text:
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Kansas Federal Judge Holds State's Same-Sex Marriage Bans Unconstitutional
In a 38 page opinion in Marie v. Moser, Judge Daniel Crabtree held that Kansas' state constitutional provisions and statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
This is not surprising given the Tenth Circuit's opinions in Bishop v. Smith (finding Oklahoma's same-sex marriage prohibition unconstitutional) and Kitchen v. Herbert (finding Utah's same-sex marriage prohibition unconstitutional and the United States Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in these cases a month ago. As Judge Crabtree states: "When the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit has established a clear rule of law, our Court must follow it."
But, although the result may not be surprising, the opinion does have two odd aspects.
First, why is the opinion 38 pages? Shouldn't this opinion be more like last month's four page opinion by the Arizona federal judge stating that it is bound by the Circuit opinion? And indeed, Judge Crabtree's analysis of the Circuit precedent is relatively brief. However, Judge Crabtree's opinion also contains not only a brief discussion of the parties and the challenged laws, but a careful consideration of a variety of other matters including those related to justicability and jurisdiction:
- Standing (generally focusing on redressability, but including a claim that because the plaintiffs are a same-sex female couple, they cannot argue the constitutionality of the Kansas laws as applied to same-sex male couples);
- Eleventh Amendment
- Domestic Relations Exception to federal court jurisdiction
- Absention (including Pullman, Younger, Colorado River, Burford, Rooker-Feldman)
Additionally, Judge Crabtree considered an argument that the correct precedent was not the Tenth Circuit opinion, but a Kansas state court opinion (to which the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari).
Judge Crabtree rejected all of these arguments, but in a careful and considered manner.
Second, why did Judge Crabtree grant a stay to the defendants? Judge Crabtree's answer is related to the length of the opinion. He states that although
the Tenth Circuit has settled the substance of the constitutional challenge plaintiffs' motion presents. And under the Circuit's decisions, Kansas law is encroaching on plaintiffs constitutional rights. But defendants' arguments have required the Court to make several jurisdictional and justiciability determinations, and human fallibility is what it is; the Circuit may come to a different conclusion about one of these threshold determinations. On balance, the Court concludes that a short-term stay is the safer and wiser course.
Thus Judge Crabtree stayed the injunction until November 11, unless the defendants inform the court they will not appeal. Perhaps the state officials in Kansas will conclude that it would be a waste of taxpayers' money as did the state officials in Arizona. Or perhaps not.
November 4, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Federal Judge in Puerto Rico Dismisses Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban
In his opinion in Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico Juan Perez-Gimenez dismissed the constitutional challenge to Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as "man and woman" and refusing recognition to marriages "between persons of the same sex or transexuals."
In large part, Judge Perez-Gimenez relied upon Baker v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court's 1972 dismissal of a same-sex marriage ban challenge "for want of substantial federal question." For Judge Perez-Gimenez, this dismissal remains binding precedent for several reasons. Judge Perez-Gimenez finds that Baker remains good law despite the "nebulous 'doctrinal developments" since 1972. He rejects the precedential value of Windsor v. United States in this regard: "Windsor does not - - - and cannot - - - change things." He acknowledges and cites authority to the contrary, but finds it unpersuasive. He specifically rejects the relevance of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari from circuit decisions finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional in light of the more solid precedent of Baker v. Nelson.
Judge Perez-Gimenez also grounds his adherence to Baker v. Nelson on the First Circuit's opinion in Massachusetts v. HHS, finding DOMA unconstitutional. The First Circuit's discussion of Baker v. Nelson is somewhat unclear, but Judge Perez-Gimenez rejects the argument that they are dicta and further reasons even if the statements are dicta, "they would remain persuasive authority, and as such, further support the Court's independent conclusions about, and the impact of subsequent decisions on, Baker."
Judge Perez-Gimenez articulates a perspective of judicial restraint, articulating deference to the democtratic institutions of Puerto Rico and adherence to stare decisis. But in the opinion's conclusion, he makes his own views clear:
Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is "exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship," Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.
Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial "wisdom" may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.
A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is "minimal marriage", where "individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties" the blueprint for their design? *** It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs' logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on "the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one's choice."
Undoubtedly, this issue is on its way to the First Circuit. The states in the First Circuit - - - Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine - - - all have same-sex marriage without federal court decisions, so this decision from the District of Puerto Rico will provide the First Circuit the opportunity to reconsider Baker v. Nelson and the applicability of its DOMA decision, Massachusetts v. Gill.
Although perhaps the challengers to the same-sex and "transsexual" marriages might seek to have the issue decided by the Puerto Rican Supreme Court.
October 22, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, October 17, 2014
Arizona Federal Judge Holds State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Judge John Sedwick's opinion in Connolly v. Jeanes is a mere four pages, noting that the requirement of a "lengthy and detailed opinion" is now obviated because as the district court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Latta v. Otter. As to a stay, an "appeal to the Ninth Circuit would be futile" and given the Supreme Court's denial of petitions for writs of certiorari, it is "also clear" that the "High Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit's decision."
Despite the recent activity by Justice Kennedy including the stay and modified stay and vacated stay of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Attorney General Tom Horne (pictured) agreed in a statement (video here) and cited his ethical duties under Rule 11 and not to "waste the taxpayers' money." He issued a letter to the clerks "effective immediately."
October 17, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Supreme Court Vacates Fifth Circuit Stay of Texas HB 2 Injunction
The controversial Texas law limiting abortion access known as HB 2, which began law despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis, is now effectively enjoined - - - in part - - -by the United States Supreme Court in its Order in Whole Woman's Health Center v. Lakey.
Here's the entire text:
The application to vacate stay of final judgment pending appeal presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the court is granted in part and denied in part. The Court of Appeals' stay order with reference to the district court's order enjoining the admitting-privileges requirement as applied to the McAllen and El Paso clinics is vacated. The Court of Appeals' stay order with reference to the district court's order enjoining the ambulatory surgical center requirement is vacated. The application is denied in all other respects.
Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito would deny the application in its entirety.
To recap: the United States Supreme Court is vacating the Fifth Circuit stay of the district judge's injunction against portions of the law, thus reinstating the district judge's injunction at least in part.Recall also that this is an as-applied challenge. A panel of the Fifth Circuit in March upheld the admitting privileges provision after it had issued a stay of Judge Yeakel's decision enjoining the provision as unconstitutional.
October 15, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Gender, Medical Decisions, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Daily Videos: "Citizen Four" and Edward Snowden Interviews
With the release of "Citizen Four," the film by Laura Poitras on Friday, two videos are worth a watch.
First, here is a Q&A session with Laura Poitras at the 52nd New York Film Festival on October 10 after a premier of the film.
Second, here is a "virtual interview" with Edward Snowden from the New Yorker Festival - - - including in the first minute or so the official trailer of the film (also here) and an extended discussion with Snowden:
October 14, 2014 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Executive Authority, Film, First Amendment, Foreign Affairs, International, News, Speech, Theory, War Powers, Web/Tech, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Alaska Same-Sex Marriage: Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
On Sunday afternoon before a Monday federal holiday, federal district judge Timothy Burgess of the District of Alaska issued an opinion in Hamby v. Parnell and immediately enjoined officials of the state of Alaska from enforcing either the statute or state constitutional provision barring same-sex marriages.
Judge Burgess' 25 page opinion predictably relied upon the Ninth Circuit's decision in Latta v. Otter concluding that the same-sex marriage bans of Idaho and Nevada violated the Equal Protection Clause and using the Circuit's heightened scrutiny standard for sexual orientation. Judge Burgess also found that the Alaska laws violated the Due Process Clause because they infringe on the "fundamental right to choose whom to marry."
In the Due Process discussion, Judge Burgess has an interesting invocation of originalism:
In Lawrence [v. Texas], the critical mistake identified by the Supreme Court in its earlier reasoning [in Bowers v. Hardwick] is the same error made by Defendants in this case: in the desire to narrowly define the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, they "fail[] to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake."
Our forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights hundreds of years ago and could not have predicted "the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities" as we see today. As the Supreme Court articulately explained, "those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clause[]...knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once necessary and proper in fact only serve to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." The Plaintiffs in this case do not ask the Court to recognize an entirely new fundamental right to same-sex marriage; rather, Plaintiffs wish to participate in the existing liberty granted to other couples to make a deeply personal choice about a private family matter.
Alaska has filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, arguing in part that there is a "reasonable likelihood the Ninth Circuit will rehear Latta en banc and thus vacate the panel's decision." This is largely based on the Ninth Circuit's application of heightened scrutiny in the panel opinion.
But recall that this heightened scrutiny is based on SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs, decided 10 months ago and which was denied a rehearing en banc.
And recall also that while Justice Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of Latta, he later clarified that the stay was only as to Idaho and not Nevada (although the Ninth Circuit's heightened scrutiny standard was applied to the laws of both states), and the stay vacated on Friday.
Additionally, Alaska argues that "conditions compelling Supreme Court review of this issue could easily develop very soon." Recall that the Supreme Court denied certiorari of the decisions from three circuits finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. As Alaska argues:
The Sixth Circuit heard argument in early August regarding cases14 from four states (Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio) and could issue a decision at any time, and the Fifth Circuit has expedited argument of Louisiana and Texas cases and could issue a decision by end of this year. Accordingly, circumstances are likely to develop in which the Supreme Court is virtually obligated to review the issue.
Yet given the lack of endurance of previous stays, there is little reason to believe Alaska would be considered a different case.
October 14, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, October 6, 2014
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari to Same-Sex Marriage Petitions
In its Order today, the Court denied certiorari to a raft of cases, including the cases seeking review of opinions in which appellate courts found bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
These cases are from three circuits:
From the Seventh Circuit: Bogan v. Baskin and Walker v. Wolf, decided in September, regarding the same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin;
From the Tenth Circuit, Herbert v. Kitchen, the opinion issued in June regarding Utah's prohibition and Smith v. Bishop, extending Herbert's reasoning to the ban in Oklahoma; and
From the Fourth Circuit's Bostic v. Rainey, regarding Virginia's prohibition there were three petitions, McQuigg v. Bostic, Schaefer v. Bostic, and Rainey v. Bostic. The Fourth Circuit has already issued a Mandate, lifting the stay.
October 6, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Fifth Circuit Stays Injunction Against Texas' Restrictive Abortion Law HB2
In Whole Woman's Health Center v. Lakey, the Fifth Circuit today issued a stay of the majority of the district judge's injunction against portions of Texas HB 2 passed despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis. A panel of the Fifth Circuit in March upheld the admitting privileges provision after it had issued a stay of Judge Yeakel's decision enjoining the provision as unconstitutional.
This newest round of opinions consider the as-applied challenge to the admitting privileges provision combined with the the ambultory-surgical-center requirement.
In the stay opinion, authored by Judge Jennifer Elrod (pictured below) the majority states that there is some confusion concerning whether the district judge's opinion is actually limited to the as-applied challenge or whether it goes further.
The majority interjects some confusion of its own with its statement that the district judge was wrong to conclude that "the severity of the burden imposed by both requirements is not balanced by the weight of the interests underlying them" because
In our circuit, we do not balance the wisdom or effectiveness of a law against the burdens the law imposes.
The Fifth Circuit's majority opinion states that
the district court's approach ratchets up rational basis review into a pseudo-strict-scrutiny approach by examining whether the law advances the State's asserted purpose. Under our precedent, we have no authority by which to turn rational basis into strict scrutiny under the guise of the undue burden inquiry.
It is this point on which Judge Stephen Higginson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagrees. He states that he does not read the earlier HB 2 case, Abbott, "to preclude consideration of the relationship between the severity of the obstacle imposed and the weight of the State's interest in determining if the burden is 'undue.'" And that consistent with the correct analysis, "the district court considered the weight of the State's interest in its undue-burden review."
With one small exception - - -the district court's injunction of the physical plant requirements of the ambulatory surgical provision remaining in force for El Paso - - - the Fifth Circuit stayed the district judge's injunction. While the court states that the merits panel is not bound by its determination, it will certainly be persuasive when the Fifth Circuit considers the next round in the saga of the constitutionality of HB2.
October 2, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Medical Decisions, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Louisiana Federal Judge Upholds State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Breaking the spate of federal decisions that have invalidated state same-sex marriage prohibitions, federal district judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana today upheld the constitutionality of that state's ban in his 32 page opinion in Robicheaux v. Caldwell.
Judge Feldman rejects the equal protection claim (the "most hefty constitutional issue") and the due process claim, as well as rejecting any heightened scrutiny within those claims and any extension of Windsor to state same-sex marriage bans. In applying rational basis, the judge found that the "central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents" and of "even more consequence," the "legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus," was sufficient.
