Justice Hoens of N.J. Supreme Court Steps Down | State | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.

Helen Hoens, former Associate Justice
Supreme Court of New Jersey

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made his Youtube reputation by telling off people he disagreed with - like teachers who didn't want their pensions cut, or their tenure threatened.  He denounced judges who ruled against him on pensions, schools, and open housing.  But everyone was taken aback when he made a politically convenient deal to dismiss a competent and experienced conservative Supreme Court Justice,  a veteran appellate judge and replace her with an amiable but undistinguished supervising judge from south Jersey.
Justice Helen Hoens - a consistent conservative - delivered emotional closing remarks to colleagues, citing as a driving force in her jurisprudence her experience as the mother of an autistic child.  - GWC
Justice Hoens of N.J. Supreme Court Steps Down | State | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News.:

BY TORl NADEL
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
It has been two years since the last New Jersey Supreme Court Justice resigned from his or her position and on Tuesday, the New Jersey political system experienced the same situation when Supreme Court Justice Helen Hoens stepped down.
Justice Hoens, who has been on the court since 2006 after being a Superior Court judge for 12 years, gave a farewell speech to her fellow justices as well as her friends and family as she sat at the bench, reported The Asbury Park Press.
In her speech, Hoens credits motherhood with the qualities she has used while sitting on the bench. "Every important thing I ever became, all of the qualities like patience and compassion and strength and courage, all of it was forged on the anvil of autism," Hoen’s said, reported NJ.com, "the truth of it is, I have never left the margins of society. I have never left the people like my son, the people in the shadows, the folks that the important people don’t see or just don’t want to see."
While Hoens was delivering her speech, in which she says she “wasn’t planning on leaving quite so soon," her fellow justices grew visibly emotional, and Justice Jaynee LaVecchia said the court “would suffer from Hoen’s ‘untimely departure," while Justice Barry Albin said, “her absence would be ‘sorely felt’” according to NJ.com.

'via Blog this'

Judge Says New Jersey Can Begin Allowing Same-Sex Marriages in Two Weeks - NYTimes.com

Superior Court judge Mary Jacobson acted to protect the ability of New Jersey gay and lesbian couples to obtain federal tax and other benefits by denying the Christie administration's request for a stay of her ruling - effective October 21 - that New Jersey must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The Attorney General will now go to the Appellate Division to stay Jacobson's historic ruling.  The Governor has asked the state Supreme Court to skip review by the intermediate court and hear the case itself. 
In a recent editorial the New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board calls on the Supreme Court to accept the case and decide it on an expedited basis.  If couples marry or convert their status from civil unon to married by December 31 they can obtain federal tax benefits for 2013.  - GWC
Judge Says New Jersey Can Begin Allowing Same-Sex Marriages in Two Weeks - NYTimes.com:  by Kate Zernike

"“There is no ‘public interest’ in depriving a class of New Jersey residents their constitutional rights while appellate review is pursued,” wrote Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County, who also wrote the decision last month that ordered the state to allow same-sex marriages. “On the contrary, granting a stay would simply allow the State to continue to violate the equal protection rights of New Jersey same-sex couples, which can hardly be considered a public interest.”"

'via Blog this'

CNN Survey on Obamacare Shows 1/3 of Obamacare critics think it's too conservative – AARP

The depth of Americans ignorance is compounded by their fear of change.  That explains much of the resistance to the Affordable Care Act.  Of course many object to the subsidies for the undeserving (which usually means `anybody but me').  But 16% of respondents object because it doesn't go far enough to guarantee affordable health care for all.  - GWC
CNN Survey on Obamacare Shows 43 Percent of Americans Support Law – AARP:

A lot of Americans say they oppose President Obama’s health care reform law. But you may be surprised to learn that of all those who say they oppose the 2010 law because its approach to health care is “too liberal” (35 percent), nearly half again as many oppose it because they think it’s “not liberal enough” (16 percent).

