Sarah Palin's enemies are automatically added to the Endangered Species List.

calendar   Monday - March 02, 2020

No SCOTUS Bump For Bump Stocks

Supremes Won’t Take Bump Stock Case Until Lower Courts Weigh In

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s regulatory ban on bump stocks, with one of the court’s Trump-appointed justices explaining that the issue needs more time to work through in the lower courts.

The case at hand — Guedes v. ATF — turns heavily on a Supreme Court precedent known as “Chevron deference.” The term was coined after the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC ruling, which provided a framework for when courts should defer to federal agencies’ “reasonable interpretation” of vague laws passed by instead of imposing their own. Conservatives have long taken issue with the precedent, arguing that it gives too much power to the administrative state.

In 2018, the Justice Department announced the new regulation classifying bump stocks as “machine guns” under federal law, despite the fact that they do not change the firing action of a semi-automatic firearm.

In their petition for the Supreme Court to take up the case, the plaintiffs argued that lower courts had incorrectly applied Chevron precedent in upholding the bump stock ban, and should have instead applied a different, less deferential standard for evaluating it.


In an opinion explaining why the Guedes petition was denied, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the idea that the Chevron deference had been incorrectly applied, noting that the administration had even asked the lower court to waive it.

“The executive branch and affected citizens asked the court to do what courts usually do in statutory interpretation disputes: supply its best independent judgment about what the law means,” the justice wrote. “But, instead of deciding the case the old-fashioned way, the court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.

Gorsuch went on to write that deferring to the government’s interpretation of the law might not be appropriate for other reasons, too.

“The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as ‘machine guns.’ Now it says the opposite,” the justice wrote.

“The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations,”
“Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments — provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems,” Gorsuch concluded. “But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.”

As much as I respect President Trump, I think he was rather knee-jerk in this situation. Sure, I think these are rather silly devices, and that one bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole bunch. But the way to handle this is through level headed legislation ... if you can find some.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 03/02/2020 at 04:42 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun ControlJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - November 24, 2019

RBG Back In The Hospital

Come On Ruth, Admit That It’s Time To Retire

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to Johns Hopkins hospital in Baltimore Friday night after symptoms of chills and a fever.

Ginsburg, 86, was originally evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., before being transferred for further tests, the Supreme Court said in a statement Saturday. Ginsburg is expected to be released from the hospital on Sunday morning,

Maybe the ethical thing for her to do would be to retire? Let’s face the truth: she’s dying. She was just in the hospital a couple weeks ago and missed work because of it. And she was hospitalized not too long before that. She’s got lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, and has had colon cancer since 1999. She’s 86, which can be spry for some, but for her it’s really old. While I appreciate her service to the country, there is a limit.

Yeah, I know, politics. But Trump will be re-elected, and there’s no way she’s going to make it another 4 years, either on the bench or at home. Sorry.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 11/24/2019 at 11:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - February 13, 2016

Breaking News, Scalia found Dead at his Ranch



I just heard reports of this from one of my friends. Apparently news is starting to get out that Justice Scalia was found dead at his ranch. I’ll try and get more news as it pops up, but I only wish it weren’t true....

If it is, Scalia was a rock ribbed constitutionalist and one of the greatest legal minds our continent has ever seen. And one that Obama will be able to appoint a replacement for.....

Sorry to co-opt Turtler’s post, but here’s a bit of an update ...

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

Scalia arrived at the 30,000-acre ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people that night, according to a federal official.

He left the party and retired to bed earlier than others, according to Donna Sellers, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Marshals Service.

When he failed to appear at breakfast, a person involved with the ranch went to his room, where he discovered his body. A priest was called to administer last rites.

A federal official, who asked not to be named, said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service. 

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia’s death.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement Saturday afternoon, calling Scalia a man of God, a patriot and an “unwavering defender of the written Constitution.”

“He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution,” Abbott said. “We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, and we will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.”

This is a terrible, horrible moment for America. My sympathies to his wife and family, of course, right now I fear for my nation. This is the man who ought to have been Chief Justice. This was one of the few people inside the Beltway who actually understood what the Constitution was all about. IMO, he rarely got one wrong; any SCOTUS decision that came down with “Scalia, dissenting” you pretty much assumed was wrongly decided. Like Kelo v. New London for example.

Can they find an honest person, a loyalist to the Constitution, to replace him with? Because just any “constitutional scholar” would give us another burrowing bilge rat like Obama, who obviously studied the system only to figure out how to subvert it. And we are that close ... one more false Constructionist justice on the bench, one more uninformed old hippie, one more racist lesbian trying to sell “social justice” as a special kind of wisdom ... and we are destroyed as a nation. 

So here comes the next battle. Unfortunately I fear it’s only going to be a Communists vs. Pussies battle. No real Americans are going to attend. Or be appointed. I fear for the future.