The theoretical underpinnings of the judge's rationale are a preference for states' rights, democratically enacted provisions, tradition, and a judicial practice of being "circumspect."
Judge Feldman's opinion credits notions of formal equality and the slippery slope. For example, in rejecting the analogy to Loving v. Virginia, Judge Feldman writes: "no analogy can defeat the plain reality that Louisiana's laws apply evenhandedly to both genders--whether between two men or two women." This evenhandedness was precisely the argument Virginia unsuccessfully advanced in Loving when it argued that under its miscengenation statute, both whites and blacks would be prosecuted. At another point, Judge Feldman states:
Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will be reduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able to claim marriage. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phase of some "evolving understanding of equality," where what is marriage will be explored. And as plaintiffs vigorously remind, there have been embattled times when the federal judiciary properly inserted itself to correct a wrong in our society. But that is an incomplete answer to today's social issue. When a federal court is obliged to confront a constitutional struggle over what is marriage, a singularly pivotal issue, the consequence of outcomes, intended or otherwise, seems an equally compelling part of the equation. It seems unjust to ignore. And so, inconvenient questions persist. For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.
Judge Feldman acknowledged that his decision departed from the recent trend, but quoted from the dissenting opinion in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Bostic v. Schaefer.
As Judge Feldman also stated:
Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this Court is but one studied decision among many. Our Fifth Circuit has not yet spoken.
Whether or not the case is appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the issue seems sure to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
September 3, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, September 1, 2014
District Judge Enjoins Portions of Texas' Restrictive Abortion Law, HB 2
The latest installment in the continuing saga of HB 2, Texas' restrictive abortion law, occurred late Friday with Judge Lee Yeakel enjoining the admitting privileges requirement and the ambultory-surgical-center requirement in his 21 page opinion in Whole Woman's Health Center v. Lakey.
Recall that a panel of the Fifth Circuit in March upheld the admitting privileges provision of controversial Texas HB 2 passed despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis, after it had issued a stay of Judge Yeakel's decision enjoining the provision as unconstitutional.
This new opinion considers the as-applied challenge to the admitting privileges provision combined with the the ambultory-surgical-center requirement.
In considering the testimony and evidence in the bench trial, Judge Yeakel found that the "experts' testimony substantially contradicted each other and, predictably, reached opposing conclusions," noting that this is "the nature of expert testimony." But the judge did use some of that testimony, as well as carefully considering the parties' stipulations.
The court concludes that the act's ambulatory-surgical—center requirement, combined with the already in-effect admitting-privileges requirement, creates a brutally effective system of abortion regulation that reduces access to abortion clinics thereby creating a statewide burden for substantial numbers of Texas women. The obstacles erected for these women are more significant than the "incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion." [citing Casey]. The court concludes that the overall lack of practical access to abortion services resulting from clinic closures throughout Texas as a result of House Bill 2 is compelling evidence of a substantial obstacle erected by the act.
The judge also concluded "that the severity of the burden imposed by both requirements is not balanced by the weight of the interests underlying them." And, perhaps most interestingly, the judge explicitly considered the legislative intent of HB2:
An abortion regulation is also violative of a woman's right to an abortion if it was adopted with the purpose of erecting a substantial obstacle to a woman's ability to choose a previability abortion. [citing Gonzales v Carhart]. Because the act's two requirements have the effect of creating an undue burden, an additional finding that the act was passed with the purpose of erecting a substantial obstacle is not required in order to declare the act unconstitutional. However, the court concludes, after examining the act and the context in which it operates, that the ambulatory-surgical- center requirement was intended to close existing licensed abortion clinics. The requirement's implementing rules specifically deny grandfathering or the granting of waivers to previously licensed abortion providers. This is in contrast to the "frequent" granting of some sort of variance from the standards which occur in the licensing of nearly three-quarters of all licensed ambulatory surgical centers in Texas. Such disparate and arbitrary treatment, at a minimum, suggests that it was the intent of the State to reduce the number of providers licensed to perform abortions, thus creating a substantial obstacle for a woman seeking to access an abortion. This is particularly apparent in light of the dearth of credible evidence supporting the proposition that abortions performed in ambulatory surgical centers have better patient health outcomes compared to clinics licensed under the previous regime.
[emphasis added].
Thus, the judge enjoined the enforcement of HB2.
The Attorney General of Texas is sure to appeal.
September 1, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Utah District Judge Finalizes Judgment on Unconstitutionality of Polygamy Prohibition
In a brief Memorandum and Judgment in Brown v Herbert federal district judge Clark Waddoups has finalized his conclusion - - - and made appealable - - - his previous decision that Utah's anti-bigamy statute is partially unconstitutional.
Recall that the Utah provision at issue criminalized bigamy as defined as including when a married person "purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."
The challengers to the statute, the Browns, are famous from the reality program Sister Wives and the accompanying book. The show includes "commitment ceremonies" between Cody brown and subsequent wives. They are represented by ConLawProf Jonathan Turley who blogs about this judgment, including the possibilities of appeal, here.
It does seem that given the breadth of the statutory proscription on "bigamy" that includes cohabitation, an appeal might be ill-advised. A strict enforcement of the statute would mean that anyone whose divorce was not final and who cohabited with another person might be guilty of bigamy.
[image via]
August 28, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Florida Federal District Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In his 33 page opinion today in Brenner v. Scott, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida found that Florida's same-sex marriage bans in the constitution as Article I §27 and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1) violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Judge Hinkle first determined that the "right asserted by the plaintiffs is a fundamental right as that term is used in due-process and equal-protection jurisprudence," noting that almost every court that has addressed the issue since the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Windsor has said the answer is yes, and concluded that that "view is correct." Given that there is a fundamental right, he continued:
That leaves for analysis the second step, the application of strict scrutiny. A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. A variety of justifications for banning same- sex marriages have been proffered by these defendants and in the many other cases that have plowed this ground since Windsor. The proffered justifications have all been uniformly found insufficient. Indeed, the states' asserted interests would fail even intermediate scrutiny, and many courts have said they would fail rational- basis review as well. On these issues the circuit decisions in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen are particularly persuasive. All that has been said there is not repeated here.
Judge Hinkle did take the opportunity, however, to specifically discuss the procreation argument, finding that "Florida has never conditioned marriage on the desire or capacity to procreate."
Like other judges, Judge Hinkle used Justice Scalia's dissenting language from Lawrence v. Texas to note that moral disapproval in the marriage context is the same as moral disapproval in the sodomy context.
Judge Hinkle's opinion then analyzed the requirements for a preliminary injunction, finding them satisfied. But he also held that a stay was warranted; it would have been difficult to rule otherwise in light of the previous stays, including the one just yesterday by the United States Supreme Court.
August 21, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Can City of Ocala Ban the Saggy Pants Style on Government Property?
This summer, the city of Ocala, Florida passed Ordinance 2014-44 , prohibiting the style of saggy pants on city property. Tonight, the city officials will reconsider the ordinance in light of threatened legal action.
Ocala is not the first municipality to try to ban the style. But these bans have constitutional issues. While First Amendment challenges of free expression have not been successful on the grounds that the style does not convey the necessary particularized message, challenges based on substantive due process do have merit.
The ordinances generally state as their purposes "decency" and "morals," but there is a problem prohibiting showing underwear. Here's the language from the Ocala ordinance:
It is unlawful for any person, while on city owned property, to knowingly or intentionally wear pants below the person's natural waistline in a manner that leaves the person's underwear or bare buttocks exposed. A person's underwear is "exposed" if, when measured vertically, more than two inches of it is visible. A person's bare buttocks is "exposed"person's intergluteal cleft is visible.
As a judge from another Florida city - - - Riveria Beach - - - held, such a ban violates basic liberty interests under the due process clause. As for the "intergluteal cleft" being visible, there are real questions whether that can constitutionally be included in "indecent exposure."
It is oft-stated that "saggy pants" are a foolish style. But fashions, of course, change. In a 1937 case, People v. O'Gorman, 274 N.Y. 284, 8 N.E.2d 862 (1937), New York's highest court struck down a Yonkers ordinance that prohibited any person over the age of 16 from appearing in public "in a bathing costume" or "in other than customary street attire." The defendants included a woman who wore "white sandals, no stockings, yellow short pants and a colored halter, with a yellow jacket over it and no hat" and a man who "had on white sneakers, white anklets, short socks, yellow trunks, short pants, a blue polo shirt, brown and white belt, no hat." Maybe they looked "foolish" to their contemporaries, but as the court declared, the "Constitution still leaves some opportunity for people to be foolish if they so desire."
Moreover, it's important to be attentive to the equal protection problems that the criminalization of saggy pants raises.
There is more discussion and analysis of saggy pants bans and the limits of criminalizing indecent exposue in Dressing Constitutionally (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
image via
August 20, 2014 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Fourth Circuit Denies Stay in Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Case
Without analysis, the Fourth Circuit today in Bostic v. Schaeffer entered its Order denying the stay of its opinion that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here's the text of the Order:
Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to stay mandate, the court denies the motion.
Entered at the direction of Judge Floyd with the concurrence of Judge Gregory. Judge Niemeyer voted to grant the motion.
The 2-1 division of the panel is the same as the division in the opinion on the merits, which we analyzed here.
The saga will undoubtedly continue.
August 13, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, August 4, 2014
Alabama District Judge Declares State's Restrictive Abortion Law Unconstitutional as Applied
United States District Judge Myron Thompson, in a lengthy opinion in Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Strange, concluded that the staff-privileges requirement of Alabama's Women's Health and Safety Act of 2013, 1975 Ala. Code § 26-23E-4(c), is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.
In considering whether the hospital admitting privileges requirement, especially given that hospitals were not deeming physicians eligible to apply, Judge Thompson found it constituted an undue burden. He did note and rely on last week's Fifth Circuit decision in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier in which the appellate court concluded that the admitting privileges requirement that would operate to close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi was an undue burden, in part because a state could not shift its responsibilities to other states.
The Alabama situation, however, was different as Judge Thompson noted:
This court does not need to resolve the legal issue of whether to consider out-of state clinics because, even if this court were to consider those clinics, it would reach the same conclusion. The out-of-state clinic nearest to any of the three cities at issue in this case is in Pensacola, Florida, approximately 50 miles away from Mobile. The Columbus, Georgia clinic is approximately 80 miles away from Montgomery. A woman in Mobile traveling to Pensacola or in Montgomery traveling to Columbus would still face the same threshold difficulties related to losing an abortion clinic in her home city; she would still have to overcome the challenges of the first 50 miles. Furthermore, the record does not support the conclusion that the Pensacola and Columbus clinics could actually accommodate an influx of patients from Alabama, and, in fact, the evidence from the Huntsville and Tuscaloosa clinics, discussed below, shows that it is not always easy for a clinic to increase capacity and suggests that the out-of-state clinics may not be able to treat large numbers of new women from Alabama.
The court also observed that if it looked outside the state's borders, it should not only look south and east but west as well. West of Alabama is Mississippi, and the court duly cites Jackson Women's Health Organization.
[image via]
As the judge clarifies, he "reaches no conclusions on these matters, but hastens to point out that an out-of- state analysis is both much more complicated than the State suggests and potentially harmful, on balance, to the State's case."
Moreover, the judge refused to deem the Fifth Circuit's decision in Abbott (on Texas's HB 2) as setting a per se rule that 150 miles of travel was not an undue burden. Instead, he found that the consideration of undue burden should be very specific and focused on the undue burden that the Alabama regulation would have on urban women rather than rural women.The court carefully considered the state's two proffered interests, the relationship of those interests, and then considered the undue burden, and anchored the conclusions in the testimony that is extensively discussed.
August 4, 2014 in Abortion, Due Process (Substantive), Fundamental Rights, Gender, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Divided Fifth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Mississippi's Restrictive Abortion Law HB 1390
A panel of the Fifth Circuit in its opinion today in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier upheld the district judge's injunction against the enforcement of a restrictive abortion statute known as Mississippi HB 1390.
The statute required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. As the court noted, a similar provision in Texas (HB 2) was recently upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Planned Parenthood of Texas Surgical Providers v. Abbott. As to the rational basis of such a law, the panel stated it was "bound" by Abbott as precedent to accept that the Mississippi statute survives a constitutional challenge.
Regarding undue burden, however, the panel majority, in an opinion by Judge E. Grady Jolly (who interestingly hails from Mississippi) and joined by Judge Stephen Higginson, the effects of HB 1390 were relevant in this as-applied challenge. In assessing the undue burden, the court found it highly relevant that "if enforced, the admitting privileges requirement would likely require JWHO, the only currently licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, to lose its license." The panel rejected the State's attempt to "walk back" this statement - - - which is actually a quote from the State's opening brief - - - as "too little, too late." Additionally, the majority found it important that the hospitals had rejected the physicians' applications for admitting privileges based on the fact that the physicians performed abortions.