This from a recent CNN/ORC survey that shows 43 percent of all Americans in favor of Obamacare — a figure that, for all the politicking on both sides, hasn’t really changed in a year. Opposition from the “too liberal” camp has softened a bit (down from 37 percent in March 2012), while opposition from the “not liberal enough” camp is significantly stronger (up from 10 percent in March 2012).

'via Blog this'

Balkinization: Sean Wilentz on the Debt Ceiling Crisis: Imprudent Advice

Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14
SECTION 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin explains the practical hazards of President Obama borrowing money even if the debt ceiling is not raised.  In such a case he would rely on the 14th Amendment which provides that the "public debt of the United States shall not be questioned".  Despite this plain command, the wiser course is to demand Congress act.  Balkin explains. - GWC
Balkinization: Sean Wilentz on the Debt Ceiling Crisis: Imprudent Advice:
by Jack Balkin

Sean Wilentz, the historian of the Reconstruction era, in his Times op-ed analogizes "Obama's actions to those of Lincoln in the early days of the Civil War[.]  Wilentz argues that the President could assume emergency powers and save the Union just as Lincoln did: "he could pledge that, if worse came to worst, he would, once a default occurred, use his emergency powers to end it and save the nation and the world from catastrophe." Even if impeached, Obama would "undoubtedly earn[] the gratitude of a relieved people." Here I am not so sure. My view is that the President does not have the unilateral power under Section 4 to disregard the debt ceiling. He needs congressional authorization, because only Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article I, section 8). As I have explained elsewhere, in the most dire emergency this authorization might even come after the President acts, as it has in the case of military emergencies, but an authorization is still required. Wilentz's op-ed therefore raises four different issues, which he does not adequately address."

'via Blog this'

Rule or ruin - Lincoln on obstructionism

The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, at Cooper Union in 1860, in response to the demands of southern Democrats: 

"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

h/t James Fallows 

A political crisis - Tom Tomorrow - Daily Kos

Tom Tomorrow gets it - at the Daily Kos

Empty justice in New Jersey's courts: Opinion | NJ.com

It's even worse than you think.  Governor Chris Christie is a youtube heavy hitter, and local hero "down the shore" but he's no friend of the courts. - gwc
Empty justice in New Jersey's courts: Opinion | NJ.com:
by Thomas P. Zampino
[retired judge of the Suprerior Court of New Jersey]

One of my favorite Brendan Byrne jokes is that he realized he was no longer governor when he got into the back seat of his car and it didn’t move because there was no longer a driver.But sadly, if he would have walked into the courthouse, he would alarmingly have found the courtrooms to be empty because there are so few judges to fill them. There are more than 50 judges required for Essex County, yet there are more than 25 vacancies that remain. In Family Court alone, where 20 judges were previously assigned, there are now eight judges for 41,000 cases.

'via Blog this'

Scalia: The law in its majestic equality allows rich and poor to make unlimited campaign contributions

Are Scalia and Ginsburg REALLY friends? - gwc
Conservative Justices Signal Dismantling Of Campaign Donation Limits:
Talking Points Memo on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, argued today.

The questioning of attorneys gave way to a moment of sparring between justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Scalia, who are good friends despite their profound ideological differences.
"Whose expression is at stake when most people couldn't even come near the limit?" asked Ginsburg. Scalia retorted, with his famous jolt of sarcasm, "I assume a law that only prohibits the speech of two percent of the country is okay.

'via Blog this'

George Conk Receives Rutgers Law Public Service Award

Adjunct Professor George Conk Receives Public Service Award - Fordham Law:
Professor George Conk received the 2013 Neisser Public Service Award through the Neisser Public Interest Center at Rutgers-Newark School of Law. Named after the late acting dean and longtime professor Eric R. Neisser, the award is presented annually to a Rutgers Law graduate who has demonstrated outstanding public service. Conk received the award at the school’s First Monday event, which recognizes the beginning of a new U.S. Supreme Court term and kicks off the year’s public interest programming. 