Posted by Turtler   United States  on 02/13/2016 at 05:44 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersObama, The OneOBITITUARIESUSA •  
Comments (7) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - November 08, 2015

Rapist not named but brit tax payer foots his cost to travel cos he has ‘rights’

Never mind name the creep.  Britain can’t even (apparently) deport the scum.
It’s the very same old story told yet again, but with a different cast.  The crime the same, the victims all generally the same, and the response of courts is …. same old same old. 
Their legal hands are tied by the agreement EU member states signed up to with regard to human rights.  Nothing said of course about little things like, protecting the public, responsibility, punishment.

Now this brief article is important for me not due to the crime itself.
This is one criminal act among many, but the response dear reader is symptomatic of what I always refer to as, the west’s inability to defend itself.

Whether it’s against mass illegal immigration or crime on the streets,
Britain like the rest of Europe seem helpless against the laws in place that make it near impossible to deport killers and rapists, because they have “Rights” don’t ya know. 

As a citizen, your rights are to absorb the kicks and the stabs and the rapes and everything including fractured eye sockets and even your death. 

I have seen the headline here written a different way more than once but no answers that make sense are forthcoming.


I found an interesting quote from Piers Morgan a few weeks ago.  It says a lot about how things are done and always have been.  Whether the subject is mass migration or violent crime and punishment, nothing has changed.  He was referring to his once stint as a talent judge on TV.
He said it’s a lot like being Prime Minister. 

The great British public would bring back hanging tomorrow if we let them.
Their collective opinion must be always respected,
but stoically resisted.

the following is from Platell’s People at the Daily Mail

Why can’t we name this rapist asylum seeker? 

By Amanda Platell

On the surface, it’s the kind of everyday tale of human rights lunacy to which we’ve become almost inured.
An Iranian man illegally entered the UK 11 years ago and his asylum request was rejected three months later. He appealed and that, too, was rejected. But he just stayed on.

In September 2009 he was convicted of rape and jailed for five years. Still no attempt to remove him, despite his clear danger to the public. He went on to father a child, was in prison again when the baby was born and separated from its mother shortly afterwards. And still he remained in Britain.

Now a High Court judge has ruled that, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, we must pay his fortnightly travel costs to visit his child, as refusing to do so is a breach of his ‘right to a family life’.

This, of course, in addition to the tens of thousands of pounds he has cost us in legal fees.

But this case raises even more troubling questions. An estimated three million more migrants will reach the EU by the end of next year. Of the 750,000 who have arrived so far this year, half a million have claimed asylum.

And while the numbers are smaller for the UK, there is no doubt that many among this tide of desperation will end up here. It’s a mass migration on an unprecedented scale and cases like the Iranian rapist sap the very compassion out of the British people.

For I fear it is the most deserving and desperate asylum seekers who will suffer the inevitable backlash as pressure on housing and public services mounts.

And if we can’t even remove a rapist who has twice had his claim for asylum rejected, what hope is there?
Cases like this shake our confidence in a system that is clearly failing.

Look at the figures. Of the 314,000 asylum seekers whose applications were rejected in the seven years up to 2004, only 75,000 were removed.
Home Secretary Theresa May is making heroic strides trying to tighten the system, but is thwarted at every turn by the courts and the Human Rights Act, something David Cameron vowed to replace.

Perhaps most worrying of all is that we are not even allowed to know the Iranian rapist’s name. In court he was referred to as MG, no doubt to protect him and his child

What about the protection of the British public? Isn’t the whole point of the sex offenders’ register that we should be allowed to know the identity of the monsters in our midst?

Terrifyingly, he is just one of the 400 foreign murderers, rapists and paedophiles to successfully challenge their deportation orders in the past 12 months on human rights grounds.

To cap it all, he is challenging his asylum claim rejection for a third time.

It’s enough to make you want to leave the country.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 11/08/2015 at 07:40 AM   
Filed Under: • CrimeDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsIllegal-Aliens and ImmigrationJudges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUK •  
Comments (4) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Thursday - October 08, 2015

the enemy within ,,,, is us?

A few days ago Wardmom said, among other things,

“civilized society is being destroyed by leftists within.”

And as if further proof were needed.
Which is just one example among many. 

Judge praises Human Rights Act for keeping terrorists out on the streets! President of the Supreme Court says laws gave courts the power to defy Parliament
· Lord Neuberger praised act for keeping terror suspects free from detention
· Said case in which Law Lords ordered that foreign terror suspects may not be held, adding it ‘vindicated importance of judges to the rule of law’
· His intervention risks plunging the judiciary into contentious political battle
By Steve Doughty for the Daily Mail

One of the country’s most influential judges yesterday praised the Human Rights Act for keeping terror suspects free from detention.

Lord Neuberger, the leading judge at the Supreme Court, said the controversial act had given judges the power to defy Parliament.

He singled out the landmark 2004 case in which Law Lords ordered that foreign terror suspects may not be held in detention and said it ‘vindicated the importance of judges to the rule of law’.

The decision resulted in the immediate release from detention of 12 terrorist suspects, including Abu Qatada, who then couldn’t be deported from Britain until 2013.

Abu Qatada’s teaching and training while in this country has been linked to numerous terror incidents, most recently to the ‘sunbed killings’ of 38 people, many of them British tourists, in Tunisia in June.

