Thursday, February 25, 2016

Firing Dr. Melissa Click




There's a joke in here about tenure, but I'm not gonna make it:

University of Missouri's Board of Curators voted Thursday to fire assistant professor Melissa Click, who drew controversy after a video circulated of her calling for "some muscle" during protests at the university. “The board respects Dr. Click’s right to express her views and does not base this decision on her support for students engaged in protest or their views,” Chairwoman Pam Henrickson said in a statement. “However, Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student.”


Basically, they took a pass on trying to educate someone as to how to conduct themselves in the "safe zone" of teacher-student-media interaction. I'm thinking that this was more about legal liabilities and future lawsuits, but it could have been more about the school just not wanting to have this kind of a public face.



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Balls on These People




Dead men can vote, apparently:

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, last week argued that the Supreme Court should count the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's votes in cases in which the justices have already cast preliminary votes.


During an interview with American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios, von Spakovsky noted that after hearing oral arguments, the justices meet and cast votes in the case before writing the decision.


"So that’s the point at which they know how a case is going to be decided and the chief justice then makes assignments of who will write the majority opinion etc.," von Spakovsky said, according to audio posted by Right Wing Watch. "I think the chief justice has an absolute obligation to give credit to Scalia’s vote in those cases that have already been decided, even if he didn’t write his opinion yet, because they know how he would have voted."


I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. And we now have a very interesting precedent--dead men can now vote. The established rules and precedents of the Supreme Court no longer apply. This is, indeed, a world turned upside down, but it does not have to be. If we would just follow the Constitution, the president could nominate a new justice and we'd be good to go.

Funny how the only people stretching reality and changing things and making shit up are the ones who are trying to replace the Constitutional originalist.

The one truth in all of this is the fact that, when a Supreme Court Justice dies, the party in power gets to name the replacement. That's why justices retire. That's why elections have consequences. And that's why, on President Obama's watch, the Republicans have lost again. They can't stand it. They're doing backflips and flipflops and engaging in flights of fancy in order to justify the fact that they just lost control of the Supreme Court.


Basically, though, a guy who made his living complaining about voter fraud wants the Supreme Court of the United States to let a dead man vote. You couldn't make this up if you tried.


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Erin Andrews Deserves Every Penny




I have to admit, I'm shocked that this wasn't settled out of court years ago in favor of Erin Andrews:

Erin Andrews' $75 million stalking lawsuit goes to court
Court proceedings are getting underway in a $75 million lawsuit filed by sports reporter Erin Andrews against a peeping Tom who recorded her naked, as well as the hotel she blames for allowing it to happen. NBC's Janet Shamlian reports from Nashville.

It was a Marriott Hotel, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why they didn't make this go away when they had the chance. What benefit is there for the Marriott chain to be dragged through the mud like this? Whoever was working at the front desk on the day in question opened up the entire company to a massive lawsuit that was going to be filed and pursued through the courts no matter what.

Here's the gist of what happened--Erin Andrews checks into the hotel. A man calls up and uses basic social engineering to get the front desk to assign him the room next to her without notifying Andrews or her employer at the time, ESPN. He checks in to the room next to her and uses that proximity to film her through the peep hole. This same asshole puts the video on the Internet, gets caught, and spends time in jail.

As in, he was criminally convicted of invading her privacy.

The company in question now faces this lawsuit. And they're fighting it? Really?

Give Andrews every penny. Every single penny. What a disgrace--to make the business decision to fight her in court and thereby hope to save some money by gaming the jury system. Their strategy has to be to get the award knocked down some how by trying to prove that this did not hurt her career. Well, to hell with the career--it violated her privacy and safety. Isn't that enough? Apparently not.


(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});