore's arguments:
Today's decision represents yet another example of this Court's increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds. *** It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them. In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months.
Perhaps more importantly, Justice Thomas notes that the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is now before the Court, but yet
the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court's resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question.
Justice Thomas is not the only one considering whether the Court's denial of a stay and thus allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in Alabama is a "signal" of the Court's leanings in DeBoer v. Snyder.
February 9, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Interpretation, News, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US), Tenth Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, February 6, 2015
Daily Video: Nancy Leong Interviews Scott Dodson, Editor of RBG Book
LawProf Nancy Leong's exciting new project, TheRightsCast, starts off with an interview of LawProf Scott Dodson about his new anthology, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg just published by Cambridge University Press. The book has a terrific array of contributors.
Worth a watch!
February 6, 2015 in Books, Courts and Judging, Supreme Court (US), Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Japan's Abe Plans to Revise Pacifist Constitution
Japanese PM Shinzo Abe has been making noises about revising the country's pacifist constitution--and this time not just in the interpretation. The talk comes in the wake of, and in apparent reaction to, the recent killings of two Japanese hostages by ISIS.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the pacifist provision, reads:
Renunciation of War. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Recall that PM Abe previously interpreted Article 9 to allow collective self-defense. This time, the buzz is that Abe will move to amend the text.
The Japan Times reports here.
February 5, 2015 in Comparative Constitutionalism, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Baude on the Supreme Court's Secret Decisions
Check out William Baude's (U. Chicago) NYT op-ed, The Supreme Court's Secret Decisions, on the many and important under-the-radar decisions that the Supreme Court makes in its orders docket and through summary reversals. Baude calls these the "shadow docket," and argues for more transparency.
Baude's op-ed is a condensed version of his recently posted Foreward: The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket, forthcoming in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty.
February 3, 2015 in News, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Right to Strike in Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled last week that the Saskatchewan Public Service Essential Services Act (PSESA), which limited the ability of public sector employees who perform essential services to strike, violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the same time, the court upheld an act that increased the level of required written support, and reduced the time period for receiving support, to certify a union.
In striking the PSESA, the court held that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(d), free association, protects a fundamental right to strike, and that the PSESA wasn't saved by Section 1, the "reasonable limits" provision. The court wrote that the right to strike is "an indispensable component of" the right to bargain collectively, and "essential to realizing" the values of "human dignity, equality, liberty, and respect for the autonomy of the person and the enhancement of democracy." The court also noted that "international obligations also mandate protecting the right to strike . . . ."
The court said that the breach of Section 2(d) wasn't justified by Section 1, which "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in [the Charter] subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The court wrote that the maintenance of essential public services is obviously "pressing and substantial," but that the PSESA wasn't sufficiently tailored. In particular, the court said that the PSESA allows too much given in defining "essential services" and the employees who perform them.
Two justices dissented, arguing that the political branches should have the flexibility to determine the scope of workers' ability to strike.
February 3, 2015 in Association, Cases and Case Materials, Comparative Constitutionalism, First Amendment, International | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, February 2, 2015
D.C. Circuit Affirms Order for One Study, but not Two, for Ads with Health Claims
The D.C. Circuit on Friday affirmed an FTC order that required POM Wonderful, LLC, to support future ads with claims of health benefits with one scientific study. But at the same time, the court said that a Commission order requiring two studies went too far.
The case, POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, arose out of a Commission finding that POM Wonderful engaged in false, misleading, and unsubstantiated representations in its advertisements in violation of the FTC Act. In particular, the Commission found that POM Wonderful made unsubstantiated claims that regular consumption of POM products could treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of various ailments, including heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.
The full Commission voted to hold POM Wonderful and associated parties liable for violating the FTC Act and order them to stop making misleading and inadequately supported health claims. The Commission's order also barred POM Wonderful from running future ads asserting that its products treat or prevent any disease unless it has at least two randomized, controlled human clinical trials demonstrating statistically significant results.
The D.C. Circuit ruled that POM Wonderful's ads weren't protected by the First Amendment (because they were false or misleading), and that the Commission therefore had authority to punish or prohibit them. The court also said that the First Amendment allowed the Commission to require one scientific study to support any future health-benefit claims:
Requiring RCT substantiation as a forward-looking remedy is perfectly commensurate with the Commission's assessment of liability for petitioners' past conduct: if past claims were deceptive in the absence of RCT substantiation, requiring RCTs for future claims is tightly tethered to the goal of preventing deception. To be sure, the liability determination concerned claims about three specific diseases whereas the remedial order encompasses claims about any disease. But that broadened scope is justified by petitioners' demonstrated propensity to make deceptive representations about the health benefits of their products, and also by the expert testimony supporting the necessity of RCTs to establish causation for disease-related claims generally. For purposes of Central Hudson scrutiny, then, the injunctive order's requirement of some RCT substantiation for disease claims directly advances, and is not more extensive than necessary to serve, the interest in preventing misleading commercial speech.
But the court rejected the order for two studies. That's because the Commission failed "adequately to justify a categorical floor of two RCTs for any and all disease claims."
The court rejected POM Wonderful's related statutory claims.
February 2, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, First Amendment, News, Opinion Analysis, Speech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Salaita Files Federal Complaint Over University of Illinois Actions
Recall our discussion last August about the decision of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign officials to rescind the offer of a tenured faculty appointment to Steven G. Salaita shortly before he was to begin based on his "tweets" on the subject of Gaza.
Salaita has now filed a 39 page complaint in federal court. The first count of the complaint alleges the First Amendment violation:
In sending "tweets" regarding Israel and Palestine, from his personal Twitter account from his home in Virginia in the summer of 2014, Plaintiff acted in his capacity as a citizen, and not pursuant to any official university duties. His tweets never impeded his performance of his duties as a faculty member, or the regular operation of the University. The subject matter of the tweets-Israel and Palestine-is a matter of public concern, and Professor Salaita's comments about the conflict were made in an effort to contribute to the public debate. Such conduct is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff's protected speech, and the viewpoint he expressed in those tweets, though greatly distorted and misconstrued by Defendants, was a motivating factor in defendant's decision not to recommend Professor Salaita's appointment in the rejection of Professor Salaita 's appointment to the University faculty.
The second count alleges a procedural due process violation. Most of the other counts allege state law violations including promissory estoppel, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and an interesting "spoilation of evidence" against Chancellor Phyllis Wise for allegedly destroying a two page document given to her by a donor.
ConLawProfs teaching First Amendment this summer might find the complaint makes for a good in-class discussion or problem.
January 29, 2015 in Current Affairs, First Amendment, Speech, Teaching Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Latest Challenge to Obamacare
Ohio AG Mike DeWine this week sued the federal government for levying an assessment against the state under the ACA's Transitional Reinsurance Program. DeWine argues that the federal assessment on the state violates the text of the ACA (which, he says, doesn't authorize the government to levy this assessment on the states), the Tenth Amendment, the anti-commandeering principle, and intergovernmental tax immunity.
Under the Transitional Reinsurance Program, the federal government collects a contribution from health insurers and self-insurers (or their administrators) in order to off-set the costs of high-risk individuals in the individual health insurance market and thus to stabilize premiums in the individual market. Part of the proceeds also goes to the general fund of the Treasury. The contributions are in effect from 2014 through 2016.
AG DeWine claims that the federal government wrongfully assessed his state $5.3 million. (Ohio self-insures its employees.) He claims that the ACA didn't authorize this, and that it violates various federalism principles in the Constitution:
71. Had Congress applied this tax directly against State and local governments, which it did not, such a tax would violate the "residuary and inviolable sovereignty" that the United States Constitution leaves to the several States in our federalism system . . . .
72. Especially here, where the tax is not imposed as a "user fee" on States or local governments and where the tax is specifically designed to raise more revenue for the federal government than will be allocated to the reinsurance program (with certain amounts of the tax revenues indeed designed as monies that "may not be used for the program established under this section," 42 U.S.C. Sec 18061(b)(4)), such a direct tax against the State and its instrumentalities would breach our federal Constitution's vertical separation of powers.
73. The federal government lacks authority under the United States Constitution to levy such broad-based, revenue-generating taxes against the States and their instrumentalities.
January 28, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Federalism, News, Taxing Clause, Tenth Amendment | 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, January 26, 2015
Brennan Center on Citizens United and Campaign Spending
The Brennan Center's Daniel Weiner recently released Citizens United Five Years Later, the Center's latest in an outstanding series of reports on Citizens United, campaign spending, and the 2014 elections.
