| |
|
|
April 6 · Issue #11 · View online
Legal news everyone should know
|
|
|
Someone unsubscribed after the last issue, but hey, we don’t need ‘em! If you’re thinking of unsubscribing though, maybe send me an email at hi@joeross.me and tell me why. Perhaps something can be worked out. Honest feedback is gold. I don’t just say this out of the blue: the first story I share below, while even-handed, may lose me subscribers from both sides of the isle.
|
|
Republicans go ‘nuclear,’ bust through Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch | Fox News
I keep the political stuff to a minimum, but I had to include this. It’s a trainwreck. Republicans undoubtedly stole the nomination from Merrick Garland, which makes calls by the GOP for Democrats to stop being obstructionist rich in hypocrisy. But then again, there’s plenty of hypocrist in Democratic criticisms of today’s use of the “nuclear option.” After all, they made a similar move in 2013, explicitly eliminating the filibuster for all nominations except the Supreme Court. It was a stupid thing for Democrats to do in 2013 and it’s a stupid thing for Republicans to do in 2017. Why? Because these rules apply to everyone going forward, no matter which party is in power. The lack of foresight and critical thinking the nuclear option displays when any party uses it are staggering, and illustrative of Congress’ toxic tendency to put pettiness and blind party loyalty before the best interests of their constituents.
|
NJ Supreme Court to Decide If Undisclosed Restaurant Drink Prices Can Be Basis of Class-Action Suits | New Jersey Law Journal
Shout-out to my home town: In the Carrabba’s case, plaintiff Ernest Bozzi, a patron at a Maple Shade location of the restaurant, was charged two prices for beer depending on the time of purchase, and claimed he was given no notice of a happy hour discount. Not exactly a riveting read, but hey, it’s home. Oh, and what a stupid class action suit. Yes, that’s my legal opinion.
|
Court: Civil Rights law prohibits discrimination of LGBT
Well, well, looks like we’re headed to the Supreme Court sooner than later: The 8-to-3 decision by the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just three weeks after a three-judge panel in Atlanta ruled the opposite, saying employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. If you ever do spot a coherent argument about why orientation or gender identity aren’t covered under the discrimination prohibition, send it along to hi@joeross.me. I won’t hold my breath. |
Justice Department To Review All Civil Rights Agreements On Police Conduct : The Two-Way : NPR
The argument by Sessions is that the federal government should stay out of state management of state law enforcement. The only problem with that, and it is a massive insurmountable problem, is that these are states which have proven time and again that they cannot hold their errant law enforcement officers or precincts accountable. I agree, if they states do their jobs the feds should stay out of it. But the states haven’t done their jobs in the cases where a Consent Order was issued, so the feds had to step. Civil rights should win over states’ rights every single time.
|
|
Did you enjoy this issue?
|
|
|
|
In order to unsubscribe, click here.
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