Conk, a 1974 Rutgers-Newark graduate, gave the keynote address entitled “People’s Electric – The Legacy of Engaged Legal Education at Rutgers-Newark Law School in the 1960’s and 1970’s.” Conk authored a history of the school which appeared in the Fordham Urban Law Journal last year. He presented the Newark school’s history, highlighting the dramatic impact of its clinical program on criminal justice, women’s rights, open housing, parity for urban public schools, and affirmative action.

Conk’s address was followed by a panel discussion featuring fellow graduates of Rutgers-Newark whose careers exemplify its mission: Donna Lieberman is Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. The NYCLU represented plaintiffs in the landmark Floyd v. City of New York which found unconstitutional the stop and frisk practices of the NYPD. Other panelists included Dale Jones and Ollis Douglas of the Capital Defense Unit of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender which defended all 225 capital cases from 1982 to the 2007 repeal of the death penalty. CUNY Law School Professor Victor Goode discussed the Rutgers Minority Student Program, which has graduated 2,500 lawyers since its founding.

Professor Conk, an Adjunct Professor and Senior Fellow at the Stein Center for Law & Ethics, came to Fordham in 2002. He teaches torts, product liability, remedies, and professional responsibility. His scholarly work has been published by the Yale Law Journal,  UCLA Law Review, Penn State Law Review, Seton Hall Law Review, and by Peking University Press. He is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a member of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics. He serves on the editorial board of the New Jersey Law Journal as a New Jersey State Bar Association designee.

'via Blog this'

Three Sage Points About China - James Fallows - The Atlantic

Sidney Rittenberg went to China as a soldier in WWII.  He learned Chinese and stayed.  A Communist sympathiser, he later ran afoul of the regime and spent sixteen years in solitary.  Yet he never became an enemy of China or the regime.  Critic, yes, enemy, no.  He tells the story in his book The Man Who Stayed Behind, which I will review one of these days. - GWC
Three Sage Points About China - James Fallows - The Atlantic:

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of interviewing Sidney Rittenberg, in Seattle, about his six-plus decades of involvement in U.S.-Chinese affairs, including the 16 years he spent in solitary confinement in prisons of Mao's China.

This week, also in Seattle, he received at age 92 a "Lifetime Achievement" award from the Washington State China Relations Council. In a terse four minutes, from time 17:00 to 21:00 (click on link above), he offers what I consider several sage points for stable and productive relations between the countries. 

'via Blog this'

David Frum: Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Political Parties - The Daily Beast

hysteria typifies the white people's party

Former speech writer for George W. Bush David Frum (did he give us axis of evil??) is a rational Republican.  Alarmed by the Tea Party, he comments on the current crisis created by Tea Party obstructionism. Of course their unity has also brought them wins.  The sequester was supposed to be intolerable for both liberals and conservatives.  Turns out not so.  There is nothing more important to conservatives than cutting government - even the parts they tend to like such as soldiers and weapons. - GWC
Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Political Parties - The Daily Beast:
by David Frum Oct 8, 2013 
When it comes to major policy battles, since 2009 the GOP is 0-3. Before it fails again, David Frum offers up seven ways the party is shooting itself in the foot."

(1) The fight over Obamacare. Result: the most ambitious new social insurance program since Medicare, financed—unlike Medicare—by redistributive new taxes on investment and high incomes.

(2) The 2012 election. Result: Despite the worst economy since the Great Depression, the reelection of President Obama, Democratic retention of the Senate, and 1.4 million more votes cast for House Democrats than for House Republicans.

(3) The fight over the “fiscal cliff” at the end of 2012. Result: In order to preserve some of the Bush tax cuts, Republicans for the first time since 1991 left their finger prints on a tax increase for upper income groups.

Now comes fight (4), the fight over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. 