Weiner writes that the case's biggest impact hasn't been increased corporate spending (although corporate spending has increased). Instead, Citizens United and other cases have led to a huge increase in spending by super-wealthy mega-donors:
Perhaps most important, the singular focus on the decision's empowerment of for-profit corporations to spend in (and perhaps dominate) our elections may be misplaced. Although their influence has increased, for-profit corporations have not been the most visible beneficiaries of the Court's jurisprudence. Instead--thanks to super-PACs and a variety of other entities that can raise unlimited funds after Citizens United--the biggest money (that can be traced) has come from an elite club of wealthy mega-donors. These individuals--fewer than 200 people and their spouses--has bankrolled nearly 60 percent of all super-PAC spending since 2010.
And while spending by this wealthy club has exploded, we have seen neither the increased diversity of voices that the Citizens United majority imagined, nor a massive upsurge in total election spending. In fact, for the first time in decades, the total number of reported donors has begun to fall, as has the total contributed by small donors (giving $200 or less). In 2014, the top 100 donors to super-PACs spent almost as much as all 4.75 million small donors combined.
A sobering picture.
Weiner's "can be traced" parenthetical gets some attention in the report, too, where Weiner discusses dark money, "independent" groups, and reporting requirements (or the lack of reporting requirements)--all features of a post-Citizens United world.
Here's Weiner on Tweet the Press with Chuck Todd. And here's the Brennan Center's Ciara Torres-Spelliscy on what Congress should do about it.
January 26, 2015 in Campaign Finance, Cases and Case Materials, Elections and Voting, First Amendment, News | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, January 23, 2015
Alabama District Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Bans Unconstitutional
In a ten page Opinion and Order late Friday in Searcy v. Strange, Alabama District Judge Callie V.S. Granade entered an injunction against the enforcement of the state's constitutional amendment and statutes banning same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.
Judge Granade found that Baker v. Nelson (1972) did not operate as a binding precedent.
She also mentioned that the Eleventh Circuit had not yet ruled on the issue and in footnote 1 acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court had granted certiorari on the issue.
She found that marriage is a fundamental right:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" and women. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Numerous cases have recognized marriage as a fundamental right, describing it as a right of liberty, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, of privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and of association, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116, (1996). "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Planned Parenthood of SE Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
She articulated that laws that "implicate fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and will survive constitutional analysis only if narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." She considered Alabama's asserted interest of "protecting the ties between children and their biological parents and other biological kin," and concluded that the means chosen - excluding same-sex couples - was not narrowly tailored:
The Attorney General does not explain how allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage between two consenting adults will prevent heterosexual parents or other biological kin from caring for their biological children. He proffers no justification for why it is that the provisions in question single out same-sex couples and prohibit them, and them alone, from marrying in order to meet that goal. Alabama does not exclude from marriage any other couples who are either unwilling or unable to biologically procreate. There is no law prohibiting infertile couples, elderly couples, or couples who do not wish to procreate from marrying. Nor does the state prohibit recognition of marriages between such couples from other states. The Attorney General fails to demonstrate any rational, much less compelling, link between its prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage and its goal of having more children raised in the biological family structure the state wishes to promote. There has been no evidence presented that these marriage laws have any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they are same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. In sum, the laws in question are an irrational way of promoting biological relationships in Alabama.
Judge Granade continued: "If anything, Alabama's prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children."
Judge Granade's opinion does briefly discuss the equal protection standard for reviewing sexual orientation classifications. But given her conclusion regarding fundamental right meriting strict scrutiny, the opinion does not contain an extensive or rigorous distinction between the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause analysis.
Judge Grande's Order ruled on cross motions for summary judgment, enjoined the state from enforcing the same-sex bans, and did not contain a stay.
One would assume that the attorneys for Alabama are drafting their stay petitions.
UPDATE: On Sunday, January 25, 2015, Judge Granade issued her Stay Order granting a stay until February 9, 2015. The judge found that the State did not warrant a stay under the standards, but
In its discretion, however, the court recognizes the value of allowing the Eleventh Circuit an opportunity to determine whether a stay is appropriate. Accordingly, although no indefinite stay issues today, the court will allow the Attorney General time to present his arguments to the Eleventh Circuit so that the appeals court can decide whether to dissolve or continue the stay pending appeal (assuming there will be an appeal.) The preliminary injunction will be stayed for 14 days.
January 23, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, January 22, 2015
No Remedy for Inmate when Authorities take Medical Settlement for Cost of Incarceration
The Ninth Circuit ruled in Shinault v. Hawks that a state has to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing before it freezes funds in an inmate's trust account to recover the cost of his incarceration. But at the same time, the court said that this rule wasn't "clearly established" at the time, so the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. The court also rejected the inmate's Eighth Amendment claim.
The upshot is that prison authorities took more than $60,000 of an inmate's money--money from a settlement for a medical liability claim--in violation of procedural due process. But according to the Ninth Circuit, the inmate has no recourse against the officers.
Lester Shinault received a $107,417.48 settlement from a medical claim against a drug manufacturer who products (prescribed while Shinault was not in custody) caused him to develop diabetes. Shinault's attorney deposited the money in his inmate trust account.
Prison authorities then ordered Shinault to pay $65,353.94 to cover the cost of his incarceration. On the same day that Shinault requested a hearing, authorities transferred this amount from his trust account into a "reserved miscellaneous" sub-account in Shinault's name, but which Shinault could not access. An ALJ ruled against Shinault (in a hearing where Shinault didn't have an attorney and struggled mightily to represent himself), and about a year later authorities withdrew $61,352.39.
Shinault sued, arguing that the withdraw violated procedural due process and the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment against him.
The Ninth Circuit held that authorities violated procedural due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, because they failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing prior to freezing the funds. But it also held that the violation wasn't "clearly established" at the time (because it couldn't find precedent directly on point, and because it said that procedural due process questions were fact specific, that is, not determined until a particular case is litigated), so the officials enjoyed qualified immunity.
In other words, the court said it wasn't "clearly established" that authorities had to provide a pre-deprivation hearing before freezing over $60,000.00 that Shinault obtained from a settlement with a drug company whose products caused him to develop diabetes. Because this wasn't "clearly established," the defendants enjoyed immunity, and Shinault has no claim against them for return of his money.
The court also held that authorities did not violate Shinault's Eighth Amendment rights, because "no authority supports the notion that freezing or withdrawing funds from an inmate account constitutes deliberate denial of care under the Eighth Amendment."
January 22, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Procedural Due Process | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Line Drawing and Dog Sniffing
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Rodriguez v. United States, the case testing whether an officer can prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff, even if the officer lacks suspicion for the sniff.
After arguments--and maybe even before--it's clear that the problem is line drawing. On balance, that maybe more of a problem for the government than for Rodriguez.
Rodriguez, represented by Shannon O'Connor, argued for a bright line rule: when the purpose of the stop is over, any after-occuring dog sniff requires new individualized suspicion or probable cause, even if the Court has held that an officer may conduct a dog sniff during the stop. The government, on the other hand, represented by Ginger Anders, argued for a de minimis extension--that the Fourth Amendment permits a reasonable de minimis extension of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff.
But when is the purpose of a stop over? And how to define a de minimis extension? Those problems dominated the arguments today.
O'Connor had trouble defending her bright-line rule, and even seemed to shift once or twice. She argued that an officer cannot detain a driver beyond the point when the purpose of the stop ends, even if it ends in a mere warning. But O'Connor received significant push-back from Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito, all of whom presented hypotheticals designed to show that that bright line wasn't always so bright. Moreover, it wasn't clear that O'Connor's bright line really mattered. For example, Justice Scalia pointed out that an officer can investigate all kinds of things during a traffic stop--whether a driver's license is valid, whether the car is stolen, etc., even a dog sniff--and wondered why then the officer couldn't also conduct a dog sniff after the purpose of the stop ended.
Justice Kennedy seemed to push O'Connor toward an even sharper bright line, that the purpose of the traffic stop ends at the issuing of a ticket. O'Connor at one time seemed to adopt it, but that only got her in more trouble. That's because the issuing-a-ticket position has obvious problems: traffic stops don't always end with tickets, or, as Justice Alito pointed out, any clever officer would simply delay handing over the ticket until after a dog sniff. Justice Scalia pounced, Chief Justice Roberts weighed in ("What if the officer says I need to think about this for a while?"), and even Justice Ginsburg expressed reservations with the issuing-a-ticket line.
So O'Connor backed off and reverted to her earlier position that the stop ends when the purpose of the stop ends. But that position fared no better.