The Law Lords made their decision, now seen as the first successful use of the Human Rights Act against a government by judges, less than seven months before the 7/7 suicide attacks killed 52 people on tube trains and a bus in London.

In a speech to legal clerks, Lord Neuberger, who is president of the country’s highest court, praised the judges who made the decision.

In particular he congratulated Lord Hoffmann, the judge who notoriously declared in the case that the real threat to the country was not terrorism but anti-terrorist laws. Lord Neuberger said Lord Hoffmann had showed how judges were using their ‘fundamental right to freedom of expression’.

The intervention by Lord Neuberger, head of the court which is the successor to the Law Lords and which is designed to take the most important legal decisions, risks plunging the judiciary into a deeply contentious political battle.



Posted by peiper   United States  on 10/08/2015 at 09:25 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - August 14, 2015

some people really and truly should be dead.  i’d even include their lawyers.

Okay … why does the media and even our military accommodate this thieving, traitorous flaming faggot by calling him a her.  HIS name is Bradley damn it and as long as he has male parts I don’t care if he wears a wig and lisps my name is Chelsea.

Now I haven’t a clue as to why he should not have been reading a popular magazine, or what the rules are.  But it’s pretty clear that while being in jail is usually no bed of roses, more and more creeps like this are pushing their “rights” and making a few up as they go along.  And of course they have lawyers. 
In his case ….  one of the rules violated was he had out of date toothpaste.
I have no liking for this bastard whatever but …. what the hell is wrong with having toothpaste that’s out of date?  And maybe he hadn’t even noticed it was.

Oh and btw damn way.  How is it HE is allowed to write for a newspaper?  As reported here, he writes a column for the very left wing Guardian, based here in Britain.  Besides that, how about this. 

Manning has become a transgender rights activist and writer.

How does one become an activist while in prison?  Must have plenty of spare time and not much in the way of KP or work details. 

I guess at some point in time with taxpayer money, he’s already been approved for hormone treatments, he’ll go all the way and have his male part removed and become what he says he is. Well maybe during the operation they might make a mistake and cut the wrong way and he’ll f***ing die.  Seems to me there was a time when the death penalty applied to treason. 
But I guess fucking the country whose uniform you wore just isn’t as serious as once it was.
Too bad that.

As an aside …. with all the damn guns floating around in the USA, with ppl being shot or shot at, with literally millions of guns in private hands, why is it that not once has a patriot taken out a defense lawyer for people like Bradley Manning?
Just asking is all.

I caught this article in a liberal paper, so most of the anti American comments by ass wipe block heads who are all experts on us will not surprise you. But go ahead. Read em anyway.  It’ll reinforce why we’re on the right and conservatives.

The US Traitor, Chelsea Bradley Manning could be placed in solitary confinement for allegedly being in possession of the Caitlyn Jenner issue of a Vanity Fair, her his lawyer said on Wednesday.

Manning is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence after being convicted of espionage for leaking over 700,000 classified documents to Wikileaks while working for the military in Iraq.

Manning, who is transgender, is currently serving her his prison sentence at the Fort Leavenworth men’s military prison, where her his hearing in front of a panel of three people will take place in private, according to her his lawyer Nancy Hollander.


Manning was also allegedly found with other reading material, an expired tube of toothpaste and is accused of disorderly conduct for sweeping food onto the floor and of showing disrespect, according to the Associated Press.

Her his supporters have launched an online petition claiming she he is being punished for “speaking out” and listed the four charges against herhim , which include ‘medicine misuse’ for the expired toothpaste.

Ms Hollander told AP Manning had requested the hearing be held in public.

“This is like prison disciplinary infractions in a civilian prison and there will be a hearing, but frankly it looks to me like harassment,” she added.

Hollander claimed a number of Manning’s books and magazines were confiscated, including a copy of Malala Yousafzai’s autobiography, the book Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy — The Many Faces of Anonymous, an issue of Cosmopolitan featuring an interview with herhim , and a copy of the US Senate report on CIA torture.

Since announcing her his transition in 2013, Manning has become a transgender rights activist and writer. She he is also a columnist for The Guardian.

Manning’s hormone therapy was approved by the US Government in a landmark ruling in February, although she he is not allowed to grow her his hair.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/14/2015 at 05:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFREALLY WORTHLESS and PUTRID PEOPLE •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - August 01, 2015

‘This sums up everything that is wrong about our immigration system

Just another reason to make Britain your next home.  Especially if you’re criminal minded and ,,,, if you’ve ever killed anyone ,,,, go to the head of the line.

Old subject ,, recent article. How could they have allowed this insanity to continue?  How could things have become so routine?

Oh and btw .... his legal aid paid for by ????  You get five guesses cos I know this is a hard one.  These pop quizzes aren’t supposed to be easy ya know.

Sex attacker allowed to stay in Britain because of his right to family life… despite walking out on his wife and children

The sex attacker known only as AB appealed an order for his deportation

The illegal immigrant spent 16 years trying to avoid being sent to Morocco

The man was deported in 2000 but managed to sneak back in to the UK

He was able to challenge his latest deportation after five court attempts

By Ian Drury for the Daily Mail

A foreign sex attacker cannot be deported because of his right to a family life – even though his wife says he has left her and their children.