'via Blog this'

The Cruelty of Republican States in One Chart

The Cruelty of Republican States in One Chart: "The states rejecting the expansion of Medicaid are the ones that already make it the hardest for poor people to get insured."
Unfortunately our second-home state of Maine - one of the country's poorer (29/50) - has rejected Medicaid expansion - thanks to Tea Party Governor Paul LePage and the now swept from office Republican legislature.  - GWC

'via Blog this'

In Conversation With Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine

In Conversation With Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine:
by Jennifer Senior
Justice Scalia with characteristic bluntness expresses himself.
Hi bravest opinion?  Not recusing himself in the VP Cheney case.
He gets along with Ruth Ginsburg because his "expectations are low".  It's harder when someone you generally agree with goes over to the "dark side". 
He agrees that Anthony Kennedy is the Thurgood Marshall of gay rights.  Personally he knows people who are or almost surely are homosexual, but none has ever "come out" to him.  He's sure none of his nine kids is.
He reads the Washington Times, the WSJ, and listens to Bill Bennett's talk show while shaving.
The country is going to hell, you can't even watch a movie or a television show without hearing the `F' word or seeing a "nude sex scene".  I guess he really doesn't watch any TV.
- GWC

'via Blog this'

A Texas Solution to the Government Shutdown | GOPlifer | a Chron.com blog

Christopher Ladd gets briefly optimistic about how to control the Tea Party, but when he starts counting votes realizes that there aren't enough rational Republicans in Congress to allow Boehner to govern from the center and keep his job. - GWC
A Texas Solution to the Government Shutdown | GOPlifer | a Chron.com blog:
by Christopher Ladd

Would Boehner risk his career and his legacy in an effort to build a bi-partisan coalition that would save the country from default and restore a functioning legislative branch? Are there 18-40 Republican Congressmen who care more about the country than about their jobs (in other words, how many are ready to retire)?Would the Democrats cooperate, or would they demand so much in return for a coalition that they would sink the idea? Would Pelosi insist on a bigger office and her own plane?Nothing in Boehner’s history suggests that he cares about anything enough to put his job at risk. And the few Republican pragmatists left in Congress after 15 years under siege are mostly hiding. It is unclear whether there is one reality-based Republican left in Congress willing to break ranks at the risk of their job, much less 40 of them. And if Democrats smelled vulnerability it is tough to imagine that they could be persuaded to collaborate with a Republican Speaker.

The Texas Solution is simple and it seems like it would work, but the situation recalls Reagan’s cryptic quote, “there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.“ No one is likely to pursue the simple answer offered by the Texas Solution until all other possibilities have been exhausted.

   'via Blog this'

Redefining Marriage, Protecting Religion - Garden State Marriage Equality // NJ Law Journal

Redefining Marriage, Protecting Religion:

Amid predictions that the courts will now bear the laboring oar in bringing the marriage equality debate to conclusion in New Jersey, it is tempting to assume the pressure is off the Legislature to consider overriding the governor's veto of the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act (S-1). We disagree, and ironically, a large part of the rationale that enactment of the law is still very necessary is in order to cater to the interests of social conservatives, who fervently argue for a broad religious exemption that only the legislation can provide.

Not only would S-1 enact civil marriage equality. It contains provisions intended to leave decisions about religious marriage to religions. It thus provides definite assurances regarding the free exercise of religion that are ultimately protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by art. 1, par. 4 of the N.J. Constitution. It provides that no member of the clergy of any religion shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion, and also that no religious society, institution or organization in this state serving a particular faith or denomination shall be compelled to provide space, services, advantages, goods or privileges related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of marriage, if that marriage is in violation of the beliefs of the religious organization.

Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202622312410&Redefining_Marriage__Protecting_Religion#ixzz2gwnP77Fd

'via Blog this'

NJ Supreme Court Urged to Embrace Marriage Equality Now //New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board

copyright ALM Media (2013)
Marriage Equality Now:
by the New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Baord

We applaud Judge Mary Jacobson's decision, in Garden State Equality v. Dow, that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution. The decision is thorough, well-written and correct. Seven years ago, in Lewis v. Harris, the state Supreme Court held that the state constitution did not compel recognition of same-sex marriage. It made clear, however, that the rights of those in civil unions must be equal to those who are married and called on the Legislature to take appropriate action on this emotionally charged issue.
In response, the Legislature established the Civil Union Review Commission, which issued a report that the economic and psychological disadvantages of civil unions were substantial and that marriage equality was needed. The Legislature passed such a bill but the governor vetoed it, suggesting the matter should be submitted directly to the voters. An amendment to the state constitution was proposed, defining marriage as the legally recognized union of two persons of any gender, but the legislative majority leaders refused to submit it.
In the absence of legislative action, the litigants returned to court on a motion in aid of litigant's rights. An equally divided Supreme Court denied the motion without argument, directing the plaintiffs to file a new action and to develop a factual record on which it could be determined whether equality without marriage had been achieved.
The terrain changed in June after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that gives a tax benefit on the basis of being in a heterosexual, not a same-sex marriage. When the federal executive branch refused to extend to civil union partners federal marital benefits and the right to sponsor a same-sex spouse for immigration, the inability of civil unions to deliver equality became plain.
The Garden State Equality plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and Jacobson granted it, finding that the ground was shifting quickly. Both the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare Services extended marital benefits to same-sex spouses but not to persons in civil unions. Although measures have been introduced or promised in Congress to treat civil unions and marriages equally for federal benefit purposes, no change has been enacted. Because current harm could be shown, Jacobson found the issue ripe for adjudication. She accepted the plaintiffs' framework, that the state had created "a structure in which opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships are given distinct labels, labels that now matter in the context of federal benefits." Those differences disadvantage New Jersey couples, an effect which, Jacobson held, violates art. 1, par. 1 of our 1947 constitution, which promises equal protection of the law.
The judgment in Garden State Equality takes effect Oct. 21. The governor's office has announced there will be an appeal and has applied for a stay. Certainly, no stay should run beyond Dec. 31, when federal taxpayer filing status is fixed, since that would deprive same-sex couples of the tax benefits of marriage for another year. The Supreme Court should expedite this case and decide it, if necessary without an immediate opinion, to avoid another year of unconstitutional inequity.

Board members Ronald Chen, Virginia Long, Lawrence Lustberg and Edwin Stern recused from this editorial.

EDITORIAL BOARD

New Jersey Law Journal editorials are the product of an independent Editorial Board. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Law Journal's management.

ROSEMARY ALITO, Chairman
BARRY H. EVENCHICK, Vice Chairman
JAMES M. HIRSCHHORN, Vice Chairman
ROBERT E. BARTKUS • MELVYN H. BERGSTEIN
ALBERT G. BESSER • THOMAS J. BITAR
JOSEPH L. BUCKLEY • BRENDAN T. BYRNE
BERNARD CHAZEN • RONALD K. CHEN
GEORGE W. CONK • JOHN CONNELL
HARRIET DERMAN • WILLIAM A. DREIER
CHRISTINE DUFFY • JERRY F. ENGLISH
BERNARD K. FREAMON • JOSEPH A. HAYDEN JR.
RICHARD M. HLUCHAN • GEORGE J. KENNY
MYRON W. KRONISCH • VIRGINIA LONG
LAWRENCE LUSTBERG • MELINDA MAIDENS
ARNOLD K. MYTELKA • LYNN FONTAINE NEWSOME
CARL D. POPLAR • STEVEN M. RICHMAN
BRUCE ROSEN • ANNE C. SINGER
MICHAEL S. STEIN • EDWIN H. STERN
PETER G. VERNIERO • JUSTIN P. WALDER
DANIEL M. WALDMAN • ROBERT F. WILLIAMS
ALFRED C. CLAPP (1903-1988)
MORRIS M. SCHNITZER (1910-1997)

Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/editorials.jsp#ixzz2gtvArhNd

Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202622312481&Marriage_Equality_Now#ixzz2gtuYKDVt

'via Blog this'

Dog Case Heading to NY’s Top Court – New York Personal Injury Law Blog

good dog: blogger Eric Turkewitz's pooch

A new First Department Appellate Division case appears to be poised to bring an end to the antique rule that immunizes owners who are careless in the control of a dog. - GWC
Dog Case Heading to NY’s Top Court – New York Personal Injury Law Blog:
by Eric Turkewitz;

 "Earlier this year I wrote about a change under hoof in New York about animals causing injury. It has long been held that animal owners could only be liable for their animals’ acts if there was a “known vicious propensity,” that being some type of aggressive or threatening behavior. Hence the phrase, “every dog gets one free bite.” Under those circumstances the owner was strictly liable for injuries, and there was no cause of action for negligence. But the Court of Appeals cracked that door open earlier this year in Hastings v. Suave, holding in a case where a cow wandered through a poorly kept fence into a road where it was hit, that a cause of action could exist for negligence. This had nothing at all to do with the animal’s viciousness or not, but was solely based on the conduct of the owner."