But if the Court had problems with O'Connor's lines, it had maybe even more problems with the government's lines. The government argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a de minimis extension beyond the purpose of the stop. But defining "de minimis" proved difficult. It wasn't clear whether this position had the support of even Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia (although it may have had the support of Justice Alito). Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that a dog sniff will probably last longer than the stop itself--is that a de minimis extension? Justice Breyer pointed out that Anders's de minimis rule isn't easily enforceable--what do you tell the police to do? Justice Kagan argued that a dog sniff outside the bounds of the stop is something like an officer taking a cigarette break--unreasonable.
Part of the problem for the government is how the case came to the Court: the lower court said that a de minimis extension was reasonable. That holding assumes that there's a point at which the purpose of the stop ends, and a de minimis extension afterward. If so, and if the courts can define that point, then any extension really is beyond the purpose of the stop. And a Fourth Amendment violation for a de minimis period is still a Fourth Amendment violation. (And what's de minimis, anyway? That's hard to say, and, for dog sniffs, may run longer than the stop itself--as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out.) This problem seemed to trouble enough Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, that the Court may well go with Rodriguez.
January 21, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Fourth Amendment, News, Oral Argument Analysis | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
CAC on Access in the Roberts Court
The Constitutional Accountability Center published its most recent issue paper in its series on the Roberts Court at 10, this one on access issues. And it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Brianne Gorod, the author of Roberts at 10: Roberts's Consistent Votes to Close the Courthouse Doors, looks at Roberts Court cases in four areas: standing, arbitration, pleading standards, and suits against states. Gorod concludes that the Court's record is mixed, but mostly negative:
Although most of the decisions of the Roberts Court in this area have limited access to the courts, there have been a few that have not, including most significantly the Court's 2007 decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, holding that Massachusetts could sue the Environmental Protection Agency to challenge its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
But if the Court's record is mixed, Gorod says that Chief Justice Roberts's record is not:
He dissented in that 2007 case and in every other case during his tenure as Chief Justice in which the Court has refused to limit access to the courts, and he has always been in the majority when it has decided to limit such access.
Gorod says that Chief Justice Roberts's record is "not terribly surprising," given his pre-confirmation positions on access.
Check it out.
January 21, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Judicial Campaign Ethics and First Amendment
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar involving a First Amendment challenge to a state rule of judicial conduct prohibiting the personal solicitation of campaign contributions in a judicial election.
Recall that the Florida Supreme Court held that Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7C(1) (substantially similar to Canons 4.1(A)(8) and 4.4 of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct), satisfied strict scrutiny, finding that there were two compelling governmental interests (preserving the integrity of the judiciary and maintaining the public's confidence in an impartial judiciary) and that the provision was narrowly tailored to serve these interests (the prohibition of direct fundraising nevertheless allows for the establishment of "campaign committees" to raise funds). The Florida Supreme Court's opinion also pointedly noted that federal "judges have lifetime appointments and thus do not have to engage in fundraising" were divided on the constitutionality of the canon, while state judges were not.
In the arguments before the life-tenured Justices today, the problem of line-drawing was pronounced. The fact that the Florida rule was a compromise that allowed judicial campaigns to establish committees to solicit funds and allowed the candidate to know who had contributed and allowed the candidate to write thank you notes called into question whether the canon was narrowly tailored. But, as Justice Kagan noted, that might mean that the state would simply broaden the proscriptions, to include thank you notes for example, and asked whether that would be constitutional. Counsel for the petitioner ultimately answered in the negative, linking the election to the availability of money.
At the heart of this issue is whether judicial elections are like other elections or whether they are distinctly judicial.
Justice Ginsburg, who is decidedly in the camp that judicial elections are different, essentially urged her position at the beginning of the arguments ("the First Amendment allows the State to do things with respect to the election of judges that it wouldn't allow them to do with respect to the election of members of the legislature.")
Chief Justice Roberts seemingly leaned toward equating judicial and political elections, stating that "it's self-evident, particularly in judicial races" that "prohibiting a form of raising funds is to the great advantage of the incumbent" because the only way "incumbents are going to be challenged if you have somebody who can get their own distinct message out." Later he stated that the "fundamental choice was made by the State when they said we're going to have judges elected." This echoes Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, (2002).
Yet the issue of the coercion of the people being solicited, including attorneys as I have previously discussed, surfaced repeatedly. As Justice Sotomayor candidly revealed:
It's very, very, very rare that either by letter or by personal call that I ask a lawyer to do something, whether it's serve on a committee, help organize something, do whatever it is that I'm asking, that that lawyer will say no. Isn't it inherent in the lawyer/judge context that people are going to say yes?
Whether the Court "says yes" to the ability of a state to ban direct solicitation by judicial candidates will most likely result in a closely divided opinion.
January 20, 2015 in Campaign Finance, Courts and Judging, First Amendment, Speech, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Court Rules in Favor of Prisoner's Half-Inch Beard
In its unanimous opinion today in Holt (Muhammad) v. Hobbs the Court decided that the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, RLUIPA, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq., to the extent that it prohibits petitioner from growing a one—half—inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
The Court's conclusion is predictable from the tenor of the oral arguments. Writing for the Court, Justice Alito found that Holt/Muhammad easily met his burden of showing that the beard ban substantially burdened his exercise of religion under RLUIPA, after which the burden shifted to the Department of Correction to show that its refusal to allow petitioner to grow a 1⁄2- inch beard "(1) [was] in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) [was] the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest" under RLUIPA."
The Court rejected the Department of Correction's beard ban as the least restrictive way of furthering prison safety and security including hiding contraband (an argument that was "hard to take seriously" in the context of the 1/2 inch beard) and concealing identities (an argument that suffered in comparison to other institutions and the allowance of 1/4 inch beards and mustaches).
Justice Alito's 16 page opinion for the Court is a model of clarity and concision. It does beg the question, however, of why this was not the District Judge's opinion or the Eighth Circuit's opinion. As we previously discussed, the odds of this case getting before the Court were incredibly high, but the underlying pro se litigation exemplifies the difficulties of prison inmates vindicating their rights.
Indeed, Justice Sotomayor wrote separately to stress the role deference to prison administrators that should be afforded by courts. Prison officials must offer a "plausible explanation for their chosen policy that is supported by whatever evidence is reasonably available to them," rather than adopt policies based on "mere speculation." Again, this begs the question of the reliance by the lower courts on the prison's arguments.
Finally, the very brief concurring opinion by Justice Ginsburg, and joined by Justice Sotomayor, distinguished the much more contentious Hobby Lobby:
Unlike the exemption this Court approved in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. ___ (2014), accommodating petitioner's religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner's belief. See id., at ___, ___–___, and n. 8, ___ (slip op., at 2, 7–8, and n. 8, 27) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting). On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion.
Thus, Justice Ginsburg makes clear that she is not opposed to religious accommodation per se, even under the strict scrutiny standard, when the rights of others are not part of the analysis.
January 20, 2015 in First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Opinion Analysis, Religion, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Can An officer Extend a Traffic Stop for a Canine Sniff?
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow in Rodriguez v. United States, the case testing whether an officer can extend a traffic stop for a canine sniff, without additional individualized suspicion to justify the sniff. Here's my argument preview from the ABA's Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, with permission:
Just after midnight on March 27, 2012, Dennys Rodriguez and his passenger Scott Pollman were driving west from Omaha, Nebraska, to Norfolk, Nebraska, on Nebraska State Highway 275. Shortly into their trip, Officer Struble, who was patrolling the highway, observed the car's passenger-side tires pass briefly over the line separating the highway from the shoulder. Officer Struble pulled the car over.
Officer Struble approached the vehicle and obtained Rodrigeuz's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Officer Struble asked Rodriguez why he had driven onto the shoulder. Rodriguez said he swerved to avoid a pothole. Rodriguez seemed agitated when Officer Struble informed him that driving on the shoulder was a traffic violation. Officer Struble also observed Pollman in the passenger seat and noticed that Pollman seemed nervous.
Officer Struble asked Rodriguez to step out of the vehicle. Rodriguez complied. Officer Struble then asked Rodriguez to accompany him to his patrol car so that he could complete some paperwork. Rodriguez asked if he had to go to Officer Struble's patrol car; Officer Struble said "no"; and Rodriguez said that he would rather sit in his own car. Officer Struble later testified that "in his experience" declining to sit in his patrol car was a "subconscious behavior that people concealing contraband will exhibit."
Officer Struble returned to his patrol car (without Rodriguez) and called in a request for a records check on Rodriguez.
Officer Struble then returned to Rodriguez's vehicle, this time to talk to Pollman. Officer Struble asked Pollman for his identification; he also asked Pollman about their trip. Pollman told Office Struble that he and Rodriguez drove from Norfolk to Omaha to look into buying an older-model Ford Mustang. They decided against buying the car, however. Officer Struble asked Pollman if he saw a picture of the car before making the trip; Pollman said that he had not.