The 52-year-old illegal immigrant, who has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, has run rings around the Home Office as he has evaded attempts to boot him out of Britain for 16 years.

The Moroccan, who can only be identified as AB, was last night accused of making a mockery of the immigration system, with critics branding a judge’s decision to let him stay in the country ‘idiotic’ and ‘flying completely in the face of common sense’.

In a further slap in the face to the public, the shameless criminal is claiming a five-figure sum in legal aid to fund his battle to stay in the country, which was revealed in court papers seen by the Daily Mail. Five years after slipping into the UK in May 1991, AB was convicted of a serious sexual assault on a 61-year-old woman.

A deportation order was issued in 1999 and he was deported in June 2000 after serving four years in prison.

However, in a move branded ‘inexplicable’ by a judge, border guards allowed him back in on Christmas Day that year.

AB subsequently had two children, aged ten and nine, with an English citizen identified only as Ms S, who he married in 2009.

Now, after four unsuccessful legal challenges between 2006 and 2012, he has thwarted Theresa May’s latest bid to remove him – successfully arguing it would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to family life. In October last year immigration Judge Jeremy Rintoul ruled the Home Secretary acted ‘unlawfully’ by failing to give sufficient weight to the ‘harm’ his removal could cause the children and quashed the deportation order.

However, the illegal immigrant’s wife told the Mail that AB had not lived at the family home in Luton since January.

She said: ‘He’s been gone for a good few months since the beginning of this year and he doesn’t live here anymore.

‘He went of his own accord and we haven’t seen him for a while. I’ve not heard from him either.’

In total, AB’s case is estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money in detention, legal challenges and paperwork.

Last night critics were outraged. Conservative MP Philip Davies said: ‘This sums up everything that is wrong about our immigration system and how lax our border controls are.

‘It is scandalous that a foreign criminal can play the system after committing such a serious offence.

more to read

come on ....  it wasn’t this piece of worthless scum who ran rings around the system.  How about treasonous, filthy, money mad lawyers who don’t care one bit what harm they do to the country they live in.

Have you noticed that even in the USA, in spite of a lot of publicity a few years ago, in neither country is there a well organized and funded and dedicated patriot militia who are trained well and able to quietly take out the vermin and their enablers.  Who multiply by numbers I can’t even imagine. 


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/01/2015 at 07:53 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINEDaily LifeIllegal-Aliens and ImmigrationJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Thursday - June 25, 2015

Welcome To Wonderland

SCOTUS Rolls Over, Plays Dead For Her Master

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, as opponents contended.

The outcome was the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. And it came the same day the court gave him an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

Obama greeted news of the decision by declaring the health care law “is here to stay.” He said the law is no longer about politics, but the benefits millions of people are receiving.

Declining to concede, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans, who have voted more than 50 times to undo the law, will “continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families.”

At the court, Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold it in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts declared in the majority opinion.

Limiting the subsidies only to individuals in states with their own exchanges could well push insurance markets in the other states “into a death spiral,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent he summarized from the bench, strongly disagreed. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he said, using an acronym for the Supreme Court and suggesting his colleagues’ ownership by virtue of their twice stepping in to save the law from what he considered worthy challenges.

His comment drew a smile from Roberts, his seatmate and the object of Scala’s ire.

Scalia said that Roberts’ 2012 decision that upheld the law and his opinion on Thursday “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Boy howdy, nothing like taking a quote out of context. Changes everything, nyet? How about the whole Roberts quote this time?

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Roberts continued, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

In other words, the law means what I say it means, NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.  Um, gosh, does that sound a wee bit familiar??

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges.

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote.

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent, as they did in 2012.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton commented on Twitter following the ruling.

“Yes! SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under the law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all,” she tweeted.

So there you have it. The law is what we say it is, without regard to how it was written, because we so fervently believe it to be true. Feelings trump every kind of fact, every aspect of reality, including the written word of law. From the very top on down.

Welcome to Wonderland.

PS - and you’re not allowed to think about how this kind of squishy thinking can now be applied to any other annoying law, like the Constitution. 


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 06/25/2015 at 01:20 PM   
Filed Under: • Health-MedicineJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (6) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Tuesday - June 02, 2015

America catches up as the supremes endorse the 5th century.

From the BBC … Just another bag of bull**** from another court. This time the supremes.  Nobody denied her a job because of religion. Abercrombie has (or they once had) a very specific dress code.  An image.  And a head scarf was not a part of that image.  But our glorious supreme court got suckered on this.

Hey …. if a company is paying out money and is in the field of fashion in some way, then why don’t they have a right to insist on a dress code?
This is not the first time Abercrombie has been in court on the issue of appearance. 

Some years ago when we were living in Riverside, Calif., this rather large pile of flab and cellulite applied for a job at a gym in Ca.  They refused to hire her as they thought her mass of flab would not be in keeping with their image of health.

So she sued and of course she won. 

Was a time when someone like that would see an incentive and loose weight but no.
In the modern world, just kick off ur shoes, make yourself comfy and sue.

H/T BBC News

US Muslim in Abercrombie hijab court win

“I was a teenager who loved fashion and was eager to work for Abercrombie & Fitch,” said Ms Elauf in a statement after the court released its decision.
Ms Elauf was 17 years old when the discrimination occurred during a job interview at a shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2008.

“Observance of my faith should not have prevented me from getting a job. I am glad that I stood up for my rights”, she said after the ruling.

In an 8-1 verdict, the court ruled that Abercrombie had violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

Groups representing Jews, Sikhs, Christian, gay, and lesbian rights organisations filed papers in court in solidarity with Ms Elauf, who told reporters she sought to protect the rights of people of all faiths at work.

In 2013 Abercrombie & Fitch Co settled with two American Muslim women who were targeted by management for their use of the hijab. Each woman was awarded $71,000 (£47,000).

Abercrombie & Fitch Co has since reversed its policy on headscarves.

Abercrombie & Fitch argued that Elauf couldn’t succeed without first showing that the employer had “actual knowledge” of her need for a religious accommodation. But the Court disagreed, and sent the case back down to the lower court for further consideration.

The controversy began in 2008 when then 17-year-old Samantah Elauf sought a job with the retailer. Prior to the interview, Elauf was nervous she might not be hired because of the black headscarf that she wears for religious reasons. She interviewed with assistant manager Heather Cooke, however, and although she was told that the company’s “look policy” meant she shouldn’t wear a lot of make up, black clothing or nail polish, her head scarf never came up.

But after the interview Cooke sought approval from her district manager. She said she told the manager that she assumed Elauf was Muslim and figured she wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The manager said Elauf shouldn’t be hired because the scarf was inconsistent with the look policy that bans head gear.


What the article here hasn’t mentioned and come to think of it, neither did CNN in theirs,
is that A & F says her head scarf conflicted with their “Look Policy,” which derives from its focus on what the company calls its
East Coast collegiate style.

So the bottom line is that the folks who foot the bill have no rights. 


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 06/02/2015 at 08:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - April 17, 2015

now it’s racist cupcakes

Well, I don’t guess you’d mistake them for anything else but African.  But heck, it’s sure spot on descriptive in many cases.

Anyway, I don’t understand why that darkie is bitching about colonialism.  But for the white colonists for all their faults, they brought progress also. And roads and medicines and education. And that last was a mistake. So was the cure for some of their ills.
Can’t help but be reminded of something Kim du Toit said one time.
Let Africa sink.

‘Racist’ cupcakes banned from French pastry shop: Court orders removal of dark chocolate figures with pink lips

Patisserie banned from displaying dark chocolate cakes of naked people
Nice court ruled ‘obscene’ cakes were violation of ‘human dignity’
Anti-racism campaigners denounced them as ‘slave trade caricatures’
Baker said use of dark chocolate was ‘technically necessary’

By Elaine O’flynn For Mailonline

A bakery in the French Riviera has been banned from displaying cupcakes of a naked man and woman made out of dark chocolate - because they were inciting ‘racial hatred’.

The ‘God’ and Goddess’ cakes, which were topped with the chocolate figures of a naked, plump man and woman with pink lips and protruding genitalia, were deemed offensive by a French court after a complaint by a shocked resident.

A judge concluded that treats - sold in a ‘boulangerie’ in the town of Grasse, NIce - showed ‘two people of colour in grotesque and obscene attitudes’, adding they violate ‘human dignity, especially that of the African people or people of African descent.’


The administrative court in Nice ruled while the patisserie can still bake and sell the cakes - which have been made to order for the last 15 years - it said the town’s mayor must ensure that the offending pastries were removed from the shop window.

For every day they were still on show, the town faced a fine of €500 (£360).

The court said it found no ‘malicious will’ on the part of the baker, but also ordered the town to pay a fine of €1,000 (£730) to the Representative Council of Black Association (CRAN), which joined the calls for the cupcakes to be banned.

President of CRAN Louis George-Tin said he was ‘delighted’ with the ruling, made on Thursday, adding it was a warning to the rest of France.

Before the court hearing he told The Local the cakes were ‘pure and simple racism; and denounced it as a ‘obscene slave trade caricatures that tap into the tradition of colonial racism’.

‘We are in a country where the word equality is part of the constitution, which means it doesn’t allow for racism. Does he think these treats adhere to the values of the French Republic?’ he said.

“We must fight this kind of racism. I cannot imagine what would be said (rightly) if an African baker decided to represent Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary in a similar way.’

Baker Yannick Tavolaro said he makes the cupcakes only on weekends, and often to order. 

He has now made a defamation complaint against CRAN, and said the use of dark chocolate is ‘technically necessary’ to model the figures, which he said were cartoons.

In a post on his Facebook page after the ruling, Mr Tavolaro said he planned to make the cakes asexual, with a sign saying ‘Castrated by Censorship’.

source for more


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 04/17/2015 at 07:01 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (5) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - February 15, 2015

ok, here’s your pop quiz for the morning. guess the group the attacker belongs to

Whoops. I guess I had it all wrong.
I thought the idea of one law for one group and another law for another group was nowadays, passe.

