THIRD TIME IS NOT THE CHARM FOR TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN | Is SCOTUS Responsible For America’s Sexual Harassment Crisis?
October 18, 2017
WHAT'S THAT SAYING ABOUT THREE STRIKES?|
The president’s travel ban just hit yet another major road block. The policy is now on its third iteration and bans people entering the U.S. from eight countries. Yesterday, a U.S. federal judge in Hawaii blocked the policy from taking effect saying the new ban has the same problems as a previous version. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE DERRICK WATSON wrote in his ruling that the revised ban “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.” Then, a second U.S. federal judge in Maryland—in a separate challenge—blocked parts of the ban saying the policy as applied to six majority-Muslim countries likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on religious discrimination. He also ruled the ban ran afoul of immigration law.
ALLERGIC TO MATH|
Oliver Roeder with FiveThirtyEight thinks SCOTUS might have a serious aversion to math writing, “The Supreme Court does not compute. Or at least some of its members would rather not. The justices, the most powerful jurists in the land, seem to have a reluctance — even an allergy — to taking math and statistics seriously.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE|
The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times is calling the Supreme Court’s decision last year on political corruption bad for business, and bad for democracy. It’s possible that SENATOR BOB MENENDEZ could stand to benefit from this SCOTUS ruling and LAT thinks that’s no bueno. “Fortunately, the Supreme Court does not have to be the last word on this subject. Congress could revise federal bribery statutes to clarify that an ‘official act’ is any action that a public official does by virtue of his office — including the convening of meetings, contacts with bureaucrats and the making of introductions — and that engaging in such acts on behalf of individuals who ply you with cash or gifts is a crime.”
Who’s to blame for America’s sexual harassment nightmare? Well, the Supreme Court for one, according to Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. He writes, “Many companies would prefer to stay ignorant of toxic sexism, and the Supreme Court has made it too easy for them to do so. But companies are free to go beyond the requirements of the law. There is a sexual harassment crisis in America. Every employer in this country should assume that crisis extends to their own workplace until they can prove that it does not.”
SCOTUS VIEWSThe Hill
“To say McConnell has done ‘nothing’ to further a conservative agenda is not only unfair but also untrue. I’ll brace for the ‘establishment’ label to be hurled my way, despite my own rallying with tea party groups. Without Mitch McConnell, Merrick Garland would likely be sitting on the Supreme Court, not President Trump’s choice of Neil Gorsuch.”The New York Times
“How we resolve this issue will shape privacy, security, the economy and the very future of the internet for years to come. The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case is a clarion call for Congressional action.”
OTHER NEWSThe Washington Post
“It’s a question used to trick schoolkids the nation over: Is the tomato actually a fruit or vegetable? Botanically, it’s a fruit. But legally, it’s not. And the origins of that discrepancy lie in a 19th-century Supreme Court case so obscure, many tomato experts aren’t even aware of it.”The Associated Press
“Is Facebook friendship a reason to disqualify a judge? A Florida law firm is asking the state Supreme Court if a judge should be disqualified from hearing a case because he’s Facebook friends with an attorney appearing before him.”