Javier H. Castillo

thepoliticalfreakshow:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says an anonymous tip can be sufficient to justify a decision by police to pull a car over on suspicion of reckless or drunken driving.

The justices voted 5-4 Tuesday to uphold a traffic stop in northern California in which officers subsequently found marijuana in the vehicle. The officers themselves did not see any evidence of reckless driving.

Justice Clarence Thomas said the tip phoned in to 911 that a Ford pickup truck had run the caller off the road was sufficiently reliable to allow for the traffic stop without violating the driver’s constitutional rights.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent in which he called Thomas’ opinion “a freedom-destroying cocktail.”

What?

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Last month, a regional National Labor Relations Board ruled that football players at Northwestern University have the right to unionize. This set up a huge potential national battle: Because if players can unionize, players can demand to be paid.

But the case has a lot of different factors and outcomes on the table. Here’s everything you could possibly need to know about the case and what’s probably going to happen.

1. Are college athletes going to get paid?


Not sure yet.

2. But the Northwestern case has to do with whether college athletes get paid, right?


Sort of. Last month a regional version of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which handles union regulations for private businesses, ruled football players at Northwestern University qualify as employees and can join a union, if they wanted to.

3. What does that have to do with getting paid?


If college athletes can join a union, then they could collectively bargain with universities and demand wages, thus potentially getting paid. As of now, they say they don’t want wages, but once they unionize, the players would have the right to ask for them.

But just because they have the right to ask doesn’t mean they necessarily would. And just because they ask for wages doesn’t mean they’d necessarily get them.

4. So the football players at Northwestern are in a union now?


Not yet, and it might not happen at all. On Friday, the team will vote on whether they want to unionize. If they vote yes, they’d be joining the College Athletes Players Association, which is headed up in part by former Northwestern QB Kain Colter. The United Steelworkers is backing that union along with the National College Players Association.

But we probably won’t know whether the Northwestern players vote to join the union for at least a couple months. After the regional NLRB board ruled the players could unionize, the university appealed the decision to the national NLRB — and the results of the union election will be sealed if the national board takes up the case. So we probably won’t know what the Northwestern players decide for a while.

5. Is the national NLRB board going to take up the case?


Almost definitely. The question of whether college athletes at private universities can join unions and collectively bargain has major consequences for the NCAA and for the way those universities conduct business.

6. What would they be ruling on?


The national NLRB would rule on whether college athletes at private universities have the right to unionize.

7. What about athletes at, like, Kentucky or Ohio State?


This doesn’t extend to them. Athletes at public schools have to examine each individual state’s labor laws to figure out how to proceed, a process the United Steelworkers is already getting into.

8. What happens if the national NLRB doesn’t take the case?


If the national NLRB doesn’t take up the case, it would effectively mean the national board supports the lower, regional board’s ruling. Or, it would mean the Northwestern football players would be able to unionize. How that would affect other private universities around the country, or even other teams at the school, remains unclear.

9. So if the national NLRB doesn’t take up the case, and the players vote to unionize, they’re in the union?


Yes.

But the catch here is Northwestern can, and likely will, still refuse to bargain with them. The players (the union) would then say the school is not bargaining in good faith and now the case would go to court. From there, the case could take years to resolve and could possibly go as high as the Supreme Court.

10. Is that all?

Everything You Need To Know About The Northwestern Football Case And If College Athletes Will Get Paid

There are still a few more cases.

11. OK, let’s say all this stuff happens: The national NLRB takes up the case, rules in favor of the union, and the players vote to join the union. What happens then?


This is the situation the union is hoping for — but it would still likely lead to a lengthy court battle.

It’ll probably take several months for the NLRB to reach a decision, which means the ballots from the election would remain sealed until the decision is announced. But if the NLRB rules in favor of the union, and the players join, the players would want to start bargaining with the school. And then, again, the case likely goes court.

12. Last one: What happens if the national NLRB takes up the case, but rules against the union?


This is one of the trickier legal cases because the union has a much narrower window to appeal for judicial review in this case, according to Gerald Berendt, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

Any ballots that were cast would likely remain sealed, since the players can’t actually vote for a union they weren’t allowed to form in the first place. The ballots likely wouldn’t be destroyed, though, because the union would still have a little-used legal tactic to try to overturn the NLRB. The union could claim the NLRB went beyond the scope of its powers by denying the union their rights and appeal that way. It’s a rarely used tactic, Berendt said, and it’s unclear how successful it would be.

13. Jeez, this can get complicated.


Yeah, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes with this. But lots of lawyers are pretty excited about it!

14. So this is going to court?


Yeah, probably.

15. And we won’t even know if the Northwestern players actually want to join a union for a months?


Probably.

16. And we won’t know the final answers on this stuff for a long time?


Right.

17. But, after the vote, decision, and a likely long, long court battle, it’s possible that athletes at private schools could join unions and then demand wages from the schools they play for?


Yes, that could happen.

But basically, it’s important to remember these are hypotheticals and nobody knows for sure how this will turn out.

But basically, it's important to remember these are hypotheticals and nobody knows for sure how this will turn out.
Getty Images

And it can be a long, long time before anyone does.

Source: Jacob Fischler for Buzzfeed

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Twitter is a cool website where you can type any old thing into a box and send it out into the ether for the entire internet to read. Some people use it to joke around, some people use it to be like, “HEY INJUSTICE IS HAPPENING, WHOA #GETINVOLVED,” and some people use it to roleplayas characters from Sonic the Hedgehog. It’s a lot of fun, especially if you like heated arguments with total strangers. 

Large institutions like corporations and government agencies use Twitter too, usually pretty badly. “Hey, we’re a pizza company, send us pictures of you eating our pizza and hashtag them #pizzapics” is an example of a typical lousy tweet from one of these accounts. Generally institutions try to drum up something vague called “social engagement”—basically they want to get people tweeting good stuff about them so other people see those tweets and, I guess, come to think good thoughts about the institution who started the engagement campaign. The New York Police Department was probably thinking they could do one of those social-engagement thingies when they launched the hashtag #MyNYPD with this tweet:

What the person running the Twitter account probably failed to realize is that most people’s interactions with the cops fall into a few categories:

1. You are talking to them to get help after you or someone you knew was robbed, beaten, murdered, or sexually assaulted.

2. You are getting arrested. 

3. You are getting beaten by the police.

In category 1, you are probably not going to be like, “Oh, let me take a selfie with you fine officers so I can remember this moment,” and the other two categories are not things that the NYPD would like people on social media talking about. Additionally, the people who use Twitter a lot (and who aren’t Sonic the Hedgehog roleplayers) are the type who love fucking with authority figures. In any case, #myNYPD quickly became a trending topic in the United States, largely because people were tweeting and retweeting horrific images of police brutality perpetrated by New York City cops. Here are some of the notable ones, starting with VICE’s own Molly Crabapple tweeting a photo of her arrest at an Occupy Wall Street protest:

Here is a Twitter activist using sarcasm, a popular social-media strategy:

More sarcasm:

Hey, remember Kimani Gray, the 16-year-old who got killed by the police in 2013? Remember when people marched in protest of his death and the cops responded with stuff like this?

Another bad thing that happened one time was when the officers on duty at the 2011 West Indian Day Parade starting grinding on some almost-naked dancers.

This is a hashtag started by the NYPD, remember, and this is one of the hashtag’s most popular photos:

Also remember that the idea behind this social media campaign was not, “Hey, people should tweet photos of the NYPD doing bad stuff to dogs.”

Anyway, Twitter is a great place. Just not for the NYPD.

To see all of the #MyNYPD tweets yourself, click here [TW: GRAPHIC CONTENT]

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

descentintotyranny:

Justices approve state bans on affirmative action
The decision could lead more states to enact bans against race preferences in university admissions, but it does not affect university affirmative action programs in other states.
Apr. 22 2014
The Supreme Court dealt another blow to affirmative action programs Tuesday, upholding the right of states to ban racial preferences in university admissions.
The 6-2 decision came in a case brought by Michigan, where a voter-approved initiative banning affirmative action had been tied up in court for a decade.
Seven other states — California, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire – have similar bans. Now, others may follow suit.
But the ruling, which was expected after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Michigan law, did not jeopardize the wide use of racial preferences in many of the 42 states without bans. Such affirmative action programs were upheld, though subjected to increased scrutiny, in the high court’s June ruling involving the University of Texas.
"This case is not about how the debate (over racial preferences) should be resolved," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in announcing the ruling. But to stop Michigan voters from making their own decision on affirmative action would be "an unprecedented restriction on a fundamental right held by all in common."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her lengthy, 58-page dissent from the bench, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. She said the decision creates “a two-tiered system of political change” by requiring only race-based proposals to surmount the state Constitution, while all other proposals can go to school boards.
As a result of the ruling, said Sotomayor, a product of affirmative action policies, minority enrollment will decline at Michigan’s public universities, just as it has in California and elsewhere. “The numbers do not lie,” she said.
The decision was splintered, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joining Kennedy’s opinion; Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurring in a separate opinion; and Justice Stephen Breyer, more often aligned with the court’s liberal wing, concurring in yet another opinion.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because of a conflict of interest from her time as U.S. solicitor general.
The decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action comes 10 years after two seminal Supreme Court rulings out of the University of Michigan. One struck down the undergraduate school’s use of a point system that included race to guide admissions. The other upheld the law school’s consideration of race among many other factors.
Immediately after the law school ruling, opponents of racial preferences set to work on a state constitutional amendment that said Michigan “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or natural origin.” Voters approved it by a 58%-42% margin in November 2006.
A federal district court upheld the initiative, but a sharply divided appeals court ruled that it violated minorities’ equal protection rights under the Constitution.
The writing appeared to be on the wall at the Supreme Court, based on the influence of Roberts, an opponent of racial preferences who famously wrote in another case several years ago that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But in this case, Kennedy was the man to watch. He wrote the court’s 1996 Romer v. Evans opinion striking down a Colorado referendum that banned local governments from enacting gay rights laws. Yet he had been less enthusiastic about the use of racial preferences in several recent cases.
Opponents of the Michigan law called it a form of “political restructuring” that stops minorities from seeking admission to a university the same way an athlete or legacy applicant can. Instead, they said in an argument that Sotomayor and Ginsburg endorsed, minorities had to change the state Constitution.
In striking down the ban, the 6th Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s 1969 and 1982 rulings in cases from Akron and Seattle. In those cases, the high court struck down voter-approved initiatives that had blocked the cities’ pro-minority housing and school busing policies.
But Kennedy said the appeals court misread those earlier rulings. In the new Michigan case, he said, the paramount concern is the right of citizens to deliberate, debate and act — in this case, through a constitutional amendment.
The debate has practical as well as legal implications. In Michigan and California particularly, the bans have reduced black and Hispanic enrollments at elite universities and at law, medical and professional schools. The percentages of African Americans among entering freshmen at the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan were the lowest among the nation’s top universities in 2011.
During oral arguments in October, Michigan solicitor general John Bursch disputed the validity of those statistics. He said changes in 2010 that allowed students to check more than one racial box skewed the figures.
While Michigan’s argument focused on equal rights for white and minority students, some conservative scholars go further. They say doing away with affirmative action gives minority students a better chance of succeeding at less competitive schools.

EVERY SINGLE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION IS BEING GUTTED!!!!!!!!!!

knowledgeequalsblackpower:

descentintotyranny:

Justices approve state bans on affirmative action

The decision could lead more states to enact bans against race preferences in university admissions, but it does not affect university affirmative action programs in other states.

Apr. 22 2014

The Supreme Court dealt another blow to affirmative action programs Tuesday, upholding the right of states to ban racial preferences in university admissions.

The 6-2 decision came in a case brought by Michigan, where a voter-approved initiative banning affirmative action had been tied up in court for a decade.

Seven other states — California, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and New Hampshire – have similar bans. Now, others may follow suit.

But the ruling, which was expected after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Michigan law, did not jeopardize the wide use of racial preferences in many of the 42 states without bans. Such affirmative action programs were upheld, though subjected to increased scrutiny, in the high court’s June ruling involving the University of Texas.

"This case is not about how the debate (over racial preferences) should be resolved," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in announcing the ruling. But to stop Michigan voters from making their own decision on affirmative action would be "an unprecedented restriction on a fundamental right held by all in common."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her lengthy, 58-page dissent from the bench, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. She said the decision creates “a two-tiered system of political change” by requiring only race-based proposals to surmount the state Constitution, while all other proposals can go to school boards.

As a result of the ruling, said Sotomayor, a product of affirmative action policies, minority enrollment will decline at Michigan’s public universities, just as it has in California and elsewhere. “The numbers do not lie,” she said.

The decision was splintered, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joining Kennedy’s opinion; Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurring in a separate opinion; and Justice Stephen Breyer, more often aligned with the court’s liberal wing, concurring in yet another opinion.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because of a conflict of interest from her time as U.S. solicitor general.

The decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action comes 10 years after two seminal Supreme Court rulings out of the University of Michigan. One struck down the undergraduate school’s use of a point system that included race to guide admissions. The other upheld the law school’s consideration of race among many other factors.

Immediately after the law school ruling, opponents of racial preferences set to work on a state constitutional amendment that said Michigan “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or natural origin.” Voters approved it by a 58%-42% margin in November 2006.

A federal district court upheld the initiative, but a sharply divided appeals court ruled that it violated minorities’ equal protection rights under the Constitution.

The writing appeared to be on the wall at the Supreme Court, based on the influence of Roberts, an opponent of racial preferences who famously wrote in another case several years ago that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

But in this case, Kennedy was the man to watch. He wrote the court’s 1996 Romer v. Evans opinion striking down a Colorado referendum that banned local governments from enacting gay rights laws. Yet he had been less enthusiastic about the use of racial preferences in several recent cases.

Opponents of the Michigan law called it a form of “political restructuring” that stops minorities from seeking admission to a university the same way an athlete or legacy applicant can. Instead, they said in an argument that Sotomayor and Ginsburg endorsed, minorities had to change the state Constitution.

In striking down the ban, the 6th Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s 1969 and 1982 rulings in cases from Akron and Seattle. In those cases, the high court struck down voter-approved initiatives that had blocked the cities’ pro-minority housing and school busing policies.

But Kennedy said the appeals court misread those earlier rulings. In the new Michigan case, he said, the paramount concern is the right of citizens to deliberate, debate and act — in this case, through a constitutional amendment.

The debate has practical as well as legal implications. In Michigan and California particularly, the bans have reduced black and Hispanic enrollments at elite universities and at law, medical and professional schools. The percentages of African Americans among entering freshmen at the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA and the University of Michigan were the lowest among the nation’s top universities in 2011.

During oral arguments in October, Michigan solicitor general John Bursch disputed the validity of those statistics. He said changes in 2010 that allowed students to check more than one racial box skewed the figures.

While Michigan’s argument focused on equal rights for white and minority students, some conservative scholars go further. They say doing away with affirmative action gives minority students a better chance of succeeding at less competitive schools.

EVERY SINGLE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION IS BEING GUTTED!!!!!!!!!!

think-progress:

The criminalization of the homeless.

I just read that the supreme Court upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action.

fyeahcracker:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/

wow………………. regression

(I didn’t scroll down to the comments but for everyone’s health, don’t)

nosebleedhooligans:

Pat Tillman died of friendly fire 10 years ago in the mountains of Afghanistan. 
Too much has changed, yet everything’s the same. 

nosebleedhooligans:

Pat Tillman died of friendly fire 10 years ago in the mountains of Afghanistan. 

Too much has changed, yet everything’s the same. 

liibertine:

What’s Happening in Mexico? A global call for freedom #EPNvsInternet (Via YoSoyRedTV)

Why not?

Why not?

america-wakiewakie:

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It’s Not a Democracy | PolicyMic 
The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn’t a democracy any more. And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.
An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military.
For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.
It’s beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.
That might explain why mandatory background checks on gun sales supported by 83% to 91% of Americans aren’t in place, or why Congress has taken no action on greenhouse gas emissions even when such legislation is supported by the vast majority of citizens.
This problem has been steadily escalating for four decades. While there are some limitations to their data set, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez constructed income statistics based on IRS data that go back to 1913. They found that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is much bigger than you would think…
(Read Full Text)

america-wakiewakie:

Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It’s Not a Democracy | PolicyMic 

The news: A new scientific study from Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page has finally put some science behind the recently popular argument that the United States isn’t a democracy any more. And they’ve found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military.

For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.

It’s beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.

That might explain why mandatory background checks on gun sales supported by 83% to 91% of Americans aren’t in place, or why Congress has taken no action on greenhouse gas emissions even when such legislation is supported by the vast majority of citizens.

This problem has been steadily escalating for four decades. While there are some limitations to their data set, economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez constructed income statistics based on IRS data that go back to 1913. They found that the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us is much bigger than you would think…

(Read Full Text)