Guess not, but not surprised either.

Just another good reason for going armed.

We can all guess who would have been on hand had the attacker been the wrong color.
Well, at least there won’t be any unruly protests by anti fascists and al sharpton. I guess that’s something.

Teenager who fractured 19-year-old’s skull with a single punch after victim asked him for a light in McDonald’s is SPARED prison

Caine Inyanga, 19, admitted grievous bodily harm and common assault
Punched teen after he asked for a light in McDonald’s, Middlesbrough
Adam Turner, 19, suffered fractured skull and tinnitus after attack
Inyanga given 16-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months
Also made subject of curfew, ordered to complete unpaid work and pay compensation

By Sam Matthew for MailOnline

A promising university student fractured a 19-year-old’s skull with a single punch after the victim asked him if he had a cigarette lighter in a McDonald’s restaurant, a court heard.

Caine Inyanga, 19, was spared jail after he floored Adam Turner in the violent early morning attack that left the tool maker unconscious on the ground.

Turner, also aged 19, approached Inyanga in the early hours of the morning in McDonald’s in Middlesbrough, Teesside, and asked if he had a cigarette lighter.

After receiving no response from the chemical engineering student the victim turned to Inyanga’s female companion and asked the same question.

Inyanga, who had been drinking and taking drugs, demanded Mr Turner and his friend ‘get outside now,’ said prosecutor Emma Atkinson.

The pair made it clear they did not want to fight, but he punched both of them, Teesside Crown Court heard.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 02/15/2015 at 06:34 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily LifeJudges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFREALLY WORTHLESS and PUTRID PEOPLE •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - August 13, 2014

so then …. what it take to get arrested and go to jail?  bad language will do it

So ... whatsitake to get arrested or go to jail over here?

Oh ... lets see.  Using the ‘N’ word will do that. Yeah. Use that and the kops will come down on you like ducks on a June bug.

What else? Erm .... using insulting language or causing discomfort or fear of harm.  Not certain but I think you could be arrested if someone said you did that.
Racist language. Yup. That one will do it for sure. 

How about if you glass somebody’s face. You know. Broken bottle and whammo.  Blood everywhere. What fun. How about that?
Nah.  Whats you askin? Hey. You be white boy?  Arrest and quick conviction and to the slammer. You won’t stay there a long time but you will probably go to jail.
However .... should you belong to a special group, and should your first name also be Jasmin. Ah well now we have a different set of rules.

Here’s your get out of jail card.

Estate agent who smashed glass in man’s face avoids jail… even though it was her 18th court appearance for violence

Yasmin Thomas attacked Ronnie Lee with broken glass in Bournemouth club
She has 17 previous convictions for assault and battery, court heard
Judge John Harrow said her criminal history was ‘breathtaking’
But she has been given a 12-month sentence suspended for two years
Also handed 80 hours’ community service after pleading guilty to ABH

By Luke Salkel


A woman who smashed a broken glass into a stranger’s face in a nightclub has been spared jail – despite it being her 18th conviction for assault.

Estate agent Yasmin Thomas, 21, left her male victim with serious eye injuries after she lunged at him with the potentially lethal object.

A court heard she has already been convicted for 17 crimes of assault and battery.

A judge branded Thomas’s criminal history ‘breathtaking’ and one of the worst he had ever seen of a woman her age.

But the female thug escaped with a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years, and 80 hours community service after pleading guilty to a charge of causing actual bodily harm.

She was also ordered to attend anger management classes.

Thomas attacked Ronnie Lee, whom she did not know, in Bar So nightclub in Bournemouth town centre after a row over an e-cigarette.

Thomas’s friend had snatched it from a friend of Mr Lee, and had thrown it on the floor.

Thomas then picked it up and thrust the device at Mr Lee, demanding: ‘Are you not going to say thank you? Who do you think you are?’

She then lunged towards Mr Lee with a broken glass, causing a serious gash to his left eyelid and two smaller cuts to his face.

The injuries were so close to his eye that Mr Lee feared he would lose his sight.

Tiny shards of glass were later removed from his eye.

Prosecuting, Carolyn Branford-Wood told Bournemouth Crown Court: ‘Miss Thomas, with a glass in her hand, lunged towards Mr Lee, who felt a blow to his left eye and blood trickling down his face.’

The court was told that Mr Lee was ‘very lucky’ not to have suffered any permanent damage following the brutal attack.

Miss Branford-Wood said doctors initially feared he had suffered a fractured eye socket following the assault, which also left him needing stitches to the cut on his eyelid.

Thomas, who lives in Bournemouth, worked as a sales negotiator at Palmer Snell estate agency. Yesterday the company refused to confirm whether Thomas was still employed.

Sentencing her, judge John Harrow said: ‘You have a breathtaking record of violence, one of the worst I have ever seen from anyone your age.