Officer Struble returned to his patrol car. Office Struble was suspicious that Rodriguez and Pollman would drive to Omaha to look into purchasing a car without seeing a picture of it first. He was also suspicious that Rodriguez and Pollman would drive the long distance from Norfolk to Omaha late on a Tuesday night. Office Struble had a drug-detection dog in his car, and, based on his suspicions, he decided that he would "walk [his] dog around the vehicle regardless of whether [Rodriguez] gave [him] permission or not." But he wanted a second officer to act as a back-up, because there were two persons involved in the stop. Officer Struble requested a records check on Pollman and began writing a warning ticket for Rodriguez for driving on the shoulder.
Officer Struble returned to Rodriguez's vehicle (for the third time). He returned the documents to Rodriguez and Pollman and issued a written warning ticket to Rodriguez. Officer Struble gave the ticket to Rodriguez at about 12:25 a.m. At this point, Officer Struble had taken "care of all the business" of the traffic stop and had "got[ten] all the reason for the stop out of the way."
Nevertheless, Officer Struble did not let Rodriguez go. Instead, he asked Rodriguez if Rodriguez had an issue with Officer Struble walking his dog around the car. Rodriguez replied that he did have an issue with that. Officer Struble then directed Rodriguez to turn off the engine, exit the vehicle, and stand in front of the vehicle until a second officer arrived.
Officer Struble's back-up officer arrived at about 12:33 a.m. About seven or eight minutes after Officer Struble issued the warning ticket to Rodriguez, Officer Struble walked his dog around Rodriguez's vehicle. The dog alerted, the officers searched the vehicle, and the officers found a bag of methamphetamine.
Rodriguez was charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of federal law. He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle, arguing that Officer Struble violated his Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The district court denied Rodriguez's motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. This appeal followed.
Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer can make a brief investigative stop, like a traffic stop, based on particularized and objective "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity. For example, an officer can stop a vehicle after observing a driver violate a traffic law. But the stop must be related in scope to the officer's justification for it. This means that the officer may detain the driver only for the period required to complete the tasks related to the original justification for the stop, for example, to run a records check, to interview a driver, to write a ticket, or even to conduct a dog sniff. The stop satisfies the Fourth Amendment if it is reasonable, that is, if it is reasonably related to the justification for the stop.
But state and federal courts split over what should happen after an officer completes the tasks directly related to the original stop. Some courts say that detention beyond this point constitutes a separate seizure, requiring independent and separate justification. Others, like the Eighth Circuit in this case, say that detention beyond this point is an extension of the original stop, so long as the nature and duration of the overall stop is reasonable, because the additional detention constitutes only a de minimis intrusion on the detainee's personal liberty.
The parties wrangle over which approach is correct. They agree that an officer may conduct a dog sniff of the outside of a vehicle during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. The Supreme Court held as much in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). But they disagree about whether a dog sniff can prolong a stop, even for a short period of time. Central to this dispute is the standard the Court should use to judge the prolonged stop—independent individualized suspicion of a different illegal activity (as Rodriguez would have it), or the overall reasonableness of the stop (as the government argues).
Rodriguez argues that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to make a traffic stop based, as here, on probable cause of illegal activity. But he claims that the stop must be reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first place and no longer than necessary to effectuate that purpose. Rodriguez says that an officer can use a drug dog to conduct a sniff if the sniff does not delay completion of the tasks related to the traffic violation. But he contends that an officer cannot expand the boundaries of a traffic stop in order to conduct a sniff. Rodriguez says that once the officer has completed all the tasks required during a lawful traffic stop, the driver is free to go, unless the officer has reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity.
Rodriguez claims that these principles establish a bright-line rule—that a traffic stop ends when an officer completes the tasks related to the traffic violation, and that any detention beyond that point, no matter how brief, is unreasonable (and thus violates the Fourth Amendment) unless the additional detention is independently justified by individualized suspicion. He says that this rule would provide guidance to officers in the field and protect innocent drivers from suspicionless intrusions while at the same time giving officers plenty of time to conduct valid dog sniffs during a lawful detention.
Rodriguez argues that the Eighth Circuit's reasons for its de minimis exception to these rules are flawed. He claims that the Eighth Circuit wrongly assumed that the line marking the end of a traffic stop is "artificial," and that under a legitimate reasonableness standard the Fourth Amendment would allow a dog sniff that could have occurred within the scope of the traffic stop to occur shortly after the stop. Rodriguez says that the line is a constitutional one, and not "artificial," and that any other approach would allow the officers to determine the end of a traffic stop for Fourth Amendment purposes. Rodriguez also claims that the Eighth Circuit was wrong to say that a dog sniff is similar to ordering a driver out of a car during a stop—a valid de minimis intrusion under Pennsylvania v. Mimms. 434 U.S. 106 (1977). Rodriguez claims that ordering a driver out of a car during a stop justified by probable cause (as in Mimms) is far different than conducting a dog sniff after a stop based on no cause at all. He also says that a dog sniff is far more intrusive than an order to get out of a car. Finally, Rodriguez claims that the Eighth Circuit wrongly concluded that an officer may conduct a suspicionless search using a dog sniff, because a dog sniff is not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. Rodriguez says that the dog sniff in his case violated the Fourth Amendment, because it required his continued detention even after the justification for the stop expired (and not for any reasons having to do with the dog sniff as such).
Rodriguez argues that under his bright-line rule, the Court should reverse the Eighth Circuit's decision. He says that Officer Struble had no objectively reasonable basis for detaining him after completing the tasks related to the justification for the initial stop. He claims that any additional facts that Officer Struble considered suspicious (and that might independently justify continued detention) are "consistent with innocent travel and easily explained by the circumstances of the stop." Rodriguez contends that because Officer Struble had no independent justification for his continued detention after he completed the tasks related to the justification for the initial stop, the dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment.
The government argues that Officer Struble's dog sniff was a reasonable incident to the traffic stop, even if it briefly prolonged the stop, because the overall duration of the stop was objectively reasonable. The government says that under the Fourth Amendment an officer can conduct a number of inquiries before resolving a traffic violation, just so long as the stop does not run an unreasonably long time. For example, the government claims that an officer can conduct inquiries related to the traffic stop, like verifying the validity of a driver's license and registration or conducting a background check. The government claims that an officer can also conduct inquiries into unrelated criminal activities, even without reasonable suspicion, like asking passengers about matters unrelated to the traffic stop or conducting a dog sniff. Again, the government says that the test for these inquiries, and their effects on the duration of the stop, is the overall reasonableness of the stop.
The government argues that the sequence of an officer's permissible tasks during a stop should not matter. In particular, the government contends that an officer's issuing a traffic ticket before a dog sniff does not alone render that dog sniff unconstitutional. Instead, the government claims that the Court should apply a test of overall reasonableness and look to the total duration of the stop (compared to the duration of stops under similar circumstances), the proportion of the stop dedicated to the dog sniff, and the officer's diligence throughout.
The government contends that Rodriguez's argument for a bright-line rule has several problems. For one, the government says that a bright-line rule prohibiting a dog sniff after an officer issues a ticket would not reduce delays in the stop; it would only force an officer to re-sequence his or her tasks related to the stop (by conducting the dog sniff before issuing a ticket). The government claims that this would unduly constrain officers' discretion to conduct inquiries in the order warranted by the particular stop. For another, the government contends that a bright-line rule, in treating the motorist like a newly pulled-over motorist after the officer issues a ticket, ignores the fact that the officer previously detained the motorist on probable cause that he or she committed a traffic violation. The government says that its test, overall reasonableness, does not have these problems. The government claims that lower courts have applied this test without difficulties to dog sniffs conducted both before and after an officer issues a ticket.
Applying its overall reasonableness test, the government argues that the dog sniff in this case did not unreasonably prolong Rodriguez's traffic stop. The government claims that the overall duration (about 29 minutes) was within the range of other similar traffic stops. It says that the seven- or eight-minute delay to conduct the dog sniff was not an unreasonably large portion of the stop. Moreover, the government contends that the delay was warranted by Officer Struble's need for backup. And the government says that Officer Struble acted diligently throughout the stop.
Finally, the government argues that Rodriguez's detention to conduct a dog sniff was independently justified by Officer Struble's reasonable suspicion of other unlawful activity.
This case will resolve a split in the federal and state courts over whether the Fourth Amendment allows a de minimis detention beyond an officer's original traffic stop. (Indeed, as Rodriguez points out in his cert. petition, the split reached this very case: Rodriguez's case would have turned out differently if it had been tried in Nebraska state court instead of in a Nebraska federal court.)
