http://ohevshalom.org/wp-content/uploads/Jewish-Lens-on-Current-Events-religion-in-public-square.pdf This is an upcoming event at a prominent local synagogue. The link provides the flyer and my mini-bio. Also, on Wednesday, April 25, I am honored to be a guest speaker at the University of Tampa, and discussing First Amendment/protest rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/what-a-conservative-judic_b_1432795.html Be scared … be very scared …. Many of us worried when Janice Rogers Brown came up for nomination under GW Bush. Our fears are being realized. She sits on the second most powerful federal court (the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit), and had a judicial record on the district court in Texas that could only be described as a travesty. Yet, those Gang of Six Senators pushed through Brown and two other right-wing, reactionary nominees to occupy some of the highest judicial offices in the country. Apparently, Brown is doing her darndest to undermine 75+ years of jurispr
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/06/acd.02.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/11/ijvm.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/12/ijvm.01.html Well, here are the transcripts for my recent appearances. Last evening proved interesting, as I was finally able to push my way through into proving some substance on issues that the public is — thus far — not really discussing on this case. Really, without regard to my status as a representative of one of the eyewitnesses to the Martin killing, this case presents us with a fascinating set of legal issues including, but certainly not limited to the following: 1. The immunity/
The first appearance was, well, interesting. I did hope to get in more input, as there was so much more to say, especially about the “Stand Your Ground” Immunity issue, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 776.032. I believe that this will have a major impact upon the case and whether it even goes to a trial. A motion to dismiss raising such an issue, akin to what I have filed on a couple of prior cases, is exactly what will raise this issue. An impartial judge (perhaps even a senior one who does not face the wrath of any voters at the ballot box) would be able to assess this via the burden of proof of the issue — the lesser standard of “by preponderance
The topic will again be the Trayvon Martin murder — and the anticipated charges from the State Attorney’s Office against George Zimmerman, who is now without any legal counsel. Please … do not get me started on the “balagan” that has transpired over the past 24 hours involving Zimmerman and his now former attorneys. Geez ….
Hi. I was fortunate enough this past Friday to be featured on Anderson Cooper 360. Ashleigh Banfield conducted the interview of both my client (an eyewitness to the Trayvon Martin murder) and me. Ms. Banfield and the staff at 360 proved exceedingly gracious. Further, this evening I am slated to appear on Nancy Grace’s program. I am crossing my fingers that it goes well as Ms. Grace has established a reputation of, to say the least, being a tough questioner. Again, I feel gratified for these opportunities to speak out on matters involving the Martin shooting, as well as the underpinnings of what perhaps is occurring in the City of Sanford. I have some degre
First, please examine this link: http://prospect.org/article/nine-circles-aca?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews. Credit to the American Prospect, an excellent publication which I have long enjoyed, and the author of this succinct piece, Garrett Epps. So, what do we glean from Day 3 of the oral arguments over the constitutionality of the ACA? First, Justice Scalia is a scary guy: first, he references a non-existent provision within the legislation (right-wing fiction has officially ascended into the Inner Chambers of the SCOTUS); next, he states his disdain for actually reading the ACA, and thus striking it down outright; finally, it is apparently that h
Well, as of yesterday — Day 2 (of 3) — in the oral arguments before the SCOTUS on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, many commentators began raising dire warnings of this rather extremist, right-wing Court actually deeming the health care mandate unconstitutional. Some observations of my own: 1. Justice Kennedy was tough in his questioning on both sides, even though the media focused on his questioning of the Administration’s lawyer — who seemed not as well-prepared as you would otherwise anticipate. 2. Upholding the mandate is consistent with previous interpretations of Congress’ Commerce Clause power, as well as that of
I know that decisions later this Supreme Court Term will generate an altogether different reaction. However, on March 21, the Supreme Court did issue two, related rulings addressing the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel during plea bargaining. In Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Court formally recognized the responsibility that defense counsel has to accurately and effectively convey plea offers, and the consequences of failing to accept such plea offers. In doing so, the Supreme Court expanded upon the rights of criminal defendants in making certain that any such decision is knowing, voluntary and premised upon competent legal advice. I presently have t
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/18/441242/revisiting-the-lorax-do-trees-have-rights/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews Credit to Think Progress and to Peter Lehner of NRDC. This issue has fascinated me for several years. Lehner does a remarkably good job of summarizing the arguments for recognizing the rights of organizations to sue on behalf of trees, i.e., that trees should have standing to sue in federal court for their protection. The inspiration for such a construction was first articulated — in case law form — by my constitutional hero — Justice William O. Douglas — in his remarkable dissent in Sierra Club v. Morto