‘It is not without a lot of hesitation and some reservations, I must confess, that I’m going to suspend that 12 month sentence for two years.’

continued here


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/13/2014 at 02:02 PM   
Filed Under: • CrimeJudges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OF •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - August 06, 2014

why can’t punishment fit the crime, especially in cases of torture and cold blooded killing for fun

Usually I just post part of an article and supply a link. Easy. 
Except here with this very sad and anger inducing article.  Not that there is anything new or even surprising.  Even the crime doesn’t surprise us anymore.
It must be a living hell for the parents. I don’t understand the thinking of the many who are running what is laughably and erroneously called, “the Justice System.” If someone is given life for cold blooded murder, and one done for hell of it, why after denying a full and active live to some innocent, should the killer be later deemed as no longer a threat to society and paroled?  Why are they entitled to live free?  Some are even transferred to open prisons, from which a number of them have run away. Well actually, simply walked off.  Oh, and the rules now say prisoners must be addressed as ‘mister’ if you please.

Seems to me that if the vermin in this case were executed in the very same manner they took one innocent life, society would be much better off, probably safer, and if punishments were made to fit the crimes we hear about these days, there might just be less of this kind of thing.  Not a cure all I know, but a step in the right direction.  But oh no. That’s a slippery slope and would violate the human rights of the killer(s).

So here’s what got me going today.  Not very pleasant first thing with morning tea or coffee.

What is the point of victim impact statements?

By Paul Gallagher

Allan Bentley was jailed for life in 2000 for orchestrating the torture and killing of 15-year-old Michael Moss on playing fields in Sefton, Merseyside, in what became known as the “Reservoir Dogs” murder.

Bentley and two friends, Mark McKeefrey and Graham Neary, stripped Moss naked, then beat him and stabbed him 49 times over two hours. Mimicking a scene in the Quentin Tarantino heist movie, the three teens tried to cut off one of his ears with a broken vodka bottle while singing “Stuck in the Middle with You”.

At their separate parole hearings over the years, Michael’s mum, Liz, has read out her victim impact statement in the hope that the trio would remain behind bars for longer than the minimum tariffs they received. “I will never forget that day I was told of Michael’s murder,” she in her statement. “It was such a traumatic murder that my mind will not and cannot to this day accept the torture that Michael suffered. Every day of my life, I have flashbacks of what happened to Michael. I cannot go past a park or playing fields, as I see the images of my beautiful son being tortured. What I see is Michael lying naked on a very cold November night with every part of his body bleeding and mutilated.

“I go into a trance and cannot hear people talking, but I can hear Michael shouting ‘Mum, mum, mum’. Sometimes I feel I am losing my mind because I want to feel the torture he went through. Bentley has served a relatively short time in prison compared to my life sentence of grief and pain.”

Mrs Moss, 59, said she had suffered a mental breakdown, been hospitalised and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, but her words have been to no avail. One by one her son’s killers have been released.

Judge Graham White may well have had Mrs Moss in mind when he was caught on camera this week saying that impact statements made by bereaved families made “no difference” to parole judgements. His conversation was overheard by Geraldine and Peter McGinty whose son Colin, 21, was stabbed to death 13 years ago, also in Merseyside. Two men – Michael Brown and Gary Hampton – were jailed for his murder. After both killers applied to be moved to open prison, the McGintys were invited to give an impact statement – allowed when an offender has been sentenced to custody for 12 months or more for a serious sexual or violent offence – via video link. At Brown’s hearing, the couple explained that they were still “serving a life sentence of heartache and grief and pain”.

Judge White, who mistakenly thought the link had been disconnected, turned to one side and said: “I feel so sorry for these families. They make these statements thinking they are going to make a difference, but they make no difference at all. Someone should tell them.”

The McGintys said the comments were “sickening”. “The heartache that we go through to do these statements, to be told they don’t make any difference,” Mrs McGinty said.

Judge White has apologised, saying: “I am sorry if what they overheard upset them and if it made them feel that what they had said had no impact because it certainly did, but what it can’t do is affect our judgement of his [Brown’s] risk.”

The Parole Board is investigating the judge’s comments. A spokesman said the board values victim statements and recognises the importance of giving victims the opportunity to make their voices heard. “Where release is being considered,” he said, “Victim Personal Statements can assist in setting appropriate licence conditions such as exclusion zones and conditions for the offender not to contact the victim.”

However, according to the Board’s own guidelines, decisions are “ultimately based on the offender’s current risk”. The guidance states: “In most cases, the victim is unlikely to have information [on] this.”

Other victims of serious crime reacted with anger to Judge White’s comments. Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove, whose husband Garry was kicked to death in Warrington in 2007 by a gang vandalising his car, said that it saddened her to hear of another family not treated with basic humanity and respect. “Victims pour their hearts into these statements to make sure they do their loved ones the best possible justice,” she said. “They should never be dismissed like this. It’s the only way for a victim to express the terrible impact of a crime, and how a decision such as a move to open conditions could affect their lives. That’s why it should be respected and given proper consideration before making a decision.”