'via Blog this'

Mission Accomplished | E.J.Dionne // Commonweal Magazine

Let's be clear: the wrecking ball is directed at a policy and a President committed to expanding health care coverage.  The deep south, rural mid-west and Tea party governed states (even Maine) all object to expansion of Medicaid and health insurance subsidies that are the heart of Obamacare.  They hate spending money - especially on "them".  It is not a problem with "Congress".  It is today's GOP, so unlike the Republican party of old. - gwc 
Mission Accomplished | Commonweal Magazine:
by E.J. Dionne

  The issue here is not that Congress failed to reach a “compromise.” The Democrats already have compromised, lopping about $70 billion off their budget proposal, to the dismay of many liberals. That was meaningless to a tea party crowd that seems to care not a whit about the deficit, despite its fulsome talk. It will be satisfied only if Congress denies health care coverage to about 25 million Americans, which is what “repealing Obamacare” really means.It needs to be said over and over as long as this stupid and artificial crisis brewed by the tea party continues: Financing the government in a normal way and avoiding a shutdown should not be seen as a “concession.” Making sure the government pays its debt is not a “concession.” It’s what we expect from a well-functioning constitutional system. It’s what we expect from decent stewards of our great experiment. The extremists who have taken over the House do not believe in a normal, constitutional system. They believe only in power.There’s a profound irony here, since no one talks more about the Constitution than the tea party. Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun and a variety of nullifiers and future secessionists spoke incessantly about the Constitution, too. We know where that led.

'via Blog this'

Partial win for BP in appeal of benefit calculations

Although it affirmed the District Court's dismissal of an action by BP, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded in part.  The three judge panel objected to an interpretation of the District Court that settlement payments could be calculated by matching periods (e.g. April to June) in different years, even if the activity was not comparable, resulting in an award not supported by evidence of probable losses:

The district court reasoned that “[n]owhere does the Agreement state or indicate that revenue and expenses must be ‘matched’ or revenues ‘smoothed,’ nor does it state that one should inquire into when revenue was ‘earned.’” The district court held that revenues and expenses need not be matched and that “the same months of the Compensation Period are to be compared with the months in the Benchmark Period” rather than “months where the claimant engaged in comparable activity.”

Thus, hypothetically one might have fished March through May in the base year and calculated the loss claimed on April though June in the year of the spill.

In a second ruling - also issued on October 2, 20113 - the court remanded because it found the record inadequate to determine how the class settlement was intended to resolve certain anomalies that appear from the "divergent effects" of cash-basis and accrual basis accounting on some caegories of claims.

'via Blog this'

Chinese Activist Who Split With NYU Finds a New Haven in Academe - Global - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Chen Guangcheng, in announcing his new affiliation with Catholic U. and two other groups, declared that "the threat posed by the Chinese Communist authorities to the free world is very clear, and that threat is not only posed to academia but also other parts of society."

Chen Guangcheng appears to have abandoned all thought of returning to China unless the Communist Party collapses.  One never knows (the Soviet collapse surprised even the Soviets).  But since the CP leadership has achieved impressive economic growth, and the task of governing China is enormous, I do not expect to see such an event.  So Chen - whose blindness and limited education fit him for little else - will have to subsist as a ward of implacable foes of the Peoples Republic. - GWC
Chinese Activist Who Split With NYU Finds a New Haven in Academe - Global - The Chronicle of Higher Education: "Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese human-rights activist who had a public fight with New York University this past summer that raised questions about the influence of China on American higher education, has found a new home in academe. Mr. Chen will be a visiting fellow here at Catholic University of America, and will also be affiliated with a conservative think tank and a human-rights group started by a Democratic congressman."