The central - - - and exceedingly interesting - - - question of the undue burden analysis is the relevance of the clinic's status as the only abortion clinic remaining in Mississippi. The State argued that there is no undue burden because women could travel to another state and many of these distances would not be unduly burdensome in and of themselves. Recall that in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) the plurality opinion rejected the contention that traveling long distances constituted an undue burden. But, as Judge Jolly notes, there was no suggestion that women should have to go to neighboring states in Casey or in any other opinion, and there is at least one circuit court opinion that finds it "dispositive" that women had to leave the state to exercise their constitutional right.
Additionally - - - and this is the interesting part - - - the court relies upon State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938) in the United States Supreme Court rejected Missouri's argument that its failure to admit an African-American man to its law school was essentially cured by its offer of a tuition stipend to allow Mr. Gaines to attend law school in another state. Here's the passage from Gaines that Judge Jolly finds worthy of quoting at length:
[T]he obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. . . . That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, —each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders. It is an obligation the burden of which cannot be cast by one State upon another, and no State can be excused from performance by what another State may do or fail to do. That separate responsibility of each State within its own sphere is of the essence of statehood maintained under our dual system.
Id. at 350. Judge Jolly admits that Gaines can be distinguished, but finds Gaines nevertheless determinative: " a state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens' federal constitutional rights."
In a lengthy and somewhat vehement dissent - - - complete with quotations from Albert Camus - - - Senior Judge Emilio Garza finds many things to criticize in the majority's opinion, including the majority's failure to recognize there is not sufficient state action for a constitutional claim (it is the hospitals denying admitting privileges rather than the statute that are the cause); the majority's failure to honor the distinction between equal protection (as in Gaines) and due process (in the abortion context); the majority's belief that there is relevance to crossing state lines (given the constitutional right to travel across state lines articulated in Saenz v. Roe); the majority's failure to recognize that Casey is nothing more than a "verbal shell game" (quoting Justice Scalia's dissent in Casey); the majority's recognition of the "liberty" interest (quotes in original) in the Due Process Clause; and the majority's participation in "aggrandizement of judicial power."
But the central issue of federalism including not only states' rights but states' responsibilities raised by this opinion and litigation is one that merits close consideration.
July 29, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Medical Decisions, Opinion Analysis, Race, Reconstruction Era Amendments, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, July 28, 2014
Fourth Circuit: Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional
Affirming the federal district judge's decision in February, a panel of the Fourth Circuit in a divided opinion has held in Bostic v. Schaefer that Virginia's same-sex marriage prohibitions are unconstitutional.
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Henry Floyd and joined by Judge Roger Gregory, notably finds marriage to be a fundamental right that encompasses same-sex marriage and applies strict scrutiny.
The court's conclusion is that the "Virginia Marriage Laws" (including statutes and a state constitutional amendment)
violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they prevent same-sex couples from marrying and prohibit Virginia from recognizing same-sex couples' lawful out-of-state marriages.
At various times, the court blends Due Process and Equal Protection analysis and precedent, but both spring from its conclusion that "marriage" is a fundamental right and that "marriage" includes same-sex marriage. After discussing Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, the court notes:
These cases do not define the rights in question as "the right to interracial marriage," "the right of people owing child support to marry," and "the right of prison inmates to marry." Instead, they speak of a broad right to marry that is not circumscribed based on the characteristics of the individuals seeking to exercise that right. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to constrain the right to marry to certain subspecies of marriage meshes with its conclusion that the right to marry is a matter of "freedom of choice," Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387, that "resides with the individual," Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. If courts limited the right to marry to certain couplings, they would effectively create a list of legally preferred spouses, rendering the choice of whom to marry a hollow choice indeed.
The court's use of "couplings" implicitly addresses a portion of the oft-called slippery slope argument that is raised by Judge Paul Niemeyer in his dissent: what would prevent this rationale from extending to polygamy? The dissent also invokes incest, accusing the majority of "dictionary jurisprudence" when it (re)defines marriage to include same-sex marriage. But of course, the definitional conundrum plagues the dissent as well, when it argues that certain qualities are "foundational" to marriage and other qualities are "irrelevant." For the dissent, this is the "biological link between procreation and marriage," a link that does exist in the polygamous and incestuous marriages the dissent disapproves.
For the majority, after finding marriage a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny, the five governmental interests argued as supporting the marriage laws not surprisingly fail to pass constitutional muster:
- (1) Virginia's federalism-based interest in maintaining control over the definition of marriage within its borders,
- (2) the history and tradition of opposite-sex marriage,
- (3) protecting the institution of marriage,
- (4) encouraging responsible procreation, and
- (5) promoting the optimal childrearing environment.
More surprising is that although these interests are raised by the parties the court calls the "Proponents" of the Virginia marriage laws, there is little in the court's opinion that analyzes their standing to appeal. The court does analyze the standing of the plaintiffs to sue the defendants George Schaefer III (in his official capacity as Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court) and Janet Rainey (in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records). And since these parties were indeed defendants, there may be little need for an extensive analysis of appellate standing as was necessary in the same-sex marriage cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in June 2013. Nevertheless, recall that the (new) Virginia Attorney General had decided during the district court litigation that the Virginia laws were unconstitutional and filed a notice of change of position; however the laws continued to be enforced.
The Fourth Circuit thus joins the Tenth Circuit in holding that a state's same-sex marriage ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment. While these circuit court opinions are divided, the dozen or so federal district judges who have considered the issue have been unanimous in reaching the same conclusion.
July 28, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, State Constitutional Law, Tenth Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Eighth Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of University Civility Code
In an exceedingly brief per curiam opinion in Keating v. University of South Dakota, an Eighth Circuit panel reversed the conclusion of a district judge that the university's "civility code" was "impermissibly vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The university provision at issue provided:
Faculty members are responsible for discharging their instructional, scholarly and service duties civilly, constructively and in an informed manner. They must treat their colleagues, staff, students and visitors with respect, and they must comport themselves at all times, even when expressing disagreement or when engaging in pedagogical exercises, in ways that will preserve and strengthen the willingness to cooperate and to give or to accept instruction, guidance or assistance.
The plaintiff, a tenure-track physics professor, did not have his employment contract renewed because of a strained relationship with his supervisors, including becoming "quite angry" at a meeting, being the subject of a sexual harassment claim, and sending an email accusing his immediate supervisor of being a lying, back-stabbing sneak.
The panel held that although the "policy employs broad language, that alone does not necessarily prevent an ordinary person from recognizing that certain conduct will result in discharge or discipline." Instead,
the civility clause articulates a more comprehensive set of expectations that, taken together, provides employees meaningful notice of the conduct required by the policy. The outer contours of the civility clause perhaps are imprecise, but many instances of faculty misconduct would fall clearly within the clause's proscriptions, thus precluding the conclusion that the policy is facially unconstitutional.
Moreover, the panel found as applied to Keating's conduct, the civility clause was not impermissibly vague.
The use of "civilty clauses" continues to be a contested issue on due process grounds as well as First Amendment grounds. Here, the Eighth Circuit provides a definitive stamp of approval to such a policy.
July 3, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), First Amendment, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Federal District Judge Invalidates Indiana Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage
In his decision today in Baskin v. Bogan, United States District Judge Richard Young permanently enjoined Indiana officials from enforcing its requirement that marriage requires a female and a male, and its ban on the recognition of same sex marriages legally valid in other states, Indiana Code Section 31-11-1-1 (subsections a & b).
After resolving problems of the proper defendant and quickly disposing of the argument that Baker v. Nelson's summary finding by the Supreme Court in 1972 has meaningful precedential value, Judge Young's opinion proceeds along three separate tracks.
First, Judge Young finds that marriage is a fundamental right and therefore the statutory ban on same-sex marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny. Judge Young concluded that the scope of the fundamental right is not limited, quoting Judge Black's opinion in Henry v. Himes that the United States Supreme Court has not limited this fundamental right in its pertinent cases; the Court "consistently describes a general 'fundamental right to marry' rather than 'the right to interracial marriage,' 'the right to inmate marriage,' or 'the right of people owing child support to marry.'" Applying strict scrutiny, Judge Young articulates the state's proffered interest "in conferring the special benefit of civil marriage to only one man and one woman is justified by its interest in encouraging the couple to stay together for the sake of any unintended children that their sexual union may create," but declines to asess it and assumes that it is "sufficiently important interest." However, Judge Young finds that the state has not demonstrated that the statute is "closely tailored" to that interest, but instead is "both over- and under-inclusive."
Second, Judge Young analyzes the statute on the basis of equal protection, rejecting the argument that the statute makes a gender classification and concluding that it makes a sexual orientation classification. While Judge Young contends that while it might be time to "reconsider" whether sexual orientation classifications should be analyzed under rational basis scrutiny, the "court will leave that decision to the Seventh Circuit, where this case will surely be headed." Applying rational basis scrutiny, however, Judge Young concludes that there is no rational relationship to the interests proffered by the state.
Third, Judge Young independently analyzes subsection b of the statute, applying to recognition. The judge notes that the "parties agree that out-of-state, same-sex marriages are treated differently than out-of-state, opposite-sex marriages," and thus "the question is whether that difference violates the Equal Protection Clause." Again, applying rational basis scrutiny, Judge Young concludes:
Defendants proffer that the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages because it conflicts with the State's philosophy of marriage – that is that marriage is to ameliorate the consequences of unintended children. Recognizing the valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, however, has no link whatsoever to whether opposite-sex couples have children or stay together for those children. Thus, there is no rational basis to refuse recognition and void out-of-state, same-sex marriages.
Judge Young's opinion is economical (at 36 pages), well-structured, and well-supported with relevant citations. Judge Young did not issue a stay of his opinion. One assumes that such a decision may be sought from the Seventh Circuit.
June 25, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tenth Circuit Holds Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional in a Divided Decision
In a divided decision, the Tenth Circuit opinion in Kitchen v. Herbert held that the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that [Utah's state constitution's] Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Affirming the district court's decision as well as its analysis, the Tenth Circuit panel majority, authored by Judge Carlos Lucero, and joined by Judge Jerome Holmes, applied strict scrutiny because it found that the "right to marry is a fundamental liberty."
In applying strict scrutiny, the panel majority assumed that three of the four interests advanced by the government - - - (1) "fostering a child-centric marriage culture that encourages parents to subordinate their own interests to the needs of their children"; (2) "children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers—or at least by a married mother and father—in a stable home"; (3) "ensuring adequate reproduction" - - - were compelling. However, the court found that the means chosen - - - the prohibition of same-sex marriage - - - did not sufficiently serve these interests. Instead, each of the
justifications rests fundamentally on a sleight of hand in which same-sex marriage is used as a proxy for a different characteristic shared by both same-sex and some opposite-sex couples.
The court noted that Justice Scalia, dissenting in Windsor, and numerous district judges, reached a similiar conclusion. The majority observed that the lack of narrow tailoring is "often revealed" by underinclusiveness, finding it important that Utah did not ban nonprocreative marriages.
The court's analysis of each of the three rationales is substantial and erudite, firmly rooted in precedent and well-reasoned.
As to the fourth and final interest asserted by the government - - -"accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife," - - - the court reasoned that "the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public opposition cannot provide cover for a violation of fundamental rights" and emphasized that its "decision relates solely to civil marriage."
Dissenting from the more than 60 page majority opinion, Judge Paul Kelly wrote more than 40 pages in disagreement (although he did agree with the majority on the standing issue, making the opinion concurring in part). Not surprisingly, he disagreed with the level of scrutiny to be applied; he concluded that there was no fundamental right at issue and would have applied rational basis scrutiny. Also not surprisingly, he would have concluded that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage satisfied this most easily satisfied level of scrutiny given the state's interests in (1) responsible procreation, (2) effective parenting, and (3) the desire to proceed cautiously in this evolving area.
More surprisingly, Judge Kelly found that the Supreme Court's per curiam dismissal in 1972 of Baker v. Nelson, for "want of a substantial federal question" controlling ; it "should foreclose the Plaintiffs' claims, at least in this court," notwithstanding the Court's decision invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act's ban on recognition of same-sex marriage last term in Windsor.
If - - and most probably when - - - the United States Supreme Court does consider the issue of state laws banning same-sex marriage, Baker v. Nelson will be irrelevant and the Court will directly grapple with issues if fundamental constitutional rights and levels of scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection doctrines.
Given that the Tenth Circuit stayed its decision pending the disposition of any subsequently filed petition for certiorari it may be that both sides seek review from the United States Supreme Court,
June 25, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)


text:
I have 3 pages of site.
Page 1: 19 kb of JS
Page 2: 26 kb of JS
Page 3: 10 kb of JS
Total : 55 kb of JS
These javascript files are non repeating, means the JS needed on page 1 is not needed on page 2 and I have expiry headers set 1 month.
Still I would like to know what will be best way to load these files, should I load separate file for each page or I load these all together?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Lawmakers look to deeper cuts as revenue numbers fail again to meet expectations
January numbers $47 million short of expectations.
Sponsored by:
January numbers $47 million short of expectations.
Jayhawk racing calls petition organizer a "disgruntled citizen".
Kansas says its tax collections fell $47 million short of expectations this month.
Is calling on the Lawrence school district to suspend a mentoring program for male students.
Charged with leaving a 10-month-old child to die inside a hot car last July was sentenced Friday.
Former Sedgwick County jailer will serve three years' probation for sex crimes involving inmates at the county jail.
Accused of stabbing her 10-year-old son to death.
Would lower penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Kansas officials are awaiting word on whether state tax collections this month met expectations.
The identity of the shooting victim is not being released at this time.
Did those celebrating Kansas day know the state animal? The state dinosaur?
Foul play not suspected say police.
Her appointment is subject to state Senate confirmation.
Why the push for patrol cameras is on.
Commissioners undecided how to enforce new restrictions.
Investigators says it's a possible aggravated assault by fire to a 6 year old in Topeka.
The GOP-dominated House Appropriations Committee is working on a bill to eliminate a projected $279 million deficit.
Which could complicate an already-delayed review process.
Theft that occurred while he was chief of the Fairmount Township Fire Department.
Under a bill discussed by a state Senate panel.
Sanctions mean Shockers will have vacate some baseball wins
The Kansas Museum of History is celebrating Kansas Day Thursday.
Would have removed the lesser prairie chicken from the federal government's threatened species act.
Died in a single-vehicle accident in a western Oklahoma county.
An Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people in a shooting rampage at a Texas Army base is set to appear in court.


text:
old movies
on 5/29/2013
The quality of the four films in this collection vary greatly in quality. I do applaud the attempt to save some of the cinema for future generations & I found these versions of three biblical stories and one pseudo-biography interesting variations on their stories. You also get the chance to see some young fairly famous stars before they were very famous at all. but these aren't that good for now days
Was this review helpful to you?YESNO


text:
Marcus Beaubier / Standup comics, comedians and comedy writers from the finest talent roster in Canada
Western Canada Comedians, Fundraiser Clean Comedians, MC/Host
Login for Additional Talent Info
(photos, videos)
Marcus hails originally from Newfoundland, and has been trying to escape the stereotype ever since. The fact that he lives in Alberta now, really doesn't help his cause. This irony is not lost on him. It has tempered his sense of humour, making him wickedly funny.


text:
Jean Louise Balch
Boulder, CO
Also Known As
Get Background Check on Jean
Jean Louise Balch
Jeanie Balch
Jean Louise Balch is in his 50's
Jean Has Lived In
Boulder, CO
Louisville, CO
Frisco, CO
Jean's Relatives
Jean Louise Balch
Zodiac SignScorpio
StatusBoard Member at Centerstage Theatre Company
StatusBoard Member at Centerstage Theatre Company
Additional Infomation on Jean Louise Balch
Jean Louise Balch's Contact Information
Known Cities Lived In
Find out where Jean Louise Balch has lived as well as Jean Louise Balch's phone numbers and email addresses.
Jean Louise Balch Has Lived in 1 State
Colorado Address for Jean Louise Balch
1045 Rxxxxx Dx
Boulder CO
Boulder CO
Has Lived InGet Full Address Report
Boulder, CO (3 Addresses)
Louisville, CO (2 Addresses)
Phone Numbers Associated with Jean Louise Balch
Get Full Phone Report
(303) ***-**** - Arvada, CO
(303) ***-**** - Arvada, CO
(303) ***-**** - Arvada, CO
Email Address Associated with Jean Louise Balch
Get Email Report
Jean Louise Balch's Education Information
Known Schools Attended
Learn about Jean Louise Balch's academic history. Find out which schools Jean Louise Balch attended, the dates attended as well as the degrees Jean Louise Balch received. The following data is not guaranteed for accuracy and should not be used for employment, insurance, credit eligibility, or for any other purpose covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Jean Louise Balch Has Attended 1 School
Jean Louise Balch has a Economics and History
Jean Louise Balch's Professional Information
Information regarding Jean Louise Balch's professional history. Find out previous places Jean Louise Balch has worked as well as dates employed. The following data is not guaranteed for accuracy and should not be used for employment, insurance, credit eligibility, or for any other purpose covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Jean Louise Balch Has Worked at 4 Places
Company: Centerstage Theatre Company
Title: Board Member
Company: University of Colorado
Title: Office Manager For the Department of Physics
Jean Louise Balch's Experience
Title: Board Member
Company: Centerstage Theatre Company
Job Details
CenterStage provides a rich atmosphere that leads young people into excellence in the vast world of theatre arts; thus building confidence, self-esteem, community awareness, and friendships that last a lifetime. CSTC staff members have successfully delivered productions by and for Boulder County youth and children for 10 years with performances at Boulder's Dairy Center for the Arts, Louisville Arts Center, The Art Underground, and various other locations in and around Louisville and Boulder, Colorado.
Title: Office Manager For the Department of Physics
Company: University of Colorado
Job Details
University of Colorado Hospital is the Rocky Mountain region's leading academic hospital, which means it is always among the first - and sometimes is the first - to bring new treatments to the bedside. UCH has long been recognized as one of the United States' best hospitals by U.S. News & World Report and independent ratings agencies like HealthGrades, the American Nurse Credentialing Association and University HealthSystems Consortium. Though its practitioners provide care at many satellite clinics throughout Colorado, the hospital itself is based at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Co. It shares some of the most beautiful, advanced health care facilities anywhere with the physicians of the renowned, research-rich University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine.
Additional Professional Infomation on Jean Louise Balch
All trademarks, product names, company names or logos on this page are the property of their respective owners.
Related People Searches


text:
NEWPORT -- Two sea turtles that washed up on the Oregon Coast on Monday are in critical condition at the Oregon Coast Aquarium today.
Aquarium staffers will be slowly warming the turtles — both have hypothermia -- over the coming days, said Jim Burke, the aquarium's director of animal husbandry. As of Tuesday, both turtles' body temperatures were in the low 50s. They should be in the 70s.
It's unclear what caused the turtles' ailments or whether they will survive.
The turtles — both female — are different species and washed ashore separately. The first was found in Seaside, the second in Gearhart.
'The Green Sea turtle has been responsive, while the Olive Ridley has remained unresponsive," Burke said.
Two sea turtles a year washing ashore in Oregon is remarkable, aquarium staffers said. So, two in one day is startling.
Turtles that wash ashore become the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Oregon Coast Aquarium is the only certified rehabilitation center for them on the Oregon Coast.
'It is our goal of assisting these animals in their rehabilitation process to ensure we provide the best chance to release them back into the wild," said Carrie Lewis, the aquarium's chief executive officer.
Both turtles were held temporarily at the Seaside Aquarium on Monday until transport could be arranged.
The USFWS urges anyone who finds a beached sea turtle to call the Oregon State Police Wildlife Hotline at 1-800-452-7888.


text:
Mayor Laurie Davies
Mayor Davies was elected to the City Council in 2012. She is Co‐Chair of the Laguna Niguel Military Support Committee and Laguna Niguel Teen Drug Prevention Program. She also represents Laguna Niguel as a member of the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) Board of Directors. An avid supporter of the City's business community, Laurie introduced the SCORE Business Program to the City. SCORE is a nonprofit association dedicated to helping small businesses get off the ground, grow and achieve their goals through education and mentorship. Laurie was recently elected President of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. She also serves as Chair of the ACC‐ OC Innovation Committee. One of the Mayor Davies' initiatives for next year is to enhance communication with the City's residents. To that end, she is planning on hosting a series of "Meet the Mayor" events in an informal setting where she can update residents on what's going on in the city and provide residents the opportunity to share their ideas and suggestions for the City.


text:
Kathy Nelson has been named editor of the Bluffton Today.
Nelson, 47, has more than 25 years of newspaper experience. She comes to the Bluffton newspaper from the Savannah Morning News where she worked as an editor on the metro desk.
An old fashioned "all American" Block Party on Saturday afternoon at Buckwalter Place will mix fun with tributes to military service members, public safety workers, and remembrances for the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
9/11 remembrance at Town Hall
Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Jeff Fulgham will be the featured speaker at this year's 9/11 Memorial Ceremony, marking the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
The ceremony will be at 8:30 a.m.
Ten years ago our country was different. Before we all had the image of planes flying into buildings and fields seared into our collective national consciousness and the fear that accompanied that hideous act of hatred we were more innocent.
We had quite a number of calls on a story that we broke a couple of weeks ago concerning the dog-baiting issue. I had a good chat with Chief David McAllister on this matter at the time and will meet with him early next week to see where we go from here.
Sunday morning the Triangle ice truck was parked in front of Nickle Pumper's. How different this tractor-trailer vehicle was from the ice trucks of my youth.
I was overjoyed to see Ed Loughrey's article suggesting a "wonder solution" to the whole economic problem by simply changing to a new tax system called the fair tax.
We are outraged that the federal government spent us into bankruptcy. Is our outrage misplaced? The federal government is reckless and irresponsible, but our own state might be worse.
News flash: "S.C.
The events of 9/11 have touched so many parts of our lives and for those younger than 10, they've never known a world where hijacked planes didn't fly into skyscrapers in Manhattan or the Pentagon.
Subscriber Services:
Digital Network:
Social Networking:
Bluffton Today ©2016. All Rights Reserved.


text:
List all words that contain chickenshit
2 words found.
List all words containing chickenshit, sorted by length
Some random words: obduracies orogeneses aglare oaf itch bra metonym
This is not a dictionary, it's a word game wordfinder.
- Help and FAQ - Examples - Home
Privacy and Cookies Policy - Share - © Copyright 2004-2016 Morewords.com - 58.514mS


text:
stey_true's Mom Answers Activity
Can you get pregnant on birth control?
Most recent answer (16 hours ago):
So my friend started the birth control patch two months ago before that she was on the shot. stop taking the shot and started on the pat...posted by a BabyCenter Member
36 weeks
Most recent answer (04/11/2011):
I am 36 weeks and 1 day today and having the same thing happening. Extreme lower back pain, I can barley walk without crying because it f...posted by stey_true


text:
Buy Side Design adds to its Leadership Team
Buy Side Design is proud to announce Rebekah Farrar is joining the Buy Side Design team as…
We have 20 years of capital markets experience from trading and research, to brokerage, business development, clearing and financial broadcast.Portfolio
We are always inspired by the financial markets. We understand what you do and synthesize that into meaningful creative assets and imagery.News
We develop fluid creative content for our clients and always deploy projects using current technology that is flexible for future growth.Contact Us
Buy Side Design (BSD) is a creative studio by and for the financial industry. Our founding team has more than 20 years of derivatives trading experience. Our roots are grounded in the trading capital of the world, Chicago, and our offices are located at 1871, the technology town square in the Merchandise Mart.
Think of Buy Side Design as your personal creative services department. Whether you are a CEO or a marketing professional, we equip you with the visual tools to get ahead.
Send our CEO an email at firstname.lastname@example.com or follow her at @RMBrenna.
Here is a sampling of BSD creative work. Please e-mail us firstname.lastname@example.com or fill out the form below for more examples of our work.
Buy Side Design is proud to announce Rebekah Farrar is joining the Buy Side Design team as…
At Buy Side Design, it's important for clients to have a clear company mission statement when working together….
Buy Side Design Founder, Brenna Hardman, spoke at Going Global: INcubes & 1871; a closed, invite-only international…
Written by Howard Lindzon: There was a great piece yesterday in the New Yorker about the impossibility…
Written by Erin Robertson Co-op Member Brenna Hardman's Buy Side Design Spreads Ideas in the Financial Industry CIW…
Buy Side Design (BSD) is a member at 1871, the technology town square started last year in…
Buy Side Design
1871: 222 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1212
Chicago, IL 60654


text:
We're in the Fiscal Cliff: Out of controlled Spending is. After the media dust has settled we'll realize we fell in to the cliff several years ago.
The leftist news media, having strong ties with the media, wants people to panic and sell so they can buy and cover their shorts.
What an opportunity again. Will BBY be there January 1st.
IMHO it's Y2K all over again.
I'm long and will buy more BBY to.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
Sentiment: Strong Buy
If it gets to 11.70, I'll add some more, in the mean time, I'll hold... just sick of it right now... stupid tards in the house senate and presidency are destroying small investors like me...
You can't argue with stupid.


text:
Plaid Shirt (Plus Size)
Product not available
Have questions?
Chat with us or call 1.888.282.6060.
HideDetails & Care
A roomy plaid shirt spun from pure cotton is cast in bright aquatic hues.
- 29 1/4" length (size 2X).
- Front button closure.
- Two-button cuffs.
- 100% cotton.
- Machine wash cold, tumble dry low.
- By Caslon; imported.
- Encore.
Plaid Shirt (Plus Size)
Write a Review0 Reviews
Enter a valid first name.
Enter a valid last name.
Enter a valid email address in the format: email@example.com.
Close modal


text:
The 2009 Import and Export Market for Forging or Die-Stamping Machines, Presses, and Hammers in Czech Republic
- August 2009
- Region: Czech Republic
- 43 pages
- ICON Group International
On the demand side, exporters and strategic planners focusing on forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers in Czech Republic face a number of questions. Which countries are supplying forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers to Czech Republic? How important is Czech Republic compared to others in terms of the entire global and regional market? How much do the imports of forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers vary from one country of origin to another in Czech Republic? On the supply side, Czech Republic also exports forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers. Which countries receive the most exports from Czech Republic? How are these exports concentrated across buyers? What is the value of these exports and which countries are the largest buyers?
This report was created for strategic planners, international marketing executives and import/export managers who are concerned with the market for forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers in Czech Republic. With the globalization of this market, managers can no longer be contented with a local view. Nor can managers be contented with out-of-date statistics which appear several years after the fact. I have developed a methodology, based on macroeconomic and trade models, to estimate the market for forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers for those countries serving Czech Republic via exports, or supplying from Czech Republic via imports. It does so for the current year based on a variety of key historical indicators and econometric models.
In what follows, Chapter 2 begins by summarizing where Czech Republic fits into the world market for imported and exported forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers. The total level of imports and exports on a worldwide basis, and those for Czech Republic in particular, is estimated using a model which aggregates across over 150 key country markets and projects these to the current year. From there, each country represents a percent of the world market. This market is served from a number of competitive countries of origin. Based on both demand- and supply-side dynamics, market shares by country of origin are then calculated across each country market destination. These shares lead to a volume of import and export values for each country and are aggregated to regional and world totals. In doing so, we are able to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of both the value of each market and the share that Czech Republic is likely to receive this year. From these figures, rankings are calculated to allow managers to prioritize Czech Republic compared to other major country markets. In this way, all the figures provided in this report are forecasts that can be combined with internal information sources for strategic planning purposes.
After the worldwide summary in Chapter 2 of both imports and exports of forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers, Chapter 3 goes into detail on imports, but for each major country of origin serving Czech Republic. A "major" market is defined as a country where Czech Republic represents a substantially large share of either imports or exports. For each major country exporting to Czech Republic, one can thus observe how important Czech Republic is to that exporting country compared to other countries of the world. Chapter 4 does the same, but for exports of forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers originating from Czech Republic, for each major country of destination. In doing so, one can discover the share that Czech Republic has in each major market; this share value is often used as a measure of competitiveness for Czech Republic. In all cases, the total dollar volume and percentage share values by major trading partner are provided. Combined, Chapters 3 and 4 present a the total picture for imports and exports of forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers to and from Czech Republic to and from all other major countries in the world. "Forging or Die-Stamping Machines, Presses, and Hammers" as a category is defined in this report following the definition given by the United Nations Statistics Division Classification Registry using the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3 (SITC, Rev. 3). The SITC code that defined "forging or die-stamping machines, presses, and hammers" is 73311 . SHOW LESS READ MORE >
2.1 Imports in Czech Republic in 2009
2.2 Exports from Czech Republic in 2009
3.1 Asia
3.1.1 Japan
3.1.2 Taiwan
3.2 Europe
3.2.1 Austria
3.2.2 Belgium
3.2.3 Denmark
3.2.4 France
3.2.5 Germany
3.2.6 Italy
3.2.7 Luxembourg
3.2.8 Poland
3.2.9 Slovakia
3.2.10 Spain
3.2.11 Sweden
3.2.12 Switzerland
3.2.13 the Netherlands
3.2.14 the United Kingdom
3.3 the Middle East
3.3.1 Turkey
4.1 Africa
4.1.1 South Africa
4.2 Asia
4.2.1 India
4.3 Europe
4.3.1 Austria
4.3.2 France
4.3.3 Germany
4.3.4 Hungary
4.3.5 Italy
4.3.6 Lithuania
4.3.7 Poland
4.3.8 Slovakia
4.3.9 Spain
4.4 Latin America
4.4.1 Peru
4.5 North America & the Caribbean
4.5.1 Canada
4.6 the Middle East
4.6.1 Iran
4.6.2 Turkey
5.1 Disclaimers & Safe Harbor
5.2 ICON Group Ltd. User Agreement Provisions


text:
AJC: Terrorists Murder Dozens Of Nigerian Students
NEW YORK, Sept. 29, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- AJC is horrified by the latest terrorist attack in Nigeria, this time targeting a college. According to reports, nearly 50 students were murdered in an overnight assault on their dormitory at the Yobe College of Agriculture. (Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100816/AJCLOGO )Boko Haram, the Islamist terrorist group fighting to create a Sharia-based state in Nigeria, is suspected of having carried out the attack, chillingly similar to other fatal terror actions in the region. "This brutal rampage, gunning down innocent youngsters in their sleep, demonstrates again the cowardice of the perpetrators, driven by a demented ideology that celebrates the killing of children of another faith or background," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "We can only hope, as we have expressed before, that the Nigerian government will ultimately succeed it in its efforts to defeat the terrorist scourge, benefit from the support of the international community, and bring to justice those responsible for these brutal murders," said Harris. Boko Haram means "Western education is sacrilege." It has been linked to dozens of deadly assaults in northeastern Nigeria against Christian worshipers and other targets, including schools. In July, Boko Haram attacked a secondary school in Mamudo, also in Yobe, leaving scores dead, almost all of them children. SOURCE American Jewish Committee
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Dividend Stock Advisor
David Peltier identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Real Money
More than 30 investing pros with skin in the game give you actionable insight and investment ideas.
Product Features:
- Access to Jim Cramer's daily blog
- Intraday commentary and news
- Real-time trading forums


text:
Cauliflower, Bacon, and Parmesan Frittata
Eggs make perfect weeknight dinners; they cook quickly and taste great with an endless variety of ingredients. Here, bacon, sautéed cauliflower, and grated Parmesan complement each other in an original and satisfying frittata.
Level: Moderate
Serves: 4
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
- ¼ lb. bacon
- 8 large eggs
- ⅓ c. light cream
- 1 c. grated Parmesan
- 3 tbsp. chopped fresh parsley
- .13 tsp. fresh-ground black pepper
- 2 tbsp. olive oil
- 1 tbsp. butter
- 1 small head cauliflower (about 1 1/4 pounds)
- ¼ tsp. salt
- 4 cloves garlic
- In a 10-inch nonstick frying pan, cook the bacon until crisp. Remove. Pour off all the fat. In a large bowl, beat the eggs with the cream,Parmesan, parsley and pepper until smooth. Add the cooled bacon.
- In the same frying pan, heat the oil with the butter over moderately high heat. Add the cauliflower and salt and cook, stirring occasionally, until the cauliflower is golden and almost done, 10 to 15 minutes. Add the garlic and cook, stirring, 1 minute longer. Pour in the egg mixture and reduce the heat to low. Cook, covered, until the bottom of the frittata is golden brown and the top is almost set, 10 to 15 minutes.
- Heat the broiler. Broil the frittata 6 inches from the heat, if possible, until the eggs are set and beginning to brown, about 3 minutes.
- Lift up the edge of the frittata with a spatula and slide the frittata onto a plate. Cut it into wedges.
- Test-Kitchen Tip: If the handle of your frying pan isn't ovenproof you can make it so. Protect it from the heat of the broiler by wrapping it with four layers of aluminum foil.
- Wine Recommendation: Cheese and eggs both work well with red wine; their richness blunts the wine's tannin, while accentuating its fruitiness. A simple Chianti or Chianti Classico will be delightful.
This Trick For Homemade Fro Yo Will Kill It All Summer Long
Take a knee ice cream.
Turn Your Springtime Primavera Into An Amazing Veggie Spaghetti Pie
Load all your favorite veggies into your springform pan.
These Nutella Babka Twists Require Zero Baking Skills
Can you guess the secret ingredient?
Corona Chicken Tacos Will Make You Feel Like You're on Vacation
Dinner in 20 mins = more time to chill out.
We Have An Amazingly Easy Trick To Get Bacon In Every Single Bite
The maple glaze is just a glorious bonus.
Pinterest Is Obsessed With Gyro Sandwiches
Whether you call it a "yeero" or "jie-ro," the dish is delish.
Cookie Monster Ice Cream Is The Next Big Ice Cream Trend
Instagrams at the ready everybody.
More From Meals & Cooking


text:
Two by Vince Camuto
Long Sleeve Utility Blouse (Plus)
Product not available
Have questions?
Chat with us or call 1.888.282.6060.
HideDetails & Care
A vintage avian print covers a soft blouse tailored with flap chest pockets.
- One-button cuffs.
- Approx. length from shoulder: 31".
- Rayon; dry clean.
- By Two by Vince Camuto; imported.
- Encore.
Long Sleeve Utility Blouse (Plus)
Write a Review0 Reviews
Enter a valid first name.
Enter a valid last name.
Enter a valid email address in the format: firstname.lastname@example.com.
Close modal


text:
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Responds To John Cena's Comments On Raw
by Amish Patel - February 27, 2011
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson issued a rebuttal to John Cena's disparaging remarks about him last Monday on Raw as he posted a photo of his boot stomped down on a John Cena hat, pendant and wristband.
To view the image, click here.
Earlier today, Cena teased Johnson appearing on tomorrow's Raw.
He wrote on Twitter, "CeNation. Just got back from South America. Holy casserole it was magical. I heard a rumor that the Rock's camp was pretty peeved at what I said on Mon. I think he may have something planned for tomorrow. I cannot wait. Ps..miz yer still a dauwsh. :)"
|John Cena Speaks On Hosting American Grit, Getting More Mainstream Media Opportunities, His WWE Return
The Hottest WWE news, photos and videos delivered to your inbox in one convenient newsletter. Sign up now and give it a try!


text:
This user is currently not following anyone.
Saturday, May 1 2:55 AM
* Report
Turn off Rush and Faux News!
Why turn off Rush, who...
Cherp, I heard Rove on this subject and he never said it was unconstitutional.
Obumbler's approach to this is right out of Alinsky's playbook for radicals by making this a political hot potato. As dead fish...
Put the scumbags in jail and forget about them.
Lock the scumbags up and throw away the keys. HOw many kids have they ruined with their drugs?


text:
Fizz, Boom, READ! Belle Isle Nature Zoo
Mike Reed, Naturalist from the Belle Isle Nature Zoo presents
Water Quality Science.
Age:Tots, Preschoolers, Children, Tweens, Teens
Catalog & Database Search
Catalog Search
Search books, movies, games and other library materials.
Database Search
Search newspaper, magazine and journal articles.
Search for a Library Location
Today: May 6, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016 - 10:15am
Friday, May 6, 2016 - 10:15am
Friday, May 6, 2016 - 10:30am
Saturday, May 7, 2016 - 10:30am


text:
Key things you need to know aboutDr. Easley:
Dr. Easley's Experience
Research training, expertise and qualifications
Dr. Easley's Specialties
- Orthopedic Surgery
Conditions Dr. Easley Treats
- Osteoarthritis
- Osteoarthritis of Shoulder
- See all 3 conditions
More About Dr. Easley's Background
Patient Satisfaction
Patients' feedback on their experience with Dr. Easley
Likelihood of recommending Dr. Easley to family and friends is 5 out of 5 5 1 1
See More Survey Results
8 Facts About Patient Satisfaction Surveys
Patient satisfaction surveys provide a standardized way of reporting about healthcare experiences. But there can be more than meets the eye when reviewing scores. Here's what you should know
Appointments & Offices
Check insurance plans, locations and make an appointment
- 5395 Ruffin Rd Ste 201
- San Diego, CA 92123
- 3444 Kearny Villa Rd Ste 202
- San Diego, CA 92123
- (858) 874-3444
- Directions
- Prepare for Your Appointment
7 Tips to Prepare for Your Appointment
The key to a successful appointment is communication. To get the most out of your visit, prepare ahead of time so you can lead the conversation with your doctor. These 7 tips will get you ready
Oops, you entered a bad link for Dr. Easley!
The link you entered contains bad characters or identifiers. Please enter the link exactly as it appears in your email or text message.
Thank You
This confirms that we have received your survey about Dr. Easley. Please note: Your insights will help other patients make informed decisions. Please note: it may take 1 business day for your survey response to appear.
Thank You
Our records show that you have already confirmed your survey for Dr. Easley. Please note: it takes 24 hours for your survey results to show up on the doctor's profile.


text:
That hairy pussy on this hot Japanese model keeps getting wetter and wetter the more she plays with it, and it gets even more wet when she's covering her sexy naked body in oil! Now that she's all lubed up, the vibrator she wants to fuck herself with pushes easily into her snatch, as she fondles her big tits and even rides it to a powerful orgasm.
toy insertion sex toys tit squeezing oiled body hairy pussy sexy lingerie hot milf pussy


text:
Book your room at Comfort Inn & Suites West
Get an overview of this hotelBeaverton hotel in West Portland with free breakfast and restaurant
Located in West Portland, this hotel is within 1 mi (2 km) of Beaverton History Center, Beaverton Civic Theatre, and Cedar Hills Crossing. Tualatin Hills Nature Park and Ridgewood Park are also within 3 mi (5 km).
Hotel Features
Along with a restaurant, this hotel has an outdoor pool and a fitness center. Free buffet breakfast, free WiFi in public areas, and free self parking are also provided. Additionally, coffee/tea in the lobby, a seasonal outdoor pool, and a business center are onsite.
Room Amenities
All 105 rooms provide conveniences like refrigerators and microwaves, plus free WiFi and cable TV. Other amenities available to guests include coffee makers, free local calls, and hair dryers.Would you like to give us feedback? Share it! Opens in a new window
Comfort Inn & Suites West13455 Sw Tualatin Valley Hwy Beaverton OR 97005
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
Comfort Inn & Suites West features an outdoor pool and a fitness center. The hotel offers a restaurant. Guests can enjoy a complimentary breakfast each morning. High-speed wireless Internet access is complimentary.
Business-related amenities consist of a business center and a meeting room. This Beaverton hotel also offers coffee/tea in the lobby, complimentary newspapers in the lobby, and laundry facilities. Onsite self parking is complimentary.
Comfort Inn & Suites West has designated areas for smoking.
- 24-hour front desk
- ATM/banking
- Business center
- Coffee/tea in common areas
- Free newspapers in lobby
- Designated smoking areas
- Elevator/lift
- Express check-in
- Fitness facilities
- Free breakfast
- Free self parking
- Free WiFi
- Laundry facilities
- Number of buildings/towers - 3
- Number of floors - 3
- One meeting room
- Outdoor pool
- Outdoor seasonal pool
- Restaurant
- Safe-deposit box at front desk
- Total number of rooms - 105
Family Friendly Amenities
- Free Wi-Fi
- Laundry facilities
- Microwave
- Outdoor pool
- Refrigerator
Available in all rooms: Free WiFi
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi
Free self parking
Room Amenities
- Air conditioning
- Cable TV service
- Coffee/tea maker
- Daily housekeeping
- Desk
- Free local calls
- Free WiFi
- Hair dryer
- In-room safe
- Iron/ironing board
- Microwave
- Phone
- Private bathroom
- Refrigerator
- Shower/tub combination
Where to Eat
A complimentary hot/cold buffet breakfast is served each morning between 6 AM and 9 AM.
Black Bear Diner - This restaurant specializes in American cuisine and serves breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Happy hour is offered.
Nearby Things to Do
Recreational amenities at the hotel include an outdoor pool and a fitness center.
To make requests for specific accessibility needs, complete the "Special or Accessibility Requests" section of "Trip Preferences" when you book your hotel.
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 3 PM
Check-out time is noon
Payment types
Children and extra beds
- Children are welcome.
- Kids stay free! Children under 18 years old stay free when using existing bedding.
- Rollaway/extra beds are available for USD 15.00 per night.
- Pets allowed for an extra charge of USD 10 per pet, per night
- 2 per room (up to 25 lb)
- Restrictions apply
- For more information contact the property at the number on the booking confirmation
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on hotel policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
No rollaway/extra beds available
No cribs (infant beds) available
Optional extras
- Pet fee: USD 10 per pet, per night
- Early check-in fee: USD 25.00
- Late check-out fee: USD 25.00
- In-room safe fee: USD 1.50 per night
- Rollaway bed fee: USD 15.00 per night
We should mention
Children 18 years old and younger stay free when occupying the parent or guardian's room, using existing bedding. Guests can arrange to bring pets by contacting the property directly, using the contact information on the booking confirmation (surcharges apply and can be found in the Fees section).


text:
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
0 comments
GREAT workout today -- 60 minutes of non-stop laps in the pool!! It has been quite some time since I have done that!... Read more
Thursday, August 14, 2008
3 comments
A proud yet sad moment for me today -- I said good bye to my "baby" -- my youngest daughter -- as she heads off for college at Colorado State University! She and her mother are doing the road trip out west, and there is a little part of me that... Read more
Monday, July 21, 2008
0 comments
- Last week's BodyPump class went well, but I clearly overdid it, as my triceps were KILLING me a few days after. They are much better, but plan to lower my weights this week and not repeat my painful experience from a week ago.
- Attended... Read more
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
0 comments
While I have been doing some basic work at the gym and in the yard, I had yet to join any sort of intense exercise class since sometime in April. My new YMCA has "BodyPump", which I was used to doing in CT, and they have a noontime class on Tue... Read more
Thursday, June 26, 2008
0 comments
After about a 2 month hiatus, I have returned to SP! This was not a "fall off the wagon" issue, rather the complexities and stress of moving from CT to DE.
Good news: We moved to DE!
Bad news: The sale of our house in CT fe... Read more
Monday, November 26, 2007
2 comments
Well, the Biggest Loser competition is over. Here were my results:
Total weight lost: 26.4 pounds
% of weight lost: 10.29%
% body fat lost: 1.60%
Total inches lost: 13.5 (neck, chest, waist, hips)
I finished 2nd among all me... Read more
Friday, November 09, 2007
0 comments
Amazingly enough, my 9 pound drop last week was just enough to get me into the finals of the Biggest Loser competition! So the "prize" is 4 personal training sessions! Session #1 was yesterday, and like all of the other group ones, I was left ... Read more
Thursday, November 01, 2007
1 comments
Today was a banner day. The final weigh in for the "Biggest Loser" competition I have been involved with. The past two weigh-ins, I had been plateau'd at 241'ish. So my PT gave me an assignment: boost my proteins and keep pushing hard on the... Read more
Sunday, October 14, 2007
0 comments
Can I crack 240? I was only 1.4 pounds away after my last weigh-in. Like The Little Train That Could, "I think I can, I think I can!"... Read more
Sunday, October 14, 2007
0 comments
Wow -- just did some calculating for my workout today. The gaol: how far could I speed walk for one hour on my local high school track (which has a cushioned surface, btw!). Result: 6600 meters, or 16.5 laps! Equating that into miles = 4.1... Read more
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
2 comments
The past month has been great in the weight loss category, thanks in no small part to the Biggest Loser competition. Since 9/10:
- Down 15 pounds
- Under 250 lbs for the 1st time in who know how long (long enough that I can't remember, ... Read more
Friday, September 07, 2007
1 comments
I attended the organizational meeting for my gym's "Biggest Loser Competition" last night. Organized along the same lines as the show on NBC. The competition formally begins on Monday. Exciting, but a little scary. I've never done a formal w... Read more
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
4 comments
2 more pounds down this week! Total of 32 YTD! Yes, it feels good! The clothes are getting loose (in some cases too loose!). Energy level is very high.
My goal to hit 217 by year end is very doable. Back in June when I decided to red... Read more
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
2 comments
Today's weigh in was a bit of a milestone. I am at 257 for the first time since March of 2006. Even more inportant: when I reached 257 back in 2006, I was using Meridia (prescribed by my former Dr), which has all sorts of nasty side effects (... Read more
Saturday, August 04, 2007
0 comments
Nice to cruise into August feeling good about how I look, how I feel, and my successes in getting into better physical (and really mental) health! My wife and I went to a baseball game last night and it felt good not to squeeze into my seat (of... Read more


text:
Top Definition
An amazing friend, great person, and funny girl. Someone named Neysa will always have your back and be there to sing ABBA in the middle of the night on the streets of New York with you. And let it be known, she's not a whore, she's just Mexican!
by Uh.Meal.Yuh. January 18, 2009