text:
Loss Prevention
Use our loss prevention guides to help avoid loss and interruption of your routine.
Be prepared should a loss occur. Concord Group wants you to recover quickly should a loss occur.
Use our Loss Prevention Guides below:
Create a Home Inventory
Creating a simple home inventory helps you track what you own and what it is worth, making important insurance decisions easier. The NAIC has developed a new, free mobile app for iPhone® and Android® smartphones. Download the free app now. PDF version is also available.
Winter Hazards That Catch You By Surprise


text: Home Recipes Course Soup Recipes Homemade Soup Stock Share: Homemade Soup Stock Feed the whole family with these recipes for homemade soup stock, including gumbo, chicken stock, borscht, vegetable stock, matzo ball soup, beef stock, Scotch broth, turkey stock, dumpling soup, beef stock, pasta soup, turkey stock and more. Recipe Spotlight Wild Rice and Cheddar Dumpling Soup I'm a homemaker and enjoy preparing hearty soups and stews for my husband and two daughters. This is one of their favorites. Get Recipe More Homemade Soup Stock Sort: Most Relevant Highest Rated Previous Page 1 2 3 ... 5 Next Page Grandmother's Chicken 'n' Dumplings Grandmother's Chicken 'n' Dumplings When I was growing up, my grandmother could feed our whole big family with a single chicken—and lots of dumplings. View Recipe Chicken and Noodle Soup Chicken and Noodle Soup I cook most of the weekend meals and share weekday cooking duties with my wife. I also like to take food to neighbors, co-workers and our parents. And I try to send things like this hearty soup to people I know are sick.—Terry Kuehn, Waunakee, Wisconsin View Recipe Spinach Tortellini Soup Spinach Tortellini Soup "I'm always looking for easy recipes I can prepare on busy days. This is wonderful for that. Try it with fresh, crusty bread." —Jacqueline Dintino, Westminster, Maryland View Recipe Advertise with us ADVERTISEMENT Homemade Chicken Broth Homemade Chicken Broth Rich in chicken flavor, this traditional broth is lightly seasoned with herbs. Besides making wonderful chicken soups, it can be used in casseroles, rice dishes and other recipes that call for chicken broth. —Taste of Home Test Kitchen View Recipe Scotch Broth Soup Scotch Broth Soup Early in winter, I make up big pots of this hearty soup to freeze in plastic containers. Then I can bring out one or two containers at a time. I heat the frozen soup in a saucepan on low all morning. By lunchtime, it's hot and ready to serve! —Ann Main, Moorefield, Ontario View Recipe Zesty Vegetable Beef Soup Zesty Vegetable Beef Soup My family loves to come to the table for hot homemade biscuits and a bowl of this flavorful filling soup. They rave over how good it tastes. A friend shared the recipe with me. -Brenda Wood, Portage la Prairie, Manitoba View Recipe Beef and Pasta Vegetable Soup Beef and Pasta Vegetable Soup Brimming with meat and vegetables, this full-bodied soup is sure to take the chill off frosty weather. Vary the veggies to make the most of your own garden plenty...and don't forget to add a sprinkling of Parmesan cheese for extra flavor. View Recipe Chunky Turkey Soup Chunky Turkey Soup This hearty, chunky soup is the perfect answer to your Turkey Day leftovers. Combining the earthy flavors of curry and cumin, no one will mistake it for canned soup! Jane M. Scanlon, Marco Island, Florida View Recipe Hearty Chicken Barley Soup Hearty Chicken Barley Soup No question—this is my favorite soup. It's so filling that I serve it as a hearty main dish, and I have given the recipe to many of our friends and relatives. It tastes too good to keep to yourself! View Recipe Savory Tomato Beef Soup Savory Tomato Beef Soup Meet the Cook: This soup's one my mother taught me to make. It's good all year but especially when the weather's cold. In winter, I serve it with grilled cheese sandwiches. It would also be a nice lunch with a side salad or homemade corn bread. Even our grandchildren - we have four - like it. It's a good way of getting them to eat their vegetables. My husband and I have two grown daughters. -Edna Tilley, Morganton, North Carolina View Recipe Broccoli, Hamburger and Cheese Soup Broccoli, Hamburger and Cheese Soup This is a meal in itself—it's both hearty and nutritious—and I usually serve it with just a simple salad and hard rolls.—Gloria Cudmore, Castlewood, South Dakota View Recipe Previous Page 1 2 3 ... 5 Next Page Advertise with us ADVERTISEMENT Advertise with us ADVERTISEMENT

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Date set for AIB to leave NY exchange
AIB yesterday confirmed that its exit from the New York Stock Exchange will come into effect on August 25. The cancellation came after the Government became a 99.8pc shareholder in the bank, making the cost of the listing too expensive to justify. AIB and the Government have resolved to ensure that the bank remains listed in Dublin, and shares continue to trade on the Enterprise Securities Market here.
Profits rise 18pc at Western Union
Pre-tax profits at the main Irish arm of money transfer giant Western Union last year increased by 18pc to $49.9m (€34.5m), new accounts show. According to accounts just filed by Western Union International Ltd (WUIL) to the Companies Office, they show that revenues dropped by $120m from $2.633bn to $2.513bn to the end of December last. The revenues generated by the Dublin-registered company accounted for 50pc of Western Union's global revenues of $5.2bn last year.
Petroceltic upbeat on strong portfolio
Petroceltic, the exploration company, has delivered an upbeat set of results for the six months to the end of June. The company said its asset portfolio had been strengthened over the last 12 months by its Ain Tsila appraisal programme, an $100m (€69.3m) plus farm-out to Enel and its entry into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. "Algerian drilling operations will see at least three further well results and four test results completed in the next six months, and our objective is to maintain and exploit the momentum,'' the firm said.
Buffett increases Wells Fargo stake
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway increased its stake in Wells Fargo, building equity holdings amid a markets decline that the billionaire investor said provided an opportunity for buying stocks "on sale." Mr Buffett's firm added 9.7 million shares of the biggest US home lender in the three months ended June 30, boosting the holding by 2.8pc, Berkshire said yesterday in a filing that listed its US stockholdings. Berkshire accelerated purchases on August 8 as the Standard & Poor's 500 Index plunged 6.7pc, its steepest decline since December 2008.
Irish Independent


text:
|GP: Improving public transport services, Sibiu - Romania
Improving public transport services, Sibiu - Romania
Timescales: May 2008 to April 2012
The project aimed to ensure that local public transport services met the needs of their users, and included changes to fares and the introduction of an e-card for the purposes of ticketing. The redesign of the services was based on an extensive survey of users' needs and travel behaviours. This resulted in the development of a new plan for the city's bus networks, to replace the old one that had been in place for 25 years.
In addition to the redesign of the bus routes, traveller information was improved, including an online trip planning tool, while bus stops were also improved. These changes were accompanied by improved staff training, increased cleaning of buses and a branding exercise to promote the local public transport company, TURSIB. The introduction of the TURSIB card that is valid on all routes, replacing the previous system of different fares for different routes, facilitates payments and the operation of vehicles. The improvements led to an increase in the number of paying passengers of 24% between 2009 and 2010.
Source: http://www.ceec.uitp.org/sibiu


