turbinetree
turbinetree's JournalJustice Ginsburg schools her conservative colleagues on the meaning of the word 'consent'
Source: Think Progress
Gaslighting is not a valid method of statutory interpretation.
Ian Millhiser
Apr 24, 2019, 12:47 pm
The Supreme Court — or, at least, its Republican majority — has an unhealthy obsession with forced arbitration. And, in a decision handed down on Wednesday, the court fed that obsession at the expense of workers throughout the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the case in question, Lamps Plus v. Varela, relies on a definition of the word “consent” so bizarre, it verges on gaslighting. In a rare move, every single Democratic justice wrote a dissent — including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose dissent directly confronts Roberts’ weak understanding of the concept of consent.
Forced arbitration agreements require workers or consumers to sign away their right to sue a company in a real court as a condition of doing business with that company. A customer who refuses to sign would be denied a credit card, a cell phone, or even the ability to check their loved one into a nursing home. And, as the court’s Republican majority held in Epic Systems v. Lewis, a worker can be forced to sign under pain of firing.
Victims of forced arbitration may still bring claims against the company that forced them into the agreement, but these claims must be brought before private arbitrators who are far more favorable to corporate parties than judges. As one study shows, employees are much less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than before a court, and they generally receive far less money when they do prevail.
https://thinkprogress.org/justice-ginsburg-republican-colleagues-consent-39721c42421e/
This is why we need to take back the Senate and the keep the House and remove the criminal enterprise in the white house......................................
Thank you Justice Ginsburg.....................Thank you..........
Here are the media outlets most embarrassed by the Mueller report
Mueller's findings largely vindicated serious journalists' work, but outlets from The Nation to Fox News go home limping.
Casey Michel
Apr 24, 2019, 8:00 am
With last week’s release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s partially redacted report on the investigation into Russia’s election interference efforts and possible obstruction of justice, American media outlets that broke the news pertaining to the investigation have been largely vindicated.
But the most telling media misses — the ones that the Mueller report’s finding have blown to pieces — were stories and theories put forward by writers and outlets that exhausted their credibility by downplaying the questions addressed in the report, or who spun their own conspiracy theories in defense of the president.
There were some legitimate reporting efforts on Mueller’s investigations that missed the mark. BuzzFeed wrote incorrectly that President Donald Trump told his former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress for him, and an ABC report claimed incorrectly that former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn said Trump had directly ordered him to contact Russian officials before the election.
But those who attempted to downplay Russian interference efforts have even more egg on their face following the release of the redacted Mueller report. Some of those are individuals like Matt Taibbi, who just a few weeks ago claimed that the media’s coverage of the the Mueller investigations was somehow on par with media coverage of Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction circa 2002-03.
https://thinkprogress.org/the-mueller-report-embarrassed-media-outlets-who-chased-after-russia-conspiracy-theories-dcec8049bbf9/
After reading the articles that the The Nation was publishing is the main reason why I did not renew my subscription and let it expire and I also wrote an email last year telling them of my displeasure, that is not The Nations business model from it's inception or ethos....................................
Justice Ginsburg schools her conservative colleagues on the meaning of the word 'consent'
Source: Think Progress
Gaslighting is not a valid method of statutory interpretation.
Ian Millhiser
Apr 24, 2019, 12:47 pm
The Supreme Court — or, at least, its Republican majority — has an unhealthy obsession with forced arbitration. And, in a decision handed down on Wednesday, the court fed that obsession at the expense of workers throughout the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the case in question, Lamps Plus v. Varela, relies on a definition of the word “consent” so bizarre, it verges on gaslighting. In a rare move, every single Democratic justice wrote a dissent — including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose dissent directly confronts Roberts’ weak understanding of the concept of consent.
Forced arbitration agreements require workers or consumers to sign away their right to sue a company in a real court as a condition of doing business with that company. A customer who refuses to sign would be denied a credit card, a cell phone, or even the ability to check their loved one into a nursing home. And, as the court’s Republican majority held in Epic Systems v. Lewis, a worker can be forced to sign under pain of firing.
Victims of forced arbitration may still bring claims against the company that forced them into the agreement, but these claims must be brought before private arbitrators who are far more favorable to corporate parties than judges. As one study shows, employees are much less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than before a court, and they generally receive far less money when they do prevail.
Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/justice-ginsburg-republican-colleagues-consent-39721c42421e/
This is why we need to take back the Senate and the keep the House and remove the criminal enterprise in the white house......................................
Thank you Justice Ginsburg.....................Thank you..........
Tennessee's Vengeful Lawmakers
After enormous black turnout in the 2018 midterms, Republicans are advancing a bill that would penalize voter registration drives.
By Cliff Albright
April 24, 2019
The Tennessee legislature will soon vote on a bill that is deliberately intended to suppress black turnout, even though Tennessee is among the five states with the lowest voter participation.
The bill in the senate would create some of the most aggressive regulations on large-scale voter registration in the nation — like civil penalties for groups that unintentionally file incomplete voter registration forms. It would impose criminal sanctions on organizers who don’t attend training sessions run by local officials and on groups that fail to mail in voter registration forms in a short 10-day window.
Things like typos and missing entries are inevitable. That’s why there are already checks and balances; the election commission verifies voter information against state databases. This doesn’t create an unmanageable burden on state officials, nor does it require a draconian bill. Why don’t lawmakers make voter registration automatic, instead of making it much more difficult?
This is a clear attack on the successful efforts to mobilize black voters during the 2018 midterm elections. Close to 90,000 black voters were registered by the Tennessee Black Voter Project, led by the activist Tequila Johnson and the Equity Alliance, which partner with my organization, the Black Voters Matter Fund.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/opinion/tennessees-voter-registration-drives.html
And just think the John Roberts right wing libertarian supreme court since he hates voters, he and his clan of libertarian cronies gutted the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, which is to prevent this kinda of crap....................Shelby vs Holder
And now there is state openly attacking voters and registration, ......................
Split 5 to 4, Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Class Arbitrations
Source: New York Times
By Adam Liptak
April 24, 2019
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that workers at a California business could not band together to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data.
The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservative members in the majority.
The decision was the latest in a line of rulings allowing companies to use arbitration provisions to bar both class actions in court and class-wide arbitration proceedings. In earlier 5-to-4 decisions concerning fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the court ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to be resolved one by one.
Those rulings can make it difficult for consumers and workers to pursue minor claims even where their collective harm was substantial.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/supreme-court-class-arbitrations.html
Maybe John Roberts and his fucking clan should reread the Constitution again, but I keep forgetting these fucking Federalist Society assholes don't like the Constitution...................because in the First Amendment We the People have a right to address and petition the government and the court................................not a Federalist Society fucking court, there is no arbitration clause in the Constitution.....................................they, the right wing libertarian federalist society assholes really need to be impeached..........................
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
Criminal Intent.........................
Criminal intent is the conscious decision someone makes to deliberately engage in an unlawful or negligent act, or to harm someone else. There are four specific examples of criminal intent: purposeful, reckless, knowing, and negligent. An act becomes criminal when taking into account the intent of the person who carries it out.
Additionally, acts of criminal intent are measured by their severity, and the punishments for those who commit acts of criminal intent “fit the crime,” so to speak, in that the punishments become harsher as criminal acts become more severe. To explore this concept, consider the following criminal intent definition.
Definition of Criminal Intent
Noun
1. Having the intention to commit a criminal act.
2. The state of mind directing a person’s actions toward an unlawful goal.
What is Criminal Intent
Criminal intent, referred to in the legal world as “mens rea,” refers to an individual’s state of mind at the time he committed a crime. Those with criminal intent are fully aware of what they are about to do and the consequences that their actions can have. For instance, if Paul thinks up a plan for how he is going to murder his wife, and then he fatally shoots her, Paul is operating with criminal intent because he knows that murder is wrong, yet he plans the act, and ultimately commits it anyway.
Criminal intent can be classified as one of four different kinds of acts: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent. Criminal acts that are done purposefully are those that are carried out by someone who is fully aware of the consequences his actions can cause, such as the murder example provided above. Criminal intent is a necessary component in prosecuting a crime. If criminal intent does not exist, then it stands to reason that the crime that was committed cannot possibly be considered criminal in nature.
https://legaldictionary.net/criminal-intent/
If anyone thinks that this "corrupt criminal intent organization" in the white house and others that are enabling this crap.........................should be let go...........................and that there should be no consequences for ones actions ....................then think of this................ this asshole "said" that he could stand on fifth avenue and murder someone and nobody would care (paraphrased), because when he said that .........................that was criminal intent, even if the act was not carried out.......................and everything that has transpired prior and after this means that he and everyone in that white house are guilty by association, because they know, some of them what is right and what is wrong, and he should be IMPEACHED...................and charged.........................it is about Principles......................
And it is getting tiring hearing the talking heads ask some stupid question if the democrats should Impeach or not.......................it is about how someone in the white house and his entire life and family have been in the act of "CRIMINAL INTENT"..................their entire life.........................you have someone that wanted his counsel and others to commit subornation of perjury........................that is "CRIMINAL INTENT"
And the media is trying their f***ing best to turn this into a ratings game..........................this is not some game......................this is a constitutional crises........................what are the democrats going to do what are they not going to do, my f***ing question is why not ask the f***ing republican senate, since you (they) have this power ....................do you condone, this type of bullshit.....................yes or no, and if they try to deflect some cockamamie answer , ask, again, do you condone this action of criminality, yes or no .......................and this jerk in my opinion had this intent............................................... 
Lawrence's Last Word: President Donald Trump's Lost Lie The Last Word MSNBC
Fuck You trump.........................I worked on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11..........................
I really want you to name one person that "you" know that died on that day, name one and the thousands of people that also lost jobs because of that shit.........................POS...................
And as for the NYT........................do your job.............................this asshole (trump) wants to take away Constitutional right..........................
'Boo-hoo!': Ex-DOJ official mocks Trump aides fearing the president's wrath as the Mueller report lo
Mathew Miller nails it..........................BOO HOO..................
Andrew Sullivan loses it over Malcolm Nance in MSNBC meltdown
Hey Andrew can I call you Andrew..........................go pound sand, did you by some chance read his book, don't you belong to a News organization that keeps giving trump a pass on 9/11.......................go fucking figure
And why your given airtime is absolutely amazing with your right wing fucking shit.......................Malcolm Nance has more credibility than some jerk, that spouts off right wing fucking talking points, why don't you and him have debate on the tweety show, and have tweety not say one word, since he (tweety) has no clue who Nance is.................what a disgrace for a what is called a journalist, and then having Micheal Steele looking like jerk sitting there making his consulting fees of BS .......................................
Trump to the Hungry: 'Let Them Eat ... Whatever'
Republican Work-for-Food-Stamps Plan Could Force 750,000 Americans Out of the Anti-Poverty Program
By Terry H. Schwadron, DCReport New York Editor
The federal Department of Agriculture program pushed by the White House to require food stamp recipients to work likely will affect nearly 50,000 New York City residents—and more than 750,000 nationwide, according to a new study by the Mayor’s office in New York.
What passed last year as part of the big farm bill package included a provision that food stamp recipients—a program administered by the Agriculture Department—must be working, in a job training program or actively looking for work if able-bodied individuals without dependent children.
It’s worth looking at the distance between what looks good in Washington and what looks not-so-good on the ground.
Those Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents or “ABAWDs” aged 18 to 49, are limited to three months of food stamp benefits over three years unless they work, volunteer or get job training at least 80 hours a month. As it stands, states can grant individual exemptions or waive time limits in areas of high unemployment or lack of sufficient job openings.
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/04/16/trump-to-the-hungry-let-them-eat-whatever/
November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough..........................
Profile Information
Member since: Fri May 30, 2014, 03:30 PMNumber of posts: 24,695
