Sotomayor and the Ricci Case

The Supreme Court handed down a major decision a few days ago that pertains to Title VII and racial discrimination. The case, Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al., has been getting a lot of press. The case can be found here. It is a long one, at 93 pages, so I will forgive you if you don't read it. Scotusblog has one of the more objective views of the case and summarizes the main points and holdings. The Court has long held that any kind of race-based selection criteria will not be allowed unless there is a substantial amount of evidence that it is necessary to remedy a past discrimination. In applying this to the Ricci case, they said an employer may not refuse to hire or promote whites unless the criteria is skewed against minorities and they are at risk of being sued. In this case, the Court felt that the fire department did not meet this criteria.

Volokh has some good analyses here and here. The second article is especially interesting, in that it uses this case to refute the notion that the Roberts Court is pro-business. Another factor that has popped up is how this will influence the Sotomayor nomination. She was part of the 2nd Circuit Panel that was overturned by the Supreme Court. One complaint is that panel she was part of initially wanted to dispose of this case with an unpublished, unsigned summary order. Eventually, they settled on a one paragraph opinion. The fact that the Supreme Court had such a difficult time with this issue (in both the majority and dissenting opinions) suggests that it may not have been the no-brainer that Sotomayor's panel thought it was.

That being said, there are plenty of legal scholars that support her position and 4 of the liberal Justices agreed with her. She has not really surprised anyone here. I think her lack of analysis on this issue isn't good, but it doesn't rise to the level of a disqualification. It would be different if this was part of a pattern, but I don't think it is. Obama has the votes in the Senate to get this nomination through. Unless it is discovered that she has been taking trips with Gov. Sanford, I think it is inevitable that she will be on the Court.

Read more...

27 Bottles of Beer

Local watering hole Crunchy's is committed to beer. Good beer.There was a time (and still sort of is) when you could buy cheap beer by the bucket at Crunchy's. I don't mean a "bucket of beer" like you get at those crappy mega-chain restaurants, which is a small bucket filled with ice and 6 or so bottles. That's not a Crunchy's-style bucket. A Crunchy's, you got a 3 gallon bucket filled with beer, and a couple of pitchers. Their rule was that you had to have at least 2 people in order to get a bucket of beer. A 3 gallon bucket of beer.

It was also only stuff like Busch or Bud Lite, but a bucket of Guinness would be prohibitively expensive. But lately, Crunchy's has lent over some of their taps and fridge space to great craft beer from around the country.

July has been declared Michigan Craft Beer Month in honor of Michigan's 75+ breweries. To celebrate, Crunchy's is doing something special. At 12:01 on July 1, Crunchy's is switching 27 taps over to Michigan beers. Apparently, their list will include:

Bell’s- Lager of the Lakes
Bell’s- Oberon
Bell’s- Pool side
Bell’s- Oarsman
Arcadia- Purple Haze
Arcadia- Hop Rocket
New Holland- Dragon’s Milk
New Holland- Golden Cap
Short’s- Huma-Lupa-Licious
Short’s-Magician
Dark Horse- Boffo Brown
Dark Horse- Double Crooked Tree
Dragon Mead- Final Absolution
Kuhnhenn Bothers- Simco Silly
Arbor-Milestone Porter
King- Mocha Java
Atwater- D-Light
Atwater- Dirty Blonde
Motor City- Ghettoblaster
Founder’s- Cerise
Founder’s- Double Trouble
MBC-
Hideout- Nitro Hazelnut Stout
Mt. Pleasant- Second Wind Wheat
Sherwood- Mistress Jades Hemp Ale
Black Lotus-
The Livery- The Jak
Firkin: The Livery- Double Hopped Maillot Jaune

On top of that, the Bells Poolside Cherry Wheat Ale and Oarsmen Sour Ale listed above are exclusive Bell's releases that were formerly only available at the brewery in Kalamazoo.

It is so vitally important for Michigan pubs to carry Michigan beer; many of these breweries can't compete with shelf space in stores against BudMillerCoors or InBev, and more don't even try. So when popular bars like Crunchy's highlight Michigan beer, a whole new audience gets to experience great craft beer.

On June 30/July 1, I know where I'll be parked.

Read more...

Nerds Versus Jocks

If you didn't see it, Author/Actor/Humorist John Hodgman gave the keynote address at Friday night’s Radio & Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner. He used it as a forum to discuss the age-old conflict: that between jocks and nerds.

As much as I like to think of myself as a jock...I understood way too many of Hodgman's references. Oh well.

Part 1:
And part 2:I love Hodgman. I think he's one of The Daily Show's funniest commentators. He has also written two of the funniest books I've read: The Areas of My Expertise and More Information Than You Require. He's appeared numerous times on NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me as well as on general interviews. It's unfortunate that most people only know him for his PC/Mac commercials.

And don't be shy. Admit it: you get all his references. Nerd.

Read more...

A Small 2nd Amendment Victory

A federal court in Utah issued a ruling that is mostly favorable to the 2nd and will hopefully be followed by other courts. The Volokh article gives a good, detailed explanation, but I will try to summarize it. Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of any kind of domestic assault from ever possessing a firearm. In this case, the defendant, following a "domestic dispute", was charged with violating this law. It is important to note that, while not a sterling character, he had no history of violence with a gun, nor was there any evidence that he ever even fired his gun.

The court said a few important things:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of individuals to keep and bear arms. That right may only be infringed when the restriction is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

Basically, they said that a law that deals with the 2nd triggers strict scrutiny. This has not been the case up until now. They also said:

If you find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge against him, as set forth in Jury Instruction Number ____, regarding Count I, you are instructed that Defendant is presumed to pose a prospective risk of violence. However, Defendant is entitled to offer evidence to rebut that presumption and show that he did not pose a prospective risk of violence. It is the burden of the Defendant to prove to you, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not pose a prospective risk of violence.

This is part of what they said would be part of the jury instructions. They will allow the defendant to use this non-risk of violence as an affirmative defense. In other words, if the defendant is able to show that he is not at risk for hariming someone with a gun, then he will be found not guilty of violating the gun possession law. Without this, if he is found (beyond a reasonable doubt) of possessing a gun, he would be guilty.

I think this is a reasonable rule. At first glance, it is hard to argue that domestic abusers should be allowed to have guns, but that rule isn't always far and people should be allowed to challenge it under certain conditions. Let's say that a 19 year old is convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), they would never be allowed to ever legally possess a gun. It doesn't matter what kind of life they have lived or how much time has elapsed. It is a lifetime ban. People should be offered some mechanism to challenge the ban and show that they are no longer dangerous.

Read more...

Free Iran

Discuss.

Read more...

But Some of My Best Friends Are Black

It's a few days old now, but ATK-haunter John R sent me an email link to Wonkette. In this particular post, she highlighted some emails from Republican offices in Washington that she has subjectively branded as "racist."

Gotta say, I'd pretty well brand it that way too.

The point that I see is that it will be difficult for Republicans in the future to attract and retain minorities in their own party when so many people in leadership roles keep sending out racist stuff. You can't say you're not a racist and then send out pictures like the one at the top of this Wonkette post. From Newscoma on the picture in question: "When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth [the staffer who sent the picture]would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people." Seriously...you're sorry you sent it to the wrong list? Not sorry for being an asshole. Not sorry for offending the entire black caucus. Not sorry for a tasteless joke. No, sorry only that you meant to send it to your other dickhead friends, but hit the wrong button.

Then there's the South Carolina GOP Senate candidate who said, in a comment on a Facebook post of an escaped gorilla "I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors — probably harmless..."[meaning Michelle Obama]. He later apologized "if" he offended anyone.

In fact, Wonkette has a whole collection of various email gaffes here. Click the link, as otherwise I would be here all day copying what she has already done. To quote:

So, we’ve had the GOP county leader gal who sent out the “Obama Bucks” watermelon-chicken food stamps, the Southern California suburban Republican mayor who sent out the hilarious White House-watermelon garden email, the Florida state committee-woman GOP gal who sent out that “So how did black people travel in airplanes to Obama’s inauguration when they couldn’t get out of New Orleans during Katrina?” email comedy, the Republican mayor in South Carolina forwarding his “just out of curiosity” musings about the Muslim Barack Obama being maybe a character in the Bible (the Devil, in fact), and the Republican mayor of some Georgia town typing a hilarious Facebook status message suggesting Barack Obama should give the Queen of England some typical black-person snacks such as cigarettes and malt liquor.

The paragraph above is actually full of links, and if I get a chance I'll fill them all back in as well. Or, just go to the link above the quote and check it out yourself.

One of my favorite "excuses" from a linked article was how a local GOP leader was that "she doesn’t think in racist terms, pointing out she once supported Republican Alan Keyes."

Look. The face of the party simply cannot change when even people in leadership positions, local and national, act like insane racists. How "log cabin" Republicans have stuck around is a bit of a mystery to me. But this is the kind of shit that chases everyone else away.

Read more...

I'll say what ever I want around my %*&$ing kids!!!

In an effort to find something slightly more interesting than a low level Obama appointment, I stumbled upon a story from Volokh on a New Jersey law that says abuse of a child can consist of:

the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language.

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9-6-1

New Jersey is the home to many stupid laws, but this one seems to have a great deal of potential for abuse. While I generally think that parents shouldn't use naughty language around their kids, is this something we want to criminalize?

Read more...