text:
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Fifth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Fisher Remand
The Fifth Circuit has denied en banc review by a vote of 10-5 in its Order in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.
Recall that in a divided opinion in July, a Fifth Circuit panel held that the university met its burden of demonstrating the narrowing tailoring necessary to satisfy strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
Recall also that the United States Supreme Court had reversed the Fifth Circuit's original finding in favor of the University (affirming the district judge) and remanded the case for a "further judicial determination that the admissions process meets strict scrutiny in its implementation." The opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy - - - with only Justice Ginsburg dissenting and Justice Kagan recused - - -specified that the "University must prove that the means chosen by the University to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal" of diversity and the University should receive no judicial deference on that point.
Judge Emilio Garza, the Senior Judge who dissented from the panel opinion also wrote a very brief dissenting opinion from en banc review, which was joined by Judges Jones, Smith, Clement, and Owen. Judge Garza contends that while the "panel majority dutifully bows" to the United States Supreme Court's requirements in Fisher, it "then fails to conduct the strict scrutiny analysis" the opinion requires "thus returning to the deferential models" of Regents of University of California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger.
A petition for writ of certiorari is certain; the grant of that petition is less certain.
November 13, 2014 in Affirmative Action, Equal Protection, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Race, Recent Cases, Reconstruction Era Amendments, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, October 9, 2014
CFP: The New Color Lines
The 19th Mid-Atlantic People of Color Conference (MAPOC)
Call for Panel and Paper Proposals
deadline: October 15, 2014
The New Color Lines: What Will It Mean to Be an American?
Hosted by West Virginia University College of Law
January 29-31, 2015
The call is after the jump:
October 9, 2014 in Conferences, Race, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, September 22, 2014
CFP: Ferguson Conference at University of Missouri School of Law
A call that should be of interest to many ConLawProfs:
Policing, Protesting, and Perceptions:
A Critical Examination of the Events in Ferguson
at the University of Missouri
Here are some details on the call for works-in-progress:
The University of Missouri Law Review is issuing a call for proposals for an upcoming Works-in-Progress conference, which will be held on Thursday, February 26, 2015 in conjunction with the Missouri Law Review's Symposium, which will take place the following day Friday, February 27, 2015. The symposium, "Policing, Protesting, and Perceptions: A Critical Examination of the Events in Ferguson," focuses on a number of issues that arose from the events in Ferguson, Missouri this past August following the shooting of Michael Brown, and will include a number of invited panelists. Marc Mauer, the Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, will deliver the keynote address. On Thursday, February 26, 2015, the Missouri Law Review will host several works-in-progress panels related to the subject matter of the symposium.
If you interested, we would ask that you submit a presentation proposal. Presentation proposals should be no more than one page in length. The topic of the presentation can include analyses that are practical, theoretical or interdisciplinary in nature relating to what transpired in Ferguson, MO. Proposals from scholars outside the United States are also welcome, although prospective attendees should note that there is no funding available to assist participants with their travel expenses. Proposals for the works-in-progress will be accepted until November 15, 2014. Those interested may submit proposals and direct questions to Professor S. David Mitchell (MitchellSD AT missouri.edu). Decisions regarding accepted proposals will be made by December 1, 2014.
September 22, 2014 in Conferences, Elections and Voting, Equal Protection, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Interpretation, Race, Scholarship, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Ninth Circuit Again Upholds School Ban of American Flag on Cinco de Mayo
Recall that in February of 2014, a panel of the Ninth Circuit in Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District rejected a claim by students that their constitutional rights were violated when school officials banned their American flag clothing during a Cinco de Mayo celebration.
The en banc Ninth Circuit has now denied en banc review, over a dissent, and issued an amended panel opinion which adds several paragraphs of analysis.
Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Tallman and Bea, argued that the reaction of other students to the flag-clothing wearing students amounted to a " heckler's veto" which the panel wrongly validated. Moreover, the dissent argued that this created a circuit split with the Seventh Circuit, relying on Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie School District No. 204, decided in 2011. Judge Posner's opinion in Zamecnik concluded that the students wearing the "Be Happy Not Gay" t-shirt was protected by the First Amendment (although importantly Posner did not highlight any possible violence in that case). The dissenting opinion from en banc review by O'Scannlain does not include the Sixth Circuit's Bible Believers v. Dearborn County decided less than a month ago in which the court extensively analyzed the heckler's veto doctrine and found the speech could be limited. As to the "confederate flag" cases on which the original panel relied, the dissent from en banc review by O'Scannlain distinguished situations dealing "solely with a symbol that is 'widely regarded as racist and incendiary.'"
In its amended opinion, the panel added three paragraphs that presumably address some of these concerns. The amended opinion now includes:
We recognize that, in certain contexts, limiting speech because of reactions to the speech may give rise to concerns about a "heckler's veto." [fn 7] But the language of Tinker and the school setting guides us here. Where speech "for any reason . . . materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others," school officials may limit the speech. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513. To require school officials to precisely identify the source of a violent threat before taking readily-available steps to quell the threat would burden officials' ability to protect the students in their charge—a particularly salient concern in an era of rampant school violence, much of it involving guns, other weapons, or threats on the internet—and run counter to the longstanding directive that there is a distinction between "threats or acts of violence on school premises" and speech that engenders no "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." Id. at 508, 514; see also id. at 509, 513.
In the school context, the crucial distinction is the nature of the speech, not the source of it. The cases do not distinguish between "substantial disruption" caused by the speaker and "substantial disruption" caused by the reactions of onlookers or a combination of circumstances. See, e.g., Taylor v. Roswell Indep. Sch. Dist., 713 F.3d 25, 38, 38 n. 11 (10th Cir. 2013) (observing that "Plaintiffs note that most disruptions occurred only because of wrongful behavior of third parties and that no Plaintiffs participated in these activities . . . . This argument might be effective outside the school context, but it ignores the 'special characteristics of the school environment,'" and that the court "ha[d] not found[] case law holding that school officials' ability to limit disruptive expression depends on the blameworthiness of the speaker. To the contrary, the Tinker rule is guided by a school's need to protect its learning environment and its students, and courts generally inquire only whether the potential for substantial disruption is genuine." (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506)); Zamecnik, 636 F.3d at 879–80 (looking to the reactions of onlookers to determine whether the speech could be regulated); Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004) (looking to the reactions of onlookers to determine whether a student's expression "cause[d] (or [was] likely to cause) a material and substantial disruption") (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Perhaps no cases illustrate this principle more clearly than those involving displays of the Confederate flag in the school context. We respect the American flag, and know that its meaning and its history differ greatly from that of the Confederate flag. Nevertheless, the legal principle that emerges from the Confederate flag cases is that what matters is substantial disruption or a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption, taking into account either the behavior of a speaker—e.g., causing substantial disruption alongside the silent or passive wearing of an emblem—or the reactions of onlookers. Not surprisingly, these cases also arose from efforts to stem racial tension that was disruptive. Like Dariano, the reasoning in these cases is founded on Tinker. See, e.g., Hardwick, 711 F.3d at 437 (Fourth Circuit case upholding school officials' ban on shirts with labels like "Southern Chicks," "Dixie Angels," and "Daddy's Little Redneck," and the Confederate flag icon, even though the bearer contended that hers was a "silent, peaceable display" that "even drew positive remarks from some students" and "never caused a disruption" because "school officials could reasonably forecast a disruption because of her shirts" (internal quotation marks omitted)); A.M. ex rel. McAllum v. Cash, 585 F.3d 214, 223 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting that "[o]ther circuits, applying Tinker, have held that administrators may prohibit the display of the Confederate flag in light of racial hostility and tension at their schools"); Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 567–68 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting the "disruptive potential of the flag in a school where racial tension is high," and that "[o]ur holding that the school in the circumstances of this case reasonably forecast the disruptive effect of the Confederate flag accords with precedent in our circuit as well as our sister circuits").[fn8]
Whether these additional paragraphs are sufficient to ameliorate the concerns that might be raised in a petition for certiorari is now the question.
September 18, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Equal Protection, Federalism, First Amendment, History, Opinion Analysis, Race, Speech | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Ohio Federal Judge Rules State's New Voting Scheme Violates Equal Protection
In his 71 page opinion in Ohio State Conference of the NAACP v. Husted, Judge Peter Economus has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Ohio legislature's amendments to the election code that limited early in-person voting.
This opinion is the latest installment in the early voting controversies in Ohio. Recall that Judge Economus issued an order and opinion two years ago enjoining the enforcement of new Ohio legislation and specifically restoring in-person early voting on the three days preceding Election Day for all eligible voters. The Sixth Circuit, in its opinion in Obama for America v. Husted, upheld the injunction.
After that controversy, the Ohio legislature enacted SB 238, which had the effect of eliminating the so-called "Golden Week," the period when citizens could both register to vote and cast their ballots at the same time. The Ohio Secretary of State, Jon Husted, also issued directives setting uniform early in-person (EIP) voting hours for the entire state, eliminating evening voting hours and most Sunday voting during the EIP periods.
Much of the judge's opinion considers the various expert and other evidence regarding the effect of these changes. Ultimately, Judge Economus found that the changes violated the equal protection rights of certain groups, relying heavily on the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Obama for America v. Husted and Bush v. Gore.
Here's the judge's penultimate paragraph on the equal protection claim:
The Court must now weigh the significant burdens placed on voting by SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 against the offered justifications. As stated above, the Court has found these justifications to be relatively hollow, and, in some cases, not necessarily supported by logic. Accordingly, while the burdens imposed on the voting rights of African Americans, lower income voters, and the homeless are not severe, it cannot be said that they are outweighed by the offered justifications. For instance, there is virtually nothing in the record tending to justify why a uniform voting schedule could not include evening voting hours and additional Sunday voting, especially considering that such voting opportunities have been successfully offered by individual counties in past elections. While the Defendants have frequently noted that Ohio's system of absentee voting is one of the most expansive in the entire Country, one of the touchstones of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection guarantee in the context of voting rights is that actions of a State must "avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105 (2000). Here, despite the expansiveness of Ohio's voting system, the weakness of the offered justifications supporting SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 render them essentially arbitrary action when viewed against the burdens they impose on groups of voters. Such action is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, the Court's conclusions regarding the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim are easily summarized as follows: SB 238 and Directive 2014-17 arbitrarily make it harder for certain groups of citizens to vote.
On the nonconstitutional claim, §2 of the Voting Rights Act, the judge likewise found that there was a substantial likelihood that the challengers could prevail on the merits of their claim.
The judge entered a preliminary injunction regarding early voting for the November 2014 election, the first provisions of which are effective September 30. If the state is to appeal, it will need to move quickly.
September 7, 2014 in Elections and Voting, Equal Protection, Opinion Analysis, Race | 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, June 16, 2014
Unanimous Supreme Court Returns Susan B Anthony List v. Driehaus for Decision on Election Law Merits
The Court's unanimous opinion in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a challenge to an Ohio election law prohibiting false statements, reversed the Sixth Circuit's determination that the case was not ripe. Recall that Driehaus had filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission about an advertisement from Susan B. Anthony List, but the Sixth Circuit held the SB List could not show "an imminent threat of prosecution at the hands of any defendant" and thus could not "show a likelihood of harm to establish that its challenge is ripe for review."
As we discussed after oral argument, the Justices seemed inclined to find the courts had Article III power to hear the case, although there was some doctrinal fuzziness whether the case should be analyzed as one of "standing" or one of "ripeness." Footnote 5 of the opinion by Justice Thomas for the Court resolves the question firmly in favor of standing:
The doctrines of standing and ripeness "originate" from the same Article III limitation. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 335 (2006). As the parties acknowledge, the Article III standing and ripeness issues in this case "boil down to the same question." Med- Immune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U. S. 118, 128, n. 8 (2007); see Brief for Petitioners 28; Brief for Respondents 22. Consistent with our practice in cases like Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U. S. 383, 392 (1988), and Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 299, n. 11 (1979), we use the term "standing" in this opinion.
The Court reiterated the established criteria: (1) an "injury in fact" (2) a sufficient "causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of," and (3) a likelihood that the injury "will be redressed by a favorable decision," noting that the hurdle for the organization of Susan B. Anthony List was the "injury in fact" requirement. To establish "injury in fact," the organization had to demonstrate the threat of future prosecution by the election board was sufficiently "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,'" and "certainly impending," or there is a "'substantial risk' that the harm will occur."
The shadow of the First Amendment was apparent in the Court's reasoning: "The burdens that [Election] Commission proceedings can impose on electoral speech are of particular concern here."
The Court's relatively short and unanimous opinion breaks no new ground. It draws on establishing standing precedent which it applies in a relatively straightforward manner, and then quickly dispatches the "prudential" rationale for rejecting jurisdiction.
However, it's worth considering as a contrast a case uncited by the Court - - - Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983) - - - in which a deeply divided Court decided that Adolph Lyons did not have standing to challenge the City of Los Angeles police department's sometimes fatal practice of administering a "chokehold" to persons it stopped for traffic violations. As Justice Marshall wrote in the dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens):
Since no one can show that he will be choked in the future, no one — not even a person who, like Lyons, has almost been choked to death — has standing to challenge the continuation of the policy. The city is free to continue the policy indefinitely as long as it is willing to pay damages for the injuries and deaths that result. I dissent from this unprecedented and unwarranted approach to standing.
Perhaps Susan B. Anthony List demonstrates that Justice Marshall's view has proven to be correct and that Lyons can now be disregarded. Or perhaps, studies such as this and this are correct that the status of Susan B. Anthony List as an anti-abortion organization and the status of Adolph Lyons as an African-America male confronting law enforcement are just as important as doctrine.
June 16, 2014 in Elections and Voting, First Amendment, Oral Argument Analysis, Race, Recent Cases, Speech, Standing, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
California State Trial Judge Declares Teacher Tenure Provisions Unconstitutional
In a 16 page "tentative decision" in Vergara v. California, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu has declared that the state tenure statutes for public school teachers violate the California Constitution's provisions on equal protection and provision of education.
The so-called "tenure statutes" challenged in the action are provisions of California's Education Code governing teacher employment, including
- permanent employment statute (§44929.21(b));
- dismissal statutes (§§ 44934; 44938(b)(l) and (2) and 44944);
- and a seniority statute, "Last In First Out" or "LIFO" statute (§44955).
The California constitutional provisions at issue include the state's equal protection clause in Article I §7, and the Article IX provisions relating to Education, including the "general diffusion of knowledge" section, §1 and the requirement that the legislature "shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported,"§5.
Judge Treu based his decision largely on equality grounds, but noted that the California Supreme Court had previously held education to be a fundamental right. Importantly, the judge found that the trial showed that "there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms." Judge Treu also found, although did not elaborate, that there was a "disproportionate impact on poor and minority students." The judge applied strict scrutiny to the challenged statutes.
As to the permanent employment statute, Judge Treu found that it disadvantaged both students and teachers, noting that California's short time frame for tenure - - - less than two years - - - was an outlier: the vast majority of states (32) have a three year time frame.
Regarding the dismissal statutes, Judge Treu noted that dismissal of a teacher could take two to ten years and "cost $50,000 to $450,000," and that while due process for teachers was an "entirely legitimate issue" these statutes provided "uber due process." The judge found that the provisions were "so complex, time consuming and expensive" that the statutes violated the state constitutional equal protection rights of the student plaintiffs.
Likewise, Judge Treu found that the LIFO statute violated the state constitutional equal protection rights of the student plaintiffs. Judge Treu again noted that California was in a distinct minority of 10 states in which this seniority system was absolute and allowed no consideration of teacher effectiveness, with 20 states providing that seniority was a factor, and 19 states leaving the decision to the discretion of government.
Judge Treu's relatively brief decision followed a rather high profile trial financed by a tech entrepreneur. The opinion does not have a full discussion of the facts, especially those supporting the impact on poor and racial minority students.
Vergara is heir to cases such as San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), in which the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to school financing as disadvantaging students of color, and Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, in which the Texas Supreme Court found the school financing scheme unconstitutional under the state constitution, including a "general diffusion of knowledge" provision. Yet Vergara turns the focus from state resources to "bad teachers" and can tap into anti-teacher and anti-union and anti-government worker sentiments.
Judge Treu concludes his decision with an invocation of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 78 on separation of powers, noting that it is not the task of the judiciary to advise the legislature on a solution. But as the history of Texas' Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby demonstrates, legislative solutions in school equality can have an extended career in the courts.
Most likely, Judge Treu's Vergara decision will itself be subject to further judicial interpretations in the appellate process.
June 11, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Equal Protection, Opinion Analysis, Race, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Daily Read: Sheryll Cashin's "Place Not Race"
ConLawProf Sheryll Cashin's new book, Place Not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America is just out. In it, Cashin looks at the demise of affirmative action presaged by Supreme Court cases such as this Term's Schuette and last Term's Fisher v. UT, and argues that substituting "place" for "race" in diversity admissions "will better amend the structural disadvantages endured by many children of color, while enhancing the possibility that we might one day move past the racial resentment that affirmative action engenders."
Here's a bit from a longer excerpt on abc:
Race-based affirmative action buys some diversity for a relative few, but not serious inclusion. It doesn't help to build a movement to attack underlying systems of inequality that are eating away at the soul of our nation. Among other transformations, we need corporations that share more profits with workers and pay them equitably. We need a financial system that doesn't exploit average people. We need governments that invest wisely in pre-K-12 education and the nonselective higher education that at least half of high school graduates attend. We also need government that does not over-incarcerate high school dropouts of all colors.
Cashin contends that "race" is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, an analysis that will be familiar to anyone in the affirmative action cases employing strict scrutiny. But Cashin's slant is different. For Cashin, it isn't necessarily that we are post-racial. Instead, "given our nation's failure to live up to Brown, we have an obligation to acknowledge and ameliorate the injustices of segregation—a moral imperative more important than diversity itself."
An interesting read for anyone considering affirmative action, race, and equality.
May 8, 2014 in Affirmative Action, Books, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Race, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Daily Read: Michele Gilman on the "Court for the One Percent"
If the defining issue of the United States is inequality, how is the nation's highest Court addressing that issue?
According to Michele Gilman's new article, A Court for the One Percent: How the Supreme Court Contributes to Economic Inequality, forthcoming in the Utah Law Review and available on ssrn, the Court is decidely part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Gilman's article is valuable because it traverses several different doctrinal areas. Obviously, she discusses Citizens United. But - - - refreshingly - - - she argues that "Citizens United is just one piece of a larger problem." She contends that this problem did not begin with the Roberts' Court, as her discussions of Harris v. McCrae, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, and Dandridge v. Williams illustrate. Ultimately, she suggests that the Court stands in the way of addressing inequality because the legislative and policy suggestions that have worked in other "affluent democracies" will be deemed unconstitutional in the United States:
We currently have a Court majority that is not only unsympathetic to inequality arguments, but also seemingly oblivious to (or skeptical of) the connection between government policies and market outcomes. The Court has ruled that it is up to the legislative branch, rather than the Courts, to remedy economic inequality. Yet, the Court has doomed legislative enactments that would ameliorate inequality, such as desegregation plans, campaign finance reforms, and consumer protection laws. Conversely, when legislatures enact policies that tend to worsen economic inequality or magnify its effects, the Court defers, such as school financing laws and voter identification requirements. In short, the Court's rulings consistently sustain policies that create or maintain economic inequality.
Gilman has some explanations for this state of affairs, but, more importantly, she proposes a proactive five point plan of change. This important article is worth a read.
May 7, 2014 in Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Race, Recent Cases, Reproductive Rights, Scholarship, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Court in Schuette: Michigan Can Ban Affirmative Action
The Court's opinion in Schuette v. BAMN (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary), clearly upheld Michigan's Proposal 2, enacted as Article I §26 of the Michigan Constitution barring affirmative action in state universities and subdivisions. The plurality opinion for the Court was authored by Justice Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Chief Justice Roberts also authored a brief concurring opinion. Justice Scalia's concurring opinion was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Breyer also wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor's impassioned dissent was joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Kagan was recused.
The state constitutional amendment was a reaction to the Court's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), upholding the University of Michigan Law School's use of diversity in admissions. But since Grutter, the Court has been decidely less friendly to affirmative action, as in Fisher v. University of Texas.
Recall that the en banc Sixth Circuit majority had relied upon the so-called "political process" aspect of the Equal Protection Clause which asks whether a majority may vote to amend its constitution to limit the rights of a minority to seek relief, relying on Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969). At oral arguments, the Justices had seemed hostile to that theory.
Justice Kennedy's plurality opinion for the Court carefully rehearses the cases, but it is probably his rhetoric that is most noteworthy:
This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court's precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.
As for Justice Scalia's opinion, it admits that the "relentless logic of Hunter and Seattle would point to a similar conclusion in this case" as the Sixth Circuit understood. However, both Hunter and Seattle should be overruled. Justice Breyer, concurring, would distinguish Hunter and Seattle because Schuette "does not involve a reordering of the political process; it does not in fact involve the movement of decisionmaking from one political level to another."
It is Justice Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg, that displays the most heft. At more than 50 pages and almost as lengthy as all the other opinions combined, Sotomayor's opinion is an extended discussion of equal protection doctrine and theory, as well as the function of judicial review. In her last section, she also addresses the "substantive policy" of affirmative action and the difference it makes.
The stark division among the Justices is clear. Sotomayor writes that "race matters." Scalia reiterates that the constitution is "color-blind." Roberts implies that racial "preferences do more harm than good." And Kennedy invokes a First Amendment right to debate race:
Here Michigan voters acted in concert and statewide to seek consensus and adopt a policy on a difficult subject against a historical background of race in America that has been a source of tragedy and persisting injustice. That history demands that we continue to learn, to listen, and to remain open to new approaches if we are to aspire always to a constitutional order in which all persons are treated with fairness and equal dignity. . . . The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign. Quite in addition to the serious First Amendment implications of that position with respect to any particular election, it is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy. One of those premises is that a democracy has the capacity—and the duty—to learn from its past mistakes; to discover and confront persisting biases; and by respectful, rationale deliberation to rise above those flaws and injustices. . . . It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds. The process of public discourse and political debate should not be foreclosed even if there is a risk that during a public campaign there will be those, on both sides, who seek to use racial division and discord to their own political advantage. An informed public can, and must, rise above this. The idea of democracy is that it can, and must, mature. Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people. These First Amendment dynamics would be disserved if this Court were to say that the question here at issue is beyond the capacity of the voters to debate and then to determine.
Given this passage, perhaps it is not surprisingly that Justice Kennedy does not cite Romer v. Evans - - - which he authored in 1996 - - - in today's plurality opinion in Schuette. In Romer v. Evans, Kennedy had this to say about Colorado's Amendment 2, which prohibited the enactment of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation:
It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. . . . A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense.
[image via]
April 22, 2014 in Affirmative Action, Equal Protection, First Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Race, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Eleventh Circuit Invalidates Florida's Attempt to Remove Voters from Rolls
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Arcia v. Florida Secretary of State, Detzner concludes that Florida's program to remove "suspected non-citizens" from the voter rolls in 2012 violated Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the National Voter Registration Act (the 90 Day Provision) which requires states to "complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters." 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(c)(2)(A).
While the case rests on an issue of statutory application, it raises two constitutional concerns.
First, there are Article III concerns of standing and mootness, with the Secretary of State arguing the court should not exercise jurisdiction over the matter. The standing argument as to the individual plaintiffs focused on the lack of "injury in fact," but the court found that they were directly injured when they were wrongly identified as noncitizens, even though they were not ultimately prevented from voting. Additionally, they had standing to challenge Florida's second attempt to remove voters by showing "imminent injury." The standing argument as to the organization plaintiffs -- Florida Immigration Coalition, Inc., The National Congress for Puerto Rican Rights, and 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East - - - was resolved by the court's conclusion applying both a diversion-of-resources theory and an associational standing theory.
The court likewise rejected the mootness argument. Although the 2012 election had certainly passed, the court found that the situation fit squarely within the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. It reasoned that the challenged action fit both prongs of the test: the action in its duration was too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration; and there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.
The other constitutional aspect of the case involved the interpretation of the federal statute's 90 day provision itself:
We reject Secretary Detzner's attempts to have us decide today whether both the General Removal Provision and the 90 Day Provision allow for removals of non-citizens. Certainly an interpretation of the General Removal Provision that prevents Florida from removing non-citizens would raise constitutional concerns regarding Congress's power to determine the qualifications of eligible voters in federal elections. Cf. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2257 (2013) ("Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them."). We are not convinced, however, that the Secretary's perceived need for an equitable exception in the General Removal Provision also requires us to find the same exception in the 90 Day Provision. None of the parties before us have argued that we would reach an unconstitutional result in this case if we found that the 90 Day Provision prohibits systematic removals of non-citizens. Constitutional concerns would only arise in a later case which squarely presents the question of whether the General Removal Provision bars removal of non- citizens altogether. And before we ever get that case, Congress could change the language of the General Removal Provision to assuage any constitutional concerns. With this in mind, we will confine our ruling to apply to the plain meaning of the 90 Day Provision and decline Secretary Detzner's invitation to go further.
The panel opinion, written by Judge Beverly Martin, was not unanimous. While Judge Adalberto Martin joined the opinion, Judge Richard F. Suhrheinrich, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, wrote a very brief dissent, simply citing the two federal district court cases on the issue.
April 2, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Fifteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Interpretation, Mootness, Opinion Analysis, Race, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, February 14, 2014
Federal District Judge Declares Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Judge Arenda Wright Allen's opinion in Bostic v. Rainey concludes that Virginia's statutory and state constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriages or their recognition violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Judge Allen's due process analysis begins by declaring that there "can be no serious doubt that in America the right to marry is a rigorously protected fundamental right" and she therefore subjects Virginia's marriage laws to strict scrutiny. Given this formulation, she easily concludes that the state's proferred interests of tradition, federalism, and "responsible procreation" coupled with "optimal child rearing" are not satisfactory. The analysis often reverts to the language of lesser scrutiny, including this explicit statement regarding the procreation/child-rearing interest:
This rationale fails under the applicable strict scrutiny test as well as a rational-basis review. Of course the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia's Marriage Laws betrays that interest.
Judge Allen's equal protection analysis is substantially shorter and makes the articulates the application of rational basis scrutiny even more explicit:
Virginia's Marriage Laws fail to display a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose, and so must be viewed as constitutionally infirm under even the least onerous level of scrutiny. . . .
The legitimate purposes proffered by the Proponents for the challenged laws—to promote conformity to the traditions and heritage of a majority of Virginia's citizens, to perpetuate a generally-recognized deference to the state's will pertaining to domestic relations laws, and, finally, to endorse "responsible procreation"—share no rational link with Virginia Marriage Laws being challenged. The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.
Judge Allen's opinion may be criticized as being longer on rhetoric than on exemplary legal analysis - - - a charge similar to that leveled against Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court in United States v. Windsor declaring §3 of DOMA unconstitutional, upon which Judge Allen rightly relies. Judge Allen's numerous of invocations of Loving v. Virginia - - - including beginning the opinion with an extensive quote from Mildred Loving - - - have special resonance in Virginia. Yet at times, lofty language veers toward inaccuracy, as when the opinion states that "Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal." (That's the wording of the Declaration of Independence not the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause). Others may contest that there can be "no serious doubt" that marriage is a fundamental right.
Nevertheless, Judge Allen's opinion follows on the heels of four other opinions by federal district judges reaching the same conclusion about their respective state laws and constitutional provisions: Bourke v. Beshear from the Western District of Kentucky; Bishop v. United States from the Northern District of Oklahoma, Obergefell v. Wymyslo from the Southern District of Ohio, and Kitchen v. Herbert, from the District of Utah (now stayed).
Judge Allen stayed the injunction against enforcement of the Virginia same-sex marriage ban, pending resolution by the Fourth Circuit.
But recall that the Virginia Attorney General has declared that he will not defend Virginia's same-sex marriage ban, a position that might mean that Judge Allen's opinion never reaches the Fourth Circuit as we analyzed here.
[image: 1848 map of Virginia via]
February 14, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Race, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Stop and Frisk: NYC Mayor Abandons Appeal in Floyd v City of NY
NYC's practice of stop and frisk has been controversial in the streets and in the courts. Recall
that in August 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin found the New York City Police Department's stop and frisk policies unconstitutional as violative of equal protection. Judge Scheindlin's exhaustive opinion in Floyd v. City of New York was accompanied by an extensive order, setting out remedies, including monitoring. By a very brief opinion, Judge Scheindlin's decision was stayed by the Second Circuit - - - and Judge Scheindlin removed. The Second Circuit later reaffirmed its decision, but in more moderate and explanatory tones.
But before the Second Circuit could issue an opinion on the merits, NYC elected a new mayor, who today announced an agreement in Floyd v. City of New York. Mayor Bill deBlasio (pictured below) announced that NYC has asked for a remand of the appeal to the district court, and has agreed to a court-appointed monitor who will serve for three years, overseeing the NYPD's reform of its stop-and-frisk policy and reporting to the court.
[image via]
January 30, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Criminal Procedure, Equal Protection, Race, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Daily Read: Franita Tolson on the Voting Rights Act Amendment Act of 2014
As we discussed yesterday, bipartisan legislation has been introduced in Congress that would amend the Voting Rights Act and recalibrate the coverage formula for preclearance, as a response the the Court's holding in Shelby v. Holder that section 4(b) of the VRA was unconstitutional.
Over at HuffPo today, LawProf Franita Tolson (pictured below) has a column entitled "The Importance of Tunnel Vision in Fixing the VRA's Coverage Formula."
Tolson argues that while
there are some aspects of the legislation that may displease civil rights organizations, particularly the exemption of voter identification laws from coverage under the new formula, the proposal is a strong start to address the gaping hole in the preclearance regime created by the Court's decision in Shelby County.
But in some respects, she contends, the proposed legislation may go too far.
She argues that the proposed amendments to section 3(c) of the VRA are "alarming because they place a bull's eye squarely on the back of section 3(c)" as well as section 2. She notes that section 3(c) of the VRA is constitutional precisely "because its intentional discrimination requirement is identical to the constitutional standard for establishing violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
She concludes that the "legislative focus should be limited to replacing the coverage formula and leaving section 3(c) alone."
Worth a read for anyone considering the proposed amendments to the VRA and the legacy of Shelby v. Holder.
January 23, 2014 in Congressional Authority, Elections and Voting, Equal Protection, Federalism, Profiles in Con Law Teaching, Race, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Bipartisan Bills Introduced to Amend Voting Rights Act
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers (D-MI) introduced legislation last week that would amend the Voting Rights Act and recalibrate the coverage formula for preclearance. The legislation responds to the Supreme Court's ruling last summer in Shelby County v. Holder, striking Section 4(b) of the VRA, the coverage formula for the preclearance requirement. That ruling left Section 5 preclearance nearly a dead letter (although litigants could still seek to have a court order a jurisdiction to bail-in to preclearance under Section 3).
Our Shelby County coverage is here and here (with links to most of our other posts on the case).
The bills would update the coverage formula to include states that have 5 or more voting rights violations during the previous 15 years and political subdivisions that have 3 or more voting rights violations during the previous 15 years. (Coverage would continue for 10 years, unless the jurisdiction gets a court order releasing it.) This new formula would cover Georgia, Louisiana, Misissippi, and Texas, but not Alabama, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
The bills also contain a number of other provisions, perhaps most notably expanding Section 3 bail-in so that litigants can ask a court to bail-in a jurisdiction when that jurisdiction has intentionally discriminated (as now) and for any other violation of the VRA. Ari Berman over at The Nation has a nice summary.
The new provisions will undoubtedly be challenged when and if they're enacted. On the one hand, they address a major concern of the Court in Shelby County: they update the coverage formula to use more current violations as the basis for coverage. But on the other hand, they still treat states differently (and potentially run afoul of the Court's new-found "equal sovereignty" doctrine), and the state-wide formula does not account for actual voter turn-out (although the political subdivision formula does) and neither formula addresses the number of elected officials--data that the Court found at least relevant in its ruling.
January 22, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Elections and Voting, Federalism, Fifteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, News, Race, Recent Cases, Reconstruction Era Amendments | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, January 20, 2014
Daily Listen: Newly Discovered Audio of MLK Speech
The New York State Museum has released the only known audio recording of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1962 speech commemorating the centennial anniversary of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The audio was discovered on the "lost technology" of "reel to reel recording" during an ongoing project by the museum to "digitize the thousands of audio and video recordings" in "collections of more than 15 million objects and artifacts."
The audio and other materials area available at the Musuem's website here.
A preview and explanation is in the video below:
January 20, 2014 in Current Affairs, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, History, News, Race, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Daily Read: Martin Luther King's Words in Judicial Opinions
Jeremiah Goulka's "How Federal Judges Use and Abuse the Words of Martin Luther King Jr. in Their Decisions," argues that when MLK is quoted in a federal court opinion, it's probably supporting a result that MLK would not have supported.
Goulka describes himself as a former law clerk to a judge on the Fifth Circuit, a former US Attorney and a former Republican - - - important perspectives for evaluating his largely polemical piece. Here's a snippet:
In Vera v. Richards (1994), a panel of three Republican judges considered a Texas redistricting law that created three minority-majority congressional districts. Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee whom both presidents Bush considered elevating to the Supreme Court, opened the decision by stating that the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
"marked the full maturity in American political life of the Founders' idea that "all men are created equal" and the Rev. Martin Luther King's hope that his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin."
Ah, yes, the famous "content of their character" line. A little later in her introduction, she continues in the same vein:
"Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but it is also morally wrong, inconsistent with our founding tradition and Martin Luther King's vision. The color of a person's skin or his or her ethnic identity is the least meaningful way in which to understand that person."
I can think of less meaningful ways to understand a person. (Do you like hot dogs?) You can guess which way they ruled.
This is worth a read on this MLK holiday. For a less provocative read, there is President Obama's Proclamation.
[image via]
January 20, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Elections and Voting, History, Race | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday Dress: Profiling Clothes and Stop and Frisk
As police and state officials struggle to develop "objective" criteria that might support reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk in light of constitutional issues (which we last discussed here), relying clothing and other attire may not be a good idea.
Read more on 1584.
November 24, 2013 in Equal Protection, Race, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Keeping Up With the Second Circuit's Stop and Frisk Decisions
The Second Circuit late Friday entered yet another decision in In re Reassignment of Cases: Ligon; Floyd et al. v. City of New York, et al., this time on four motions before the panel. Recall that the Second Circuit panel previously entered an opinion clarifying its removal of District Judge Shira Scheindlin after its original brief order issuing a stay and removing her as judge, an occurrence that is apparently not so rare. Judge Shira Scheindlin's opinions and orders in Floyd v. City of New York and in Ligon v. City of New York found the NYPD's implementation of stop and frisk violative of equal protection.
In this most recent order from the Second Circuit panel, it denied NYC's motion to vacate Judge Scheindlin's orders and opinions, rather than issuing a stay. This move by NYC - - - given that a change in mayors is imminent - - - certainly had political interpretations. But whatever NYC's motives, the Court rejected the invitation to vacate the opinions.
The Second Circuit panel also denied the motions seeking intervention by Judge Scheindlin, essentially characterizing them as moot given the panel's clarifying order and the denial of the motion to vacate. However, the panel did take the opportunity to disagree with the motion's representation that the panel did not have access to the transcript of proceedings in the related case upon which it based its findings that Judge Scheindlin may have committed an improper application of the Court's "related case rule." The Second Circuit panel stated:
A review of the record of the Court of Appeals, and of the October 29, 2013 extended oral argument in these cases, will reveal that the panel members had the transcript of the December 21, 2007 proceeding in front of them during the hearing, and that they asked questions in open court regarding its substance. For example, during the oral argument, one member of the panel twice referred to the proceedings in detail, and clearly noted that he was quoting from page 42 of the December 21, 2007 transcript. Our October 31, 2013 order specifically cited the transcript by caption, docket number, and date, and it included quotations that had not been reported in the New York Times article that was cited, or in any other public news report known to the panel.
It's interesting that the Second Circuit panel took time to refute the contention with specifics - - - and perhaps it is important that the panel also noted that the assertion that it did not have the transcript was being "echoed" by "other movants in the case," with this citation:
See, e.g., Br. of Amici Curiae Six Retired United States District Court Judges and Thirteen Professors of Legal Ethics, Ligon v. City of New York, No. 13-3123, Dkt. 221, Floyd v. City of New York, No. 13-3088, Dkt. 313, at 14.
The Second Circuit panel surely wants to correct the record about the record on this point.
November 23, 2013 in Courts and Judging, Criminal Procedure, Current Affairs, Equal Protection, Race, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


