Tag Archives: supreme

Ben Hoffman Hates Soccer: Here’s Why

Continued here:
Ben Hoffman Hates Soccer: Here’s Why

Kagan, BET Awards and Bong-Smoking Babies

From Supreme Court hearings to the BET Awards to allegedly high babies, Conor Knighton keeps us up to date on what the media’s been throwing at us this week.

Read this article:
Kagan, BET Awards and Bong-Smoking Babies

Eclipse Breaks Box Office Record for Midnight Showings

Eclipse is the best Twilight Saga film to date. Perhaps this helped the movie set a box office record early this morning, but we have a feeling it would have done quite well even without THG’s glowing review . The third film in this franchise broke the second film’s record haul for midnight showings today, as Eclipse pulled in a whopping $30 million across 4,416 screens nationwide. That figure also marks the widest release of all-time, bumping Iron Man 2 down a notch. New Moon grossed close to $300 domestically during its run, while the original Twlight topped out at $193 million. Expect Eclipse to sky-rocket past both those numbers. Just how huge has the Twilight Saga become? In an incident both depressing and hilarious, Elena Kagan was asked about t during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings today. As you can see below, she refrained from commenting on her affiliation with Team Jacob or Team Edward. Elena Kagan on Eclipse

See the rest here:
Eclipse Breaks Box Office Record for Midnight Showings

From "Mogadishu Madness" to "American Jihadi"

After reading about an American youth who converted to Islam and joined an extremist insurgency in Africa, I realized he and I had unwittingly crossed paths a few years before. In Current TV’s “American Jihadi,” a new episode of the Vanguard documentary series airing Wednesday, I go looking for the young man pictured above. I wanted to find him, if not in the flesh, at least to trace his route from small-town high school boy to anti-American warrior. I was in the war-ravaged city of Mogadishu in 2006, one of the first American TV correspondents to see the place in years. An Islamic coalition calling itself the Islamic Court Union had seized control of the Somali capital and imposed an uneasy peace that at least possible to get inside the chaotic “failed state.” To me and many other Americans, Mogadishu was best known as the site of the military tragedy and movie “Black Hawk Down.” Twenty-six years old and no stranger to hot spots around the world, I was drawn by the spirit of adventure and a journalist’s curiosity, despite warnings from others—including my father, a seasoned war correspondent, that the story wasn’t worth the risk. It was. My colleague, Kaj Larsen, and I found Somali expatriates streaming back to their homeland by the thousands to pick up their lives in a spirit of hope and renewal, despite the ruins and hair-trigger tempers that were the legacy of a 15-year civil war. I interviewed Islamist leaders who had captured the city and listened to their pleas for peace and a chance to re-establish a nation. Accusing the Islamic Courts of having ties to Al Qaida, the U.S. government branded them as terrorists. Shortly after my return to the United States to put together my piece, “Mogadishu Madness,” Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia with U.S. military support and drove the Islamists into hiding. Somalia plunged back into war. As it turned out, in the flow of people arriving at the reopened international airport in Mogadishu during that brief period of peace was another twentysomething American. Drawn by a passion to help establish an Islamic state in Somalia, Omar Hammami had left his wife and family in Egypt and arrived in Mogadishu shortly after I did. Like many Somali Muslims who answered a call for jihad to fight off the Christian invaders from Ethiopia, Omar joined Al Shabaab, one of the most ruthless and determined factions that had previously fought each other but were now united against the foreigners. After rising to become a top field commander, Omar is now a prominent Internet propagandist for the Somali allies of Al Qaida who helps recruit other young Muslims from the West to enlist in the cause. In the past three years, at least 30 American and Canadian citizens have turned up fighting in Somalia with Al Shabaab, more than have joined any other extremist group affiliated with Al Qaida. In “American Jihadi,” I retrace Omar’s path from Bible Belt Christian to Islamic extremist. I flew to Daphne, Alabama with practically no leads and spent three days cruising bars and restaurants—local hangouts where I thought people Omar’s age might hang out. At a Hooters, I met a patron who vaguely remembered playing soccer with Omar as a kid, then another who believed her fianc

What questions would you like to see Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan answer?

Today is the second day of Senate confirmation hearings for Obama's second Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. With the 2010 elections approaching, plenty of Senators are expected to use this as an opportunity to do a little campaigning before a national audience. But outside of partisan positioning – what questions would you like to see her answer? What are the biggest questions facing out Supreme Court these days? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30kagan.html added by: afitzgerald

What Questions Should Kagan Answer?

The Supreme Court nominee is on her second day of confirmation hearings.

Read the rest here:
What Questions Should Kagan Answer?

Morning Shows Spare a Scant Two and a Half Minutes for ‘Landmark’ Gun Ruling

Despite referring to it as “landmark” and “huge,” the network morning shows on Tuesday mostly ignored Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, which declared the Second Amendment a fundamental right that cannot be violated by state governments. Good Morning America, The Early Show and Today devoted just two minutes and 34 seconds to discussing the important decision. ABC’s GMA offered 21 seconds with a single Juju Chang news brief during the two hour program. This didn’t stop the show’s hosts from covering crucial topics, such as spending eight and a half minutes dissecting whether Michael Douglas’ ex-wife deserves residuals from his upcoming Wall Street sequel. CBS’s Early Show allowed 25 seconds for Jan Crawford to explain the significance of the decision. Host Chris Wragge rushed, “Now what’s the importance, if you can just tell us quickly, of this 5-4 decision?” Crawford exclaimed, “Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide.” Apparently, it wasn’t as compelling as the five minutes and 15 seconds the same show devoted to cooking flank steak for the Fourth of July. NBC provided the most coverage, one minute and 48 seconds. This included an anchor brief by news reader Nancy Morales and a full report by Pete Williams. Morales described the decision as “landmark.” Williams actually included a brief clip of NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre promising more lawsuits against cities and states that don’t follow the court’s instructions. The lack of coverage follows the same pattern from 2008 when the Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.’s gun ban. On June 27, 2008 , all three morning shows gave a total of three minutes and 33 seconds to the story. Early Show, instead, focused four minutes on the extremely relevant subject of how to Feng Shui your house for pets A transcript of the coverage can be found below: GMA 06/29/10 7:14 JUJU CHANG: Chicago’s mayor is vowing to rewrite the city’s ban on handguns, after a Supreme Court decision made it unenforceable. The high court ruled Americans have a basic right to own a handgun for self-defense , wherever they live. Chicago may instead demand that gun owners buy insurance, register guns with local police and equip them with traceable bullets. Today 06/29/10 7:17 NATALIE MORALES: Major cities across the U.S. are bracing for new challenges to their gun control laws. On Monday the Supreme Court’s ruling on Chicago’s handgun ban said an individual right to keep and bear arms is among the fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. 8:02 NATALIE MORALES: Some big cities in the U.S. are bracing for new battles over gun laws, following a landmark ruling Monday by the Supreme Court. NBC’s justice correspondent Pete Williams has more. Pete, good morning. PETE WILLIAMS: Natalie, for the first time in the nation’s history, the court said the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, limits what state and local governments can do in restricting gun ownership. POLICE VIDEO: We have got shots fired over here. WILLIAMS: The ruling means the end of a 38-year-old Chicago law strictly banning handguns, challenged by city residents who wanted to have a gun at home for self-defense. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court said the nation’s founders considered the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. Chicago officials said they might now try requiring gun registration or training courses. But, advocates of gun rights vow to fight any city that tries to raise barriers to gun ownership. WAYNE LAPIERRE (NRA): I think the action goes to wherever the politicians make it so hard for average citizens to qualify, make the process so intimidating, so restrictive, citizens never get the guns. WILLIAMS: The next legal battles are already brewing over carrying guns in public or taking them into bars and restaurants. But advocates of gun control say the court’s ruling applies only to the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. PAUL HELMKE (Brady Handgun Control): It doesn’t mean anybody can have any gun any place, anytime. You are allowed to have reasonable restrictions in the middle on who gets guns. WILLIAMS: Local governments can still impose some restrictions on owning a gun but this ruling sparks a new round of legal challenges on what’s reasonable, Natalie. Early Show 06/29/10 7:15 CHRIS WRAGGE: And quickly, on a separate note here, I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling. They ruled that had state and local governments cannot ban guns. Now what’s the importance, if you can just tell us quickly, of this 5-4 decision? JAN CRAWFORD: Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide. It said cities and states across the country cannot flatly outright ban handguns, that you have a fundamental right to own a gun in your own home to protect yourself.

See more here:
Morning Shows Spare a Scant Two and a Half Minutes for ‘Landmark’ Gun Ruling

NYT’s Stolberg: Kagan a ‘Brilliant Woman…Who Is Also Very Funny and Warm and Witty’

New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported this tidbit Tuesday from the opening day of confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan , Obama’s nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Democrats described her as a brilliant thinker with what Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York called “unprecedented practical experience.” Stolberg had expressed the same feelings about Kagan the day before, roughly two minutes into the Monday edition of TimesCast , a brief news preview that airs every weekday at nytimes.com. Kagan is so “brilliant,” gushed Stolberg, that she didn’t even need help from White House staffers in preparing to face her Republican critics. Stolberg was confident the GOP would “have a tough time” confronting the “very funny and warm and witty” Kagan. They will try to paint her as a partisan, as a political lawyer, as someone who is more interested in a politically driven agenda than in applying the law in an even-handed way to judicial cases. And they’ll take her to task for never having been a judge. But I think they’ll have a tough time. Let’s not forget that Elena Kagan has been an academic. She is a brilliant woman. She’s somebody who is also very funny and warm and witty, and I think Americans will see that when they-when she comes before the Senate today . They will see somebody who has studied and thought deeply about the law, and it’s interesting. Many Supreme Court nominees go through the process known as ‘murder boards,’ where the White House will stage kind of a mock hearing, and people will play the role of senators, and they’ll grill nominees on how would you answer this or that. Elena Kagan has done some of that, White House officials tell me, but in fact she’s also spent a lot of time preparing for these hearings just on her own, just thinking about the issues and thinking about what she wants to say. White House officials say that that’s how she wanted to prepare, and frankly she doesn’t really need the kind of murder boards that other Supreme Court nominees have needed.

Here is the original post:
NYT’s Stolberg: Kagan a ‘Brilliant Woman…Who Is Also Very Funny and Warm and Witty’

Time’s Scherer Gratuitously Blogs About ‘Ten People Killed by Guns’ in Light of Supreme Court Ruling

Reacting to colleague Alex Altman’s brief, just-the-facts-styled Swampland blog post “SCOTUS Solidifies Gun Rights,” Time’s Michael Scherer responded a few hours later with the following post : Meanwhile, in Chicago, the source of the lawsuit decided today by the Supreme Court, ten people were killed by guns after 54 people were shot over the weekend. The victims included a baby girl, who suffered a neck graze wound at a midnight barbecue, early Monday morning. To read all the details, the Sun Times has the story . Something tells me Scherer’s observation isn’t that the Chicago gun ban has been a horrendous failure, especially given his attribution of violence in the brief blog post on the guns themselves — “ten people were killed by guns” — not the criminals who used them.

Read the original post:
Time’s Scherer Gratuitously Blogs About ‘Ten People Killed by Guns’ in Light of Supreme Court Ruling

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

With yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger. First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”? A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another. In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.) What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example. A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual. A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”. The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much. For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing. Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?… Continued at: http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-the-u-s-a-fascist-police-state.html added by: Dagum