On the one hand, the case goes to the duration of a traffic stop, and an officer's ability to conduct additional investigations (like a dog sniff) after he or she completed the tasks directly related to the original stop. Rodriguez's bright-line rule could potentially shorten stops and restrict an officer's ability to conduct these investigations; the government's overall reasonableness approach could lengthen stops (at least incrementally, as here) and give an officer more flexibility in conducting additional investigations.
But on the other hand, the case may not significantly affect either the duration of a stop or an officer's ability to conduct a dog sniff in most cases. That's because, as the government argues, even a ruling for Rodriguez might only force officers to re-sequence their activities during a traffic stop, for example, to conduct a dog sniff before the officer issues a ticket.
January 20, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Fourth Amendment, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Victory for Right to Counsel in Federal Habeas, Death Penalty Cases
The Supreme Court today ruled that a prisoner sentenced to death had a right to assistance of substitute counsel in his federal habeas proceeding, when his original attorneys missed the AEDPA habeas filing deadline and couldn't themselves argue for equitable tolling.
The ruling, Christeson v. Roper, issued per curiam, and without briefing or oral argument, marks a victory for the right to counsel in federal habeas cases.
Christeson was sentenced to death. The federal district court appointed counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3599(a)(2) (providing for appointment of counsel for state death row inmates). But Christeson's attorneys let lapse the 1-year filing deadline for federal habeas claims under AEDPA. Those attorneys then weren't in a position to argue for equitable tolling of the 1-year deadline, because they'd have to argue (against their own interests) that they dropped the ball. But they also failed to cooperate with new attorneys who sought appointment on the case (and who could make the equitable tolling argument). The district court declined to substitute counsel, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed. The Court said that the standard for substitute counsel for a Section 3599 appointed attorney under Martel v. Clair was a broad one, the "interests of justice," which included several factors. The Court said that one of those factors in this case was the original attorneys' conflict of interest in arguing for equitable tolling. The Court said that the lower courts applied the right "interests of justice" standard, but failed to account for the conflict of interest as a factor.
While not every case in which a counseled habeas petitioner has missed AEDPA's statute of limitations will necessarily involve a conflict of interest, [the original attorneys'] contentions here were directly and concededly contrary to their client's interest, and manifestly served their own professional and reputational interests.
Clair makes clear that a conflict of this sort is grounds for substitution.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented. They argued that the Court shouldn't have decided the case without argument, and that the case involved only "an error, albeit a serious one, on the part of the [original] attorneys."
The ruling only means that Christeson will now have substitute attorneys to argue equitable tolling; it says nothing about the merits of the equitable tolling claim itself, let alone the underlying habeas petition. Still, it represents a victory for the right to counsel for federal habeas petitioners.
January 20, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


text:
Users Online Now:
Who's On?
Visitors Today:
Pageviews Today:
Threads Today:
Posts Today:
Join Our:
GLP Poker Rooms
Check Out:
GiveMeGossip.com - Gossip Forum
Donate To GLP
Adv. Search
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Message Subject
Woman Charged Over New York Firefighter Ambush Gun
Poster Handle
Post Content
Because the woman illegally gave it to him. It was against the law for her to give him the rifle, it was against the law for the felon to posses it, it was against the law for the felon to use it in the commission of a felony, it was against the law to murder the fireman, it was against the law to shoot at the police and it was against the law to set fire to the house to draw the fireman
to the scene.
What law shall we pass to prevent this?
The problem is that your gun laws are too loose...
No need to pass a new law..Just re-vamp the current ones..
I'm totally aware that all the actions that lead up to the event are against the law..
I don't believe she just "gave" him the gun...
Where her guns locked up???
Was the ammo stored in a different spot?? also locked up??
What did she need the AR-15 for???
Is she military or combat trained?? You don't hunt with an AR...
See where im going here......
I hunt with my ar. I hunt ground hog, coyotes, and wolves. And I know a few that also hunt whitetails with them. And our second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Oscanator 24421278
And how do the kill look after being taken with a .223 round?? Pretty fucked up i bet... So i assume you hunt just for fun?? do you eat the kill??
Oh my god, You know nothing about firearms do you. 223 is a very popular varmint round. They don't allow pest control in Canada? Here farmers will pay a bounty on ground hogs and coyotes. And you asked what the kill looks like, well using ballistic tips there isn't much left of a ground hog, and a coyote or wolf you aim for the head or neck. And no I don't eat ground hog, coyotes or wolves. We have seasons on them to keep there numbers in check. I personally don't use 223 for deer hunting I was just telling you I know of people that do and they are very successful.
Please verify you're human:
Reason for reporting:
Found: Early Black Hole 12 Billion Times More Massive Than Our Sun
Chemicals From Beauty Products Have Migrated To Antarctica
New Mysterious Craters Found In Siberia
Human Head Transplants Will Not Be Possible By 2017
How Many Constitutional Rights Have We Lost?
North Carolina Legalizes Prostitutes For Politicians
KFC to Serve Edible Coffee Cups
Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links
Eleventh Hour Drama For Net Neutrality
Cyber Bullying Legislation Passes PA House. House Bill 229 would make cyber harassment of a child a punishable offense
DNA Activation for the Golden Age
Are We Living In A Holographic Universe?
Scientists Fear CIA Funding Geoengineering to Control 'Weaponized Weather'
IBM Watson Dehumanizing Veterans Care
Max Keiser: Welcome to the New World Order
Forced Adult Vaccinations at Federal Levels
The Media Is "Run By A Tiny Group Of Politically Motivated Moguls", And "Controlled By The CIA"
Inside The Food Industry: The Surprising Truth About What You Eat
Monday Feb 23 Will Be GLPVCs TheRawFeedLive's Last Show
Hollywood Studio Caught Producing ISIS Videos
A meteor going 45,000 MPH lit up the sky in western PA. You could see it from Ohio and New York!
America : Freedom to Fascism
Rapper Afroman Caught On Video Punching Woman At Nightclub
USDA Approves First GMO Apple For Planting
US Senator used old photos of Russian troops to push Ukraine war propaganda

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Find a copy online
Links to this item
Find a copy in the library
Finding libraries that hold this item...
Additional Physical Format: | Print version: Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Two gentlemen of Verona. Cambridge [England] University Press, 1955 (OCoLC)356484 |
Material Type: | Document, Internet resource |
Document Type: | Internet Resource, Computer File |
All Authors / Contributors: |
William Shakespeare; Arthur Quiller-Couch; John Dover Wilson |
OCLC Number: | 776598480 |
Description: | 1 online resource (110 pages) |
Series Title: | Works of Shakespeare.; New Shakespeare. |
User-contributed reviews
Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers.
Be the first.
Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers.
Be the first.
Add tags for "The two gentlemen of Verona".
Be the first.


text:
Mother's Heart with 12 Birthstones Locket
Something changes when a lady becomes a mother. It's as though her heart grows to hold the abundance of love for each child. This lovely locket displays the birthstones of those closest to the heart. More
Use code FGMarch15 for 15% off your order & FREE shipping for orders $100+. Join our email community for special offers Offer expires: March 31st, 2015.$59.99 | MORE DETAIL |
Featured Offers
Personalize Gifts for Her
Personalized free for Her! Jewelry, keepsakes, apparel & more!


text:
expand Menu
* Location
Current Location
My dates are flexible
Check-in date
Nights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Check-out date
Rooms 1 2 3 4-9 10-25 26+
Guests/room 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rewards number
Use Rewards points What's This?
Advanced search
Hotels For…
Deals & Packages
Free Wi-Fi for Marriott Rewards® members who book direct.
See Details and participating locations
View and Manage Reservations
Find specific reservations, including those made by phone or when not signed in.
Sign In to My Account
Sign In to view your current reservations.
Remember me What's This?
Remember me
English–US & Canada
Your Stay: 1 Rooms, 1 Guests/room Edit
Free Wi-Fi for Marriott Rewards® members who book direct. See details & participating locations
Sort by
Courtyard Newport Middletown
Residence Inn Newport Middletown
Courtyard Hartford Farmington
Residence Inn Boston Norwood/Canton
Courtyard Hartford Cromwell
Newport Marriott
Courtyard Hadley Amherst
Fairfield Inn & Suites Springfield Northampton/Amherst
Residence Inn Hartford Avon
Hartford Marriott Farmington
Residence Inn Boston Dedham
Fairfield Inn Boston Dedham
Residence Inn Boston Needham
Boston Marriott Newton
Residence Inn Boston Brockton
Courtyard Boston Raynham
Fairfield Inn & Suites Plainville
SpringHill Suites Devens Common Center
Courtyard Boston Stoughton
Courtyard Boston Waltham
Pomfret Ctr CT
PointSavers offers up to 33% in point savings, depending on the hotel category and number of nights requested. This hotel is offering Seasonal Awards, so you can use fewer points when you book a stay during these dates.
9 Commerce Drive Middletown, RI 02842
42.5 miles from Pomfret Ctr
View Rates
325 West Main Road Middletown, RI 02842
43.1 miles from Pomfret Ctr
1583 Southeast Road Farmington, CT 06032
43.2 miles from Pomfret Ctr
New Lobby
See details & participating locations
275 Norwood Park South Norwood, MA 02062
43.3 miles from Pomfret Ctr
4 Sebethe Drive Cromwell, CT 06416
43.4 miles from Pomfret Ctr
25 America's Cup Avenue Newport, RI 02840
43.8 miles from Pomfret Ctr
View Calendar
423 Russell St Hadley, MA 01035
115A Conz Street Northampton, MA 01060
44.6 miles from Pomfret Ctr
55 Simsbury Road Avon, CT 06001
45.1 miles from Pomfret Ctr
15 Farm Springs Road Farmington, CT 06032
45.3 miles from Pomfret Ctr
259 Elm Street Dedham, MA 02026
46.1 miles from Pomfret Ctr
235 Elm Street Dedham, MA 02026
46.2 miles from Pomfret Ctr
80 B Street Needham, MA 02494
47 miles from Pomfret Ctr
2345 Commonwealth Avenue Newton, MA 02466
47.4 miles from Pomfret Ctr
124 Liberty Street Brockton, MA 02301
37 Paramount Drive, Route 44 Raynham, MA 02767
400 New Britain Avenue Plainville, CT 06062
47.7 miles from Pomfret Ctr
27 Andrews Parkway Devens, MA 01434
48.6 miles from Pomfret Ctr
200 Technology Center Drive Stoughton, MA 02072
49.4 miles from Pomfret Ctr
387 Winter Street Waltham, MA 02451
49.8 miles from Pomfret Ctr
Check-out mm/dd/yy
(proof of eligibility required at check-in)
About special rates and awards


text:
By Business Wire | Article Rating: |
February 19, 2013 03:01 PM EST | Reads: |
599 |
Market research firm Infonetics Research today released market share and forecast excerpts from its 4th quarter 2012 (4Q12) and year-end Service Provider VoIP and IMS Equipment and Subscribers report. (Detailed analysis will be published March 4.)
"As we predicted, after 3 years of annual declines, the carrier VoIP and IMS equipment market turned the corner in 2012, growing 9% over the previous year due to strong IMS sales," notes Diane Myers, principal analyst for VoIP, UC, and IMS at Infonetics Research. "It's still early days for IMS equipment and applications for LTE, but a handful of operators are placing orders that are positively impacting revenue."
Myers adds: "This is a taste of what's to come over the next few years as wireless operators step into voice over LTE (VoLTE) and RCS begins to roll out across multiple regions."
- Global sales of carrier voice over IP (VoIP) and IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) equipment topped $800 million in 4Q12, thanks to a strong core of IMS, voice application servers, and softswitches
- IMS equipment made up just over 40% of total VoIP and IMS revenue in 2012, offsetting overall declines in legacy softswitch and trunk media gateways
- Though softswitches continue to decline on an annual basis, some operators are replacing early generation softswitches with new ones, opting not to switch to IMS
- For the full year, the Caribbean and Latin America region (CALA) posted the strongest growth of all regions, spiking 37%
- Huawei solidified its position atop the VoIP and IMS market share leaderboard in 2012, with around 1/5 of the global market; Alcatel-Lucent leapfrogged GENBAND to seize the #2 spot
- Standout vendors in terms of sequential revenue growth in 2012 include Alcatel-Lucent, BroadSoft, Ericsson, Huawei, Mavenir, Nokia Siemens Networks, and ZTE, all benefitting from the expansion of IMS networks
Infonetics' quarterly carrier VoIP and IMS report provides worldwide and regional market share, market size, forecasts, analysis, and trends for trunk media gateways, session border controllers (SBCs), media servers, Class 4 and Class 5 softswitches, voice application servers, IMS core equipment (HSS, BGCF, MGCF, CSCF servers), IMS application servers, and VoIP and IMS subscribers. Companies tracked include Acme Packet, Alcatel-Lucent, AudioCodes, BroadSoft, Dialogic, Ericsson, GENBAND, Huawei, Italtel, Mavenir, MetaSwitch, NEC, Nokia Siemens Networks, RadiSys, Sonus, Technicolor, Xener, ZTE, and others. To buy the report, contact Infonetics: http://www.infonetics.com/contact.asp.
- Latest Infonetics Service Provider VoIP and IMS research brief: http://bit.ly/Yvfucz
- Godfrey Chua joins Infonetics to launch M2M and Connected World research
- Diameter signaling controller market set to double in 2013 as LTE deployments take off
- Infonetics survey shows operators favor multi-vendor SBC strategy
- $377 billion to be spent on VoIP and UC services over next 5 years
Download Infonetics' market research brochure, publication calendar, events brochure, report highlights, tables of contents, and more at http://www.infonetics.com/login.
- SIP Trunking & SBC Strategies: North American Enterprise Survey
- VoIP & UC Services & Subscribers Market Share & Forecasts
- Mobile VoIP Services & Subscribers Market Share & Forecasts
- IMS Service Strategies, Product Features & Leadership: Service Provider Survey
Visit https://www.infonetics.com/infonetics-events to learn more or register for Infonetics events.
- Session Border Controllers in VoLTE (Feb. 12 – View on demand now)
- Scaling Small Cell Backhaul (Feb. 19 – View on demand now)
- 100G Optics: Why Operators Are Upgrading Now, with Cisco, Cyan, Oclaro (Mar. 5)
- Diameter Signaling Control: Managing Mobile Broadband Growth, with Ericsson (Apr. 11)
- Deploying Enterprise SBCs to Facilitate SIP Trunking (Sponsorships available)
- Unified Communications in the Cloud (Sponsorships available)
N. America (West), Asia, Latin America: Larry Howard, [email protected], +1 408-583-3335
N. America (East), Texas, Midwest: Scott Coyne, [email protected], +1 408-583-3395
Europe, Middle East, Africa: George Stojsavljevic, [email protected], +44 755-488-1623
Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan: http://www.infonetics.com/contact.asp
Infonetics Research (www.infonetics.com) is an international market research and consulting firm serving the communications industry since 1990. A leader in defining and tracking emerging and established technologies in all world regions, Infonetics helps clients plan, strategize, and compete effectively. View Infonetics' About Us slides at http://bit.ly/QUrbrV.
Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20130219006953/en/
Published February 19, 2013 Reads 599
Copyright © 2013 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
More Stories By Business Wire
Copyright © 2009 Business Wire. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Business Wire content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Business Wire. Business Wire shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) is a technology designed to make DevOps easier and allow developers to focus on application development. The PaaS takes care of provisioning, scaling, HA, and other cloud management aspects. Apache Stratos is a PaaS codebase developed in Apache and designed to create a highly productive developer environment while also supporting powerful deployment options.
Integration with the Docker platform, CoreOS Linux distribution, and Kubernetes container management system ... Mar. 2, 2015 11:45 PM EST Reads: 749 |
By Carmen Gonzalez There are many considerations when moving applications from on-premise to cloud. It is critical to understand the benefits and also challenges of this migration. A successful migration will result in lower Total Cost of Ownership, yet offer the same or higher level of robustness.
In his session at 15th Cloud Expo, Michael Meiner, an Engineering Director at Oracle, Corporation, will analyze a range of cloud offerings (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) and discuss the benefits/challenges of migrating to each of... Mar. 2, 2015 11:30 PM EST Reads: 737 |
By Carmen Gonzalez Cloud data governance was previously an avoided function when cloud deployments were relatively small. With the rapid adoption in public cloud – both rogue and sanctioned, it's not uncommon to find regulated data dumped into public cloud and unprotected. This is why enterprises and cloud providers alike need to embrace a cloud data governance function and map policies, processes and technology controls accordingly.
In her session at 15th Cloud Expo, Evelyn de Souza, Data Privacy and Compliance... Mar. 2, 2015 11:30 PM EST Reads: 728 |
By Liz McMillan The Workspace-as-a-Service (WaaS) market will grow to $6.4B by 2018. In his session at 16th Cloud Expo, Seth Bostock, CEO of IndependenceIT, will begin by walking the audience through the evolution of Workspace as-a-Service, where it is now vs. where it going.
To look beyond the desktop we must understand exactly what WaaS is, who the users are, and where it is going in the future. IT departments, ISVs and service providers must look to workflow and automation capabilities to adapt to growing ... Mar. 2, 2015 11:00 PM EST Reads: 637 |
By Pat Romanski As organizations shift toward IT-as-a-service models, the need for managing and protecting data residing across physical, virtual, and now cloud environments grows with it. CommVault can ensure protection &E-Discovery of your data – whether in a private cloud, a Service Provider delivered public cloud, or a hybrid cloud environment – across the heterogeneous enterprise.
In his session at 16th Cloud Expo, Randy De Meno, Chief Technologist - Windows Products and Microsoft Partnerships, will disc... Mar. 2, 2015 09:45 PM EST Reads: 611 |
By Liz McMillan Hadoop as a Service (as offered by handful of niche vendors now) is a cloud computing solution that makes medium and large-scale data processing accessible, easy, fast and inexpensive.
In his session at Big Data Expo, Kumar Ramamurthy, Vice President and Chief Technologist, EIM & Big Data, at Virtusa, will discuss how this is achieved by eliminating the operational challenges of running Hadoop, so one can focus on business growth. The fragmented Hadoop distribution world and various PaaS soluti... Mar. 2, 2015 09:30 PM EST Reads: 648 |
By Roger Strukhoff Containers and microservices have become topics of intense interest throughout the cloud developer and enterprise IT communities.
Accordingly, attendees at the upcoming 16th Cloud Expo at the Javits Center in New York June 9-11 will find fresh new content in a new track called PaaS | Containers & Microservices
Containers are not being considered for the first time by the cloud community, but a current era of re-consideration has pushed them to the top of the cloud agenda. With the launch ... Mar. 2, 2015 07:15 PM EST Reads: 821 |
By Carmen Gonzalez VictorOps is making on-call suck less with the only collaborative alert management platform on the market.
With easy on-call scheduling management, a real-time incident timeline that gives you contextual relevance around your alerts and powerful reporting features that make post-mortems more effective, VictorOps helps your IT/DevOps team solve problems faster. Mar. 2, 2015 05:00 PM EST Reads: 1,310 |
By Carmen Gonzalez Skeuomorphism usually means retaining existing design cues in something new that doesn't actually need them. However, the concept of skeuomorphism can be thought of as relating more broadly to applying existing patterns to new technologies that, in fact, cry out for new approaches.
In his session at DevOps Summit, Gordon Haff, Senior Cloud Strategy Marketing and Evangelism Manager at Red Hat, will discuss why containers should be paired with new architectural practices such as microservices ra... Mar. 2, 2015 04:00 PM EST Reads: 1,522 |
By Elizabeth White Roberto Medrano, Executive Vice President at SOA Software, had reached 30,000 page views on his home page - http://RobertoMedrano.SYS-CON.com/ - on the SYS-CON family of online magazines, which includes Cloud Computing Journal, Internet of Things Journal, Big Data Journal, and SOA World Magazine. He is a recognized executive in the information technology fields of SOA, internet security, governance, and compliance. He has extensive experience with both start-ups and large companies, having been ... Mar. 2, 2015 04:00 PM EST Reads: 1,365 |
By Elizabeth White HP and Aruba Networks on Monday announced a definitive agreement for HP to acquire Aruba, a provider of next-generation network access solutions for the mobile enterprise, for $24.67 per share in cash. The equity value of the transaction is approximately $3.0 billion, and net of cash and debt approximately $2.7 billion. Both companies' boards of directors have approved the deal.
"Enterprises are facing a mobile-first world and are looking for solutions that help them transition legacy investme... Mar. 2, 2015 04:00 PM EST Reads: 754 |
By Carmen Gonzalez The industrial software market has treated data with the mentality of "collect everything now, worry about how to use it later." We now find ourselves buried in data, with the pervasive connectivity of the (Industrial) Internet of Things only piling on more numbers. There's too much data and not enough information.
In his session at @ThingsExpo, Bob Gates, Global Marketing Director, GE's Intelligent Platforms business, to discuss how realizing the power of IoT, software developers are now focu... Mar. 2, 2015 03:15 PM EST Reads: 1,466 |
By Carmen Gonzalez Operational Hadoop and the Lambda Architecture for Streaming Data
Apache Hadoop is emerging as a distributed platform for handling large and fast incoming streams of data. Predictive maintenance, supply chain optimization, and Internet-of-Things analysis are examples where Hadoop provides the scalable storage, processing, and analytics platform to gain meaningful insights from granular data that is typically only valuable from a large-scale, aggregate view. One architecture useful for capturing... Mar. 2, 2015 02:00 PM EST Reads: 1,435 |
By Elizabeth White SYS-CON Events announced today that Vitria Technology, Inc. will exhibit at SYS-CON's @ThingsExpo, which will take place on June 9-11, 2015, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
Vitria will showcase the company's new IoT Analytics Platform through live demonstrations at booth #330. Vitria's IoT Analytics Platform, fully integrated and powered by an operational intelligence engine, enables customers to rapidly build and operationalize advanced analytics to deliver timely business outcomes ... Mar. 2, 2015 01:45 PM EST Reads: 1,304 |
By Liz McMillan DevOps is about increasing efficiency, but nothing is more inefficient than building the same application twice. However, this is a routine occurrence with enterprise applications that need both a rich desktop web interface and strong mobile support. With recent technological advances from Isomorphic Software and others, it is now feasible to create a rich desktop and tuned mobile experience with a single codebase, without compromising performance or usability. Mar. 2, 2015 01:15 PM EST Reads: 1,223 |
By Liz McMillan SYS-CON Events announced today Arista Networks will exhibit at SYS-CON's DevOps Summit 2015 New York, which will take place June 9-11, 2015, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
Arista Networks was founded to deliver software-driven cloud networking solutions for large data center and computing environments. Arista's award-winning 10/40/100GbE switches redefine scalability, robustness, and price-performance, with over 3,000 customers and more than three million cloud networking ports depl... Mar. 2, 2015 01:00 PM EST Reads: 1,609 |
By Pat Romanski The speed of software changes in growing and large scale rapid-paced DevOps environments presents a challenge for continuous testing. Many organizations struggle to get this right. Practices that work for small scale continuous testing may not be sufficient as the requirements grow.
In his session at DevOps Summit, Marc Hornbeek, Sr. Solutions Architect of DevOps continuous test solutions at Spirent Communications, will explain the best practices of continuous testing at high scale, which is r... Mar. 2, 2015 01:00 PM EST Reads: 1,292 |
By Liz McMillan SYS-CON Events announced today that Open Data Centers (ODC), a carrier-neutral colocation provider, will exhibit at SYS-CON's 16th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place June 9-11, 2015, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
Open Data Centers is a carrier-neutral data center operator in New Jersey and New York City offering alternative connectivity options for carriers, service providers and enterprise customers. Mar. 2, 2015 12:00 PM EST Reads: 1,984 |
By Carmen Gonzalez Thanks to Docker, it becomes very easy to leverage containers to build, ship, and run any Linux application on any kind of infrastructure. Docker is particularly helpful for microservice architectures because their successful implementation relies on a fast, efficient deployment mechanism – which is precisely one of the features of Docker.
Microservice architectures are therefore becoming more popular, and are increasingly seen as an interesting option even for smaller projects, instead of bein... Mar. 2, 2015 12:00 PM EST Reads: 2,647 |
By Carmen Gonzalez The explosion of connected devices / sensors is creating an ever-expanding set of new and valuable data. In parallel the emerging capability of Big Data technologies to store, access, analyze, and react to this data is producing changes in business models under the umbrella of the Internet of Things (IoT). In particular within the Insurance industry, IoT appears positioned to enable deep changes by altering relationships between insurers, distributors, and the insured.
In his session at @Things... Mar. 2, 2015 12:00 PM EST Reads: 1,366 |


text:
Plug this device into your HDTV via HDMI, and you've got a "smart" TV capable of connecting to services such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Control the NeoTV using the included remote or an iOS or Android device with a free app.
$79.99, www.netgear.com
How to Turn Off Emergency Alerts on the Galaxy Note 4
How To Turn Off Emergency Alerts on the HTC One M8
New AMD Processor May Dramatically Boost Laptop Battery Life
Chromebook Pixel 2 Reportedly Coming Soon
Best Samsung Laptops


text:
Congratulations! You leveled up, but you aren't logged in so we can't save your points.
Sexy interview with superstar Ronda Rousey as she gets ready for her next fight! Find Paulie G on Facebook : http://www.FB.com/PaulieGmma
Categories sports
Tags sexy, interview, training, video, ufc, fitness, work-out, judo, strikeforce, ronda-rousey
Video Size: 420 x 315480 x 360640 x 480960 x 720
Flag This Item
Seagull stole video camera in Cannes France.
