Mediaboss Marketing

Under current federal law, only men are required to register for the draft. The Supreme Court upheld 50 U.S.C. 3802(a) inRostker v. Goldberg (1981). At the time, women could not serve in combat roles. But in 2016, the Obama Administration allowed women to participate in combat roles. Subsequently, the National Coalition for Men challenged the federal law as a violation of the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment. In 2019, a federal district court judge in Houston declared the policy unconstitutional. But in 2020, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court's judgment "directly contradicts" Rostker.

The National Coalition for Men filed a cert petition on January 8. The SG's response was due on February 11. Acting SG Prelogar sought a one month extension.

This extension is requested to complete preparation of the government's response, which was delayed because of the heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter.

One month later, the Acting SG requested another extension:

This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for preparation of the government's response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.

What is going on here? Adam Liptak suggests that change may be afoot:

The Trump administration defended differing registration requirements in the appeals court. The Biden administration has twice sought extra time to respond to the petition seeking Supreme Court review in the case,National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, No. 20-928, and its brief is now due on April 14.

It is possible that the Biden Administration will agree with the petitioners and decline to defend the constitutionality of the statute. This move would echo the Obama administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor. In both cases, these laws did not run afoul of any Supreme Court precedent. Rather, subsequent practices (arguably) cast doubt on the validity of past precedents. Lower courts cannot anticipatory disregard Supreme Court precedents, but the executive branch apparently can.

But there would be one significant difference between this case, andWindsor. In 2011, the House was controlled by Republicans. As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) retained Paul Clement to intervene in the case. Now, both houses are controlled by Democrats. If DOJ sends a 530(d) notification to Congress, and there is no majority to defend the statyute, what happens? In my view, the case would be over, as there is no adversity. The federal law would not be enforced by the current administrations, but the next administration could resume enforcing it. (Good luck with rescinding millions of female registrations). Or, the Court could keep the case alive by appointing an amicus. (Hell, make it Paul Clement for nostalgia's sake. Though, this case arose from the 5th Circuit, so we would likely see a CT clerk.) And if the Court upholds the statute, the Biden administration would have to continue enforcing the regime.

Of course, Congress could also repeal this statute. But that move would require political accountability. It is much easier to decline to defend a law, and let it fall into desuetude.

The Acting SG will soon have to make another difficult decision. The Court granted review inUS v. Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon bombing case. President Biden has stated he opposes the death penalty. Adam Liptak reports:

After the appeals court ruling, lawyers for the federal government during the Trump administrationurged the Supreme Courtto hear the case.

The case presents President Biden with an early test of his stated opposition to capital punishment. Were the administration to decide not to pursue the death penalty against Mr. Tsarnaev, the Supreme Court case would become moot.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, answered generally when asked about how Mr. Biden would approach the case.

"He has grave concerns about whether capital punishment as currently implemented is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness," Ms. Psaki said at a press briefing on Monday. "He has also expressed his horror at the events of that day and Tsarnaev's actions."

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Will his SG defend the death penalty sentence below? If he doesn't, then presumably DOJ would have to take the same position in all pending federal cases involving the death penalty. And these decisions would be final. If Biden no longer seeks the death penalty against Tsarnaev, I don't think a future President could seek to reimpose that sentence.

Yesterday, I observed that the decision to appoint an SG is extremely important. These two cases illustrate the high stakes.

See the rest here:
What will the SG do in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System? - Reason

The University of Southern California has reached a record $852 million settlement with more than 700 women who accused a former gynecologist on campus of sexually abusing them as patients and the prestigious school of trying to cover it up, attorneys said on Thursday.

The law firm representing many of the women in the case said the payout agreed to by USC and the plaintiffs marked the largest sexual abuse settlement with a university and the biggest personal injury payout by any college or university in US history.

The deal, resolving lawsuits brought by 710 women in California state court, stems from allegations against George Tyndall, who practised at USC for nearly 30 years before the private, Los Angeles-based university suspended him in 2016, then allowed him to quietly retire without immediately reporting him to the state medical board.

A separate $215 million settlement of a federal class-action case in 2018 and a more recent $50 million cluster of individual state court settlements brings the total payout USC has agreed to pay in the Tyndall scandal to $1.1 billion.

No further civil claims are outstanding.

Tyndall, who has denied wrongdoing, lost his medical license and has been charged with sexually assaulting 21 patients under the guise of gynecological treatment or exams. He has pleaded not guilty to 35 felony counts and remains free on bail. No trial date has been set.

His civil defence lawyer was not immediately available for comment.

Tyndall was technically a party to the USC settlement but lacks any funds to contribute, Vince Finaldi, a lead plaintiffs lawyer and negotiator of the deal, told Reuters.

The former physician, now in his 70s, was deposed for the civil litigation but invoked his Fifth Amendment right under the US constitution to avoid self-incrimination, Mr Finaldi said.

The flood of lawsuits brought by former patients against Tyndall and USC accused the university of negligence and complicity, asserting school officials were aware of his misconduct for years but kept him in a position to continue preying on students placed in his care.

The enormous size of this settlement speaks to the immense harm done to our clients and the culpability of USC, plaintiffs attorney John Manley said in a statement. It is a direct result of a billionaire-dominated Board of Trustees that placed fundraising, prestige and the USC Brand above the safety of vulnerable female students.

Widespread faculty and student outrage over the universitys handling of the matter after allegations against Tyndall surfaced in media accounts in 2018 led then-USC president CL Max Nikias to resign.

The scandal even prompted the Chinese government to voice deep concern over published reports that many of the alleged victims were students from China.

The USC Board of Trustees ratified Thursdays settlement, which the university said was reached with assistance from a private mediator and a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge.

Im deeply sorry for the pain experienced by these valued members of the USC community, USCs current president, Carol Folt, said in a statement. We appreciate the courage of all who came forward and hope this much-needed resolution provides some relief to the women abused by George Tyndall.

University officials have previously acknowledged failing to act on a number of complaints made against Tyndall between 2000 and 2014 but denied a deliberate cover-up.

Trustees Chair Rick Caruso, named to head the board after the scandal came to light, conceded on Thursday that the university fell short by not doing everything it could to protect those who matter to us most our students.

Individual payouts in the latest settlement would likely range from mid-six-figure sums to millions of dollars, Mr Finaldi said.

The USC settlement far exceeds the $500 million payout agreed to by Michigan State University to resolve civil claims stemming from allegations of serial sexual abuse leveled against Larry Nassar, a former USA Gymnastics team doctor on the schools staff.

Nassar was sentenced to up to 300 years in prison in a pair of 2018 trials after more than 350 women testified of abuse at his hands.

By comparison, the Los Angeles Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church paid out $660 million in 2007 to 508 victims of sex abuse by multiple members of the clergy. Reuters

See the article here:
US university to pay $1.1bn to women abused by former gynecologist - The Irish Times

A defense attorney filed a motion this week attempting to keep a jury from hearing an alleged confession of a woman who is accused of helping her boyfriend cover up the murder of a 20-year-old Fort Hood soldier almost a year ago.

Cecily Aguilar, 22, was being held without bond in the McLennan County Jail on Thursday. She is accused of helping Army Spc. Aaron Robinson, 20, dispose of the body of Vanessa Guillen after he had killed her with a hammer on April 22, 2020, according to a federal criminal complaint.

Spc. Aaron David Robinson is the man who took his own life while being a suspect in the disappearance of Spc. Vanessa Guillen, Fort Hood officials said.

During a hearing next month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske is set to rule on a 16-page motion to suppress that was filed by Aguilars defense attorney on Wednesday.

According to the motion, Aguilar made statements during an interview with police on June 30, 2020, without being advised of her Miranda rights, which would be a violation of her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The officers did not provide Aguilar (with) Miranda warnings until after three hours of questioning, the motion reads. Instead, they encouraged her to tell them about the alleged crime in order to help herself, without ever informing her that what she said could be used against her in court

Aguilars defense attorney claims that her Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure were violated before the statements were made, when police performed a traffic stop on a vehicle in which she was a passenger.

The detention morphed into an arrest. (The traffic stop) was not supported by a warrant or reasonable suspicion, according to the motion. Any evidence obtained from the illegal seizures and fruits therefrom should be suppressed.

A hearing on the motion to suppress will be held on April 27 at the federal courthouse in Waco.

Aguilar pleaded not guilty on July 14, 2020, to one count of conspiracy to tamper with evidence and two substantive counts of tampering with evidence. If convicted, she faces up to 20 years in federal prison for each count, according to the U.S. Attorneys Office, Western District of Texas.

So far, four trial dates most recently for March 8 have been set in her case. As of Thursday, no new trial date has been set.

Vanessa Guillen case

The case dates back 11 months. Guillen was reported missing on April 23, 2020.

Months later, on June 30, 2020, her remains were discovered by contractors working along the Leon River near Belton.

The criminal complaint alleges that Robinson murdered Guillen on April 22, 2020, with a hammer and that Aguilar helped him attempt to dispose of the body.

Robinson died on July 1, 2020, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound after he was confronted by Killeen police, officials said.

Aguilar initially lied to police to cover for Robinson, but later helped investigators by letting them record several phone conversations with him, according to the complaint.

Link:
Lawyer tries to throw out confession of Killeen woman charged in Vanessa Guillen case - The Killeen Daily Herald

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Legislators can't be the sole arbiters of what can be said and what cannot. So, some of this is on us.

Author of the article:

Well no, not here. Not in my city. And no one helped him out? How can this be? I suspect my reaction to the news of a recent attack on a man of Asian descent, while he was walking in the Plateau, was similar to that of many other Montrealers. We like to think were better than elsewhere, but all too often, what plagues other metropolises is also pestilent here. As in other corners of North America, racism targeting Asians is alive and well in the city.

Donald Trump might have never been our president, but he had and continues to have fans here. At recent anti-vaxx and anti-restrictions protests in the streets of Montreal, Trump-branded material from flags to tuques to shirts could be seen on demonstrators. That the former presidents hateful rhetoric reverberates here is no surprise, considering how loudly he shouted it. That his nicknaming the current pandemic after China would fuel a continuously increasing number of attacks against members of Asian communities was as predictable as the attack on the Capitol last January, even if many refuse to recognize it.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Words matter and have influence. The Karens-of-the north, the racists who roam our streets and the trolls on our triple-Ws mostly get their cues from those with the largest of pulpits like the Trumps of this world, yes. But also from some of our own media hosts, pundits and columnists. When will they be held accountable for their racist and derogatory innuendos?

According to Section 319 (1) of Canadas criminal code, everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction. But beyond what is legally considered to be hate speech, there is much that we as a collectivity can consider objectionable and harmful. And legislators cant be the sole arbiters of what can be said and what cannot. So, some of this is on us, as the risk that comes with government-appointed committees to study what is offensive and consequential is that they could, above all, be guided by politics.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We can set the tone of what well tolerate and what is intolerable while remembering that the rights of one minority cant matter more than those of another, both inside and outside of university walls. And as that collective, were not incapable of nuance, though, at times, it feels like weve forgotten what that is.

Today, when those on public platforms are called out for inappropriate comments relating to race or gender many who have been getting away with it for years will be quick to cry cancel culture, a now ubiquitous term that has been misused mostly by those who have been anything but cancelled. CNNs Brian Stelter refers to it as consequence culture instead, and I adhere to that way of thinking.

Eleven years ago this week, American right-wing pundit and religious supremacist Ann Coulter, who attacks not only ideas with which she disagrees, but the people who hold them in the vilest of ways, was to speak at a university in Ottawa. Following some opposition and security concerns, the event was cancelled. However, Coulter never was, as evidenced by the fact that over a decade later, she still has plenty of platforms to share her abject verbiage. But at least on that day in 2010, she wouldnt profit from vitriol. At that moment, away from governmental intervention, a tone was set as many citizens decided that well, no, not there. Not in their city. Its a good reminder of both the power that we have and also, of the responsibility.

Martine St-Victor is a communications strategist and media commentator based in Montreal. Instagram and Twitter: martinemontreal

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Montreal Gazette, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Montreal Gazette Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Excerpt from:
Martine St-Victor: In the battle against hate, we've got the power - Montreal Gazette

The right to vote isn't a right at all, but rather a privilege that should be reserved only for those "equipped to take part in the process," writes Matt Walsh, a 27-year-old, far-right talk-show host and blogger, at the Daily Wire this week.

Walsh normally would not merit a flicker of attention from normal humans. But in this case, he has provided a valuable service to the non-wingnut world by saying openly what fellow voter suppressors are only thinking. Or perhaps whispering amongst themselves.

"No It Isn't Easier To Buy A Gun Than Vote. But It Should Be," proclaimed the headline above Walsh's Daily Wire blog. Obviously, he relished killing two birds with one stone. Walsh bathed in conservative shock-and-awe. After complaining that guns were more costly to obtain and more restricted than voting rights, he wrote:

"Gun ownership is, after all, a more important and more essential right than voting. Voting is not really a human right at all, but a privilege that ought to be reserved for those who are the most qualified to do it. The ability to defend yourself and your family is fundamental. We all have the God-given right to ensure our own safety and that of our loved ones."

Having drawn the obligatory -- albeit sacrilegious -- connection between God and guns, Walsh delivered the kill shot:

"But determining the political course of the nation is something different. It is not fundamental and should not be opened up to any warm bodied (or even cold bodied, in some cases) person. In an ideal scenario, there would be tests and requirements for voting which rule out the voters who are not equipped to take part in the process and have no business involving themselves in it. That's the way it should be. That's not the way it is."

This was not the first time Walsh has ventured down this verbal dark alley. In June 2019, he tweeted "Every voter should be a taxpayer who can pass an 8th grade civics exam," apparently unconcerned about the tens of millions of Trump votes this would disenfranchise (along with several Trumps).

In a companion tweet, he added, "I absolutely believe certain people should not be allowed to vote. Specifically, ignorant and non-contributing people. There is no benefit whatsoever to their participation. They only cause damage."

This time, the tweet about guns and voting drew an approving response from the infamous Ann Coulter, who emerged from her crypt with this: "You're right. Possible solution: have Registrars in all 50 states mail guns to citizens."

Walsh surely was flattered to his creepy core: To an upstart agitator, Coulter's blessing is bigotry gold.

As with Coulter, gaining attention by provoking rage is Walsh's oxygen. He is best ignored for the most part. But with the Republicans' voter-suppression campaign in full swing, Walsh provided a service this time by exposing its ugly underbelly.

For that, Walsh has earned no angry reaction. Just a thank-you for spelling out the ongoing attack on democracy so succinctly.

Here's Walsh tweet:

See the article here:
Wingnut Matt Walsh says the quiet part out loud -- reveals how conservatives really feel about voters - Raw Story