'via Blog this'

Reid's Dear John letter: `I hated the Iraq war as much as you hate Obamacare' but...

Reid to Boehner today - `I hated the Iraq war as much as you hate the Affordable Care Act...but I supported the President and gave him what he said he needed to fight the war  so why don't you do the same?' Odd rhetorical note but the message is clear - democracy and loyalty may require you to do things you don't like. - GWC

China embraces Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

"Legal aid"

In the 1970's states across the United States responded to the women’s movement’s alerts about the prevalence of domestic violence.  Courts had been passive and policemen commonly responded to calls from women (911 did not exist yet) with admonitions to calm down, often leaving the angry husband in the house or apartment if it was “his”.  Domestic violence laws created the now widespread (perhaps too often relied upon) commands to arrest and remove the alleged offender from the home.  That was followed by routine restraining orders issued by low local courts.  China has similar problems and Robin Runge, with the benefit of a Fulbright grant, got to study the migration of the American idea to China.  - GWC

AN AMERICAN CONCEPT WITH DISTINCTLY CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS: THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER IN CHINA 

ROBIN R. RUNGE

ABSTRACT

This Article provides an analysis of the emerging legal system response to domestic violence in China, focusing on the implementation of a civil protection order for victims by comparing it with the U.S. version, using the  North Dakota statute as a representative example. The first section of this Article is a brief introduction to violence against women and the development of laws to address domestic violence in the U.S. and China, including the civil protection order. The second section analyzes the implementation of the civil protection order in China and the U.S. This section provides a detailed comparison of the legal definition of domestic violence in the U.S. and China, the scope of protections available to victims in each country, evidentiary requirements, and enforcement provisions in the U.S. and China. The discussion highlights similarities and differences, exploring the societal and cultural sources of those differences, and implications of those differences for victims. The third section details challenges that Chinese 
judges and advocates have identified as they implement the civil protection order, highlighting lessons learned from the U.S. experience. 

Obama - straight talk on GOP obstructionism | xpostfactoid

Is this "no more mister nice guy" for the President? Andrew Sprung hopes so, and does his usual good job analyzing the rhetoric. - GWC
Does a clean CR mean a clean shot at Republicans? | xpostfactoid: 

"No, this shutdown is not about deficits, it’s not about budgets.  This shutdown is about rolling back our efforts to provide health insurance to folks who don’t have it.  It’s all about rolling back the Affordable Care Act.  This, more than anything else, seems to be what the Republican Party stands for these days.  I know it’s strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centerpiece of their agenda, but that apparently is what it is."Barack Obama, October 1, 2013

   'via Blog this'

N.J. State Bar forms Judicial Independence Task Force

Maurice Gallipolli

The New Jersey State Bar Association has announced creation of a task force on judicial independence. It will be chaired by two distinguished retired judges - former Appellate Division Presiding Judge Dorothea Wefing, and Hudson County Assignment Judge Maurice Gallipolli.  The Bar is facing an uphill battle to restore the sixty year tradition that politics ended with confirmation for the first seven year term, which was routinely followed by nomination and confirmation for tenure ending at the mandatory retirement age of seventy.  Governor Christie ended that tradition when he dismissed moderate Democrat John Wallace  a long serving Appellate Division judge at the end of his seven year term on the Supreme Court - only eighteen months before he turned seventy.  

Governor Chris Christie delivered another shock to New Jersey's legal community when he dismissed another long serving appellate judge Associate Justice Helen Hoens - a conservative with impeccable Republican credentials - and proposed replacing her with a Cuban American trial judge with neither appellate experience nor a record of distinction as a legal thinker.  The Democratic President of the State Senate Stephen Sweeney promptly announced he would soon hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Faustino Fernandez.  Until then the Democratic Senate leaders had obstructed and resisted Christie's efforts to remake the state's Supreme Court in his image.

Dorothea Wefing

The Governor has also been characteristically vociferous in denouncing judges who defied his preferences, such as overturning his executive order to abolish the legislatively mandated Council on Affordable Housing, adhering to the Supreme Court's mandate of parity in urban-suburban school spending , and rejecting he statute decreasing judges' take-home pay by increasing deductions for pension and health insurance.  The last was met by a constitutional amendment proposed by the Democratic legislative leadership.

It is against this background that the Bar Association will labor to restore the now golden era in which New Jersey judges worked free of political interference, acting boldly, and earning a national reputation for innovation.  There remain two vacancies on the Supreme Court and the moderate Democrat Chief Justice Stuart Rabner - who has angered Christie - ends his probationary seven year term next June.  Since 1947 no Chief Justice  has been denied nomination and confirmation for tenure.  Christie is expected to break that rule and refuse to nominate Rabner for tenure.

Christie seeks expedited appeal, stay of gay marriage order

N.J. Seeks Stay of Order Requiring Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage:

Gov. Chris Christie's administration on Tuesday asked for a stay of a New Jersey judge's order that the state begin recognizing same-sex marriage, pending appeal to the state's highest court.
Deputy Attorney General Jean Reilly also requested that the state Supreme Court take up the question on direct certification, bypassing the Appellate Division.
"When novel constitutional issues with highly significant policy considerations, far-reaching implications, and countervailing principles are involved, a lower tribunal should make every effort to facilitate meaningful appellate review," Reilly said in her brief in Garden State Equality v. Dow, MER-L-1729-11.
Superior Court Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson did not immediately rule on the state's request. Rather, she gave the plaintiffs seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage until Friday to file a brief in response. Following that, the state has until Oct. 7 to file a reply brief.

Read more: http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202621748112&NJ_Seeks_Stay_of_Order_Requiring_Legalization_of_SameSex_Marriage#ixzz2gZ7uSHn1

'via Blog this'

Why the Health Care Law Scares the G.O.P. - NYTimes.com

Why the Health Care Law Scares the G.O.P. - NYTimes.com:
by Eduardo Porter

The Department of Health and Human Services recently estimatedthat nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans could qualify for health coverage in the insurance market for less than $100 per person per month.

According to an analysis by the Urban Institute, 28 million Americans would gain health insurance under Obamacare. Of these, eight million earn more than twice the poverty level of $47,100 for a family of four. A majority of those would get a subsidy to buy a plan.

As it turns out, the core Tea Party demographic — working white men between the ages of 45 and 64 — would do fairly well under the law.

Take Missouri. It has about 800,000 uninsured. Almost half of them would have been eligible for expanded Medicaid benefits, had the Legislature not rejected them. Many of the rest — including families of four making up to $94,000 — will be eligible to get subsidized health insurance.

In St. Louis, for instance, a family of four making $50,000 a year will be able to buy a middle-of-the-road “silver” health plan for $282 a month and a bottom-end “bronze” plan for $32. Even Medicare recipients will get a benefit worth a few hundred dollars a year.

This could justify conservative Republicans’ greatest fears.

'via Blog this'

Ass’n of NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v.Port Auth. of NY & NJ

The 3rd Circuit has narrowly construed a federal statute permitting interstate transportation of firearms so long as the gun is not accessible from the passenger compartment, or is a locked box and one is bound to and from states  where possession is lawful.  The New Jersey NRA affiliate's claim that its non-resident members civil rights were violated by the state law is rejected.  - GWC
Ass’n of NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v.Port Auth. of NY & NJ

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs alleged that the Port Authority enforced state gun laws against its non-resident members at Newark Airport. The district court held that 18 U.S.C. 926A does not create a right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.  The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that, in enacting the amended section 926A, Congress did not intend to confer the right upon the plaintiff. Section 926A confers protection upon those who wish to engage in the interstate transportation of firearms: Notwithstanding any other … law … any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle…. The court concluded that Congress did not intend the amended section 926A to benefit those who wish to transport firearms outside of vehicles.