122,315 |3
Enjoy this WIN movie, and be proud of these people's amazing feats.
3,353,258 |3
Soccer, it's so hot right now.
14,976 |8
Fantastic endurance, fantastic strength and fantastic looks!
143,760 |1
Hawaiian surfer breaks wave-riding record.
31,192 |10
This guy passes out on the slingshot ride and when he wakes up, he freaks the f*ck out.
49,132 |2
Competitive Climbing, especially Bouldering, is becoming more and more Ninja like. Impressive highlights from this year's World Cup Season.
16,235 |9
Translation: "..YOUR TEAM IS LOSING BIG TIME MON PIT!"
68,372 |10
An icy canoe trip through Quttinirpaaq National Park, Nunavut.
50,449 |10
Anything that starts with a bit of slap bass is going to be good.
29,282 |10


text:
Fab's October Most Wanted
Fab's October Most Wanted
by Fashion
Like us on Facebook
Fab's October Most Wanted
Summer is officially over, Fall has fallen. But Halloween is right around the corner. Yes! In case you didn't know, Halloween is Fab's favorite holiday; it's when real fashion spirits come out to play. All month I plan my costume (wait for it) and my party route — Halloween is on a Friday this year, you know. This month's goods are a mix of Fall classics with some haunted luxuries. Isn't this mini YSL Besace bag perfect for carrying my tricks and treats?
Link Love
- You're going to love these brand-new Kanye outfits — HuffPost Style
- Lupita Nyong'o's 15 greatest style moments will blow you away — Lucky
- Emily Current and Meritt Elliott created a denim destination — Who What Wear
- Wait — SkyMall may not be gone forever — The Cut
- The surprising new alternative to leather — InStyle
- Is Björk going to top our list of style icons this year? — Racked
- You need this Louis Vuitton look in your closet stat — SheFinds
- Will people still choose Gucci with Alessandro Michele's takeover? — Style.com
- How to pack light for the chicest city in the world — Man Repeller
Latest Fashion


text:
Nehchal Sandhu new IB director
Express News Service : New Delhi, Fri Nov 26 2010, 02:57 hrs
Top Stories
- Manohar Parrikar sticks to stand, warns of action against Coast Guard officer
- Coast Guard DIG on video: Blow the Pak boat off, we don't want to serve them biryani
- Clean chit to AAP: Nothing wrong with foreign funding, Centre tells HC
- Fake encounter case: D G Vanzara walks free; says "Acche Din" have arrived
- Defence is at heart of Make in India programme, says PM Modi at Bangalore Aero show
The appointments committee of the cabinet has cleared the name of Nehchal Sandhu as the next Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB). Sandhu is currently a Special Director of the internal intelligence agency and will take over from Rajiv Mathur who retires month-end. Sandhu, a 1973-batch Bihar-cadre IPS officer, has spent over 30 years in the intelligence agency. He is currently number two in the agency.
Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).


text:
Member Sign In
Not yet a member?Join the wunderground community.
What's the difference?
Uploaded by:
Thursday January 1, 1970
(Current Weather Conditions)
Categories: None
This image does not contain EXIF data.
Comments are not allowed on portraits.
My name is Míla year of birth 1959 permanent address Varnsdorf Czech Republic hobby military history,nature...
(135 days ago)
(144 days ago)
(192 days ago)
(211 days ago)
(220 days ago)
(239 days ago)
(258 days ago)
(263 days ago)
(276 days ago)
(281 days ago)


text:
Wooden Frog Percussion Instrument
Roll over image to zoom in
In Vietnam, the wooden frog has taken on a important role. Around the world, its warm, wood-on-wood call reminds people of summer nights and favorite watering holes. To the artisans that carve each frog by hand, detail by detail, the frog means business. A proud livelihood is earned by the carvers of the jack fruit wood. The little frogs from Vietnam have hopped into hands all over the globe. Create a croaking sound by lightly dragging the fat end of the stick on the ridges on the back of the frog. Listen for different sounds in different directions. Either way it sounds like frog talk! The green lily pad is a carry pouch and home for the frog!
- Wood
- Includes wooden drumstick
- "Lily pad" carrying pouch
- Approximately 5" diameter (12.7 cm)
- Handmade in and fairly traded from Vietnam
People buying this item also bought:
Life is What You Make of It Jewelry
Dichroic Glass Tree of Life Necklace
From $24.00
Special Value!
Green Amber Celtic Ring - North/South
From $20.00
Special Value!
Fruit Trees for African Villages
From $5.00
Hope Faith Love Dragonfly Coil Bracelet
From $11.00
Special Value!
"I Am Complete" Swarovski Crystal Paw Ring
From $16.00
Special Value!
Liberate Girls from Indentured Servitude
From $10.00
Recycled Motherboard Dog Ornament
Popular Now:
Potpourri Patchwork Stonewashed Coat
From $42.00
Special Value!
Patchwork Stonewashed Hooded Jacket
From $42.95
One of our favorites!
Just Believe Dragonfly Fold-up Tote Bag
From $10.00
Special Value!
End of the Rainbow Long Sleeve Tee
From $38.95
Painter's Canvas Walking Shoes
Buy a Pair, Give a Pair
On the Fringe Polar Fleece Embroidered Jacket
Garden Party Organic Cotton Sundress
Flowering Vines Fleece Wrap Jacket
From $38.00
Special Value!
Super Nutrition for Malnourished Children
From $5.00
Hand-carved Colombian Wooden Angel
Here Comes the Sun Short Sleeved Tee
From $34.95
Patches of Nepal Stonewashed Jacket
From $36.00
Special Value!


text:
- VIC - Melbourne
Ballam Park
Frankston City, situated on the eastern shores of Port Phillip Bay, includes many beautiful Parks and Playgrounds that provide fun family activities all year 'round.
Ballam Park is one of these beautiful community parks that features:
- 2 Playgrounds
- Picnic areas & BBQs
- 30ha open grass space
- Shade trees
Spend a day out enjoying the Great Outdoors with your family!
Check out other great Parks & Playgrounds in Melbourne
- Time:
- FREE fun from sunrise to sunset at your local park
- Location:
- Cranbourne Rd, FRANKSTON, Melbourne, VIC Map it
- Ages:
- All Ages / Family
- Cost:
- Free
- Event Info:
- Get the family outdoors for FREE fun & activities!
Visit Website
Recently Viewed Events
Buzy Kidz Playcentre Mill ParkScienceworks Science Fiction, Science Future
Dights Falls Abbotsford
Debney's Park Flemington
Anakie Fairy Park
Play Zone Indoor Play & Party Centre Noble Park
Port Melbourne Beach
Gahans Reserve Abbotsford
Mill Park Recreational Reserve Mill Park
Point Cook Homestead


text:
Church Leaders Related Links
Have Doubts? Atonement and Faith Can Help, Sister Stephens Tells BYU-I Students
Posted: 2 March 2015Despite living in what the apostle Paul called "perilous times," people can come to a knowledge of the truth, said Sister Carole M. Stephens, first counselor in the Relief Society general presidency during a weekly BYU-Idaho devotional February 24. Full Story
Christians Need to Work Together, Elder Holland Tells Faith Group
Posted: 26 February 2015Whatever their doctrinal differences, Christians need to work together in addressing society's ills, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declared February 26 to a faith-based audience at Chapman University. Full Story
Families Central to God's Plan, Says Elder Cook
Posted: 22 February 2015Elder Quentin L. Cook's presentation at Family Discovery Day February 14 at RootsTech 2015 was a family affair in more ways than one. Full Story
RootsTech 2015: Elder Andersen Adds to Temple Challenge
Posted: 14 February 2015Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued an updated challenge to attendees of 2015 RootsTech conference: "Prepare as many names for the temple as baptisms you perform in the temple and help someone else to do the same." Full Story
RootsTech 2015: Gathering, Healing, and Sealing Families
Posted: 14 February 2015"Gathering, Healing, and Sealing Families" was the theme of a RootsTech session that featured general auxiliary leaders and a member of the Seventy and his four daughters. Full Story
Women Church Leaders Visit South America
Posted: 13 February 2015Leaders of the young women's and women's organizations of the Church recently returned from a visit to South America, where they met with the first lady-elect of Uruguay, community leaders, and members of the Church. Full Story
Church's Doctrine on Chastity Will Never Change, Says Elder Christofferson
Posted: 5 February 2015The appeal by Church leaders for a balanced approach between nondiscrimination and religious liberty does not represent any change or shift in the Church's doctrine, said Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Full Story
Latter-day Prophets Speak on Family Home Evening
Posted: 3 February 2015Quotes from various latter-day prophets on family home evening. Full Story