David Schein

"Unprecedented election power" granted to NY AG, Lettia James. Beginning September 22nd, AG James will have unchecked legal power to oversee some 25 plus or minus local jurisdictions in the State of NY. The law, which passed in 2022, calls for the AG to oversee various local jurisdictions that under the new law are labeled a "covered entity," and thereby subject to "preclearance" oversight by the AG's office. Need we even go down this road?! If it smells like a rat, it most likely is! And this definitely smells like one. Just another way the NY Democratic Party is trying to control the outcome of an election, or at the very least nudge it in the direction of their party preferences. #lettiajames #newyorkattorneygeneral #preclearance #votingrights #democraticparty

28

14 Comments

The way forward on climate and justice is to keep moving forward. It is important not to despair and to focus on where the levers of change and progress are as we face an incoming administration that will try to retreat on climate and justice goals.

58

As someone who has issued several rulemakings as a former federal agency head, I believe the end of Chevron will significantly impact how agencies go about making rules and will likely make them adhere closer to the express wording of Congressional statutes and delegations of authorities. Comments by the regulated community on the scope of delegated authority will also likely carry more weight as agencies will not receive the same level of deference from courts on this topic. Time will tell the ultimate impacts. Please take a look at our K&L Gates alert on the topic. Lots of insights to consider.

9

2 Comments

Texas can continue with its floating wall of buoys. For now, at least, thanks to a decision issued yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In United States v. Abbott, the 5th Circuit declared that the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 does not apply to that section of the Río Grande River on which Texas has built a 1,000-foot floating wall. The Biden administration is certain to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. For more analysis of this decision, watch my TikTok @ccgarciahernandez. The opinion is available here: https://lnkd.in/g64y2TQ6

7

The Texas challenge to the EEOC harassment guidance has reached a temporary conclusion. 🛑 For the latest updates and insights on what this means for employers and employees, check out Constangy partner Robin E. Shea's blog post in the link below. #EmploymentLaw #EEOC #WorkplaceHarassment

1

Academic colleagues: If your work addresses the notion of the "criminal alien" as utilized in immigration law or policy, consider submitting a proposal for this symposium at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that considers the critique I offer in my most recent book, Welcome the Wretched. I will keynote, but am not involving with organizing the symposium. Direct questions to the organizer whose name and email address are listed in the article below.

16

SAY GOODBYE TO AMERICA AND HELLO TO AMERICAN IRAN With each passing day SCOTUS brings America closer to what far right conservatives believe America should be. Such things as no-fault divorce, gay marriage, contraceptives, separation of the "Christian" church from the state are all on the line as long as the current SCOTUS remains in control of America. Essentially, all you need to do is look at theocratic Iran to see what conservatives want America to become. https://lnkd.in/ekbGbfrD

33

10 Comments

I can't speak to what the jurors in the Bragg case are making of the star witness for the prosecution. But if I were on a jury where the prosecutor star witness was someone who had repeatedly perjured himself and the prosecutor knew it before he put him on the stand, I would be disposed to want to vote not guilty. Basically, Bragg appears to be taking the jury's political hatred for Donald Trump as a blank check to insult the jury's intelligence. At least that is how I would read it. I would also say that seeing the judge clearly siding with the prosecution would raise questions in my mind about how fair the process was. The difference between how the prosecution witnesses were permitted to ramble on, compared to how tight a leash the judge put on the defense's first witness could not be lost on the jury. In short, whatever hostility I might have toward the defendant would be offset by how irritated I would be with being treated like a sheep by the judge and the prosecutor. No, you can't take me for granted. No, you can't have your star witness lie to me and then tell me to believe them anyway. Of course, that is just me. I frankly can't imagine how deeply prejudiced this jury is already against Trump. I am sure some of them truly wanted to be on the jury, just so they could tell their friends later that they were part of saving democracy. Some would have voted to convict just based on the prosecution's opening statement. But, perhaps somewhere in this jury pool, perhaps among the lawyers on the jury, there are some people who can rise above their prejudice. Perhaps the jury should go home and watch "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "Twelve Angry Men" and see what it means morally to be on a "hanging jury." It is not good for the soul or for justice. And while doing what is "expected of you" these days seems to be a high priority. Doing what is right is still the gold standard.

10

Better source of news: MeidasTouch and this below.

1

Full text of Mr. #Trump's Remarks, the Republican Party Platform, and brief reflections; snippet here: And so, the #American people now are offered a second chance to elect Mr. Trump to the Presidency. That, in turn, may depend on his opponent. Until recently that would have been the sitting President, Mr. #Biden--but it appears that the strategic and political situation among members of the Democratic party and their supporters are still in a dynamic state (eg here). And Mr. Trump is now well aware that there are people, States, and others, who are ready to seek his assassination. Such is the State of a world in which the Presidency of the United States still projects strongly outward of the borders of the nation.  And here the Americans now find themselves. * * * On the cusp of an #election cycle that continues to surprise, little can be assumed and there is little value to "complaining over errors that can no longer be rectified." That applies with equal measure to the great and mighty (and their scribes and retainers) in both parties. In this context, Mr. Trump's acceptance of nomination remarks may provide clues about what may be coming should Mr. Trump succeed in his quest for a second term in office. It is thus particularly useful to consider those remarks. * * * Much of it is not new, some of it is theatrical, but much of it is meant to appeal, both to Mr. Trump and to what the #Republican Party believes to be a sizeable receptive electorate. All of this will be mirrored by the speeches and platform of the Democratic party, when that is revealed.  But all of it is directed to the "forgotten Man"--which, indeed, serves as the sub-title of the Republican Platform endorsed by Mr. Trump. This is part of the anthem ululated by Mr. Trump in what might well be understood as a high point of his remarks. * * * One speaks here of the "forgotten men and women" in two quite different keys. Both speak to the common people; one as the result of crisis, and the other as a product of privilege; one calls to arms, the other mocks. The first was famously given by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 of the Democratic Party. * * * And the second speaks in the "key" of satire, in the form of a 1930's "screwball comedy" in which a rich but clueless family "adopts" a "hobo" who it turns out is the child of a distinguished Boston family down on his luck. The movie, "My Man Godfrey," starts out with a great treasure hunt in which one of the objects to be retrieved is a "forgotten man,"in that case people ruined by social and economic circumstances of 1930s U.S. Make America Great Again! and the Treasure Hunt for the "Forgotten Man"--Full Text of Mr. Trump's Nomination Speech, the Republican Party Platform, and a Very Brief Reflection https://lnkd.in/e7AFcsAk

2

Listen to and don't demean Trump supporters This essay is based on today’s column in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof. It makes sense not just for politics but for business and life in general. The main points are: Demeaning Trump supporters doesn’t change their thinking - the only way to change people’s minds is to listen to them and respond to their concerns. Many Trump voters believe they have been left out of society. Our job is to convince them of the truth - that Democrats are working to fix problems affecting the middle and lower classes, Trump only cares about himself and Republicans care mostly about being on the right side of Trump. From the article: Sure, it’s satisfying to hurl invective. But calling people “Nazis” probably won’t win over undecided voters any more than when Trump supporters deride “libtards” or the “Biden crime family.” Whatever our politics, Trump brings out the worst in all of us. He nurtures hate on his side that we mirror. So let’s take a deep breath, summon F.D.R.’s empathy for the forgotten man, follow Clinton’s advice — and, for the sake of winning elections as well as of civility, remember that the best way to get others to listen to us is to first listen to them. More https://lnkd.in/eZ57AFvw

BREAKING NEWS: DISMANTLING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC Today's SCOTUS argument on Trump's criminal immunity revealed an activist conservative majority that wants to provide presidential immunity. It's deeply concerning to see the Supreme Court focus on future frivolous prosecutions instead of the severity of the January 6th case. The potential creation of immunity that is not in the Constitution undermines the rule of law and democracy. SCOTUS’ activist conservative justices face a tough task if they want to provide presidential immunity. Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982) clearly states that there is no criminal immunity for presidents. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar ‘Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.’ Similarly, other cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution. As Americans, we are compelled to make the case for the Constitution and find common ground with our fellow citizens. The dismantling of justice and the Rule of Law by Trump and his supporters is a dangerous trend. We must engage and not stay silent in the face of these assaults on our common values. Let's work together to protect our democracy and ensure justice prevails. #RuleOfLaw #Democracy #JusticePrevails #civiceducation #supremecourt #civics

5

1 Comment

There is nothing wrong with the structure or organization of the Supreme Court. The Founders established it and the other two branches with the constitutional ability to check and balance each other. It is Biden and the Dems who are the problem. They don’t like the Court’s rulings, and therefore the institution is broken and they respond as they always do in these situations: politically posture for radical change to ensure the outcome they want. Wrong. This is not how constitutional republics operate. When the radical Dems don’t get what they want they try and destroy, rather than govern. Not only is Biden’s statement political pandering at its worst; above all it demonstrates an inherent flaw of character in leadership, not a weakness of institutional design. This is why the radical Dems must be stopped once and for all this November. We need to return to governance by the people, not tyranny by political demigods. #biden #radicaldems #supremecourt #constitution #republic #election

255

125 Comments

There is an interesting book review in the weekend edition of the WSJ. The book is titled "A Hell of a Storm" by David Brown. The storm he is referring to is the Civil War. His book is about how the year 1854 became a watershed for what was soon to unfold. As he writes, the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act which allowed those who settled in these newly created states to decide whether to be free or slave basically undid all of the previous compromises on the issue. It led to violent clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers. And sowed seeds of hatred and distrust the inescapably led toward Civil War. As Brown writes, many Americans began to conclude that compromises could no longer prevent settling the issues surrounding slave versus free labor through Civil War. We hear politicians today like Kamala Harris say that what unites us today is more important than what divides us. And many nod their heads in agreement. Yet, when asked about compromising on the issues that divide us, there seems to be few willing to compromise. That is how I interpret Congress these days voting strictly along party lines where the few who cross those lines do it at the risk of their political careers. I am sure in 1854 there were voices of reason who saw the handwriting on the wall and wished to avoid it. But, those voices were drowned out by the abolitionists on one side and the pro-slavery plantation owners on the other. And even though the Civil War consumed over 600,000 lives, there are few today who would argue that it wasn't worth it in order to rid the country from the scourge of slavery. Perhaps giving the word "compromise" a bad connotation. Implying that those who compromise do so not over policy, but over principle. And that compromising with "evil" is never justified. I guess the question of our time is if we are at a point in our political history where the two major parties are so dug into their positions that there is no room for compromise, does that mean that we are living in a time where each side perceives the other as "evil?" If so, that is a very dangerous view to hold and should be reserved for issues of such magnitude to deserve the term. I would suggest therefore, that those who would divide us seriously consider whether invoking the term "evil" to describe the other side is warranted. For if it isn't, history would suggest that they are playing with fire.

14

6 Comments