text:
Section 75 of the Act requires people to report to the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) if they suspect harm to retirement home residents. The questions below provide guidance with respect to making reports and other matters relating to section 75.
What must you report?
You must report where you have reasonable grounds to suspect harm or risk of harm to a resident resulting from the following:
You must also report misuse or misappropriation of a resident's money.
Who must report?
Individuals and corporations. This would include staff members of a retirement home, the licensee of a retirement home, volunteers, care and service providers, and directors and officers of a retirement home. Retirement home residents may report, but the Act does not require them to. A person is exempt from reporting if the person does not have reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject of the report is a resident of a retirement home.
When must I report?
Immediately. The Act does not define "immediately", but you should file section 75 reports as soon as possible under the circumstances.
To whom do I make a report?
You make a report to the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority by calling 1-855-ASK-RHRA (1-855-275-7472).
What is the result of a report?
A report under section 75 of the Act triggers an inspection of the retirement home.
I operate a retirement home. What do I have post in my home with respect to section 75?
You must post the mandatory reporting poster that the Registrar of the RHRA makes available on its website. This poster contains specific information about reporting matters relating to the care and safety of residents. You should post in a conspicuous and easily accessible location in the home.
The legal obligation to post is contained in section 3 of regulation 165/11 under the Act and in section 55 of the RHA.
How can I get a copy of the poster?
Posters are available in French and English and can be downloaded here. You can also request a poster by emailing firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Donald Trump GOP Debate
December 19, 2011 by staff
Donald Trump GOP Debate, Real estate giant Donald Trump may have pulled out of moderating the upcoming Newsmax Republican presidential candidate debate, but he is still apparently a factor in the race Republican presidential primary.
After former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman referenced the "Apprentice" star in last night's debate, Donald Trump? took his frustrations to Twitter, calling Mr. Huntsman a "lightweight" who tried to use his name for notoriety in the debate.
Donald Trump? and Mr. Huntsman have been engaged in a war of words ever since the former Utah governor scoffed at the idea of Mr. Trump moderating a debate, after Newsmax announced him as the host of their December 27th Iowa debate in mid November. During the Fox News debate in Sioux City, Iowa Thursday night, Mr. Huntsman took another shot at the real estate mogul.
The former Ambassador to China referenced Donald Trump in responding to a question about his recent surge in a poll of New Hampshire voters.
"I think people are coming around to finding that I am the consistent conservative in this race. They're coming around to find that I am not going to pander, I'm not going to contort myself into a pretzel to please any audience I'm in front of and I'm not going to sign those silly pledges," Mr. Huntsman stated, essentially calling out all of his GOP rivals for things they've done throughout the primary campaign season.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.


text:
Work blew, and not in the good way. Elijah couldn't stand his job, his customers, nor his boss.
The only reason he stayed was his passion for gaming, and the employee discount. He worked at GameGo, a video game store in the strip mall he had bummed around in his teens. The only saving grace, was his best friend Zach.
They had been friends since high school, and thru both of they're attempts at college. In the end, they had become roommates, and even took the same job. They couldn't have been more different from one another, but they were united by their joint love of two things: weed, and video games.
Elijah was muslim, raised in the U.S from birth, and a bookworm. Zach was the polar opposite, his parents were hippies from Canada, and everyone wanted to be his friend. But Gaming brought them together, especially the Call of Warfare series. The sequel was coming out that very day, and Elijah couldn't wait to blow away some communist zombies with Zach.
" Are you ready for this?" Elijah said, tying his hair back. There was a line outside the shop, stretching back towards the malls entrance. Call Of Warfare fans were pressing against the doors so hard that they bowed inward, and Zach stood ready at the entrance with his keys.
He smiled and shook his head, his blonde dreads swaying.
"Doesn't matter man, it'll all be worth it when I beat your ass in Call Of Warfare." He said unlocking the doors as the tide of unwashed nerds piled in thru the doors.
"Challenge accepted, whitey!" Elijah called out from behind the counter.
The communist zombies head exploded in a cloud of pixelated ichor, and Elijah took a celebratory swig of his Mesa Dew and vodka concoction.
"Blam! Headshot!" Elijah said, frantically thumbing his controller so he could grab a power up.
The rush had nearly killed them, but they had the advantage of saving the final copy for themselves.
The graphics were good, the guns legendary, and gore phenomenal. Zach growled and gritted his teeth as a fascist squid took a swipe at him with its tentacles
"Whatever, why don't put a grenade up your ass and run at them, towel-head." He said, tearing up the squid with his tommy gun.
"Ooh, getting nervous are we? Why don't we up the ante? Loser has to suck the winners nuts for ten seconds, no homo."
Eli said, stealing his kill.
Zach snorted.
"Oh, you'd looooove that, wouldn't you. Gonna lose on purpose now?" He said punching Eli's arm.
As they passed the two liter of soda and had liquor between them at the end of each round, they're ability to play the game worsened.
"Oh thats total bullshit, theres a fucking glitch." Eli said, putting down the controller.
"Yeah, a glitch in your brain, retard. I beat you, fair and square." He said, pulling out a joint from behind his ear. Besides video games, weed was another of their main staples.
" lemme get some." Elijah slurred, putting out his hand.
Zach laughed, and took a puff, exhaling.
" Dude, you haven't even made good on our bet. No weed for you."
Eli frowned.
"You were, like, serious? Oh, well. Fuck it, fine. Ten seconds." He said quietly, scratching his goatee.
Eli reasoned that it was only ten seconds, and Zach always had the best weed.
Zach looked at him a moment, and unbuckled his pants, wiggling out of them until they pooled at his feet at the foot of the couch.
"Ten seconds solid, man , your weirder than I thought."
Eli's heart jumped as he leaned down over the plaid of Zach's boxers until it filled his vision, and he was close enough to see the growing definition of his dick beneath the fabric. He pulled at the band until it unhooked itself from Zach's hips and slid down his thighs.
It was big, the head obscured by the extra flesh of being un-circumcised. He slowly dipped his face down as Zach spread his legs open to give him better access to his nuts. Eli took one into his mouth, and Zach groaned and put his hand on Eli's head.
"Both of them man, both of them, fuck." He said, and Eli drew the other orb into his mouth, dragging his tongue along the underside of Zach's balls. He rolled them around in his mouth
"D-dude, its way past ten seconds." Zach said quietly, leaning his head back. Eli let it fall from his lips with a wet slurp.
" Ok, so yeah, that happened. Fuck. Man, you let the joint go out." Eli said, and Zach passed him the joint. When Eli lit up, Zach couldn't help but notice how wet Eli's lips were.
"Here, shotgun it." Eli said inhaling, leaning towards him. Zach leaned in, cupping his hands, and pressed his mouth against Eli's. He pressed his tongue inwards, past Eli's slightly parted teeth, and breathed in the smoke. Their tongues clashed together, Zach pushing his body into Eli's, the both of them sinking into the plush of the couch.
The only thing Eli could think of was how good Zach was with his tongue, and he wrapped his legs around him and drew him in so they could grind against each other. His breath caught in his throat when the hard bulge in Zach's boxers rubbed against his, rubbing thru the thin material of his pajama bottoms. The friction was incredible.
It was Eli's turn to moan when Zach planted kisses along his neck to his collarbone, gently nipping at the softness of his neck. His hand slipped under Eli's shirt and felt its way upwards, and slowly scraping downward with one of his nails lightly grazing one of Eli's nipples, making him gasp.
"Maybe we should do this some place more comfortable, huh?" Zach whispered, suddenly withdrawing and getting to his feet. Eli sighed.
"Yeah, I gotta take a shower and get prepped." Eli said, and Zach couldn't help but notice the quiver in his voice.
Zach grinned.
"Didn't know you rolled THAT way, but its cool, You have a cute ass." He said, giving Eli a swat as he moved passed him towards the shared bathroom.
Eli could still feel the slight sting from Zach's hand, and rubbed it gently as the hot water sprayed down on him. Despite his original eagerness, he didn't know how far he wanted to go. Zach was his best friend, one of the few friends he had. He wasn't sure if he wanted to risk his friendship for a quick fuck, but then again, he was SO hot. He reminded himself of this when he gently slid one of his fingers inside of him. He sighed when he couldn't find anything he needed to remove and withdrew. He didn't want to stretch himself out too much, and he like it when it hurt just a little.
Meanwhile, in Zach's bedroom...
Zach frantically straightened his room, throwing down a comforter and shoving beer cans and dirty socks under his bed. He shut off the main light in the room and let the blue-green light of the fish tank illuminate the scene. He was as nervous as Eli, but he knew what he wanted. Until Eli, he couldn't stand people. His ex-girlfriend had been annoying, his ex-boyfriend had been unbearable, but his best friend? One half of him said he was to valuable to risk losing, and the other jumped at the promise of taking their friendship one step further. But all doubts vanished when he walked in the door, just as he pressed play on the stereo by his bed.
The light from the tank made his skin glow and his eyes shine, and before
Tom Petty could belt out another line, Eli was on top of him. It was his turn to be aggressive.
Eli crushed his mouth into his, and they tore at each other until they're clothes lay scattered around the bed. Eli undid his hair, and shook it out. He reached down and wiggled his fingers into Zach's dreads. Eli'd always said they looked stupid on a white guy, but his fingers told a different story.
"I always wondered what these felt like. Now I know." He said, his voice only slightly slurred.
After a minute, Eli raised an eyebrow.
"Dude, how stoned are you? Do I need to take charge?" He said, grinning.
Zach rolled him over and gave him a sharp nip on the neck.
"Nope, I owned you in the game, I'm gonna own you now."
Eli guided Zach's cock to his opening, and tried to relax.
The inch, that angry inch, made him wince and he almost told him to stop, but Zach put a hand over his mouth.
"Shh. I got you." He whispered, pulling out and spitting into his palm and stroking his cock, still sealing Eli's eager moans with his palm.
He lined himself up again and shoved in, Eli emitting a muffled yelp, which died down into a low groan. He started by slamming into him to the hilt, then pulling his uncut tool all the way out and diving in again, the pain slowly giving way to a whisper of something else. His movements steadied into a practiced rhythm, agonizingly slower than what Eli was used to, but dragging along all of his sweet spots. The minutes passed by, and Zach was close. He pushed forward until Eli's legs hooked over his shoulders, simultaneously going deeper into the vice of flesh that Eli had become.
Eli was a wreck, and he knew it. He couldn't stop shaking, and it was like Zach was the center of his world. He looked up his face, a curtain of blonde hair shaking with the impact of each thrust. Then and their, he would of done anything for him. But he couldn't think past what was happening then, he could only feel the slow burn of the moment.
"Fuck. Take Me, take me." Eli managed to murmur between breaths, and Zach obliged.
He slammed forward, almost painfully, and leaned in towards his neck with a growl.
The bite was sharp, and Eli clenched around Zach's cock as his orgasm roiled forth inside of him.
Eli could feel his pulse, feel what he put inside him.
Zach unhinged Eli's legs from around his shoulders, trying to stay inside him so that the sheets wouldn't get stained. He shifted himself so that he was against his back, his still semi-hard dick embedded inside Eli. He sighed and pulled him close.
"So, do you mind if we uh, lay here for a bit?" Zach asked.
"You mean cuddle? Sure, just admit that its cuddling." Eli said, rubbing the back of his head against Zach's chin. Zach kissed him on the ear.
"Fine, admit that you suck at Call of Warfare."
" No way, I call a re-match. Same as last time, loser sucks the winners balls. No homo." Eli said, wriggling and pressing into Zach's cock, which had found new life and grown hard again.
Zach grinned.
"Challenge accepted."


text:
James Warhola
James Warhola is an artist whose career has careened out of control for almost 40 years. At first he got into the sci-fi & fantasy thing illustrating the covers of about 300 covers. Heinlein approved of his covers such as Stranger in a Strange Land as well as did William Gibson for his cyperpunk classic, Neuromancer. A detour at Mad Magazine has kept him going as one of the usual gang of idiots for well over…. I forget but they keep calling….and yes, they still put out a magazine. As for some fun stuff he worked for another gang at Topps Bubblegum… doing what else, but garbage as in Garbage Pail Kids. That helped get his ticket out of the city but unfortunately he still asked to sign those dam cards. For all of this harm that James has done to the kiddie mind he's tried to make some amends by doing children's picture books for a better cause… at least about 50 at last count. Unlike all of the other stuff it pays a royalty so an artist can finally get a little smidgen of a reward for a job well done. In fact he still gets one for books like Bubba the Cowboy Prince (they like it in Texas) and Uncle Andy's about that crazy Pop-artist uncle of his. Of recent he tries to make art for art's sake and maybe for some rich people though he still likes the idea of art for the masses. He has had shows in Prague, Istanbul, Chengdu and Tokyo. Next one this September in of all places, Bratislava. He can be reached at JamesWarhola.com
James Warhola photo © Alvintrusty


text:
Vidya had auditioned for the role of an IPS officer in the serial, but the producers of the show felt she was too soft for the role.
They roped in Manini instead. When Vidya was asked about the development, she stated, "They wanted a certain amount of dates for three months for the serial.
I had other commitments so decided against it." Producer Sumit Mittal said, "We chose the one who suited the role." Diya Aur Bati Hum is the story of a woman's struggles who dreams of being an IPS officer.


text:
DJ Le Poulpe
Oh yeah I love the Jazzy beats , the whole set is just great love it again ... thanks for sharing
- May 18, 2016
- Like
ReEcaux Lounjj posted a comment on his media
Greetings to all. Here is my last blend of this year. I do hope you dig it...


text:
- Follow SOIL on WordPress.com
Top Posts & Pages
Join us on Facebook!
- Children & Baby
- Diet
- Organic Starts
- Produce & Recipes
- Apple
- Asparagus
- Avocado
- Bacon
- Banana
- Basil
- Beans
- Beef
- Beets
- Berries
- Bok Choy
- Broccoli
- Brussel Sprouts
- Cabbage
- Carrot
- Cauliflower
- Celery
- Chicken
- Citrus
- Coconut
- Corn
- Cranberries
- Cucumber
- Dried Fruit
- Eggs
- Fennel
- Garlic
- Ginger Root
- Greens
- Herb
- Kale
- Leek
- Lemons
- Lettuce
- Mango
- Melon
- Mushrooms
- Oats
- Onion
- Orange
- Peaches & Plums
- Pear
- Peas
- Peppers
- Pomegranate
- Potato
- Pumpkin
- Radish
- Rhubarb
- Slow Cooker
- Spinach
- Summer Squash
- Tomato
- Turnip
- Winter Squash
- Yam & Sweet Potato
- Zucchini & Summer Squash
- Sale & Feature
- Uncategorized
Category Archives: Cucumber
Mexican Style Gazpacho: Chilled Veggie Soup
Colorful, Seasonal, and Yummy Recipe by Sheila My cousin Sheila and I met at a party, and it seemed like we'd known each other forever. Technically, we weren't cousins yet, since she married into the Horn family years before … Continue reading
Posted in Cucumber, Onion, Tomato Tagged summer soup, summer vegetable Leave a comment
Summer Corn Salads
I love corn salads in the summer. Corn is so easy to boil or grill, but there is something about the colorful confetti of salad in the summer that makes it fun to prepare. Here are two of my favorites: … Continue reading
Posted in Avocado, Beans, Corn, Cucumber, Onion, Peppers Tagged corn salad, summer salad, sweet corn recipe 1 Comment
Creamy Balsamic Dressing
I love trying new recipes. My new favorite dressing recipe this month is Creamy Balsamic Dressing. It is really low in sodium, fat and calories compared to most other creamy dressing. Since it is easy to make and much better than … Continue reading
Posted in Basil, Carrot, Chicken, Cucumber, Lettuce, Onion, Peppers, Slow Cooker, Tomato Tagged Balsamic Chicken, Creamy Balsamic Dressing, Farro, Pasta Salad Leave a comment
Know Your Produce? Cucumbers
Scroll to bottom for two great cucumber salad recipes! The cucumber is nothing new. It has been well known in India and Egypt for at least 4,000 years. The cucumber is a very unique vegetable in several ways. For one … Continue reading
Posted in Cucumber, Onion, Tomato Tagged cucumber salad, summer salad Leave a comment


text:
Driver Authority Information System
On this page
The Driver Authority Information System (DAIS) is provided by Transport for NSW as part of its drive to improve service to the public transport industry.
Application Form (PDF, 17.19 KB)
Fee schedule
Connection fee
The one off cost of connecting you to the system.
Transaction fees
Transactions are debited against an individual account which you establish as part of connection to the system. To minimise processing costs a minimum prepayment is required, but you may wish to pay more than this to reduce you own administration.
A help desk service is provided over the phone during normal office hours. Resolution of any problem arising as a result of a systems fault is provided free of charge, a fee applies to other services.
If you close your account, any outstanding balance will be refunded.
Account balance notification
If your account balance is zero or negative you will not be able to enter the system. To help avoid this inconvenience you must set a minimum account balance figure in your account details. When your balance first reduces to this level, an account balance notification message will be displayed on the screen. To ensure uninterrupted access to the system you should submit a top up payment.
Negative account balance
The system will display a notification if your account balance falls to zero or below. Until payment is received you will not be able to achieve further access to the system.
Login help
Enter your operator code, password and submit for authorisation to continue. You will then see the disclaimer screen.
On the login screen you can also change your password.
A limit applies to the number of times you can attempt to login with an incorrect password. If this limit is exceeded access to the system will be disabled. Contact the Help Desk for reconnection.
Password change
Your password protects your account and access to the driver information in the system. It is normally recommended that passwords be changed every month.
Note: If you forget your password a new one can be issued by the Help Desk.
The disclaimer statement must be accepted to gain further access to the system, display the menu screen and process an inquiry.
From the menu you can access the driver authority report form, your account statement and review your account details. There are two options for the driver authority report - a single entry inquiry or a multiple entry inquiry.
Driver authority report request
The report displays the current authority status for the driver codes entered. Each driver report creates a charge to your account.
There are two ways of obtaining reports on driver authority status:
Screen display
For single entry inquiry, enter the individual driver numbers in the box provided with spaces between the codes and press SEARCH. When you do this the result will be displayed on the screen. The screen display will probably show two results at a time.
By email
For multiple entry inquire, enter the driver numbers in the box provided with spaces between the codes and press SEARCH. When you do this the result will be email to you. It is recommended that the email method is used for large queries. Email format specification (PDF, 30.95 KB)
Account statement
Enter the dates in the spaces provided and click SUBMIT. The default statement shows all transactions for the last six months. Clicking on EMAIL STATEMENT will send a copy of the report to your current email address. A charge of $2 will incur per account statement report.
Account details review
This screen enables you to review and change your current account details. To change your details enter the new information and click the 'CHANGE DETAILS' button.
If you make a change you will automatically be sent an email to confirm the changes have been made.


text:
can people after breaks become friends as they were before or does that all fall apart? i like my best guy friend and he likes me but i dont wanna lose him if we break up!
Most Helpful Guy
Almost never. When you break up with someone, the ONLY reasonable expectation you can have is that your relationship with that person is over forever, period, because 95+% of the time, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Are there exceptions? Yes, on rare occasions, when neither person has any desires or romantic emotions for the other person, they can be friends, but we both know how rare that is.
Girls always seem to want to "stay friends" after a breakup, but you need to learn that that's not a reasonable expectation, and you should learn to go ahead and assume it's not going to happen.00|00|0


text:
Doctor insights on:
Hepatic Arterial Infusion
Subcapsular and capsular arterial phase enhancement of liver. Focal capsular retraction @inferior rt hepatic tip along lateral margin. Layman's terms?
See hepatologist: Arterial enhancement means that the area is dependent of arterial blood, usually meaning some type of inflammation or malignancy. Retraction means that the capsule of the liver is indented, concerning for scarring or cancer. With a definable mass, this would be concerning and necessitate a liver biopsy or repeat scan in a few months. See a liver specialist. ...Read more
Artery (Definition)
Arteries are a type of blood vessels. We can divide blood vessels into 2 categories. Arteries are high pressure vessels which deliver (red) oxygen + blood out into the body. Veins on the other hand or low pressure vessels which return (dark) oxygent - blood from the body ...Read more
If accidental ligation of rt hepatic artery done after how much time part of liver will be cyanotic.
May not get cyanotic: 60% of blood supply to liver is from portal vein , after ligation will have transient enzyme elevation , liver have remarkable power to adjust , some the metastatic tumors hepatic artery is ligated with no ill effects , as artery is the one that supplies the tumor ...Read moreSee 2 more doctor answers
Why does hepatic necrosis occurs when hepatic artery is ligated accidentally during surgery?
May or may not: The liver gets some of its bood flow from the hepatic artery, but majority flow from the portal vein. Ligating the artery can cause liver damage that may recover depending on the siuatuon, which artery branches are involved & multiple patient factors. ...Read more
There is fusiform aneurysmal dilation of 2 cm segment of extrahepatic proper hepatic
artery, measuring 7 mm in maximal diameter ..plain English please?
Keep your next appt: Due to weakness in the wall of that particular artery, the wall balloons out (aneurysm) & it's diameter is 7mm. The main risk it can cause to your health is rupture & subsequent bleeding. Rupture is more likely if you had multiple ones (you don't), if it was not caused by atherosclerosis (check with your doc), & if you're having pain. Keep your next appointment for follow up. Hope that helps. ...Read more
Fusiform aneurysmal dilation 2 CM of proper hepatic artery in porta hepatis. Can someone explain this in plain English?
Weakening of artery: Fusiform refers to the shape (spindle-shaped, ie both facing walls) of the aneurysm, or a bulge in the artery. See medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fusiform+aneurysm for a diagram. The proper hepatic artery is the artery to the liver; it goes through an opening called the porta hepatis ("liver door") or transverse fissure. TTYD about a possible weakening in the artery to the liver. GH & GL ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
Does mets to lymphnode next to hepatic artery mean the cancer has spread via blood? Is mets to perilymphonodal adipose tissue = mets to peritoneum?
Well...: Metastasis through blood stream usually denotes distant organs.. Lymph node involvement is spread through lymphatics... Often both go together. Perilymphnodal adipose tissue has nothing to do with perineum. Peilymphnodal means "around the lymph node" Keep the faith. lots of cancers are curable these days... ...Read more
An MRA confirmed that I have nutcracker syndrome in my left renal vein and right hepatic artery arising from the proximal Superior mesenteric artery. Could this be the cause of my uncontrolled BP &HR?
Yes: Limitation of blood flow to a kidney will typically raise BP. Often in such a case the BP will be very difficult to control with meds unless the blood flow is restored. A stent in the renal artery may help, but there are several studies suggesting that if meds can control the BP, then procedural risks may not be warranted. You should consult with a vascular surgeon or interventional radiologist. ...Read moreSee 2 more doctor answers
What is the definition or description of: infusion?
Inject: An infusion implies a substance administered via IV 2 a person, such as blood (transfusion), antibiotics and pain meds or other meds. Some can be infused subq but rarely. ...Read more
When is an albumin infusion necessary?
Rarely: There are other ways to build up blood volume. Albumin does not last very long. It is usually given when other types of infusion have already been done. ...Read more
How is systemic lidocaine infusion administered?
With : Intravenous line, also called angiocath or heplock. Pretty much the standard. ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
Infusion (Definition)
An infusion implies a substance administered via IV 2 a person, such as blood (transfusion), antibiotics and pain meds or other meds. Some can be ...Read more
Hepatic (Definition)
Hepatic refers to something that is ...Read more


text:
My three kids and I had an AMAZING two week trip to Israel, and I will post a report about our experiences ASAP. However, I am now trying to deal with a lost bag issue that is vexing me to no end. Our return flight was EL AL to Heathrow, American to JFK, Jet Blue to Boston. In Israel, a very helpful EL Al agent saw that I was traveling solo with three kids and offered to check the bags all the way through to Boston, even though the final leg of the trip was not on one of their partner airlines. Our flights went very smoothly, and I cannot say enough about how comfortable coach class seats were on the American Airlines and EL AL 777's (Americans were marginally more comfortable and had better in seat entertainment options). The worst thing was that my kids watched so many movies and played so many games that no one slept!
When we arrived at JFK, we went through immigration and collected the 2 bags and cleared customs. Then we took our bags, which were tagged through to Boston to the American Airlines transfer belt...and said goodbye to them. When we arrived on Jet Blue in Boston, neither bag was there. I have my tickets/boarding passes, original baggage tags/stickers from Israel and a photo of both bags. Both bags had luggage tags with our names (as well as an American Airlines gold member embossed tag on one). We opened a claim with Jet Blue in Boston, and I have been calling both them and American Airlines twice a day since July 3. One bag did get delivered to me at home on July 3. It had been sent to Boston on an American Airlines flight. The other is still lost. It has been suggested to me by both airlines that this is due in some way to the travel originating in Israel, and perhaps additional TSA screenings that were required. I did call Tel Aviv and someone looked there to see if the bag had been returned, but to no avail. Today we also visited the Jet Blue and AA baggage claim areas in Logan airport to see for ourselves if perhaps our bag is there, but it was not.
We seem to be in some kind of a grey area. American says that since Jet Blue was our final carrier, it is their responsibility to locate the bag. Jet Blue says that since they never scanned the bag into their system at JFK (ie, American did not transfer properly), there is a limit to how far they can look. In addition, apparently Jet Blue and AA do not share baggage handling software, so Jet Blue is limited to calling the American Airlines Baggage dept in JFK and claim that it is very difficult to gain their cooperation. In the meanwhile, where is this poor bag?? Even if the airline's routing luggage tag was removed (as well as the three stickers which were affixed to the bag), there is still the tag with our address. I have also given descriptions of the contents for identification purposes. And even if the bag did not transfer to Jet Blue due to a missing routing tag, then it must be sitting SOMEWHERE in JFK, because the airline would have no idea where to send it on to...This bag contains only clothing, shoes and souveniers (small items for my kid's friends), but it will be a true pain to try to replace everything (and some items cannot be replaced, even if the airline compensates us). Any advice (other than to never check luggage!) - somewhere else to check or other options of where the breakdown in transit might have taken place - is appreciated! (truthfully, after many many years of flying including internationally, this is the longest baggage delay we have every had - usually it is returned to us w/in 24 hours).


text:
Seems like Mavin artiste Reekado Banks has found love in the arms of a certain Emem Inuikim.
The singer who never once denied been in a relationship recently revealed the face of the woman, he often refers to as 'Bae of life'.
He shared a photo of Emem six days back with the caption, "Mi island ting."
Emem who is obviously in love with the 'Katapot' singer promoted his album "Spotlight" and she got an 'I love you' response from the star.
"I LOVE U ..MY WOMAN," he commented, adding, "Come hia lemme chop ya."
By the way, we learnt Emem is also an artiste and is signed to Manner Records where she has released some singles.
The duo look amazing together as a couple.
We wish them a 'drama filled' kind of relationship away from our prying eyes.
More photos of the hottie below: