Contains the same annotations found in U. An index to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears at the end of the volume containing those rules. Lexis Located after the Title 50 volumes of U. Located at the end of the volume containing Title This official source includes the text of the rules and advisory committee notes, but does not provide case annotations.
These guides may be used for educational purposes, as long as proper credit is given. Rochford, F. Area Military Project v. City of Chi. City of Oakland, F. Wolke, F. Griffin, F. Engelhardt, F. Port of N. As such, Jews for Jesus posed the question of what type of forum, if any, are the areas of a public airport that are open to the general public. Enactment of Resolution No.
Though I was attending a Baptist college at the time, I came from a Jewish family. Born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, my Jewish heritage played an important role in my life, and I entered my Christian college with the notion that I could disprove any idea that Jesus was the Messiah.
Listening to the choir on that February night, however, was the culmination of a journey that led me to believe that Jesus was indeed the Jewish Messiah. This young evangelical organization had an impact on my personal life—a lasting impact that motivates and inspires all I do. Little did I know that, in less than a decade, Jews for Jesus would again influence my career by igniting the start of a life-long vocation of fighting to protect religious liberties.
RUTH A. Free exercise claims raised outside the context of unemployment benefits had limited success before the Supreme Court,66 while reliance upon the Free Speech Clause provided an opportunity to reinforce the idea that religious speakers stand on equal footing with non-religious speakers in the use of public property. Jews for Jesus asked me to represent them in the case. During the almost ten years that had gone by since my first encounter with Jews for Jesus as a young college student, I had stayed in touch with the organization and eventually joined its board of directors.
After receiving my law degree from Mercer Law School in , I worked as a trial attorney for the Internal Revenue Service before opening a successful tax law practice in Atlanta, Georgia. I told Jews for Jesus to get a lawyer in Los Angeles since the case would not likely go far considering that every court to address the issue had decided that airports are appropriate for evangelism. While others kept telling me that they believed God wanted me to take the case, I remained resolved in my decision and focused on my Atlanta practice and business ventures.
Roy, U. Weinberger, U. Lee, U. United States, U. But see McDaniel v. Paty, U. Yoder, U. The district court held that the Resolution was unconstitutional on its face and did not address the other two arguments. First Amendment activity cannot be banned at LAX. Jews for Jesus, F. Review by the Supreme Court is rare, and a grant of certiorari often bodes well for the losing side at the lower court. At that time, my own practice had taken an unforeseen turn for the worse.
Changes to the tax code contributed to the closure of my young practice and the evaporation of my construction business. Three hundred employees lost their jobs, and my family lost everything, including our home. I finally got the message. In , I became general counsel for Jews for Jesus, and I spent the next six months preparing for my encounter with the Supreme Court. Jews for Jesus presented the Court with three questions: 1 Was the Resolution an impermissible regulation of a forum; 2 Did the Resolution provide impermissible enforcement discretion, making it an improper prior restraint; and 3 Did the Resolution authorize impermissible content and religious discrimination?
To the contrary, the record clearly shows the compatibility of the expressive First Amendment activities with the operation of the airport at LAX. I made sure to arrive early, and I lowered the courtroom podium to allow the nine Justices to see my fivefoot, seven and a half-inch frame without me having to stand on tip-toes for the entirety of my argument. After six months of preparation, I knew that my time before the Court would be brief and intense.
Before the arguments began, I looked at the back row and saw my friends and family who were there in support of me and Jews for Jesus. Most important to me was seeing the support of my wife, Pam, and my parents who were also present. When the nine Justices walked into the courtroom, they began the proceedings by announcing their verdicts in previous cases.
City of Los Angeles versus Jews for Jesus and others. James Kapel, arguing on behalf of the Board, was the first to present arguments. When we met, I asked him why the Board had bothered to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court. As Kapel shrugged in response, what I perceived as his rationale was an indictment of me and all American Christians. From our conversation, I gathered that the Board never thought that Christians would put up a fight.
The Board members wanted to test a regulation, and they thought they had found an easy target in Christians who would do little more than fold their hands and fret. Well, we had shown them that we were willing to fight, that we were confident in our rights, and that we were willing to defend those rights in the highest court of the land. Kapel began by arguing that the Resolution was a permissible regulation of speech in a non-public forum. However, the record in this case is clear. There is no justification for a sweeping ban on First Amendment activities which would subordinate cherished First Amendment freedoms.
In fact, four circuit courts and numerous district courts have determined that airport terminals are public fora. That was all of my prepared argument I got to share. A question from the Chief Justice cut short my intention of launching into a speech. LEXIS The first half of the questions dealt with the forum status of the terminals at LAX.
Looking back, I probably was a little rude—I cut off the Chief Justice in the middle of one of his questions! Having been cut off in the middle of my opening, I felt determined to deliver my closing with the two minutes I had remaining. Though I have been able to finely tune my style of delivery before the Supreme Court after much practice, I still find that the aggression—or passion—behind the argument empowers it by giving it purpose and by engaging the heart of the listener.
I had determination to prove that Christians not only cherished their religious freedoms, they could also fight for those freedoms with a passion. As I left the courtroom that day, I felt both a huge sense of relief and confidence. I had just survived the most intense thirty minutes of my life, and I believed that our arguments had withstood scrutiny. Little did I know that this would be the first of many such trips to the Court.
For now, I was just glad that the arguments were over, and I prepared to play the waiting game over the next few months before the Court announced its decision. On June 15, , I called the Supreme Court from a payphone in Chicago to check the status of the case there was no remote electronic access to case dockets in The clerk said that a unanimous decision had been reached in favor of Jews for Jesus.
Christians, in their defense against encroachment of their religious free speech, had not only fought back—they had won! The win was not only significant for defending free speech for Christians, but also for all those desiring to share their message on public property. The resolution does not merely regulate expressive activity in the [CTA] that might create problems such as congestion or the disruption of the activities of those who use LAX. The resolution. The line between airportrelated speech and nonairport-related speech is, at best, murky.
In essence, the result of this vague limiting construction would be to give LAX officials alone the power to decide in the first instance whether a given activity is airport related. In short, the decision was a major victory for all groups and individuals that seek to share a religious, political, or other message through the time-tested means of distributing literature to passersby on public property. City of New Orleans, U. Although much has changed in American law and culture since , the decision in Jews for Jesus continues to have an impact.
The airports of the s and s, which were often widely open to, and visited by, countless members of the general public who had no travel-related business for activities like shopping, exercise, and meals, seem like a distant memory. The vast majority of the terminals and common areas of most modern airports are limited to ticketed passengers and those who work at the airport in some capacity, and Jews for Jesus does not guarantee non-passengers a right to enter these restricted areas for speech purposes.
Additionally, in , the Supreme Court held that public airport terminals are non-public fora,99 giving the government broader leeway to restrict speech there than in a traditional public forum. A key principle of Jews for Jesus, however, is that government officials cannot exercise arbitrary discretion to decide that some types of speech, but not others, will be permitted on its property under overbroad or vague statutes or rules.
For instance, courts considering various factual circumstances have relied upon or cited Jews for Jesus concerning the doctrine of overbreadth. Stevens, S. Evans, F. City of Seattle, F. Decatur Cnty. Corsones, F. City of Lincoln, F. City of Cumberland, F. Town of Dedham, 43 F.
Bureau of Police, F. City of Tulsa, F. Oakes, U. City of Jackson, F. In any event, the Smith decision signaled a sea change in litigation involving religious individuals or groups seeking to share or exercise their faith, making the Free Exercise Clause effectively irrelevant in many situations. In addition, although Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to bolster free exercise protections, it only See, e. Nationalist Movement, U. Lanier, F. Finan, F.
Last Ghana National Anthem Piano Notesy
City of Redondo Beach, F. Airports Auth. Armory Bd. Verner, U. Mergens, in which I represented a high school student, Bridget Mergens. Kennedy, F. Summum, S. FEC, U. Pro-Choice Network, U. Moriches Union Free Sch. Mergens, U. See Mergens, U. The Court squarely rejected this contention. The Free Speech Clause has proven to be a successful tool for churches and other religious organizations in defending their ability to express their religious viewpoints.
In particular, it continues to impact free speech jurisprudence regarding laws and policies that allow public officials to arbitrarily decide who may, and who may not, use public property to speak. Despite the countless changes that have occurred in American law and society over the past twenty-five years, the recurring conflict between individuals and groups seeking access to various types of public property for speech purposes and those seeking to exclude speakers from those properties ensures that Jews for Jesus and the principles it stands for will continue to remain a fixture of First Amendment jurisprudence.
While much progress has been made in the fight to protect religious freedom and expression since Jews for Jesus, the fight is not over. Governmental entities continue to restrict the use of public facilities by religious organizations, and in some instances courts have permitted the exclusion of organizations seeking to engage in religious speech that is deemed to be religious worship. Milford Cent. Church Evangelistic Ministries v.
Glover, F. We wish to thank Dr. Benjamin Scafidi, Mr. Randy Hicks, Dr. Alan Hawkins, Mr. Chris Gersten, Mr. John Crouch, Mr. Joseph A. Kohm, Jr. David Toberty for their valuable contributions of guidance, research, and review of this Article. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, will be a cost focus of this Article. The CBO projected that one in seven U. Aside from enormous increases in cost, it has remained basically unchanged since its creation in the s. Unaffected by welfare reform. See id. FOR AM. The study and its claims generated reporting.
Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt. Individualism and the rights that stem from that concept are part of the American identity. Individualism is such a fundamental concept that it is endorsed by the courts— especially with regard to the liberty interest of the individual. See L. The number of single parents in America has increased dramatically: The proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from roughly 30 percent.
Family fragmentation occurs when individuals experience domestic breakdown caused by divorce or non-marital childbearing. For women under age 30, more than half of babies are born out of wedlock. A lifestyle once associated with poverty has become mainstream. Recent articles indicate this phenomenon has somewhat set down roots. The family trend of our time is the deinstitutionalization of marriage and the steady disintegration of the mother—father childraising unit.
This trend of family fragmentation is reflected primarily in the high rate of divorce among parents and the growing prevalence of parents who do not marry. No domestic. It reviews basic family-welfare costs and legislative and public-policy initiatives directed at reducing family trend is more threatening to the well-being of our children and to our long-term national security. There is a rich literature on the harm to children or others of non-marital families. Sampson et al. Marriage creates wealth and stability for many sectors of society.
Consulting with influential persons in the field 16 and utilizing almost the same measurements and indicators originally used to compile the Report,17 but not being economists, we endeavor to report the facts and any observable difference in law and policy made in these past five years. This Article begins with an explanation in Part I of the research included in this study, giving descriptors and indicators for each expense category calculated.
Part II offers an overview of various available federal, state, and private-sector family-strengthening initiatives. Part III then examines the raw information by state, providing some straightforward analysis of this raw data. Findings are not necessarily prescriptive but seek to highlight the basic policies that states are using to strengthen families, which can result in decreased family fragmentation costs.
Although this brief survey cannot make direct connections, Part IV offers a general analysis as a catalyst for states to appropriately alter policies toward family-strengthening policies. The great expense to states of family fragmentation, whether from divorce or unwed childbearing, reveals that broken families are not simply fixed by providing more federal funding or protecting individual privacy choices but, rather, are a matter of authentic concern for researchers, taxpayers, legislatures, and government officials.
Professor, Ga. June 8, ; E-mail from W. Bradford Wilcox, Assoc. Professor, Univ. The family unit in the law, or, as Professor Janet L. Ironically, this construct of family was actualized most firmly in the United States during the s, just before it was widely challenged by alternative constructs. Professor Dolgin also notes that alternative constructs are based in individual liberty.
Other aspects are forgotten almost completely in deference to the contemporary obsession in the United States with the preservation of liberty and choice. That obsession has apparently led to vast family fragmentation. Wardle et al. Solidarity because the relationship is supportive, helpful, and cooperative; it rests on trust and the other can be trusted. Diffuse because it is not narrowly confined to a specific goal or a specific kind of behavior. Two athletes may cooperate and support each other for the duration of the game and for the purpose of winning the game, but be indifferent to each other otherwise.
Two members of the family cannot be indifferent to one another, and since their cooperation does not have a specific goal or a specific limited time in mind, it is enduring. The United States is apparently not alone in experiencing breakdown through domestic relations law. In an average month that year, nearly 45 million people or one in seven U.
KOHM, supra note 6, at As already discussed, individualism has contributed toward undermining the family. See supra note 6 and accompanying text. Of course, this creates demand for state funds. See infra Part IV. For further discussion of costs associated with government programs, see id. Due to reports that individuals were using EBT benefits at liquor stores, adult businesses, or casinos, the federal government and some states have acted to reduce the possibility of abuse.
In addition, some food stamp recipients unlawfully sell their cards and then request replacements, causing the government to incur even more costs.
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of has left states with the option of choosing whether to opt into the Medicaid expansion program. Sebelius, S. Medicaid expansion would be paid by the federal government for the first several years. With such an expansion, it could cost states more when the number of people receiving Medicaid benefits greatly increases.
In response, several states are weighing their options and have indicated they will not be opting into the program. In considering the cost fluctuations of family fragmentation, we chose to focus on three main programs. Each program has unique requirements and objectives in providing resources for fragmented families. TANF was created by the welfare-reform legislation. SNAP has also become fairly accessible, has grown dramatically over the past four years, and is expected to see substantial growth into The Marriage Index reports and tracks marital stability in the United States.
See INST. Offshoots from the work of the Institute for American Values are numerous and include efforts like the National Marriage Week. The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia in conjunction with the Institute for American Values has put out an annual report that details what is happening with marriage aspects of family fragmentation.
- A Billionaire in Disguise, Books 1-3.
- CASH FLOW: A Practical Guide for the Entrepreneur.
- Gibbons Gables.
- Parade - a short story (Sixteen Seasons Book 10).
- Craft Business: Knitting Books Compilation with 99+ Places To Sell Crafts For Profit Beyond Etsy, Dawanda, Ebay & Pinterest + 50+ Knitting Resources (Ultimate Knitting Compilation Book 2);
Bradford Wilcox ed. Bradford Wilcox et al. The Family Foundation of Virginia has been very active in legislation relating to families and their strength or instability. Hawkins et al. But see Erin K. Holmes et al. Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child.
Casey Foundation, is another private national initiative focusing on child welfare. This Part gives an overview of legislation and public policy initiatives in each state that are directly dedicated to addressing the issue of family fragmentation. This research is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all programs in each state. Rather, this information is offered as a picture of state activity addressing marriage strength, divorce reduction, and needs of fatherabsent households in efforts to tackle family-fragmentation concerns. By virtue of [this assumption], marriage would reduce the costs of some government programs by Put another way, this assumption suggests that family fragmentation is responsible for As the Report clarifies, these costs are conservative and more likely are lower than actual costs.
We use the See infra Table D. Its objectives have been to invest in curricula to target at-risk populations for training in building healthy relationships for strong marriages and strong families. Weaver, supra note See ALA. Although the concept has not created a sustained legislative movement, covenant marriage generally consists of four elements including an oath of lifetime declaration, premarital counseling, pre-divorce counseling, and an extended waiting period for no-fault divorce.
Other states have considered covenant marriage legislation as well. See James L. Alaska In , Alaska touted the federal TANF award to assist families, 95 and it appears the state had some movement to promote a healthymarriage initiative in through its Department of Public Assistance.
We were unable to confirm these efforts and results in our research, which may simply mean the program is not well-publicized yet. Although it is still quite small—working with a few hundred families—its results are so striking that the White House has taken notice. Similarly, the California Family Council is a private, not-for-profit, family-strengthening policy organization.
See H. See infra Table A. See infra Table B. The GFC is a nonprofit research and education organization that engages in family-focused public policy development and advocacy, disseminates information about marriage and families in the media, and develops community coalitions and organizational capacity focused on healthy marriage and relationship educational services.
The GFC leads responsibility for carrying out the project. Atlanta and several surrounding Georgia counties were targeted communities. These types of court-affiliated programs are very likely to produce positive results. See generally Tamara A. Fackrell et al. See infra Table C. It is not clear what factors may have worked to bring about this substantial decrease. These substantial increases may have resulted from TANF decreases, but that connection could not be made for certain from our research.
This very thorough task force report is complete with graphs, charts, statistics, findings, collaboration suggestions, state policy recommendations, and recommendations for the Indiana Family Institute to undertake; it was rendered almost in direct response to the Report and made some pointed suggestions for state government in the face of family fragmentation: We suggest that because the bureaucracy to-date has compartmentalized social service programs and spending to certain committees, commissions, or departments and fiscal policy issues to others.
We also do not adequately see the impact on families and children when we have allowed issues of political correctness to block discussion of one of the most fundamental reasons these programs are necessary: couples who have children do not marry or stay married. It is a costly denial on not just taxpayer wallets but Hoosier hearts. The report proffers that government programs like ACF have operated to further fragmented families.
Iowa The Iowa Family Policy Center, established by the Family Leader, appears to be the only active and relevant initiative in the state and educates in family breakdown. These families were connected to the local police force and local National Guard civil servants. Families Matter! In , Hurricane Katrina forced the program to shut down for over a year. Is [sic] a community demonstration project whose primary objective is to create a program and to continue providing services in the area that supports healthy relationships and healthy marriages, as well as, promote responsible fatherhood which will help ensure youths receive parental emotional support necessary for proper development and the financial support to which they are entitled.
The overall goal is to increase the involvement of fathers and mothers in the emotional development of their children to provide healthier connections with their fathers and reduce the risk of early parenting, poor academic achievement, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency. The debate continues to consume Maine marriage energy. Maryland is currently debating the definition of marriage and its constitutional protection, similar to Maine in For a review of what Maryland is considering regarding marriage in the election, see Kohm, supra note The research of Professor William J.
Doherty at the University of Minnesota has resulted in some important proposed legislation affecting family policy. Paul metropolitan area. The Second Chances Act, legislation to reduce unnecessary divorce and resulting family fragmentation, included three proposals to work toward that objective. It is unclear whether there has been a sustained commitment to these efforts. Awaiting [sic] period is typically a burden placed by the government on people who have already decided to do something, in hopes that they will change their minds.
It is between the government and the individual. In contrast, the early warning and prevention period is mostly a social and legal duty that married people owe to each other, not to the state. Thus it has the potential to move from the statute books into the realm of common law that people carry around in their heads, that they think of as the rules of life. That is our best hope for using the law to influence decisions people make in their private lives, before they come into contact with the legal system. Alteration of modern acceptable divorce structures also includes attempts to restore mutuality to the divorce bargain as a matter of fairness in the contractual dialogue of divorce.
It is disingenuous not to recognize that family law and divorce lawyers tend to profit from family fragmentation, though it is laudable that apparently some though not enough in the Minnesota Bar saw the great public policy benefits to reducing family fragmentation through decreased divorce rates. This should cause one to consider honestly the inherent conflict of interest family law lawyers have with reducing state costs of family fragmentation due to their personal conflicting economic interest in the notions such projects present.
The Minnesota Family Council also advocates family-strengthening public policy. This section was also adopted by the Minnesota Legislature and would have been effective January 1, However, Minnesota Senate Bill S. See S. For a review of what Minnesota is considering regarding same-sex marriage in the election, see Kohm, supra note Public Policy promotes strong family policy initiatives. Therefore, we are building local communities of families across the state with the intention of connecting them through local events and online social media.
Dodge et al. Their collaboration provides support for children and families by fostering integration of public and private services to effectively promote child wellbeing. Family Alliance, Fargo, N. This is a significant decrease that could warrant further study for causal connections with state policy.
The Oklahoma Department of Health and Human Services was part of a state consolidation effort promoting better economic efficiency in state agencies. Hendrick, Okla. Mike Mrowicki, Nov. Fatherhood Conference Sept. OF SOC. Five cities have been targeted for state initiatives integrated with faithbased support for implementation of programs: Richmond, Alexandria, Norfolk, Petersburg, and Roanoke.
This model is designed to assist the state in integrating resources and objectives with faith-based organizations in each city ready to work toward strengthening families and decreasing family fragmentation from father absence in their particular city. Marriage is on the ballot in Washington in See Kohm, supra note The proposed bill failed to pass. The information presented here does not necessarily allow for a cause-and-effect analysis, but states are free to make connections as they deem appropriate and are encouraged to use this information for internal analysis of the effectiveness of various programs.
Although it is unclear whether family initiatives save taxpayer money, it can be safely assumed that the programs outlined here cost very little and are more likely to curb family fragmentation than increase it , which will, in time, save state taxpayer money.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Some general insights, however, can be made. Stunning were the increases in SNAP expenditures over the past five years. Although SNAP is clearly a taxpayer cost of government support for fragmented families, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan links the recent rise in SNAP benefits to high unemployment in a recessed economy and monetary benefits provided under the Stimulus Act.
In difficult economic times, states are obviously forced to make difficult budgetary decisions. Food stamps effectively no longer have an asset test. States have also received waivers from work requirements during the recession for a while, the requirements were waived nationwide by the stimulus law.
As a result, food-stamp participation is now more common among the unemployed. Mulligan, Testing for Need, N. Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Vermont, may have accomplished those results by state budget benefit reductions, but whether there are any links in those decreases to family initiatives would be useful for state policymakers to contemplate.
TANF funds have been used most widely for marriage education. Although research has not revealed definitively whether premarital education is effective, such initiatives are certainly not harmful but are unquestionably helpful and creditable. Cost-effective policies to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce rates are another way states are seeking to decrease the cost of family fragmentation.
It has empowered states to target family-fragmentation concerns unique to their citizenry. Similar to TANF-funded programs that support healthy family initiatives, programs that target WIC recipients for marriage education and resulting marriage benefits can be beneficial.
Because the recipients of WIC funding are pregnant women, mothers, and children, some of the most vulnerable people in the welfare system, marriage initiatives and family-strengthening programs would help to decrease that vulnerability by providing support where it is needed most.
Strengthening and stabilizing the connections between the two programs makes sense. Fawcett et al. Fawcett also noted the need for more longitudinal research. Recognition and understanding of the problem of family fragmentation and its costly results in individual states is half of the battle.
Legislative and policy initiatives, like those in Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia indicate that those states want to be proactive in addressing needs presented by family fragmentation. Private initiatives working to combat family fragmentation are supplemental pieces of the puzzle in that such initiatives prime the pump to begin the process of managing the cultural epidemic of domestic breakdown. These private initiatives inform and inspire the public and provide government accountability.
Most importantly, they work with grass-root efforts in schools, faith-based organizations, and civic organizations to accurately assess and address the individual needs of the community, acting as the boots on the ground. State resources do not necessarily rescue fragmented families, nor do those resources solve the problems presented to the states by family fragmentation. It can support local programs and nonprofit organizations working to reduce early, unwed childbearing through teenpregnancy prevention efforts, family planning, greater opportunities for disadvantaged youth or programs to encourage responsible relationships.
The private and faith-based communities do not have the resources to build the supports needed to strengthen marriage. But working together, government, community and faith-based organizations can reverse the trends that are destroying marriage. The plan outlines an eight-year strategy for government, community, and faith-based organizations to work together to reduce various forms of family fragmentation.
The decline of two-parent families is a potential cause for concern since two-parent families may make more efficient investments in their children. Seen in this light, the expansion of welfare programs during the s may be the key event that made never-married motherhood among economically disadvantaged women possible. Neal targets the key problem with too much reliance on government support for a fragmented family.
The Child Advocacy Practicum offers students at Regent the ability to get firsthand experience working on projects that affect child welfare. Research, Working Paper No. However, once a system of aid was put in place, the drastic decline in the supply of marriageable, less educated, black men may have been the driving force behind the observed changes in family structure among black women.
In short, while the existing literature puts forth government aid to single mothers and shortages of marriageable men as competing explanations for observed changes in observed family structures among black women, these two factors may have worked together over time to shape changes in black family structure. Professor Neal has continued his work in economics of black-white inequality, including African—American family structure. See Derek A.
Likewise, the restoration of the family will take time to accomplish. Reversing the trend must be a part of a long-term societal commitment. Cultural currents combined with expanded individual-focused family law have had devastating results in terms of family strength. In family law, as in family life, the individualistic cultural currents of the past quarter century have eroded the mortar of personal Neal, supra note , at 9 illustrating that the value of being on aid is greater than the value of being single without children.
To probe the assumptions underlying an entire generation of wrenching legal and social change is a daunting task for family law scholarship, if only because those assumptions now seem so widely, even if often uncritically, accepted. Most active among them in family strength initiatives are Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Utah. State governments that have effectively set up frameworks conducive to family strength and personal responsibility work to incentivize both marriage and active fatherhood.
Hafen, supra note 20, at 2—3. This principle of self-government provides a way to establish meaning for the liberty and individual rights that courts struggle to consistently define. We hold that when individuals themselves turn from selfish individualism to a true liberty and freedom in Christ, change and restoration. Although there is no quick fix, staying the course should yield outcomes that will not only strengthen families but will yield future generations of healthier children and, as a result, provide significant savings to taxpayers and states. We also can at least speculate that Winston's lawyers intentionally drafted the complaint this way to ensure that the media noticed and reported the attacks on the plaintiff's character and credibility; the counterclaim allegations otherwise come at the end of the document since new claims always come last in a responsive pleading and thus likely would have been lost.
The question is whether it is worth cost, especially since it has no practical effect beyond media reporting. My guess is that the court was swayed, and will be swayed again, by the fact that the relevant events, and thus witnesses and evidence, are located in Tallahassee. There obviously are common questions of fact to Klinman's claims against both FSU and Winston--the underlying alleged sexual assault and everything surrounding that.
So limited consolidation--for discovery or other pretrial matters, for example--seems clear. The more interesting question is whether the cases could be consolidated for all purposes. Cases can be consolidated for all purposes only if they could have been joined in the first instance, which requires, in addition to the common question, that the claims arise "out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Is it the sexual assaul?
Or is it the botched investigation and the school's alleged failure to enact and enforce Title IX-compliant policies protecting female students against sexual assault on campus. Update: One more thing: The defendant makes several typical, although improper, moves in the answer: 1 Asserting a bunch of affirmative defenses, with no factual support and no possible basis in reality; 2 "Reserving" the right to assert other affirmative defenses; and 3 "Reserving" the right to assert other claims that discovery may reveal.
The last two are harmless, but entirely legally meaningless. The right to amend is governed by FRCP 15 a. If that rule is satisfied, a party can amend even if he did not reserve the issue in original pleading reserved anything; if the rule is not satisfied, he cannot amend even if he reserve the issue. The first does not matter, because judges never care. ESPN rather publicly announced that it would not be renewing its contract with Bill Simmons, editor-in-chief of its sports and entertainment site Grantland , as well as writer, author, and co-producer of the "30 for 30" sports documentary series.
A lot has been written about the inside details , as well as the larger ramifications for Simmons, Grantland, and sports and entertainment media more generally. What does employment law say about this awkward interim period? Having been publicly cut off at the knees by his current company, Simmons will want to focus on his next gig.
But the law may restrict his ability to do so. Most jurisdictions have recognized that employees owe employers a duty of loyalty. The contours of this duty are somewhat vague. At the very least, the duty would prevent Simmons from working for a competitor while he is still under contract with ESPN. Can he tweet out his new employer? Can he use his ESPN column or podcast to mention his new gig or even promote it? Can he ask Grantland employees to join him at his new place?
Employees are also prohibited from disclosing trade secrets to their future employers. On the other hand, employees are generally allowed to "prepare" to compete by talking with other employers and agreeing to future employment. The murkiest area involves one's current fellow employees.
Can Simmons solicit Grantland employees for his new venture? Some courts have found it disloyal for current employees to persuade other employees to break their contracts with the employer. It doesn't help that Simmons is editor-in-chief, as courts have held supervisory employees to a higher standard. However, courts have also focused on surprise as particularly problematic, as when a large group of employees suddenly up and leaves with no notice.
ESPN has plenty of notice that Simmons is leaving and may want to take some of his hires with him. And although not officially a legal factor, the fact that Simmons is being fired in some sense will make his efforts to rebound more sympathetic. Simmons's last days at ESPN could resemble the tenure of another media celebrity in the wake of a high-profile move.
He used his CBS show to make the announcement. And he proceeded to use the show to bash CBS for its efforts to censor him, and to promote his Sirius move. CBS claimed that Stern has used his airtime at CBS to promote Sirius and had engaged in other promotional efforts off the job but while still employed. This request for the disgorgement of the compensation Stern received from Sirius is a traditional remedy for the violation of the duty of loyalty. The disloyal agent is expected to disgorge back to the principal any ill-gotten gains received in the course of the agency relationship.
Reviewing the claims, Stephen Bainbridge concluded that Stern had likely violated the duty of loyalty with his on-the-job solicitations for Sirius. Ultimately, CBS and Stern settled the suit for an undisclosed amount. He even had a running segment where he frittered away NBC's money on expensive cars and licensing rights. The big difference -- O'Brien was tussling with NBC over his contractual rights, and ultimately the two sides settled with Conan's departure.
He had no future show o promote while still at NBC, and in fact his settlement forced him off the air and into radio silence for six months. Simmons may be tempted to spend his last few months settling the family business -- trashing ESPN, raiding Grantland of its best writers, and setting up shop at his new home. And legally, he would have a decent case for doing all these things -- although not one without risk. What seems clear, however, is that he cannot use ESPN properties to promote his new media home while still an employee.
I would expect instead that word of the new location gets out through the media, coming from everywhere but Simmons himself. One final note -- I'm assuming that Simmons's contract does not speak specifically to these matters. He may have a non-compete that kicks in after the contract's expiration, although that seems unlikely. Governments do not simply encounter religious beliefs and teachings, they also do and seek without always admitting it to shape and manage them, their content, and their development. Here's a bit:. Establishments that failed to comply were threatened with closure and their owners with prosecution.
Government employees and children have been barred from attending mosques or observing the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. In many places, women have been barred from wearing face-covering veils, and men discouraged from growing long beards. Both stories, it seems to me, are reminders that claims about government "neutrality" with respect to religion are as much aspirational as historical or descriptive.
Governments care about religious beliefs and always have. Our constitutionally expressed hope is that we can meaningfully constrain our authorities from doing what, as authorities, they could be expected to do, i. It's worth remembering, I think, that governments are not limited to heavy-handed tactics like China's -- licensing requirements, accreditation standards, spending conditions, and as we have been reminded recently tax exemptions are also available to good, liberal, constitutional governments. On examination, though, it turns out to be intriguing, elusive, and misleading. Indeed, Justice Brennan's warning presents "hazards" of its own, and its premises - if uncritically embraced - can subtly distort our constitutional discourse.
It is not the case that governments like ours are or can be "neutral" with respect to religion's claims and content. Secular, liberal, democratic governments like ours not only take cognizance of, but also and in many ways seek to assimilate - that is, to transform - religion and religious teaching.
Steve Lubet sends me this note and gave permission for me to add it to the post :. Clinton does not, as far as I can tell, identify the change agent. Lumping such a statement along with Chinese government coercion is, I think, quite a stretch. The letter reproduced below is at the center of a class-action lawsuit that has divided a Sixth Circuit panel. Take a gander, and offer your perspective in a comment.
It was a zinger worthy of a Presidential debate and almost certainly just as planned. I mean, let's be honest about what's going on here. Executions could be carried out painlessly. Oklahoma and other States could carry out executions painlessly. Now, this Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional. It's controversial as a constitutional matter. It certainly is controversial as a policy matter.
Those who oppose the death penalty are free to try to persuade legislatures to abolish the death penalty. Some of those efforts have been successful. They're free to ask this Court to overrule the death penalty. But behind this this seemingly candid and refreshing acknowledgment was a remarkable attack upon a lawyer doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: zealously advocating for her clients. Justice Alito echoed by Justice Scalia cast Federal Public Defender Conrad and her colleagues as duplicitous, pleading the terrible risk of pain facing their clients while working behind the backs of the courts and states to deny states access to chemicals that could painlessly cause death and thus subverting the honorable workings of justice.
Absolutely no evidence is presented or even suggested for this conspiracy. In fact, it is a mirror image of reality. Federal public defenders and indeed many other Americans may well sympathize with this global movement but they are hardly relevant to that movement. Federal public defenders are even more irrelevant to the completely understandable fact that many businesses will need no additional reason other than publicity to choose to disassociate their products from the deliberate killing of human beings.
The real guerilla war is being waged by death states that continue to pursue executions even as crime remains at historic lows and public opinion turns against this archaic ritual. Meanwhile the death penalty majority on the Supreme Court has fought its own battle to prevent continued judicial oversight of state executions. Indeed, the first named petitioner in the case in which Justice Alito delivered his appeal for honesty was executed earlier this year even as the issue he raised was scheduled for Supreme Court argument.
Justice Alito is correct that the times are changing rapidly for the death penalty. In retrospect, the rejuvenation of capital punishment in the s after a couple of decades of declining public support may have had more to do with the high violent crime rates and toxic racial politics of that eraconditions that have changed in many respectsthan any core American commitment to capital punishment. One can only hope that Justice Alito will bring a less closed mind to those arguments than he did to the ones Federal Defender Robin Konrad and Justice Sotomayor presented him in Glossip.
It is our common law tradition that judges are to consider the fate of litigants one at a time, and answer the compelling legal questions that their treatment poses. Yet in his exchanges with Ms. The harrow requires constant tinkering which the Officer enthusiastically supplies. More Justices soon must make clear that their decades long servitude to this institution must come to an end.
This post is my first for several years and the first since our founding editor Dan Markel was murdered last August. I had intended to resume after the publication of a new book this past Fall. Dan and I exchanged emails about my return a few days before he died and planned catch up by phone the Friday he was killed.
May his memory always be for blessing. Paul says the following:. But their typical "yes, but" editorials on the subject would generally have ended with the civil libertarian point: yes, the speech is contemptible, but , followed by cut-and-paste quotes by Holmes and Brandeis. This is a "yes, but" editorial with the opposite orientation: yes, the speech is protected, but Consider Chief Justice Roberts in Snyder v.
Phelps :. Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. Falwell :. There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm.
But we doubt that there is any such standard. This is why I believe Paul is onto something that reflects a change in how we think and talk about the freedom of speech. In a comment to Paul's post, I described this as shifting the burden of persuasion. The first orientation acknowledges the speaker and the speech as contemptible, but celebrates First Amendment principle; the second orientation acknowledges the First Amendment, but focuses on condemning the speech and the speaker. Put a third way: The first structure seems to say "We don't like these speakers, but we have the First Amendment;" the second structure says "We're stuck with the First Amendment, but we really hate this speaker, he should not have spoken, and he may have even brought any injury on himself.
Compare that with how Roberts closed in Snyder : "As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Now, I am not suggesting that it is not ok to criticize offensive speech and speakers even while defending their right to speak; the First Amendment does not immunize Pam Geller from criticism. The point, I think, is a shift in which of those things we highlight.
Perhaps this shifted burden will not make a difference doctrinally. If the focus is on condemnation, does the constitutional principle lose some of its luster? If the focus is on condemnation, will speakers be less willing to speak or less willing to pursue efforts to protect these principles? This, in turn, may affect how the courts eventually come to think and talk about the First Amendment. Hate Speech.lensprivaream.tk
Federal Court Rules Research Guide
That sense dissipated somewhat when I read the actual text of the editorial an unusual event in itself for me; the time of institutional editorials by newspapers has long since passed and I generally never bother to read them. That in itself is perhaps an instructive lesson in post-Internet journalism. The clickbait style of headline writing has moved not only into the online space of ostensibly serious newspapers but into their "meat space" too; headline writers today, callow and provocative though they may be, have much more power than they used to or ought to.
I come out somewhere between Howard and his civil but forceful commenters, who pushed back on his post. But I still think surprise--and, in my case, disapproval--is warranted. Institutional newspaper editorials are generally banal. They are meant to be banal, for obvious reasons.
If and when you see the Times write consistently interesting editorials, it is more likely than anything else that it will mean the Times has conceded the impossibility of surviving with a "voice of the [better half of the] nation" model and opted instead to cater to a narrow readership only. Alternatively, an interesting editorial by the Times on such a subject might signal a significant change in the center of center-left thinking, inasmuch as the Times generally aims to write editorials that reflect and flatter the center of its readership just as a conservative-but-national newspaper would aim to write banal pieces for the center of its readership.
I think this editorial does embody both of these aspects, to a degree. The Times almost certainly has decided to be more aggressively progressive not liberal--there is a difference, and the Times has become a more illiberal newspaper , in order to fend off Internet competition and adapt to market segmentation. And the editorial does embody a shift in the center of center-left opinion, which today is less civil libertarian on some issues than it used to be.
But it is still a national newspaper editorial, and at bottom it is still pretty banal. As the commenters rightly observe, its headline outpaces the editorial itself, which ultimately has more to do with how it feels about the speech than with the legal rights of the speaker. It is unfortunate that feelings are such a major aspect of, and subject in, public discourse today, but such are the times.
Nevertheless, the editorial, in characteristically banal fashion, does not attempt to rock the boat; it just tacks left a bit. Why "surprising? Of course its editorials never expressed admiration for the speech of bigots and I believe Geller earned that label long ago.
Not an earthshaking difference, surely. But, as this letter responding to the editorial suggests, regular readers of Times editorials or regular non-readers like me know the difference, and the Times knows we know. With the help of that headline, the shift was all the more glaring, enough so to make me actually read it--and, again, the Times knew it would be.
Hence the surprise. There has been talk in recent months about how much the current political climate around culture-war issues resembles the 90s-era debates about "political correctness. But one potential, and important, difference is that more establishment institutions today may be more receptive to such arguments than they were at the time. They have changed their views, or are speaking to smaller parts of a more segmented and polarized audience, or have been turned into vertically integrated digital media companies by Chris Hughes. In short, I think there was a real basis for surprise.
Although, like his commenters, I disagree with Howard that this means the Times has "given up on free speech"--perhaps he has the headline bug too--I still think the editorial is disappointing. Partly it's because, as I said above, I'm a conventional, traditional civil libertarian, and this editorial signaled a shift in emphasis on those issues for this paper. But it's also because the editorial itself is--well, banal, in an unsatisfying sort of way. Let me offer two criticisms. First, the editorial launches itself from the base of what it calls a current "furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech.
Alas, it does not. Not everything counts as "hate speech"; what does count as hate speech, and what should follow from that, is precisely the core of the debate. The Times does not seriously define what it thinks hate speech is. For that matter, although it notes that images ridiculing religion are protected "in most Western democracies," it does not address whether Geller's speech act might qualify as "hate speech" in those countries that restrict such speech, or whether it should.
It could, without eating up headline space, have avoided some confusion by labeling this as "hateful speech" or "bigoted speech. Second, even in the small space to which it was consigned, the editorial did a poor job of talking about Geller's motivations. The editorial asserts in the second paragraph that her speech act "was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom. In concluding that Geller's speech was "motivated by [nothing] other than speech, it ignores some obvious possibilities.
Doubtless another goal of the event was fundraising. Still another was to provoke for the sake of provocation. Another likely motive was political, in several senses: as a partisan move, to influence policy, and in the sense that the whole stunt was a political act, in the same way that burning the flag or immersing a crucifix in urine is. Another was to provoke a controversy about free speech specifically. I don't doubt that Geller's works are contemptible and her policy proposals, such as they are, horrible.
But I suspect that she is as opportunistic as she is sincere. To that extent, I'm far from certain that her speech act in this case was actually motivated by hate, although I take cold comfort from that. Doubtless various motives--sheer anti-Semitism, the prospect of financial gain, political opportunism--were afoot in Kristallnacht; it was still Kristallnacht.
Still, the possibility of varied motives other than hate is the core of the subject of the editorial. And the complexities that such possible mixed motives introduce--Should we judge such speech differently? If speech is "about" provocation or "about" free speech itself rather than bigotry, but the speaker uses bigotry to achieve his or her aim of provoking, or creating a free speech issue, should we "feel" any differently about that?
How much should motive matter, anyway, in judging speech that offends particular groups, as long as the speaker knew that would be the likely result of the speech act? Does it matter, for purposes of moral judgment, if the speech "punches up" or "punches down," and how do we tell the difference? Not much space would have been needed to at least nod at these points. And if that wasn't possible, the editorial could either have run longer or not been run at all. In the end, then, I part ways a little from Howard, inasmuch as I don't think the editorial is "appalling" in the terms in which he puts it--as a sign that the paper has "given up" on freedom of speech.
- Guide Clinical MR Spectroscopy: Techniques and Applications;
- What Happens to Us.
- Library catalog outage on Thursday, August 18th;
- Delicious Amish Recipes: 35 Amish Recipes including Amish Bread, Amish Pies, and Other Delicious Amish Foods!.
- Party Plan Success! From Basic to BIG Results?
- Counting Chameleon?
- 2011-2012 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Law School Edition]!
- and related writings by various personages, including myself!
- The Power of the Blood of Jesus [Illustrated] [Annotated];
- Commentaries on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Titus, The Revised Oxford Translation (With Active Table of Contents)!
- Be Good to Yourself: Wise Words for Women of a Certain Age.
The editorial is ultimately about our moral judgment of particular speech acts, not about whether those acts are entitled to legal protection. But I think there are good reasons why regular readers of the Times's editorials on civil libertarian subjects took note of and were surprised by this piece. It may signal a shift in orientation for the paper itself, and indeed a movement in the center of center-left thought on some civil libertarian issues.
And, banal as it is, I think the editorial still disappoints and fails even on its own terms. The most recent and unsurprising investigation is about to be opened in Baltimore. Is it "one-four-one-four-one"? Is it "fourteen-one-four-one"? Section allows DOJ to file a civil action and obtain an injunction to stop patterns or practices of unconstitutional behavior by state and local law enforcement. Both actions result in potentially broad structural injunctive relief or a consent decree requiring judicial monitoring of a local law enforcement agency and significant, sometimes costly changes to agency practices.
Both may involve wide-ranging investigations; DOJ conducts a broad independent investigation pre-litigation, while a private investigation only can be conducted through post-filing court-supervised discovery. But this seems like a small difference. Yet there is much greater resistance to private than public litigation of this type, even though the result will be the same.
Put differently, many people are opposed to or at least less comfortable with injunctions entered through the efforts of private attorneys general than through the efforts of the real attorney general. But why should that be? Both causes of action are established by Congress, so they have the same underlying political legitimacy.
The resulting decree will not necessarily be different. Private attorneys general undertake the investigations for which DOJ may lack the resources, time, or political will. Perhaps, however, if private litigants had more leeway to pursue smaller systemic violations, they could stop them before they reach this breaking point. His division preferred informal negotiated cooperative resolution or letters of understanding rather than the adversarial, confrontational approach entailed in litigation and formal decrees.
It was enacted in 1 sorry for the typo , so the law is less than years old. The last four years of the Clinton DOJ was still trying to make heads or tails of the law. The Bush DOJ had other enforcement priorities and, as noted above, a different approach. The current Department understands how the law works, should work, and can work, along with a renewed interest on local policing that has become a flashpoint. But the question remains whether it would have become less of a flashpoint were more private litigation possible.
While some have speculated that Chief Justice Roberts will find a way to join in a majority judgment if not majority opinion recognizing a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the more-prevalent view is that the liberal-conservative stalwarts on the Court will split and that Kennedy will cast the decisive fifth vote one way or the other.