Laws on data protection and confidentiality prevent victims and relatives from seeing a copy of the Parole Board’s “written reasons” for their decisions. Rose Dixon, the CEO of charity Support After Murder and Manslaughter, last night called for clarification from the Ministry of Justice regarding the purpose of victim impact statements. “It used to be clear what the role of impact statements was but following Judge White’s comments regarding the McGinty family, we need some very clear guidelines [if their role has changed].”



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/06/2014 at 05:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUK •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - July 16, 2014

another barking mad judgement

The Brits call something like this, Barking Mad.
Which of course it is.
I can not imagine this actually getting anywhere but then, these days where down is up, I can’t rule it out either.  Can’t say as I blame the farmer in the story, as it’s pretty hard to believe he’d come up with this all on his own. The skunk in the room has to be a lawyer.
Oh ... gee.  Well what a surprise.

Anyway, this is another one ... for the books.

Ethiopian farmer gets legal aid… To sue us for sending aid to Ethiopia: Case that will be funded by taxpayers branded as ‘ridiculous’ by MPs

Ethiopian man launches taxpayer funded legal action against British Government despite never having set foot in the country
Farmer claims ministers are funding a one-party state in his homeland that has helped regime inflict ‘brutal treatment’ on thousands
Taxpayers will pay for both the farmer’s lawyers and a defence team from the Department for International Development
Legal action has been branded as farcical, bizarre and ridiculous by MPs angry he was able to lodge court documents before law change

By James Slack and Ian Drury

An Ethiopian farmer has won permission to use taxpayers’ money to sue the British Government ... for sending aid to his homeland.

The case, branded ridiculous by MPs, will be funded entirely by the public even though the farmer has never set foot in this country.

The 33-year-old Ethiopian – granted anonymity to protect his family – says ministers are funding a one-party state in his country that has breached his human rights. He says foreign aid helped the regime inflict ‘brutal treatment’ on thousands of farmers driven from their land, against the International Development Act 2002.

Taxpayers will pay for both the farmer’s lawyers and a defence team from the Department for International Development, in a case that could cost tens of thousands of pounds. This is in addition to the £1.3billion Britain has sent to Ethiopia since 2010.

The farmer lodged the court papers from Kenya, before Justice Secretary Chris Grayling introduced rules to prevent cases being brought by those who have never set foot in the UK. The changes, which come into force next month, will mean anybody seeking legal aid in civil cases must have been resident in Britain for at least 12 months.

A Whitehall source said: ‘Whatever hardships this man has faced, the idea that someone without any connection to this country can get public money to sue the Government borders on the farcical.’

Tory MP Peter Bone, a fierce critic of UK aid policy, said the legal action was ‘bizarre’, adding: ‘This is a ridiculous case and it is ridiculous there is legal aid for it.’ However, he added: ‘If money is going to a corrupt regime and somebody is pointing that out then we should be taking note of it. That is the problem. A lot of the money goes on propping up corrupt regimes.’

And speaking of lawyers ....


Leigh Day has earned vast sums in legal aid by bringing cases against the Government on behalf of overseas clients.

Last year the firm won compensation worth almost £20million for 5,200 Kenyans who were tortured and abused during the Mau Mau rebellion in the Fifties and Sixties.

It is also heavily involved in the Al Sweady Inquiry, examining claims that troops executed and tortured Iraqis at a camp near Basra in 2004.

The hearings have already cost taxpayers £27million, despite evidence linking the men to a ‘terrorist organisation’.

The farmer, referred to as, O, is being represented by Rosa Curling of Leigh Day. Her law firm has already brought a string of human rights-based legal aid cases against the State on behalf of overseas claimants who say they have suffered ill-treatment due to government policies.

Ministers had urged the High Court to reject the latest claim, but Mr Justice Warby said yesterday it was ‘reasonable’ for O to believe there was a link between the Department for International development handing aid to Ethiopia and alleged human rights abuses.

He said O may launch a judicial review to argue the department had ‘failed to have in place any sufficient process to assess Ethiopia’s compliance with the express conditions for receiving UK aid – or to follow such process’. International Development Secretary Justine Greening, who is named as the respondent on the court papers, denies the claims.

A department spokesman said: ‘The UK has never funded Ethiopia’s resettlement programmes. Our support to the Protection of Basic Services Programme is only used to provide essential services like healthcare, schooling and clean water.’

read more


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 07/16/2014 at 09:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Daily LifeDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  
Page 1 of 35 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Five Most Recent Trackbacks:

Once Again, The One And Only Post
(4 total trackbacks)
Tracked at
The advantage to having a guide with you is thɑt an expert will haѵe very first hand experience dealing and navigating the river with гegional wildlife. Tһomas, there are great…
On: 07/28/23 10:37

The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at head to the Momarms site
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We’ve Been Waiting For
On: 03/14/23 11:20

Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造,北京名传天下配音公司
  专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作,北京名传天下配音公司   北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月,是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司,幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位,可供给一流的外语配音,长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台,能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话:010-83265555   北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00

meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
On: 07/17/17 04:28

a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07



Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
  1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
  2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
  3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
  4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.


Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner

GNU Terry Pratchett

Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
free counters