The narrative goes like this:. Circuit, leading to the infamous confirmation hearing that ended with a Senate vote rejecting Bork, Remember, this was Bowers v. Kennedy's speech galvanized the Senate, and the nation. Vice-President Joe Biden, then a senator and chair of the Judiciary Committee, had his own field day during the committee hearings. I was a fresh-faced first-year law student, and the protests on my law-school campus made indelible impressions on me. When Bork was ultimately defeated, we knew we had won. We didn't quite know what we had won, but we knew we had won something.
President Reagan next nominated Douglas Ginsburg to fill Powell's spot, but Ginsburg withdrew after reports surfaced that he had used marijuana. Remember, it was So Reagan turned to Anthony Kennedy. And here we are today. Bork died in Had he won confirmation and remained on the Court until his death, President Obama would have been in office at the time of the vacancy. Given the likelihood that Obama would have appointed a justice favorably disposed to same-sex-marriage rights, some might say that blocking the Bork nomination had no ultimate impact on this issue.
So some credit is due to Senator Kennedy, arguably responsible at least in part for the ultimate nomination of Justice Kennedy. I discussed the ACLU's strange ambivalence here and here. And that is the only way to explain this strange and appalling op-ed from The Times editorial board. Apparently, the board can recognize the difference between "hate speech" and "free speech" it seems to have something to do with motivation. I am at too great a loss to pick apart the piece's reasoning and its seeming surrender of most of the underpinnings of the First Amendment doctrine that allows The Times to be The Times.
I will make three points. I guess this means that "viewpoint neutrality" applies not to government regulation, but to speakers. Second, does the board realize that, if the term existed 55 years ago, Birmingham City Commissioner L. Sullivan almost certainly would have described The Times' criticism of him and southern officials as "hate speech. Falwell comes out the other way, carrying with it much political cartooning and satire. Yesterday the jurors in the Tsarnaev case heard testimony from Dr.
But many, again myself included, have argued that neuroscience should inform substantive criminal law as well. In my forthcoming article, Brain Science and the Theory of Juvenile Mens Rea , I argue that what is known about adolescent decisionmaking is relevant to calculations of mens rea — the state of mind element — required in all but strict liability offenses, as well as for many defenses think self-defense for example.
You can raise all sorts of questions about where this effect fits into the hard decisions that jurors must make, whether in the context of a guilt or a sentencing phase. But what seems clear to me is that this evidence must be presented to those jurors if we are, as we claim we are, seeking to hold defendants accountable, and later to punish them, based on their corresponding level of culpability.
If you have not seen Twelve Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer-- Schumer's 12 Angry Men parody that brilliantly satirizes male attitudes about female attractiveness--check it below or wherever you can find it. The homage to what is often regarded as one of the great legal dramas is impeccable, the dialogue is hilarious, and the political messages about gender issues and a host of other things are clear without being didactic. One award recipient was the surviving staff of Charlie Hebdo , a decision that triggered some controversy, as Steve Lubet has discussed. During his opening remarks, PEN President Andrew Solomon eloquently defended Hebdo, the decision to give it the award, and general principles of free expression.
Worth a read and a viewing--his remarks begin around on the video above. First, thanks to the folks at Prawfsblawg for agreeing to have me. Today, however, I want to turn to a matter on my mind a lot lately — police power and, wait for it, speeding. I know with Baltimore smoldering and a host of other recent events, the conversation about police power could go elsewhere. And it will, though not right now, not in this post.
I should start with a full disclosure in the past four months I have received two speeding tickets. This fact, in and of itself, might not seem that surprising. But in my twenty-plus years of driving, these are my first tickets. Sure, I have gotten pulled over before. But before moving to Alabama I had never gotten a speeding ticket. I had broken the law and 2. Without going into the fascinating details of the stops particularly since I have decided to go to court on the most recent one , there is a single aspect of the stop that I think warrants attention here.
When I asked the officer in each stop if I could see the radar readout — which each officer cited as the evidence of my speeding — I was told I could not because each officer had already cleared it. With the first ticket I received, I dutifully paid my fine, protesting my innocence as I entered my credit card information online. My criminal-procedure-loving, liberty-loving self wanted to go to a place where the State has to offer the citizen some even small amount of proof before they can detain them.
In the end, the officer and I glared at each other briefly and she handed me my ticket. As she began to walk away from the car, I asked her about a court date and she came back to the window. I am going to go in and say you were speeding and you are going to say you were not and the judge will believe me. All of which brings me to my point.
Is the speeding ticket that big a deal in my life? Honestly, probably not, unless of course I continue to get them at this rate in which case I will likely soon lose my license. But what is a big deal, for me, and all those like me who have these daily encounters with the police, was that I had no power in the moment of the encounter—and likely will continue to have no power even as I attempt to litigate my case through the Alabama Municipal Court system.
In the end the system is stacked against the very citizens it is allegedly designed to protect. So a speeding ticket matters as much as any executive decision because it is about the power the State can, and does, daily exercise over all of us. As I think about what my clients told me when I was a public defender, or other encounters I have had with the police, or even hear news reports about Baltimore, Ferguson, New York — I cannot help but marvel that this power dynamic has existed for so long, and continues.
I cannot equate the helplessness and frustration I felt on the side of the road that day with what I have seen and heard of in the lives of others. Not in an extreme way. She never pulled her gun. She did not pull me from the car and taze me. But what she did try to do was to take away any sense I might have had that I could contest what she had concluded was right.
If anything, she found my questions about her radar gun and a court date the boring and annoying inquiries of someone she had to educate by the nature of the very power she wielded.
2009-2010 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) (with Committee Notes)
So I will see the officer from the second stop in court and I may lose. But in standing up maybe I will win after all. It's an unusual exam-time question. But according to this newly-released study, the answer is " no. The experiment received a lot of attention. The idea that difficult tasks can " kick our brains into higher gear " is consistent with many ideas in cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychologists have identified two kinds of decisionmaking processes: intuitive and deliberative.
Intuitive decisionmaking processes, called System I processes, are intuitive, automatic, and quick, encompassing the types of instantaneous judgments that permit a person to immediately size up a situation.
Deliberative processes, or System II processes, describe reflective, logical, and self-conscious thinking. See Adam S.
Related 2011-2012 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) (with ALL Committee Notes) (Rules First Series)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved