Dear Members of the Bernie or Bust Movement,

We’ve seen you in full force at the Democratic National Convention this week. Whether you were sobbing as the live camera coverage panned over your section of the crowd, silently sitting with duct tape over your mouth, or booing every time anyone at the DNC said something positive about Hillary Clinton, this letter is for you. Listen up, because before the November elections you all have a choice to make, and it’s an important one. Who are you going to vote for? Because, as I’m sure you all know somewhere deep down inside, doing nothing is not going to cut it.

It’s time to take a look at some of this week’s most savage Bernie or Bust attacks and hash out exactly why you all need to grow up and get on board with someone (hopefully Hillary) this election cycle.

The first big blow to Bernie babies was Sarah Silverman’s shoutout earlier this week.

In direct response to the nonsensical “Bernie!” chants that have been disrupting the convention all week, Silverman politely says what we’ve all been thinking: “to the Bernie or bust people you’re being ridiculous.” While it may sound harsh, it’s the truth. On the unity themed night of the DNC none of this Bernie nonsense should have been happening, period. If the Democratic Party wants any chance at defeating Trump, togetherness is going to be the only way to accomplish it–and that does not allow for any of your disruptive Bernie ridiculousness. Judging by the eruption of cheers after Silverman squashed the Bernie chants, I would say a lot of convention-goers agree with her.

If you want a more scripted take on why you’re being ridiculous, check out Seth Meyers’ new segment “Hey!,” which explains exactly why we need you on board with Hillary this fall.

Meyers quickly points out exactly why we need you on our side, Bernie Bros. We do not have time to fight over who should be the one to stop “racist demagogue” Donald Trump from taking office–we just need someone to do it. And, newsflash, that someone is not going to be Bernie Sanders.

Look, I know you’re Bernie or bust but the results are in. Bust won. We don’t have time for this. Donald Trump is ahead in the polls. The house is on fire; stop crying because we’re not putting it out with your hose.

Meyers also points out that you all have done a great job! Part of the reason Sanders stayed in the race as long as he did was to weave his goals for the Democratic Party into Hillary’s platform and he did just that. We now have what is perhaps the most progressive party platform the nation has ever seen. Take pride in that fact and get behind the platform, no matter who the figurehead of it happens to be.

Finally, we heard from the big man himself–President Obama. While his statements may not have been directly in response to the Bernie or Bust movement, they apply to you all oh so well. Stop booing. Stop it.

If you are out there booing, put your voice to better use! We get it. You’ve poured your heart and soul into what Sanders supported and continues to support. You’ve been with him from the beginning and it feels impossible to let go. But, quite honestly, it’s time to get over yourselves. It’s time to take off the robin hood hats, put down the nasty signs, rip off that duct tape over your mouths and let your voices be heard! Donald Trump can NOT be our next president.

If you want an even more progressive platform, fight for it. If you want Sanders’ ideas to be more prevalent in our government, fight for them. Just like Obama said in his speech at the DNC, it’s time for everyone to be as vocal, organized and persistent as you all, Bernie supporters, have been. If there’s one thing you can be certain of this election season, it’s that there is no way in hell a Donald Trump presidency is going to bring you closer to the progressive goals you so fervently seek to promote.

So, with all the love in the world (from a former Bernie lover and a hesitant Hillary supporter), it’s time to cut it out, Bernie-or-Busties. Get with the program and pick a side to be on rather than causing a ruckus. Even though you won’t have a President Sanders come November, you will have a president. Take a stand and have a voice in who that person will be and think about who is most likely to bring Americans a living wage, racial justice, and some political reform in the next few years. My bet is you may not settle on Trump.

Best of luck, both to you and, quite frankly, all of us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post An Open Letter to Members of the Bernie or Bust Movement appeared first on Law Street.

Do you love to bash bad companies and restaurants on Yelp? You’d better be careful, because now you could be sued for posting a negative review online.

Over the past few months there has been a surge in businesses suing Yelp reviewers for nasty reviews. In February, a Texas couple was sued for leaving a negative review of a pet sitting company. In the review, the clients cited difficulty contacting their pet sitters as well as confusing fees as some of the reasons they did not enjoy their experience. After the review was posted, the pet sitting company brought a lawsuit against the clients for over $6,700. The reason for the lawsuit? Apparently the couple had signed a non-disparagment agreement in their contract.

This instance of Yelp legal trouble was not the first of its kind. Around a year ago, a New Yorker visited a local dentist and had a negative experience. The woman, Mary Rohs, claims she had to wait over an hour and was then greeted by a curt and dismissive dentist, Dr. Nima Dayani. According to court records, Dr. Dayani has a different account of Rohs’ appointment than she does, claiming that she was in the office for an extended period of time as a part of her thorough exam. Two days after Rohs posted the negative review, Dr. Dayani sued her, saying the review was defamatory. He claimed that he generally welcomes positive and negative reviews, but Rohs’ went too far:

[Rohs] accsued me of malpractice by saying I didn’t diagnose her. When you are publicly accusing someone of malpractice, you are damaging their reputation.

In response to the increase in lawsuits, Yelp has stepped in to warn its users. In several circumstances, the company has issued warning banners on companies’ pages on its site that read:

Consumer Alert: Questionable Legal Threats

This business may be trying to abuse the legal system in an effort to stifle free speech, including issuing questionable legal threats against reviewers. As a reminder, reviewers who share their experiences have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on Yelp.

An example can be found on a moving and storage company’s page, yet another company that has an ongoing legal battle with a customer for defamation. Yelp wants to make sure users are aware of the potential trouble they could get into with posting negative reviews.

This increased concern for consumer safety comes alongside some consumer-oriented legislation being introduced in Congress. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 was introduced this April and works to ban gag clauses–portions of contracts that prohibit signers from speaking negatively about a business–from consumer-business contracts. The act also aims to protect the right of the consumer to speak freely about a company. The bill still has a long way to go, but would be a step in the right direction as far as protection of consumer free speech goes.

While it may seem scary that you could be sued for expressing your opinion online, it is important to remember that these cases are not super common. Part of the reason that legislation against these suits is just now developing is that this type of lawsuit is so new in the litigation sphere. Rest assured that your freedom of speech is still protected and that you will, most likely, not be sued for your next disparaging taco bell review.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Yelp Users Getting Sued for Negative Reviews appeared first on Law Street.

With only a few days until the official start of the Republican National Convention, it seems all anyone can talk about is what is going to happen in Cleveland. While we all spent the past week practically bursting with anticipation as we waited for Donald Trump to announce his vice presidential running mate, now that the news is out the build up to the convention has seemed to plateau. But, good news for all you thrill-seeking political followers out there, because drama is back! Not five minutes from the site of the convention in Cleveland, a new billboard has popped up, and it’s a good one.

A giant billboard of Trump and Ted Cruz kissing just went up 5 minutes from the RNC https://t.co/OD96csFsCNpic.twitter.com/YcLjGt1EXP

— JamesMichael Nichols (@jamesmichael) July 14, 2016

That’s right folks, this gigantic billboard right outside the RNC features an artistic representation of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz kissing.

The billboard–which was funded and put up by Planting Peace, a non-profit focused on spreading peace through humanitarian aid–reads, “Love Trumps Hate. End Homophobia.” Aaron Jackson, the President of Planting Peace, claims that this billboard is a direct response to the recently released GOP platform on LGBT issues.

Many have noted this week that the platform up for ratification at the convention is perhaps the most homophobic platform that the Republican party has ever seen. While the platform has some expected positions, like defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it also includes much harsher and intolerant provisions, such as subtle support for conversion therapy. Republican leaders, like president of the Log Cabin Republicans Gregory Angelo, are disappointed with these archaic stances on homosexuality:

Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’–it’s all in there. This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either. Heck, it’s not even Donald Trump’s!

Planting Peace’s response to these hateful stances is an attempt to remind members of the LGBT community that they matter and are loved. The group insightfully points out in a statement:

What Donald, Ted and the Republican platform either fail to realize, or realize and just don’t seem to care about, is that their words and actions toward our LGBT family–especially LGBT children–have meaning and impact. LGBT children hear these messages telling them they are nothing but second class citizens and are left feeling somehow broken or “less than.”

The group hopes this billboard will challenge conservatives at the convention and, really, people everywhere to think about the effects that their hate can have on people in the LGBT community. Thus far, the response has been overwhelmingly positive, with people posting online about how art like this makes America a great country.

Hateful speech and homophobic party platforms are not something that our country should support ever, especially not in 2016. It’s time for love to trump hate. Here’s to hoping Ted Cruz and Donald Trump making out will forever burn that reality into the minds of closed-minded people everywhere.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Billboard of Trump and Cruz Kissing Displayed Next to RNC appeared first on Law Street.

If you are currently living in or visiting Phoenix, Arizona, stay vigilant: there may be a serial killer on the loose. Local authorities announced this week that they believe that seven recent killings in the city are all connected–the work of a man who many are calling “the serial street shooter.”

The series of shootings in the Phoenix area began in mid-March when a 16-year-old boy who was shot, but not killed, while walking on the street late at night. The very next night, March 18, a 21-year-old man was also shot and wounded. The crimes escalated into killings from there, with two people shot and killed in April, then two in early June. The final three killings happened on June 12 in front of the victims’ home. The victims were all pictured in an NBC tweet this morning.

After 7 murders, apparent nighttime serial killer has Phoenix on edge. https://t.co/9rDvi8lkHX pic.twitter.com/I4hRWfM5uC

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) July 14, 2016

The shootings have taken place in the Maryvale area of Phoenix, known for being a low-income neighborhood. A map was released depicting the locations of the eight shootings.

Though there is a locational connection, the police have not released any other links between victims or the shooter.

Police have only recently deemed these slayings part of a larger plan. Up until this week, there was no publicized connection between the eight shootings. This week, the police labeled the shooter a serial killer, killing these people for no apparent reason. Now, a sketch artist’s depiction of the man based off of eye witness testimony has been released to the public.

Possible serial killer behind 7 murders in Phoenix, police say. @Miguelnbc reports now #NBCNightlyNews pic.twitter.com/U07iNLOizD

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) July 13, 2016

Additional information about the suspect indicates that he is most likely a light skinned Latino or white male in his 20s.

This shocking update to the recent shootings has people all over Phoenix on edge. Members of the community are scared to go out at night. The families of the victims are afraid to reveal their identities. One of the victims’ sister was quoted in an interview with a  Phoenix news station, saying:

It’s unbelievable that there is this monster that has done so much harm, that nobody is coming forward. All of these people were so good. Good people with good families. And now they are gone in the blink of an eye because of a monster.

Not just asking for the public to report any suspicious vehicle or persons. But [it] want[s] them to report any unfamiliar vehicle or person that comes into their neighborhood.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Is There a Serial Killer on the Loose in Phoenix? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, NBC made the controversial decision not to air the opening ceremonies of the Rio Summer Olympics live. For many fans of the Olympics, this decision was a shock, letting down viewers who had hoped to see the spectacle in real time. As of now, the news network is planning on showing the ceremonies at 8 PM Eastern time, an hour after they actually begin in Rio, on the east coast. The Mountain and Pacific timezones of the U.S., however, could see even later coverage than that.

While it may make sense to air a ceremony from the other side of the planet at a delay, for the convenience of viewers, Rio is only an hour ahead of the east coast. Many disgruntled viewers are frustrated to have to watch the ceremonies behind schedule when it could be broadcast live relatively easily. Several people have expressed their opinions that, with today’s technology, we should watch historic moments like these in real time.

BREAKING: NBC still doesn’t understand how the internet works. https://t.co/5iFAHHVWhO

— Matt Haze (@MattHaze) July 12, 2016

Decision by @NBCOlympics not to broadcast Rio’s opening ceremony live ridiculous. Do they think it’s 1996?https://t.co/JfubCgZ09O

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) July 12, 2016

The reasoning NBC gave for this upsetting delay was stated by several executives in the company. NBC Sports Group Chairman Mark Lazarus had the following to say about the company’s decision to delay the ceremonies by an hour:

We are not going to stream the Opening Ceremonies live. Those will be curated and will air one hour after they occur, as will take place with us on NBC broadcast network as well. We think it’s important to give the context to the show. These Opening Ceremonies will be a celebration of Brazilian culture, of Rio, of the pageantry, of the excitement, of the flair that this beautiful nation has. We think it’s important that we’re able to put that in context for the viewer so that it’s not just a flash of color. So we will air that on a one-hour delay…

They will both [television and online] be on a simultaneous hour delay. That’s consistent with what we did in London [at the 2012 Summer Olympics] and what we did in Sochi [at the 2014 Winter Olympics]…

The question, I would say, is: If we were to air it live, and we were going to put commercials in the Games – because we are a public company and have duties to our shareholders – which parts would they like us to cut out?

The 2010 ceremonies for the Winter Games in Vancouver were the last opening ceremonies that were live streamed. However, the company hasn’t shown a live opening ceremonies during the summer Olympics since the 1996 games in Atlanta. While some people are enraged that they can’t watch along with the fans in the stands, NBC does have some pretty sound reasoning for delaying the coverage. It could be unfair to cut out bits and pieces of the ceremony for commercials–that could damage the cultural significance of the event or leave countries out of the coverage. There’s really no pleasing everybody in this situation, so the company made its own judgment call.

Fortunately, all other Olympic happenings should be streamed live throughout the games. So, for all you diehard Olympics fans out there, even if you won’t be seeing the opening festivities in Rio live, the rest of the games should be just the way you want them. Though, if we’re being totally honest, there are probably more pertinent concerns than the timeliness of NBC’s coverage when it comes to the Rio Olympics.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post NBC Refuses to Air Olympic Opening Ceremonies Live appeared first on Law Street.

The jokes started out pretty harmless, referencing some of our favorite childhood cartoons.

#MoreTrustedThanHillary Spongebob’s magic conch pic.twitter.com/Vmn714Gpav

— Preston (@PrestonFlowers) July 6, 2016

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #MoreTrustedThanHillary Trend Takes Twitter by Storm appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute save, a U.S. District Judge struck down Mississippi House Bill 1523 late Thursday night to prevent it from going into effect on the first of July. After Mississippi residents spent several months in shock over discriminatory policies disguised as religious liberty bills, it’s a little surprising that there hasn’t been more buzz surrounding this act.

The Mississippi Bill, known as the Religious Accommodation Act, allows businesses to deny service to members of the LGBT community because of religious beliefs. Essentially, the bill would have given members of the community who do not support homosexuality the right to discriminate against those people if they believe serving them violates their religious beliefs. It would allow business people in foster care, counseling, school administration, facility rentals, and wedding services to act based on their religious beliefs without repercussions for denying service to customers based on sexuality.

Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the presider in the case against this bill by the Mississippi Center for Justice and Campaign for Southern Equality, ruled in a 60-page decision that this specific religious law was not permissible under the Constitution. While there are some laws that protect religion in the state of Mississippi, Judge Reeves acknowledged that other laws protect the practice of all religions. This specific bill would only be protecting certain beliefs of certain citizens of a religion. He wrote:

If three specific beliefs are ‘protected by this act,’ it follows that every other religious belief a citizen holds is not protected by the act.

Not to mention that, if the bill were to go into effect, it would be discriminatory against members of the community:

A broad-based system by which L.G.B.T. persons and unmarried persons can be subjected to differential treatment based solely on their status.

At the end of the day, protecting one religion over all others is not constitutionally sound.

The pro-LGBT groups that have been supporting the repeal of this bill celebrated this morning as the decision was announced.

.@HRC commends Federal Judge’s decision to block implementation of Mississippi’s harmful HB 1523 #RepealHB1523 pic.twitter.com/c4b9kSVr5N

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: We won! 60-page order from Judge Reeves stops enforcement of #HB1523 in Mississippi.

— Southern Equality (@CSElive) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Implementation of HB1523 in Mississippi #RepealHB1523 https://t.co/nvZnrVvP6m pic.twitter.com/ppHJHqWgjR

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

Robert McDuff, one of the attorneys working against the bill, summed it up quite nicely:

The federal court’s decision recognizes that religious freedom can be preserved along with equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Being hateful and discriminatory toward others is not a right guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, no matter what their race, sexual orientation, gender, or religion is. Judge Reeves putting the kibosh on the Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act recognizes that fact and moves the state one step forward in the fight for equality.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act Struck Down appeared first on Law Street.

After a stressful Grey Day earlier this week, LSAT scores were finally released yesterday. In order to explain the emotional ups and downs LSAT takers encounter, fellow Law Streeter, Samantha Reilly, and I have tried to put our experiences with the LSAT score release into words (and gifs).

Whether you were ecstatic about your score, pleasantly satisfied, or are gearing up to take the test again in a few months, you probably have experienced at least some of these stages in the past 24 hours. 

Stage 1: Anticipation

Receiving the score is a spiritual experience like no other. Once word begins to spread that LSAC accounts have gone grey and you see that fateful “Your June 2016 LSAT Score” subject line in your inbox, your life feels different.  

Shaking with disbelief, you open up the email. There it is right in front of your very eyes–the three digit number that has the potential to change everything for you. It is finally here!

Stage 2: Relief

It doesn’t really matter what score you got, the second that email is in your inbox the months of anxiety and endless waiting are over and it sure feels good.

Stage 3: Panic

After the initial rush of relief, comes the panic. What was that number you just read? Was that above or below your target score? What percentile did you score in? How does your score stack up against your dream law school’s average? Then you remember all of the reasons you were dreading score day and, although you’re thankful it’s finally here, you’re not sure you’re still breathing.

Stage 4: Denial

Next up is denial. There’s no way you got a perfect score. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to score lower than you were scoring on every single prep test. How in the world did you score as average, or high, or low as you did? There must be a mistake. LSAC has been wrong before and they’ve done it again; you’re sure of it.

Stage 5: Scrutinizing Results

That denial sends you straight into a spiral of scrutinizing your response report. Now that you’ve let the number sink in, it’s time to focus in on what went wrong (or right). Wait, you made that same mistake in your last three practice tests? Rookie mistake.

Stage 6: Mourning

After you finally realize that, no, this is not some evil LSAC plot to fake you out, and yes, this is the real deal, you steamroll straight into mourning. You had waited so long for this moment and now there is no more waiting, no more guessing, and no more LSAT–at least for a couple of days. The world feels bleak and empty without the wishing and the waiting. Time to kick back, put on a rom com, and eat your feelings (whether it’s in celebration or despair).

Stage 7: Acceptance

What happens now? Well, good or bad score, you’re probably about to drop some money sending your killer score off to law schools, registering for a retake, or picking up some new study materials. Life is going to move on and you will continue to be the same old law nerd you always have been, only, now you’re a survivor of one of the most frightening standardized tests in existence.

Stage 8: Dealing With People

You’ve spent the last two days in excruciating anticipation and now everyone who follows you on Twitter is suddenly very interested in this numerical evaluation of your intelligence. Some of them are trying to be supportive, but no, 100 is not the target score. Please stop trying.

Stage 9: Returning to Normalcy

And finally, things go back to normal. While many of us aren’t quite at this stage yet, it will come. You will stop seeing LSAT scores in your sleep. You will stop logically analyzing conversations you hear on the metro. You will stop obsessively checking Dave Killoran’s Twitter page. Things will be back to the way they used to be, but you won’t. There’s something different about you now. A little extra spring in your step now that your LSAT lifecycle has come full circle. It’s back to work for you!

Keep in mind that no matter what news you received yesterday, you survived! It was a long and winding road. Maybe you have to travel it again, maybe not, but one thing is certain: you did it! 

Rest easy tonight knowing that you can be proud of yourself, whatever the results of Grey Day happened to be.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post The 9 Stages of Receiving Your LSAT Score appeared first on Law Street.

Monday morning at 9 AM people were lined up outside of the Supreme Court to finally find out what the decision would be in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. In a surprising turn of events, the decision swung in favor of Texas abortion clinics, striking down strict state regulations that had forced around half of the state’s abortion clinics to close in the past few years. When the 5-3 decision was announced, the crowd went wild. Queen’s “We Are the Champions” played; bystanders chanted; families who were just trying to see the Supreme Court on vacation looked confused but excited to be a part of history. This decision has the potential to be monumental in the world of reproductive rights, which may be why it drew such a large crowd of people from all different backgrounds. The morning was historic and, to capture the feeling of what it was like to be there, here are the top eight signs seen outside the Court as the interns were running to retrieve the decision.

#8 Uterus Inc.

Phoebe’s sign is all about pointing out the irony in some conservatives’ opinions. So the government should have no ability to regulate a large corporation, but can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body? Perfectly alright.  

Image Courtesy of Alex Simone for Law Street Media

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Top 8 Signs from the Whole Woman’s Health Decision Release appeared first on Law Street.

Has Bernie Sanders finally given up? It appears that might be the case, as he announced on C-SPAN this week that “it doesn’t appear that [he’s] going to be the nominee.”

After admitting that he probably won’t be the nominee, Sanders mentions that his campaign’s goal is still to push a progressive platform. He notes that he isn’t giving up on transforming the Democratic party just yet.

On top of the C-SPAN bomb drop, Bernie also announced on MSNBC that, come November, he will be voting for Clinton.

JUST IN: @BernieSanders says “yes,” he will vote for @HillaryClinton in November https://t.co/6FT0ZLi0JG

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 24, 2016

Although Sanders seems to be giving a lot of hints at the fact that he won’t be president, he has yet to drop out of the race. With a Sanders win essentially mathematically impossible–barring any election fraud accusations–it’s hard to say why he hasn’t pulled the plug yet. Perhaps staying in the race is the best way to push Clinton’s agenda further left. Perhaps he enjoys the political limelight. Perhaps he’s saddened by the fact that ending the campaign will be the end of his last legitimate chance at becoming the leader of the free world. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that Sanders is prepared to step back any day now and put his weight behind Clinton.

Of course, there are still die-hard Berniebros holding out hope that Sanders will win the nomination–swearing they won’t vote for “$hillary” under any circumstances. In fact, there are many conspiracies on exactly how Sanders will become our country’s leader. According to some YouTube commenters, Sanders will storm into the lead after Clinton is indicted by the DOJ.

Bernie Sanders can’t say it yet publicly, but he’s waiting as many of us are for the FBI to recommend criminal indictments against Hillary Clinton and then for DOJ head Loretta Lynch to indict her. Then the super-delegates will wisely defect from Hillary over to Bernie when they vote at the convention in Philadelphia next month.

According to other commenters, Sanders actually has the votes to win but election fraud is making it look like Clinton is in the lead.

There is a lawsuit going on to set the record straight. BERNIE THEY SAY YOU WON. These are the same guys who made sure the record was straight so that Obama rightfully won in 2008 and 2012. Don’t lose hope because we haven’t!!!!!! #BernieorBust!! And if they don’t get the lawsuit together before the general election, then I will be voting for Ms. Jill Stein. #ThankYouBernie

Best of all, some commenters just think Sanders has something up his sleeve. They claim that he winks in the C-SPAN video right before he says that it doesn’t appear he will be the nominee. What could this wink mean? Some are taking the wink as a sign of his resilience, claiming it means he isn’t giving up quite yet.

Whatever the results of this election are, it’s pretty clear President Bernie Sanders is almost certainly not one of the possible outcomes. It’s nice to know that, after months of what has been a pretty one-sided Democratic race, Sanders has finally come to terms with his campaign’s inevitable end. Plus, with what was essentially an endorsement of Clinton this week, the Democratic party may actually have a shot at keeping the White House this fall, which could mean another four years of progressive policies, even if the country doesn’t quite seem to be #feelingthebern.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bernie Sanders May Be Backing Down appeared first on Law Street.

Alicia Machado, Miss Universe 1996, is speaking up for minorities and speaking out against Donald Trump. Her message? Become an American so you can vote against Trump this November.

In the past month Machado has come forward about Trump’s horrendous behavior toward her as Miss Universe. Apparently, Trump made fun of her weight and nationality repeatedly after the pageant, calling her names like “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeper” in response to her weight gain following the competition. At the time, Machado said it pushed her into bouts of anorexia and bulimia for years as well as sparking her depression. Trump even admits to pushing Machado to lose weight after her reign as Miss Universe, not to mention the dozens of other Miss Universe contestants he reportedly shamed.

In response to Trump’s bullying, Machado has applied to become a U.S. citizen to vote against him in favor of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, this fall. Clinton tweeted at Machado, congratulating her on attaining citizenship and sharing a video of the former Miss Universe talking about Trump:

Congratulations on becoming a U.S. citizen, Alicia. Enjoy casting that vote. https://t.co/jewmwZrrOA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 20, 2016

The video includes footage of Trump forcing Machado to workout with the media watching her. It also shows him shaming the then-19-year-old for her weight:

She weighed 118 pounds or 117 pounds and she went up to 160 or 70 pounds so this is somebody that likes to eat.

The video ends with a clip of Machado laughing as the interviewer asks if she will be voting for Trump this fall.

Machado has finally decided to speak up. She claims to have realized a few weeks ago that the only way to stop Trump from reaching the White House is to gain citizenship and vote against him, as well as to urge members of her community to do the same. Machado sees Trump as the next Hugo Chavez and wants to put a stop to his play for power.

Her commitment to increasing awareness of Trump’s Chavez-like ways in the Latino community is backed by many national organizations. Machado met with immigration advocacy groups, including People for the American way and Casa in Action, recently to help their cause. An ad the two groups are releasing aims to play up Trump’s anti-immigrant statements to showcase why Latinos should vote for Hillary.

The video explains how a Trump presidency will cause our society to become more intolerant and hateful. It also showcases several of the inappropriate names Trump has used to describe immigrants. Machado stands firmly with the message of this video, saying that “everybody in America needs to open their eyes” and that “we don’t need more divisions in this country.” Plus, the video is almost entirely in Spanish to appeal to Latino voters.

Machado has taken the hits from Trump with dignity, choosing to see his insults about her heritage (calling her Miss Housekeeper) as honorable because of how hard immigrant housekeepers and nannies work. She claims she is not going to flee the country if he is elected president because, “this is a great country with wonderful politics and amazing benefits, and this imbecile won’t be able to change that, we are stronger than Trump.” What she wants people to know is that:

This country does not deserve a Chávez. And that’s what Trump is…a demagogue, racist, egocentric, misogynist, demeaning man, who lacks cultural and political knowledge. This country does not deserve that.

As a result of her resilience and well known name, Machado has the potential to influence lots of voters. Seems like Trump better watch who he insults, or he could see his campaign quickly lose traction.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Miss Universe 1996 Speaks Out Against Trump appeared first on Law Street.

A verdict in Utah v. Strieff was handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday, weighing in on how the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal searches. In a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court, concluding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used in court.

The case began when a narcotics detective in Salt Lake City, Utah stopped Edward Strieff after he exited a house that was being monitored for potential drug activity. The detective had seen multiple people making brief stops at the house, calling Strieff’s activities into suspicion. When the detective stopped Strieff, he asked him what he was doing and to provide some identification. He relayed Strieff’s information to a dispatch officer who found that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Strieff was arrested for this violation and promptly searched upon arrest.

So, what’s the Fourth Amendment question? The search revealed that Strieff had methamphetamine and a pipe on him, which were later used as evidence against him. Strieff challenged the case to the District Court, arguing that the evidence should not be used because it was obtained from an illegal search. The District Court and the Court of Appeals both ruled against Strieff, but when he appealed once again to the Utah Supreme Court, the ruling turned in his favor. Finally, the Utah Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the evidence used to convict Strieff was legally gathered. Thomas writes that, although the original stop may not have been constitutional, the fact that the officer later obtained an arrest warrant meant that the evidence was collected legally. As Thomas puts it,

The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff.

Three justices–Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan–dissented from the majority opinion. In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor destroyed the opposing argument. She eloquently described exactly why police powers should not be so broad and how the court’s decision, and the unlawful stops that will likely follow, will have disastrous effects on the public. The end of her dissent is a chilling reminder of how far we have to go as a country when it comes to liberty and equality:

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives.

Several groups were also deeply disappointed with the case’s outcome and the effects it may have in the future. The ACLU tweeted its disapproval:

We are deeply disappointed. #SCOTUS got it wrong on the 4th Amendment in Streiff, with terrible repercussions, esp. for people of color.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 20, 2016

Regardless of the circumstances of this case, the decision gives unprecedented power to police under the Fourth Amendment. People may now be stopped on the streets without having committed a crime. Even worse, any incriminating evidence that results from an unlawful stop may be legally used against you in court. This decision has the power to lead to more and more unconstitutional searches by police.

In the words of Justice Sotomayor, people who are targeted by the police in the way that this decision will now expand, are a warning to us all. They point to injustice in our justice system and show us where we need to improve in order to ensure the liberty for all that is promised in our Constitution. She concluded her dissent saying,

“Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Utah v. Strieff: SCOTUS Narrows Fourth Amendment Protections appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, the debate over guns and gun control is now front and center in the political sphere. Earlier this week, Senate Democrats filibustered for almost 15 hours in order to pressure the Senate into talking about gun control. Social media has also been abuzz with arguments on both sides of the debate over gun control.

While all of these stories have been in the news, some specific decisions by lawmakers also drew national attention. Andy Holt, Tennessee state representative for the 76th district, has received criticism for his plan to give away not one, but two AR-15 assault riffles at a fundraiser later this month.

Holt announced this gift on Facebook last Friday, two days before the death of 49 people and injury of dozens more in the Orlando club. After the announcement, the Republican representative was criticized for his decision to raffle off two of these guns because of their similarity to one of the guns found on Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter.

As a result Holt posted several Facebook posts defending his giveaways. Holt told the Tennessean, “We should not focus on the gun itself. We should focus on the depravity of the heart of the person who’s pulling the trigger.”

Needless to say, several members of the community were outraged by Holt’s giveaway following the horrific shooting.

Wonder if Andy Holt has thought out liability? Or morality, or decency? likely not. https://t.co/JfS8LYy3jE

— p-daddle (@payalayap) June 14, 2016

TN State Rep. Andy Holt is an insensitive, uncompassionate, and heartless man. #ShametoTN https://t.co/hkTXrjkPNB

— Jeremy Jordan (@j_mich23) June 14, 2016

Tenn. State Rep. Andy Holt is a disgrace to our state and tip the religion he professes to believe in. Boo. https://t.co/xkGPftBn06

— Jennifer W. Spirko (@jenspirko) June 14, 2016

In response to his decision, Holt received death threats, although there is confusion over whether or not the threats were real. Following the threats, Holt blamed the media for the negativity surrounding his event:

So, thanks to the brilliant media for their lies that have resulted in death threats to my family and staffer. Not that we are afraid seeing as how we’ve got our shotgun rifles, 4-wheel drive, and know how to survive. But, it is sad. In fact, it’s disgusting.

In addition to his other Facebook posts, Holt responded to his critics with some harsh words:

I’m sick and tired of the media and liberal politicians attacking our right to keep and bear arms. I’ll do everything I can to ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected and people are equipped to exercise their innate right to self-defense. SHARE if you’re standing with me! I wonder if I were giving away airplanes if the headlines would read… “Evil Andy Holt giving away same model of airplane used in 9/11 terror attack for law abiding citizens to use…”

It comes as no surprise that Holt’s decision to raffle off guns is so controversial, given the heavy media coverage surrounding gun violence in the last week. As tragedies like Orlando continue to happen and gun death counts continue to rise, debates over how accessible guns should be will only become more prevalent.

We, as a country, need to decide if 93 gun deaths in 72 hours is a statistic we can live with, in the name of the Second Amendment. Or, maybe, we will work to shape gun policy and stop letting Representatives like Holt control the narrative on what our right to bear arms should look like at the expense of thousands of lives a year.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Tennessee Lawmaker Gives Away Guns at Fundraiser appeared first on Law Street.

This year on Flag Day people all over the country are gathering to protest a state flag instead of celebrating our national flag. Why are they protesting? For over half a century, the state flag in Mississippi has featured an homage to the confederate flag in its upper left corner and people are not happy about it.

“State Flag” Courtesy of Social_Stratification via Flickr

So, in celebration of Flag Day, Mississippians are joining forces to try to bring change to their flag’s design.

At the head of this new flag movement is Aunjanue Ellis, a famous actress from “The Help” and the ABC show “Quantico.” As a young actress, Ellis grew up in Mississippi. She recognizes the dark history surrounding the confederate flag and wants more people to realize that the state shouldn’t be pouring tax dollars into the funding of a flag that commemorates groups like the Ku Klux Klan. As a speaker at the Flag Day rally in Washington, D.C., Ellis wants to spread the message that:

This country presents itself as this beacon of hope and opportunity and equality and race-transcendence to the world. We can’t say that and, ‘Well, with the exception of Mississippi.’

The actress even wore a dress asking President Obama to make a change to the Mississippi flag on a red carpet a few weeks ago in furtherance of her cause.

In red carpet fashion @aunjanuejlt beseeches Obama to remove Mississippi flag https://t.co/oalw67AUJd @CunningSylv pic.twitter.com/Po7fWmOxhC

— NBC BLK (@NBCBLK) May 26, 2016

There are a lot of people behind this cause in addition to celebrities. Mississippi has a higher population of black residents than any other state and is the only state that continues to have confederate symbols on the state flag. Twitter users have taken to social media to promote the rally.

It’s time to X the X! Join us 11a #CapHill #DC to change #Mississippi flag #TakeItDownAmerica #FlagDay #flagday2016 pic.twitter.com/BnsXwXUksy

— Tenisha Taylor Bell (@TenishaTBell) June 14, 2016

Organizers planning Flag Day protest at U. S. Capitol against Mississippi flag with confederate emblem. pic.twitter.com/YCcuJuo21R

— Ross Adams (@radamsWAPT) May 26, 2016

But, of course, wherever there are supporters of one belief there are also critics. Just last week, Congress blocked a measure made by House Democrat Bennie Thompson to ban Confederate symbols from the Capitol. Sons of Confederate Veterans claim that the Confederate flag represents their history, which is why it’s so important that it remains on the Mississippi flag.

As Congressman Thompson put it, as long people in the US and, more specifically, members of the House of Representatives continue to use symbols of the confederacy, they “will continue to sanction and glorify relics of bondage, bigotry and oppression.” It’s time to find something new to represent history. It’s time to let go of celebrating historically racist flags and symbols under the guise of pride in our past. It’s time for Mississippi to finally get a new flag to unify the state under symbols that all Mississippians can be proud of.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Mississippi Wants to Rid State Flag of Confederate Ties appeared first on Law Street.

A law designed to prevent the cyberbullying of children was ruled unconstitutional in the North Carolina Supreme Court this past week. In State of North Carolina v. Robert Bishop, the state Supreme Court was asked to assess the validity of the defendant’s claim that a North Carolina law against cyberbullying was a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The case before the Supreme Court began in February of 2012 when a high school student named Robert Bishop was charged with cyberbullying under a North Carolina statute. Bishop had posted a photo of a sexual message that one of his classmates, Dillon Price, had supposedly sent the defendant. Following several more posts and accusations by Price that the defendant had falsified the sexual messages, Bishop was arrested for cyberbullying.

According to N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1, specifically under section (a)(1)(d), it is illegal to post private, personal, or sexual information related to a minor on the internet with the intent to intimidate said minor. After his arrest and conviction, Bishop appealed to the Superior Court in his county, aiming to dismiss his charges on the grounds that the North Carolina statute is a violation of free speech because it restricts speech based on content. The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the defendant’s arguments, ruling that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and that to “the extent the Cyber-bullying Statute touches upon or regulates some aspects of some speech, the burden on speech and expression is merely incidental.”

After this ruling, the defendant once again appealed his case, this time to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

The state Supreme Court held that N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1 was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. This decision was based in part on the fact that the statute was content-based and not sufficiently narrow in its interest to protect children from cyberbullying. This holding reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and simultaneously reversed the defendant’s conviction for cyberbullying under the statute.

What does this mean for the future of cyberbullying in North Carolina? The statute has been struck down, so, pending future cyberbullying laws being written, there isn’t currently a law to point to when a child is being bullied on the internet. Attorney General Roy Cooper, an avid supporter of the law, is worried about the severity of cyberbullying and the state’s ability to protect children from it:

Just because violence happens online doesn’t make it any less real or less hurtful. Cyberbullying can lead to physical harm, depression in its victims and even suicide and it’s troubling to see this law overturned.

On the positive side of things, this ruling may serve as an example to future law makers about the importance of precise language in laws. With any luck, a more narrowly tailored law can be written that will protect kids on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down Cyberbullying Statute appeared first on Law Street.

Since Hillary Clinton mathematically claimed the Democratic presidential nomination this past week, all eyes have been on Democratic party leaders to see how quickly and strongly they will back her. Luckily for Clinton, she has received a few new endorsements from important political figures this week, including President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren. These endorsements were likely made with the hopes of Democratic unification surrounding Hillary come fall so that she will have the resources and support she needs to defeat the Republican nominee.

First, Obama announced his endorsement yesterday with a video, saying that he knows how hard the job can be which is exactly why he knows that Hillary will be so good at it.

A few hours later, Elizabeth Warren jumped on board, saying,

I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.

This endorsement particularly packs a punch, as Warren and Clinton have not always seen eye to eye on political matters and Warren was the only Democratic female Senator who hadn’t endorsed Clinton up to this point. It also has stirred up a lot of buzz about a potential Clinton-Warren ticket this fall, which could help to reinforce Clinton’s progressive image and even lead to the implementation of some of Sanders’ more liberal plans.

As expected, these endorsements have come with their fair share of Twitter support and backlash. Elizabeth Warren has been slammed for what a lot of Sanders supporters see as a weakening of her liberal views.

If y’all want to give me a great birthday present, go to @elizabethforma and @SenWarren and UNFOLLOW.

— I Know Nothing (@jvgraz) June 10, 2016

Warren is Trying to Unite the Democratic Party, But All She’s Doing is Betraying Progressives https://t.co/g1V99UiD9G

— kateloving (@kateloving) June 10, 2016

One of the best responses to Obama’s endorsement of Clinton came from Donald Trump himself and spurred quite the Twitter war.

Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2016

But, no one puts Hillary in a corner! Her social media team quickly responded with perhaps the funniest tweet in the history of Twitter and the most savage thing we’ve seen all week.

Delete your account. https://t.co/Oa92sncRQY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 9, 2016

With all of the endorsements and Bernie Sanders’ promise to work with Democratic party to support her, Clinton is sitting pretty as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now all that’s between her and the presidency is Sanders’ inevitable drop and some long hard months of campaigning against the Republican nominee. With the backing of Democratic leaders and the looming presence of a potential Trump presidency, Clinton seems as desirable as ever.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Endorsements For Hillary Begin Rolling In appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues his rise in the presidential election–from a businessman joking about running for president to the man who will almost certainly be the Republican Party nominee–several Republican leaders have had to decide whether or not they are going to suck it up and support him. While some Republicans have refused to support Trump or have withdrawn their endorsements because of his repeatedly racist rhetoric, many leaders have given him their political blessing as it has become apparent that he is all they have left.

In the beginning, there was obvious hesitation to support trump. Around a month ago, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and highest ranking GOP official, was nowhere near willing to commit to the Donald Trump bandwagon. Ryan had slammed Trump for his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, pointing out the plan’s unconstitutionality and inherent lack of conservatism. And when Trump refused to disavow David Duke in February, Ryan responded by saying,

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices.

It seems that Ryan and others have decided to weaken the Republican Party stance on bigotry, however, as several party leaders have now readily accepted Trump as their nominee, brushing off his inappropriate behavior and rhetoric as accidental.

A recent example of this hypocrisy? This week Trump has been under fire for inherently racist comments against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an attack add, Hillary Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Trump’s statement and some Republican Party members’ decision to speak out against him.

The video shows clips of Trump’s racist interview claims that Judge Curiel could not fairly judge his case because of his Mexican heritage. His statements are then followed by different clips of prominent Republicans disapproving of his racist claims.

Paul Ryan admitted that Trump’s statements were textbook examples of racism and that he regretted the comments. Mitch McConnell criticized Trump’s statements as stupid inappropriate. Newt Gingrich labeled the comments inexcusable and Trump an amateur. But, while these Republican leaders are disavowing Trump’s remarks on TV or in the news, the sad thing is they and the rest of the party are continuing to support him nonetheless. Party leaders have repeatedly acknowledged Trump’s blatant bigotry, inappropriate rhetoric, and repeated racism, but they still stand behind him and continue pushing for him to be our next President.

At best, Republican support of Donald Trump is some kind of misguided attempt to hold the party together. At worst, the support is grounded in a firm belief in Trump’s plan to destroy all racial diversity and cultural variety in America. GOP leaders need to wake up and realize that the remarks that Donald Trump keeps making on air and in interviews, time and time again, aren’t just silly mistakes–they are who he is. And, then, if party leaders really want to put the force of their party behind the bigoted monster Trump has become (or has always been), they need to accept the consequences that decision will have for their future as a political party and our future as Americans.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Republican Party Leaders Acknowledge They’re Backing a Racist appeared first on Law Street.

In a May 17 vote, the Portland Public School board unanimously approved Resolution No. 5272 to develop a new plan for how information about climate change is taught in local public schools. The controversial catch? The resolution specifically included a section mandating the abandonment of any books that are “found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.” While proponents of the resolution argue that textbooks containing doubt about the existence of man-made climate change lead to fewer informed children, many people are outraged at the idea of textbook censorship being enacted in public schools.

From the view of the school board, removing texts that cast doubt on the severity of man-made climate change will help to enlighten students in Portland. Rather than seeing the initiative as a ban on certain viewpoints, the school board has identified it as a way to make climate change literacy a priority in the school system. Bill Bigelow, editor of the Rethinking Schools magazine, said: “a lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise.”

He even discussed the fact that it is not uncommon for fossil fuel producers and their PR departments to influence written sections in textbooks about climate change, which could lead to skewed information. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry,” Bigelow said.

On the other hand, the stir that has been created in response to the school board’s resolution has been overwhelming in the last few days after the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) released an official statement against the resolution. Its response detailed several features of the resolution that it considered concerning including the resolution’s overly broad nature, its undervaluing of students being able to consider all sides of an argument, and the fact that it was almost entirely created because of political pressure by environmental lobbyists. The coalition even tweeted last week that the resolution was  unnecessary:

Portland’s climate education resolution is over-broad, politically influenced, and unnecessary. https://t.co/QLf33nDleB

— ncacensorship (@ncacensorship) June 3, 2016

To NCAC, the censorship of books curtails individual students’ rights to read multiple opinions on global warming and then decide for themselves what impact they believe it is having. In addition, the ban could limit accurate exposure to the debate over man-made climate change from the last couple of decades for students. NCAC’s statement express concern over wresting independence from those who teach the material, teachers:

Deciding how to approach the existing political debate around the causes of climate change should be left to those who teach about it: science professors, social studies and civics professors may approach the issue differently in accordance with the requirements of their subject matter. Elected officials have an important role in ensuring the availability of an adequate education to all students; they should devote their energies to that worthy goal, and leave decisions about what and how to teach to the people who are trained to do it.

In other words, students should be exposed to all viewpoints and then it should be up to teachers and professors to determine what is and is not taught in schools–not politicians. Other opponents have criticized the public school system in Portland of promoting “political indoctrination” over the education of children.

While the new Portland plan may raise questions about student access to accurate summaries of the historical debate over man-made climate change, 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that it is reality. Maybe what Portland needs is an amendment to the plan rather than a complete overhaul: some way to teach kids that the cause and existence of climate change has been debated, but that science overwhelmingly supports its existence and human origin. It seems like the Portland Public School Board had its heart in the right place, and that the controversy stirred up by the NCAC may help the board tailor its policies to be slightly less all consuming and perhaps more effective.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Portland Censors Climate Change Material In Textbooks, Sparking Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

An amendment to the House’s annual defense authorization bill could require women to register for the draft in upcoming years. If passed, the amendment would require both men and women to register for Selective Service when they reach the age of 18. The amendment to this bill comes in the wake of a change in military policy to get rid of any gender-based restrictions on front-line combat.

This amendment was proposed by Senator Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, in an attempt to start a discussion about the lifted gender restrictions on military service. Interestingly enough, he does not support women being in the front lines of duty or being drafted in the military. The only reason he raised this amendment was to get a conversation started in Congress about this policy because Hunter does not believe that the executive branch should be making decisions about American defense policy.

In order to convince members of Congress not to vote for the amendment, Hunter gave a speech that involved a lot of rhetoric about the dangers of war. This speech included phrases like “a draft is there to put bodies on the front lines to take the hill” and “the draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies’ throats out and kill them.” Hunter’s intent with this speech was to use graphic imagery as a way to dissuade people from voting for the amendment.

Unfortunately for Hunter, his plan didn’t go as well as expected. Several representatives spoke up in favor of the amendment after it was suggested. Representative Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, had a lot to say:

I actually think if we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription.

She believes that “there’s great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in a time of war.”

Even Senator John McCain spoke up in favor of including women in the draft, saying that:

As far as [he’s] concerned, if we’re going to put women into combat roles then that’s certainly logical, but [he’d] like to consult with the committee.

It’s obviously important to look at the whole picture when deciding on a policy change that could affect a lot of people across the country. To be fair, the draft hasn’t been used in over four decades since it was used to compile an army during the Vietnam War. People high up in the military claim that the likelihood of the draft being used any time soon, if at all, is pretty slim. The good news is that even the consideration of the amendment is a step forward in terms of gender equality. Women now have more rights than ever in the military, an accomplishment that should be celebrated.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Women May Be Required to Register for the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

This week in politics there have been plenty of fun attacks on presidential candidates. But who has been doing the best job of making these sly rhetorical slams?

Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, here are the top three political burns of the week.

#1… Elizabeth Warren

To be fair, this one occurred a little over a week ago, and Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for President. But, this one was too good to leave out.

Last Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren roasted Ted Cruz on Facebook and Twitter in response to an email he had sent out to constituents about the hardships he has endured while running for President. In his laundry list of “sacrifices” he has made, Cruz included being constantly attacked in the media, a lack of sleep, and little to no personal time.

Yesterday @TedCruz sent a campaign email whining about the “significant sacrifice” he’s made to run for President. pic.twitter.com/yKtLpWG0Ou

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

Warren had absolutely no sympathy for Cruz and proceeded to go on an eleven tweet rant calling him out on his BS–here are some of the gems.

Hey @TedCruz: Maybe you should spend less time complaining about your “significant sacrifices” – & more time doing something about theirs.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

You chose to run for President, @TedCruz. You chose to make your “sacrifices.” Working people don’t have a choice.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

And @TedCruz? Working people work more, get paid less, can’t save, get mistreated, struggle with illness & family – but they don’t whine.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) April 19, 2016

All there is to say about that is “you go girl!”

#2… Donald Trump

Trump’s burns this week deserve praise, but not for being witty or clever. Instead, these burns should get a gold star for being so basic and childish that they are inherently hilarious.

In typical Trump fashion, he chose to insult his fellow Republican candidate John Kasich. He didn’t insult Kasich on his lack of merit or political ineptitude, instead he went something a little more personal: his eating habits. Trump went straight for the jugular claiming that:

He has the news conference all the time when he’s eating. I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion. I’m always telling my young son, Barron, always with my kids, all of them, I’d say ‘children, small little bites.’ This guy takes a pancake and he’s shoving it in his mouth, it’s disgusting.

For reference, this is the “disgusting fashion” Trump was referring to:

9 photos of John Kasich eating on the campaign trail https://t.co/db2k4N5RgR pic.twitter.com/SL0lh5Duma

— POLITICO (@politico) April 26, 2016

Good one Trump! You really got him good!

#3… Ted Cruz

Coming in last place, the final “insult of the week” was Ted Cruz’s attempt to attack Donald Trump for his views on bathroom use in states like North Carolina. After Trump announced a few days ago that people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they please, Cruz jumped all over him arguing women and children need protection.

While Cruz had solid intentions of being evil and hurtful to Trump in his attack, something tells me no one is all that bothered by Cruz calling Trump “stark-raving nuts.” In fact, that insult doesn’t even sound all that human. Ah well, better luck being mean next time, pal!

Overall, it’s been an entertaining week in political banter, and I’m certainly looking forward to the insults that are yet to come in the next couple of months. They should be interesting to watch!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Top 3 Political Burns of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

In Dallas, Texas an 89-year-old woman helped stop a criminal on a violent streak when he tried to invade her home with a knife. Mili Carter, the grandmother who was at home alone with her two dogs at the time, responded quickly and slyly to the situation, which ended in the arrest of a local criminal and a pretty hilarious lesson.

Carter was sitting alone in her Dallas apartment when the intruder knocked on her back door, yelling for help. When she went to open the door, she was shocked to find a man–later identified as Maxxim Elliot Bedford–with a knife, forcing her to let him inside. Once in her apartment, he tried to drag her into the laundry room in order to get a change of clothes and to hide from the police who were looking for him after an alleged break-in. Instead, Carter ran the other way and called 911 once she was safely outside.

Bedford was a known criminal in the area and had tried (and failed) to steal three cars the day before this break-in occurred. After two failed carjacking attempts, he was stopped in his tracks by a man with a gun–who was not happy to see his car being stolen–on his third try.

In fact, the reason he had demanded to be let into Carter’s apartment was so that he could escape the police after allegedly burglarizing a nearby apartment. Unfortunately for Bedford, he was no match for Mili Carter’s quick wits and brave attitude. After spending two and a half hours locked in Carter’s bathroom, the police finally broke down the door to find Bedford inside with a hair straightener, instead of the gun he claimed to have had.

The most amazing thing about this entire scenario was Carter’s response to the stressful situation. She remained calm and in control and when WFAA News 8 asked about the whole ordeal and how she managed to stay calm, she replied, “I reared three boys and four daughters. You don’t show fear.” Better yet, when asked to comment on the experience overall Carter had this to say: “I’ve lived this long. How do you think I got there? Not by being a wimp.”

The moral of the story? Don’t be a wimp in the face of danger. It’s not that often you find such a cool, calm, and collected grandma in a situation like that. You go Mili!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Grandma Fends Off Armed Intruder in Dallas appeared first on Law Street.

Individuals who were using a website to cheat on their spouses and significant others will not remain anonymous if they choose to remain on the lawsuit against that website–Ashley Madison. This week a judge ruled that anyone who continues in the legal fight will not be allowed to use pseudonyms in the lawsuit.

Let’s start at the beginning of this whole mess: this lawsuit began in response to last summer’s hack of the Ashley Madison website, a service with the motto: “Life is short. Have an Affair.” The website, which purports to facilitate men and women in finding people to have affairs with, is used most predominantly by men. In the hack, 11 million account passwords were discovered because of improperly secured accounts. This led to the release of 32 million customers’ emails, sexual preferences, names, and addresses on the internet, which caused backlash in small communities, investigations of government employees found using the site, and even the blackmailing of some individuals whose information was released.

In response to the release of personal information, several Ashley Madison users have decided to sue the company for claiming to secure personal information and then failing to do so. While many of their identities have already been released, the plaintiffs petitioned to use pseudonyms in the case in order to protect themselves from judgment of the public.

Unfortunately for the roughly 50 people suing Ashley Madison, Judge John A. Ross, a United States District Judge, ruled on April 6th to deny the motion for plaintiffs in the case to use pseudonyms. Part of the judge’s ruling was based on the fact that:

The personal and financial information plaintiffs seek to protect has already been released on the Internet and made available to the public.

In addition, the judge acknowledged the fact that:

Only in extraordinary circumstances may civil litigation proceed under fake names, like in cases such as sex crimes and suits about juveniles.

What the judge did allow is for the members who are currently involved in the suit to dismiss their complaints and instead file as members of a class in a class-action suit. If it is certified they will not need to release their names individually in order to sue.

A lot of the people whose names were released in the hack have faced serious consequences because of the release of information. Some people have been blackmailed into paying bitcoin bribes in order to try to stop blackmailers from ousting the cheaters to their oblivious spouses. Town officials have been shamed by their local newspapers and publications.

While the huge breach in security was unexpected for the members of the Ashley Madison site and the people whose information was released may have legal standing to sue the company, it’s hard to have much sympathy for cheaters whose significant others found out about their infidelity. This is a good lesson for all of us to be a little more skeptical about the security of personal information online and the reality of bad karma. Next time you go online to find a hot date with whom to two-time your wife, maybe think twice before plugging in your government email address.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Judge Denies Cheaters’ Request to Remain Anonymous in Ashley Madison Suit appeared first on Law Street.

After a few months of debate on whether or not Utah would be considering porn a public health crisis, the state has finally pulled the trigger. Governor Gary Herbert signed a resolution earlier this week declaring porn a public health crisis.

While this bill does not in any way inhibit porn usage in the state, it does call for the:

Recogni[tion of] the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

However, that education, prevention, research, and policy change could be difficult considering the state hasn’t laid out any kind of legislation or proposal as to what to do about this epidemic. In addition, the resolution doesn’t allot any kind of funding toward anti-porn education or anything of the sort–so how is this resolution helping with the so-called epidemic at all?

This resolution was created by one of the state’s Republican Representatives, Todd Weiler, with the goal of increasing awareness of the potential dangers of porn. Weiler claims that he wants default internet settings to be changed in order to make viewing porn more difficult than it currently is. The senator maintains that he is not trying to ban porn in the state of Utah, but rather make it less accessible for children and teenagers. Weiler was quoted saying that:

If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out cigarettes to our children, we would be picketing them, and, yet, our children are accessing pornography on their tablets on these sites and we seem to be OK with that.

He is very concerned with how accessible pornography is on the internet because it leads to the corruption of children and young teens:

This is a $7 billion industry. Help us protect children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances. If adults want to do that, that’s their choice, but we’re talking about developing adolescent minds of our nation’s future.

Even after being mocked repeatedly when they first announced the state’s plan in January, the Utah legislature and governor are sticking to their guns and standing firmly by their decision to have porn listed as a public health crisis. Senator Weiler and Governor Herbert, along with several others, firmly believe that pornography is a danger to society because of how addicting it can be and the consequences that can come with a porn addiction.

One thing is for sure, if Utah wants to decrease porn usage in the state, they may as well just block the entire internet because, as we all know, porn is the one thing the internet is really made for!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Official: Utah Declares Porn a Public Health Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! In case you were worried or concerned (although, honestly, with this year’s presidential candidate pool, who isn’t concerned?) Paul Ryan has made it very clear that he will not be running for president. That’s right. You’ve heard it correctly. Paul Ryan will not be the next President of the United States, so don’t even think about voting for him.

In a weird press conference last week, Ryan announced his lack of desire for the presidential nomination and his refusal to accept the nomination if it comes down to that. Check out his refusal at the 30 second mark:

He made it very clear in this video that he does not want the delegates nominating him and that he believes only candidates who ran in the primaries should be considered by those delegates, should the nomination decision go to convention this July. “I should not be considered. Period. End of story,” Ryan says affirmatively, before he proceeds to again emphatically state that he is “not going to be our party’s [the republican party’s] nominee.” It’s okay Paul! Calm down! No one is going to force you to be president if you don’t want to be, buddy!

Why was Ryan being so oddly repetitive and assertive as he announced his non-candidacy for president? Well, if we think back to last fall, Ryan pulled the same stunt when there were rumors flying around of him stepping into John Boehner’s role as Speaker of the House. Time after time, Ryan denied any desire to be the Speaker. There was even Twitter evidence that Ryan was dead set on not accepting the Speaker position.

Ryan spox to NBC News: "Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he's getting from his colleagues but is still not running for Speaker."

— Alex Moe (@AlexNBCNews) October 9, 2015

And, what happened in that situation? Less than a month later, Ryan flopped and stepped into his new role as Speaker of the House, despite numerous attempts to convince the public he really did not want the job.

This sudden change in heart last fall makes it hard to believe Ryan’s current media pleas, no matter how earnest and heartfelt they seem. But, don’t worry America, not too many people are falling for this shenanigan Ryan has pulled–even “SNL” called Ryan out on his nonsense in a skit that parodied his not a campaign announcement.

This “anti-campaign ad,” which features Taran Killam as Paul Ryan, hams up Ryan’s not running for president shtick. What starts as Ryan claiming he will not be America’s next president, under any circumstances, quickly transforms into what is essentially a campaign ad. This hilarious spoof directly mirrors Ryan’s “not running” campaign announcement, where he began by claiming he wasn’t running and then basically gave a presidential campaign speech immediately following the announcement. It’s a brilliant example of why satire and parody really are the best kinds of humor.

Will he be the nominee? Won’t he be the nominee? It really is too hard to tell in the midst of Ryan’s broken “not running” promises and confusing not campaigning announcements. The one thing that is certain, is that the Republicans are gearing up for a Convention nominee because it’s looking like that’s what the end of the Republican race will require. And, even though Paul Ryan is “not running,” I think we all know he could be just what this country needs after months and months of watching the zodiac killer (read: Ted Cruz) and America’s biggest bully (read: Donald Trump) duking it out.

So, anyways, we get it Paul! You’re not running for president just like we’re all not voting for you and not sick of the rest of the Republican presidential candidates. Your secret is safe with us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Paul Ryan is Not, Under any Circumstances, Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser announced a plan to seek statehood for the District of Columbia come November through a citywide vote on the matter. She promised to propose legislation this summer that would transform the District of Columbia into the state of New Columbia.

This summer, we will propose legislation that will put statehood on the ballot in the 2016 election. #DCEmancipationDay

— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) April 15, 2016

In addition to her effort to put D.C. statehood on the ballot, Mayor Bowser is also finding other ways to challenge the federal government. For the first time since the district was created in 1790, the city will not be asking the federal government for approval of its annual tax-based budget. While this action may be a violation of the Constitution, it also sends a strong message to the federal government and the nation that D.C. is ready to be an independent state.

For years now, D.C. residents have been fighting for their right to representation in Congress. The desire for D.C. statehood hit an all-time high last fall, according to a survey conducted by the Washington Post. The survey found that three out of every four district residents claim to be upset because they do not have representation in Congress. Over seven in every 10 D.C. residents believe that Congress has too much control over the affairs of the district, especially considering we do not have a voting representative. Sixty-seven percent of D.C. residents said they would support a movement to make D.C. a state, with the hope that having representation would help the local government deal with city-wide problems.

The District of Columbia’s license plate exemplifies why people are mad that D.C. isn’t a state: taxation without representation.

WASHINGTON DC Taxation License Plate Tag – nice EB 1503 https://t.co/UBxws5ZGBz pic.twitter.com/cdJ7eG8ZII

— highly luscious prod (@mogrovejoisidr3) April 13, 2016

John Oliver also did a piece on why D.C. should be a state last August, pointing out some of the ridiculous logic behind not giving the District of Columbia statehood.

This video highlights just how crazy it is for D.C. residents to pay taxes and abide by laws without any kind of representation in Congress. In addition, Oliver points out that not only is the D.C. population bigger than two states, but it also has a larger GDP than 16 of the 50 U.S. states. Not to mention the United States is the only country in the world with a capital that is isolated and lacking in representation the way D.C. is.

Even the Dali Lama questions D.C.’s lack of statehood, noting that he wonders why citizens in the city that is the “champion of democracy, liberty, and freedom” do not have full voting rights, lamenting that this problem is “Quite strange, quite strange.”

So, why isn’t the District of Columbia a state already? Well, the original thought process behind not granting the district statehood comes from a worry the founding fathers had that the proceedings of Congress could be disrupted by people living in the district. The founders were concerned that the national government would feel unnecessarily responsible for the people of the district because of their proximity to the government. There are some other arguments against statehood, including the lack of rural residents in D.C. as well as the fact that D.C. would be a stronghold for the Democratic Party.

In the eyes of most D.C. residents, myself included, those potential cons of statehood don’t really hold up when contrasted with the utter lack of representation that the district currently has. We deserve the right to Senators and Representatives as much as any other citizen in this country and, thanks to the dedicated work of Mayor Bowser and the rest of the D.C. government, that right may be granted to us soon. We’re rooting for you, D.C.

Read More: The 51st State: What D.C. Statehood Would Mean for the Country

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time for the District of Columbia to Become a State appeared first on Law Street.

Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam, vetoed HB0615 yesterday, a bill that would have designated the Holy Bible as the state book of Tennessee. Before the governor’s veto, the bill was passed in the state house by a vote of 55-38 and in the senate by a vote of 19-8. While some argue that naming the Bible as the official state book would fundamentally intertwine the church and state, others argue that the Bible’s historic and economic significance make it relevant and appropriate as a state book.

Opponents of the bill were outraged by the thought of the Bible being designated as the state book for several reasons and, therefore, thankful that the governor vetoed the bill. First came the obvious question of the government promoting or advancing one religion over another. The ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg pointed out potential issues with the legislation, saying:

Lawmakers’ thinly veiled effort to promote one religion over other religions clearly violates both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

Instituting the Bible as the state book would suggest the furtherance of Bible-based religions, like Christianity, over other religions that aren’t based on the bible. It would fundamentally violate the separation of church and state laid out in both the national and state constitutions.

Thank you, Gov. Bill Haslam, for taking a stand for religious liberty and against theocracy. https://t.co/MTREfE6Z9w

— David Waters (@DavidWatersCA) April 15, 2016

Others made fun of Tennessee for being a state so focused on religion with satirical and ironic tweets.

The Tennessee state senate voted to make the Bible the state book, I'm assuming because nobody there could name another one.

— J. Elvis Weinstein (@JElvisWeinstein) April 6, 2016

Hope the new official Tennessee state book doesn't fry in my hands while reading it. Think I'd rather go to hell

— Josh Sebastian (@tnseabass) April 6, 2016

One state Senator, Jeff Yarboro from Nashville, recognized that, even though it may be hard for some members of the legislature to want to vote against an important symbol of their faith, they needed to consider the constitutionality of their actions. “I understand that it’s hard to vote against the Bible—no one wants to do that. We have an obligation to follow the Constitution,” Yarboro told the Tennessean.

The final argument against making the Bible the state book is one that the governor himself made, and it’s not what you might expect. Similar to what our founding fathers claimed about the separation of church and state, Governor Haslam feels that making the Bible the Tennessee state book would trivialize the Bible. He even cited the founding fathers in his argument. In a letter to Beth Harwell, the Tenessee Speaker of the House, he said,

Our founders recognized that when the church and state were combined, it was the church that suffered in the long run.

He also acknowledged the difference between religion being celebrated and openly discussed in government and the actual establishment of religion by government:

Men and women motivated by faith have every right and obligation to bring their belief and commitment to the public debate. However, that is very different from the governmental establishment of religion that our founders warned against and our Constitution prohibits.

In order to override the governor’s veto, the legislature just needs a simple majority in each chamber, which seems like it could be easily attained based on the original vote counts. So, keep an eye on Tennessee everyone. It looks like it could soon become the first state to recognize a religious text as their state book and it will be interesting to see the repercussions that it may face.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Tennessee Governor Rejects Bible as Official State Book appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about the qualities the United States needs in its next president. Should he or she be a forceful figure who will lead our country in defeating ISIS? Does it matter if the president is fashionable? A financially savvy leader who can pull us out of debt? How old should the president be? With all these different factors to consider, it’s no wonder Americans are confused about who to vote for.

Have no fear, because one undeniable quality stands alone as the most important: how well does a candidate understand the informal rules and faux pas of New York City? And this week, we found out. In a trip to New York to sway voters before the state’s primary, the candidates were tested on city smarts: whether that be their tunnel talent, as they traveled under the city to get from place to place; their pizza wisdom, as they sat down for a big ol’ slice of pie; or their general understanding of how to be human in a city, in the case of Ted Cruz. Needless to say, some candidates quickly came out on top.

#1… John Kasich

While Kasich may be last in the polls, at least he was first in our hearts when he visited this local deli in the Bronx. With his “can do” attitude–which propelled him to eat two helpings of spaghetti, a personalized sandwich, and more–and a winning smile for the crowd, Kasich was easily the most charming visitor in New York.

A crazy and memorable scene in the Bronx this afternoon as Kasich stopped to chow down on some food at Mike’s Deli pic.twitter.com/FA2F8rQNEB

— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) April 7, 2016

Unfortunately for Kasich, he doesn’t have a perfect NYC record after a pizza disaster a few weeks ago, in which he was seen eating a slice with a fork and a knife. Come on John, talk about detrimental gaffes!

John Kasich just ate his pizza with a fork and knife pic.twitter.com/KQ0UXCoJjN

— GIF The News (@NowThisGIF) March 30, 2016

Luckily for him, the likable dining-sesh at Mike’s Deli helped New Yorkers forgive and forget when it came to the recent pizz-astrophe, just not quite enough to actually put him ahead of Trump in any of the real polls.

#2… Donald Trump

As one of three candidates with actual ties to New York, Trump was a standout this past week. After repeatedly being attacked by Ted Cruz for his “New York values,” Trump took the opportunity to show exactly what he thinks New York values are. He and his wife, Melania Trump, toured the 9/11 Memorial Museum, also dropping a whopping $100,000 donation to the museum. With his name already all over a lot of the city, thanks to the Trump Tower, this donation just helped Trump secure what was already a pretty striking lead in his home state.

#3… Bernie Sanders

Sanders, another New York native, had a bit more of a rough go this week after he failed to answer some questions about the city correctly. When the Senator was asked to comment on the cheapest way to ride the subway, he jokingly cited jumping over the turnstile as the best way to save a quick buck–how cute! Unfortunately, when pressed a little further on the issue, Sanders showed just how lacking in city smarts he has become since moving to Vermont and working in D.C.:

What do you mean, ‘How do you ride the subway these days? You get a token and you get on.

For those of you who, like Sanders, may not have been on the subway in quite a while, the joke here is that subway tokens haven’t been used in New York in over a decade. Oops! Looks like your age is showing just a tad, Bernie. But, all in all, a valiant effort.

#4… Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s trip to New York may have been the most memorable and newsworthy visit, as it spurred tons of articles, parody videos, and internet memes making fun of her clear inability to use public transportation. For that reason alone, Clinton ranks near the very bottom of the list.

So, what actually happened? When entering any form of a subway system, the most annoying thing that can happen is someone holding up the turnstiles. And that’s exactly what Clinton did. It took not one, not two, but five swipes of her MetroCard to get through the turnstile. Talk about a serious city faux pas!

The good news about this gaffe? Her campaign has turned it into a quite hilarious 404 page on her website. Whenever you click a link or page that no longer exists on Clinton’s website, you are redirected to a gif of her swiping her MetroCard with a message that reads, “trying to get where you want to go? This page isn’t it.” While the campaign may be making light of a potentially negative situation, there’s only so much joking around you can do about a candidate’s ability to handle New York.

Clinton clearly wasn’t ready for the underground travel; how can we be sure she can handle the sad D.C. Metro or the country?

#5… Ted Cruz

Last on the list is Ted Cruz. Not only does this man not know how to act in the city, he straight up insulted NYC in a past debate with Donald Trump. After using “New York values” to insult Trump, Cruz was not welcomed with open arms when he traveled to the Bronx last week. A school in the Bronx canceled a visit from Cruz after the students threatened to stage a walk out because they didn’t agree with his views. Cruz was also heckled out of a restaurant where he was eating by angry protestors who believe that his anti-immigration platform is the opposite of everything people in the Bronx stand for. The Daily News featured nasty slogans, slamming Cruz for his anti-NY sentiment on multiple newspaper covers.

@Nannygal2 @amperg33 @wakeuppeopleSOS @tedcruz DROP DEAD TED! Now polling in NY at 16%!! NY HATES LYING TED!! pic.twitter.com/TuUAHS86jr

— Dawn Murray (@dawnellemurray) April 7, 2016

While there are obviously other factors to take into account when voting for president, these New York successes and failures could be pretty influential in swaying voters one way or another. What the candidates have hopefully learned from their New York trips is that it’s important to respect the places they campaign in and appreciate the diverse groups of people they will represent if elected president. After all, city and travel etiquette can say a lot about a person.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Who Did it Best? The Candidates Take on the Big Apple appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a sad time for LGBTQ rights in North Carolina and Mississippi, where discriminatory legislators have recently passed horrifyingly intolerant laws that specifically target members of the LGBT community. In response to these laws, companies, celebrities, and communities have begun to speak out for the rights of LGBTQ people and stand up for the repeal of hateful policies.

The North Carolina bill, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificate, was signed into law last month by Governor Pat McCrory. The Governor claims that this law is a matter of protecting the safety and privacy of women and children in North Carolina. The new law in Mississippi allows churches, religious groups, and private businesses to deny service to people based on their gender or marriage status if they conflict with the businesses’ religious beliefs. Not only are these laws draconian, but they are also getting both North Carolina and Mississippi into some serious trouble.

For starters, these laws are probably going to be challenged constitutionally in court. While it is most likely that these bills are being driven by unwarranted fear and misunderstandings about gender identity, rather than a pure hatred for the LGBTQ community, there is a question of the constitutionality of blatantly discriminatory laws.

North Carolina’s law, specifically, could lose the state $4.5 billion in federal education funding from Title IX because of its violation of the Title’s provisions:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

This law discriminates against transgender students in the school system, and, therefore, could call into question whether or not the state should still earn Title IX funding.

On the topic of financial hits the two states will be taking, North Carolina is expected to lose millions after PayPal pulled out of its planned expansion in Charlotte. The expansion was going to bring around 400 new jobs to the state, each with estimated yearly salaries of around fifty-one thousand dollars. On top of these tangible losses, large companies, and tech businesses are voicing their opposition to discriminatory laws like the ones in Mississippi and North Carolina. Some of Mississippi’s largest employers, like Nissan and Toyota, have spoken out about how the law will hurt tourism and harm the state’s economy. Funny or Die released a parody tourism commercial for Mississippi, tastefully highlighting exactly how these laws will drive away tourists.

In addition to decreases in tourism, entire cities and states are banning business travel to Mississippi and North Carolina because of these recently enacted laws. Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington are four states who have prohibited employee travel to these two states, with many more sure to join in soon. Several cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco  have also placed travel bans to both states. While travel bans are, for the most part, symbolic, they have the potential to affect local economies and reinforce the overwhelming lack of support for these two states.

If all of the economic hits and the national shame weren’t enough to convince you of how terrible these laws are, big names from all across the country are also lashing out, including, but certainly not limited to, Joel McHale, Ellen Degeneres, and The Boss himself–Bruce Springsteen.

Springsteen canceled his tour stops in North Carolina in response to the bill, claiming that:

Some things are more important than a rock show, and this fight against prejudice and bigotry, which is happening as I write, is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

“Bruce Springsteen joins North Carolina backlash”https://t.co/NBiQWZJxkf

— Bruce Springsteen (@springsteen) April 9, 2016

Ellen, who is an avid supporter of the LGBTQ community, tweeted support for the people who are being targeted in North Carolina and Mississippi.

The people of #NorthCarolina and #Mississippi deserve better. We won't stop fighting until they get it.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 5, 2016

And finally, in perhaps what is the best response to this law, Joel McHale decided to perform in Durham, North Carolina and then donate all of his profits to the LGBTQ center of Durham. After reasonably pointing out that “this [law] is fucking crazy,” he announced this decision and promptly received an uproarious cheer from the audience.

Honestly, these laws are downright embarrassing and a great reminder of exactly why we need to keep fighting for all kinds of equality in this country. It is asinine that in 2016 we are still having to tell elected representatives that banning people from using a bathroom and refusing to serve customers because of their sexuality or gender identity is blatant discrimination. So, to Pat McCrory (the governor of my home state), Phil Bryant (Mississippi’s Governor), and the rest of state representatives who have voted in favor of or spoken in favor of laws that are taking our country back centuries in terms of civil rights, I say pull it together. Stop making myself and countless other American citizens feel ashamed of our hometowns because of your antiquated, evil, discriminatory laws. Stop being so hateful towards people who are literally just being themselves. Stop making your states the laughing stock of the entire country and do your actual job: stand up for your people and their rights instead of tearing us all down.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina and Mississippi: States Face Consequences for Discriminatory Laws appeared first on Law Street.

At an event hosted by the New York City Bar last week, around a dozen attorneys and interested professionals gathered at 42 West 44th Street in New York to talk about something not a lot of people in today’s society like to acknowledge: stress in the legal profession.

The workshop–titled Resilience for Lawyers: Practical Skills to Decrease Stress and Avoid Burnout–was run specifically by the Mindfulness in Law program, a group that meets monthly at the New York City Bar to discuss using meditative practices in the legal profession. The group is headed by Robert Chender, an attorney who started the program several years ago with the goal of seeing how mindfulness practices could potentially help lawyers. Law Street’s Social Media Marketing Assistant, Fatima Sarassoro, covered the event and had some interesting information to share about exactly why lawyers are so stressed and how they can better deal with that stress. After a conversation with her, a phone interview with Robert Chender, and an email exchange with Bjorn Sorenson–a presenter at the event–it became clear that there are important steps attorneys can take in their everyday life to de-stress and become more productive.

Stress is a funny thing; no two people experience it the same way. What might be stressful for one person, could be a normal daily occurrence for another. In addition, people cope with stressors differently depending on which coping mechanisms work best for them. One thing we do know about stress is that pretty much everyone experiences it. The workplace and money are some of the highest stress causing factors in America today. According to an annual stress survey done by the American Psychological Association, “Many adults say that money (37 percent) and work (31 percent) are a very significant source of stress in their life,” with only 13 percent of adults claiming that money is not at all a significant source of stress and only 12 percent claiming the same about work. In the field of law, specifically, people cite burnout as more common than in other fields because of pessimistic work environments and large amounts of debt from law school. The American Bar Association acknowledges that stress in the legal profession is well-documented, “Lawyers often have demanding schedules and heavy workloads, which may contribute to increased stress levels.”

In addition, part of the reason lawyers experience more stress than people in other professions is because of the high level of emotional involvement involved in their jobs. The practice of law attracts people who are very passionate, which then leads them to experience heightened emotions, like stress and anger, in response to their jobs–more so than many other professions.

According to Bjorn Sorenson–a consultant to mission-driven leaders, entrepreneurs, and businesses who gave a presentation at the event–law is a stressful profession, which then leads to a lot of stressed out lawyers not taking care of themselves and burning out early. At the event, he explained that life is on a spectrum; people fluctuate on that spectrum from stages of suffering and stress to stages of resiliency, sustainability, and flourishing throughout their life.

Because lawyers are taught in law school that they have to “think like a lawyer,” they have the skills to think analytically but not necessarily the skills to deal with the issues and stress that come along with that type of thinking. In addition to that law mentality, Robert Chender noted in a phone interview about mindfulness in law that,

Legal practitioners tend to be subject to certain qualities of mind that are more pronounced in lawyers than in other fields. For example, lawyers tend to be more pessimistic and lawyers tend to be more perfectionistic, which are adaptable or adaptive qualities at work but not so adaptive outside of work.

What’s the main stressor that comes from law? An inability for lawyers to focus, according to Sorenson. Apparently “47 percent of people are unhappy because they’re focusing on things other than what they are supposed to be focusing on.” Sorenson’s presentation explained how, even though in today’s day and age everyone assumes multitasking is the norm, our brains are actually incapable of multitasking. Instead, when people try to multitask they end up trying to do multiple things at once but doing neither one effectively. Trying to multitask leads to a lack of focus and productivity–perpetuating the problem. While this lack of focus is a challenge in all fields, it is especially prevalent among lawyers because of heavy workloads and heightened emotional responses to their work.

The question that comes from this is whether or not there is a place for awareness techniques like mindfulness to modulate the tendency toward negativity among lawyers. If stress is so prevalent, how can lawyers work to cope with the stress they face so they can be as effective in their careers and lives as possible? That’s exactly the question Sorenson hoped to answer when he spoke at the Resilience for Lawyers workshop.

At the root of the problem, Sorenson claims, it is imperative for the health of legal professionals that they sit back and realize one simple thing: before you are a lawyer you are a human being. As a human being, you have the power to control your own thoughts and reactions to situations. Unfortunately, Sorenson says, negative emotions are more contagious than positive ones.  Sorenson notes that to get out of this negative rut, people have to choose to be positive, both with themselves and with others. While choosing to be positive can be difficult, there are some tips and tricks to use every day to keep a positive attitude in potentially negative situations.

One of the methods Sorenson talked about in detail is the SPA method–Situation, Posture, and Attitude. Before diving into the inevitably negative grumbling when something doesn’t go right, it is important to analyze the situation you’re in. After you assess what exactly the situation is, take a second to breathe and adjust your posture. Then you can decide exactly what attitude you are going to choose to have when it comes to dealing with your situation. Taking a moment to breathe, assess your situation and readjust your posture and attitude can be instrumental in maintaining a happy work environment and perpetuating a positive stress-free lifestyle.

The good news about these techniques is that they are applicable in all fields. When asked in an email interview how flexible these strategies are in other jobs, Sorenson said,

All of the techniques discussed in my workshop are applicable in other fields and other areas of life. In fact, my primary approach to these workshops is to share human skills, not legal skills. Resilience, emotional intelligence, social connection, a meaningful life…these are not the exclusive domain of lawyers.

In a phone interview, Robert Chender explained how he teaches mindfulness techniques to all kinds of businesses and investment professionals. In light of all this information, what is the main takeaway from the Resilience for Lawyers presentation?

Fatima, my fellow Law Streeter who covered the event, says she walked away from the hour and a half presentation with a better understanding of exactly how stressful law and the workplace can be. There seems to be a lack of comprehension among most people about just how energy-draining a lack of focus can be every day.

Sorenson commented in the interview that the main take away from this presentation should be:

We have the power to make our lives better. In-between every stressful emotional trigger in our lives and our habitual reactions, we can insert a space for our values-driven appropriate response. We have tremendous agency in our lives—even if we can’t always control the circumstances, we can control our attitude toward those circumstances.

Finally, Chender finished off our phone interview by putting the main point of the event pretty succinctly:

If there’s only one thing you can come out of this event remembering it should be that you can actually take a breath before you react to a situation that’s emotionally fraught. You don’t have to follow your habit or follow you impulse, but you can actually take a breath, stop, and then decide what you want to do not because of how you feel, but, perhaps, even in spite of how you feel.

When it comes to any job, especially being a lawyer, you have to help yourself before you can begin to help other people. So, remember to take a break, step back from stressful situations, and choose to tackle them head on with positivity to make your life as efficient and positive as possible.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the spelling of one presenter’s name. 

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Why Lawyers are so Stressed Out and How to Prevent it appeared first on Law Street.

Sit-in protests continue at Duke University, where students are enraged by the actions of some of their school administrators. The protests began last Friday afternoon when nine students occupied the second floor lobby of the Allen Building, home to the school’s administrative offices.

Why are Duke students protesting? Uniting under the hashtag #DismantleDukePlantation, this group of students is reacting to recent allegations of administrators using racial slurs. One instance of this, which is at the forefront of the movement, is the story of how Executive Vice President Tallman Trask hit a parking attendant, Shelvia Underwood, with his car and proceeded to shout a racial slur at her. Trask released an apology after the incident stating:

I want to say a word to the Duke community about my interaction with Shelvia Underwood in August 2014, which has been a subject of much recent discussion.  While the details of what happened are a matter of disagreement and subject of civil litigation, I recognize that my conduct fell short of the civility and respectful conduct each member of this community owes to every other. I express my apology to Ms. Underwood and to this community and re-commit myself to ensuring that these values are upheld for all.

His apology has received a lot of criticism, especially given the contention over whether or not Trask used racial slurs during the instance, which he denies ever doing.

If my students had an assignment to write an apology & they wrote what Trask did, I'd make them do it over #DismantleDukePlantation

— Erin Parish (@erindparish) April 4, 2016

We won't stop at the apology, we want Trask's termination! #DismantleDukePlantation #DSWS

— Sydney Roberts (@hegelsbagels) April 4, 2016

Once stories about Trask began to unfold, even more employees came forward, reporting to the Duke Chronicle about what they describe as a hostile and discriminatory work environment and leadership. According to one staff member, instances of the administration using sexist and racial slurs against employees are frequently covered up by the administration.

What are the protesters demanding? The main part of their demand is for Trask and two other administrators to be fired for their abhorrent behavior towards staff members. In addition, the protesters are pulling for an increase in the minimum wage for Duke employees from twelve to fifteen dollars an hour, double the North Carolina minimum wage of seven fifty an hour. Graduate student Bennett Carpenter was quoted saying that the biggest goal is that they “want accountability” especially because “Duke absolutely has a culture of racism, deep structural racism built into the institution.”

A couple of nights ago, the nine students protesting were given amnesty by the administration, meaning they will not be punished for their demonstration. Footage of the night shows students cheering as they learned this news:

Occupying students have been granted amnesty and will not face administrative retaliation #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/OEUGStm7jY

— Ultralima Bean (@ZoroastrianFunk) April 4, 2016

Although they aren’t facing administrative retaliation, there has been an attempt to cast this protest in a negative light by the university, as they closed the Allen Building, preventing classes from meeting and disrupting usual business hours. While the school claims this closure was to continue the open dialogue with the students and for safety purposes, the students protesting claim that there was no reason to shut down the school building, other than to cast the protest in a negative light.

Duke released a statement on Monday claiming the following:

The negotiations have continued today (Monday), and it has become clear that reaching agreement on all the remaining demands will require far more extensive conversation, likely to include other members of the Duke community. Closing the Allen Building while these negotiations go on has presented a significant disruption to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and cannot continue indefinitely.

Today, it was announced that the students rejected an offer of concessions from the administration that would improve some of the contested working conditions.

It is unclear how long this protest will go on, but, based on the continued uproar on Twitter, it looks like the protestors are serious about getting what they came for, and they are not alone in their goals on campus.

It's Day 6 on our way to #DismantleDukePlantation. We have been occupying Allen for over 100 hours. We shall not be moved. We will win.

— anastasia kārkliņa (@brdngresistance) April 6, 2016

#faculty forward shows support for #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/IDULTwK0Xq

— Ashley D. Farmer (@drashleyfarmer) April 3, 2016

standing in solidarity with Duke students and workers occupying the Allen building! #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/uhO5aSArWl

— Joe Stapleton (@joe_stapes) April 3, 2016

Here’s to hoping everything ends as peacefully as possible. Even if they don’t receive all of their specific demands, the students at Duke University have drawn national attention to an issue that likely affects universities all across America. They are bringing the country one step closer to #DismantlingtheDukePlantation and promoting equality for all.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #DismantleDukePlantation: Duke Student Protests Continue appeared first on Law Street.

After two successful years with its No-Kill Utah (NKUT) initiative, Utah is succeeding in its attempt to reduce the use of euthanasia for healthy animals in its shelters. In the two years that this initiative has been in place, the percentage of animals being saved in Utah shelters has increased from 71.3 percent in 2013, to 77.4 percent in 2014, all the way to 84.4 percent last year. Put another way, there has been a 10 percent increase in the number of animals saved from being euthanized without cause in shelters in Utah.

The NKUT initiative, which began in 2014, is headed by the Best Friends Animal Society, a nonprofit dedicated to ending the use of euthanasia in shelters across America and to reducing the number of homeless pets nationwide. The Best Friends Animal Society has a similar no-kill initiative in Los Angeles and it works with New York shelters to help improve the conditions for animals as well as decrease the number of pets killed in shelters each year.

What is the overall aim of these no-kill initiatives? Well, in order to be considered a no-kill state, the percentage of animals who leave a state shelter alive has to be at or above 90 percent. Typically, around the 10 percent of shelter animals who are euthanized in a given year are put down for serious medical or behavioral issues, which is considered humane euthanasia. Utah is on track to be a no-kill state by 2019 and Arlyn Bradshaw, Executive Director of Best Friends Animal Society, claims that Utah is paving the way for other states to do the same.

Two of the ways that NKUT is planning to accomplish these goals are by making spay and neuter services more widespread for animals and increasing adoptions of shelter animals. In theory, increasing accessibility of spay and neutering services will lower the overall number of animals entering shelters each year. Increasing the number of adoptions will, in turn, decrease the number of animals in shelters where they have the potential to be euthanized because of a lack of space or resources.

Why doesn’t every state already have these policies? The sad reality is that adopting no-kill policies can often be expensive and infeasible for states. There’s a significant debate in Chicago right now over whether or not shelters city-wide should be made no-kill shelters–a policy change that could cost them well beyond the current $5.59 million budget.

Chicago would need to "double" animal control's $5M+ budget to implement a no-kill policy https://t.co/pZJgp8oAwY pic.twitter.com/MSVGkqGjBV

— Kurt Gessler (@kurtgessler) April 4, 2016

Unfortunately, in a city that lacks funding for public education, it’s difficult to get people to rally around increasing animal shelter funds, especially when the public finds out that being “no-kill” is actually only saving 90 percent of the animals.

The good news? Advocates at the Best Friend Animal Society and animal rights activists across the country aren’t giving up. They have been working tirelessly to monitor animals going in and out of shelters and the organization created a marketing campaign to help find pets new homes. These advocacy efforts may seem small in comparison to city-wide changes, but they have a lasting impact on the community and can lead to policy change down the road.

Regardless of a state’s current shelter status (but a huge shout out to the state of Utah for its hard work and impressive results), the important thing to remember is that animal safety and security can begin on a small level. Each cat or dog that is adopted from a shelter is another cat or dog who is saved and another space available for other homeless pets in the area. So, when you head out to add a new member to your family, make sure to visit a shelter and rescue an animal in need! Even the smallest actions can make a big difference.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Utah’s No-Kill Initiative is Saving Pets’ Lives appeared first on Law Street.

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles.

The bill, which passed in the Indiana House earlier this month by a vote of 60-40, prohibits abortions based purely on sex, race, national origin, or disability of a fetus, as well as imposes several other harsh restrictions on women in attempt to lower rates of abortion in the state of Indiana. In the words of Republican Representative Sean Eberhart, who claims to be “as pro-life as they come,” the vote on this bill “is a perfect example of a bunch of middle-aged guys sitting in this room making decisions about what we think is best for women.”

The over involvement of middle-aged white men is what women in Indiana, and all across the country, are worried about and exactly why they started the Pence Period Phone Hotline.

Don't forget to call the Pence Period Hotline tomorrow! 317-232-4567 Finish the week BIG! Credit toN Beth Line pic.twitter.com/ym3BBdawJo

— PeriodsforPence (@periodsforpence) April 1, 2016

Friendly reminder from ur vajayjay to call @GovPenceIN to let him know what's up down there. Big PUSH! 317-232-4567 #women#PPIN#choice

— PeriodsforPence (@periodsforpence) April 1, 2016

This group, Periods for Pence, was created following Mike Pence’s signing of HEA 1337 to let the governor know how women feel about his intrusive bill. Both the Facebook and Twitter accounts are encouraging women to call the governor and give reports about the state of their periods so he can be as informed as possible, since he seems so concerned with the safety of women’s health.

The Facebook account, which features messages sent in by women who have called the governor, has post after post of hilarious conversations between these women and the people answering phones in the governor’s office. In one such post, a woman called the office and the conversation went as follows:

Them: “Good Morning, Governor Pence’s office”
Me: “Good Morning. I just wanted to inform the Governor that things seem to be drying up today. No babies seem to be up in there. Okay?”
Them: (Sounding strangely horrified and chipper at the same time) “Ma’am, can we have your name?”
Me: “Sure. It’s Sue.”
Them: “And your last name?”
Me: “Magina. That’s M-A-G-I-N-A. It rhymes with–”
Them: “I’ve got it.”
*Click*

When she called back a few minutes later, she was transferred directly to a voicemail where she left a message:

Hello, this is Sue Magina again. I just hit a pothole on I-70. It was a doozy! I’m worried it might have shaken something around up in there, and I wanted to make sure that was addressed in this new abortion law. I knew Governor Pence would be worried. Thanks.

While what these women are doing is certainly funny, there is also a deeper and more serious meaning behind the movement. Women in the state of Indiana and the country as a whole are tired of men in legislative bodies making all the decisions about what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. While these men may claim to have women’s best interest in mind, they have no idea what it’s like to be a woman or face the health issues women deal with on a daily basis. This movement calls their bluff by making a satirical statement and simultaneously educating the governor’s office about individual differences in menstrual cycles from woman to woman.

Women are working their ways up in this world, but, unfortunately, we are still the minority in most, if not all, legislative bodies. As a result men are making a majority of legislative decisions about our health and bodies and it’s time to speak out about why that’s wrong. Because, at the end of the day, the reality of this situation is that it’s not the Governor of Indiana or any other man who is affected by these laws–it’s women!

@periodsforpence Lets change Pence's favorite hashtag #astatethatworks to a more honest assessment of the situation: #astatethatworksformen

— alix naveh (@alixnaveh) April 1, 2016

So, go ahead. Call male representatives making decisions about women’s health in your state and let them know all the dirty details of your menstrual cycle so they can make more informed decisions in the future and better understand exactly what their laws mean for all of us. Let’s make state and national policies that work for all of us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today! appeared first on Law Street.

Could you be arrested for attempting to be funny on social media? Apparently, yes. A 27-year-old man named Anthony Novak from Parma, Ohio is facing criminal charges for creating a Facebook account that parodied the Parma City Police Department.

The account confused people from all over the city of Parma as the two accounts were almost identical, except for what they were posting. While the real police department page featured posts about local happenings and updates surrounding crime in Parma, the parody account had satirical posts about the requirements to become a Parma police officer and other supposedly “inflammatory topics.” In one such post, Novak wrote

The Parma Civil Service Commission will conduct a written exam for basic Police Officer for the City of Parma to establish an eligibility list. The exam will be held on March 12, 2016. Applications are available February 14, 2016 through March 2, 2016. Parma is an equal opportunity employer but is strongly encouraging minorities not to apply. The test will consist of a 15 question multiple choice definition test followed by a hearing test. Should you pass you will be accepted as an officer of the Parma Police Department.

In response to the parody posts being shared on the fake account’s wall, the Parma Police department posted a statement to warn its followers about the Parma fraud:

The Parma Police Department would like to warn the public that a fake Parma Police Facebook page has been created. This matter is currently being investigated by the Parma Police Department and Facebook. This is the Parma Police Department’s official Facebook page. The public should disregard any and all information posted on the fake Facebook account.

Novak is facing potential felony charges for disrupting public services through his use of satire on his parody account. The question of whether or not this is an infringement on Novak’s freedom of speech has been brought up in the conversation about if he should be charged. Lieutenant Kevin Riley argues that the material posted on the fake website caused a risk to public safety because of its inflammatory and derogatory nature. Because this material crossed the line from funny satire to potentially harmful, Novak’s arguments are criminal.

Did Novak’s satire cause any harm to the citizens of Parma? The answer is unclear. Some people voiced a love of the parody on twitter.

The fake city of Parma police department page was hilarious

— Abby Roetzel (@abbyroetzel) March 3, 2016

Others voiced their irritation with the account in attempt to try to clarify what was going on for confused onlookers.

Somebody set up a fake Parma Police Department Facebook page. The REAL Police are working with FACEBOOK to shut it down.

— Scott Taylor (@ScottTaylorTV) March 2, 2016

Regardless of the public opinion, Novak will appear before a grand jury next week to determine whether or not he should face any charges for his actions. Ever since his arrest, several parody accounts on Facebook have popped up in his absence claiming to be sticking up for free speech. This case certainly poses an interesting question about how far is too far when it comes to satire and could be setting a dangerous precedent by telling someone they will face jail time for a parody Facebook account.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Ohio Man Arrested for Creating Parody Facebook Page of Local Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

This week in Live Action Role Play (LARP) news, Jordan Gwyther–priest, father, avid LARPer, and founder of larping.org–is no longer being sued by an Indiana archery company for patent infringement.

Let’s back up and talk about this step by step. For some background knowledge, LARPing is defined as:

A type of role-playing game in which each participant assumes a particular character and acts out various scenarios at events which last for a  predetermined time.

Essentially, people dress up in all kinds of outfits and act as those characters in a group setting. It is common for people to LARP as comic book characters, anime characters, and even medieval characters. Fighting in some form is frequently involved.

In this case, Global Archery sued Jordan Gwyther last October for patent and trademark infringement because he was reselling foam arrows shipped from Germany to people in the LARP community to use in LARP battles. The Indiana-based company was enraged by Gwyther’s competition and filed a complaint against him in an Indiana district court claiming they own the patent on all foam arrows used in LARP.

Part of the drama surrounding this case is the public stir that it has created among LARPers. Global Archery started the suit by bragging about their large legal budget, over $150,000, and filing for a gag order against Gwyther when he attempted to start a GoFundMe campaign to raise money to cover his legal costs. The account, which was started around a month ago, has raised almost $8,000 to help pay for legal fees and features a compelling video from Gwyther about how the very fabric of LARP is being challenged by this lawsuit.

Between the slow build of the dramatic background music and the serious rhetoric about the endangerment of the LARP community, the video makes a compelling argument as to why people should give money to Gwyther’s cause. He also claims he will donate all funds leftover after the lawsuit to a charity of the donors’ choice.

While Global Archery has decided to drop the lawsuit surrounding patent violations, they are still suing Gwyther for infringement of Global Archery’s trademark, Gwyther’s purchase of Google Ads surrounding his business, and for false advertisement. John Jackson, the founder of Global Archery, told Ars Technica the following upon review of the original case:

After the dust has settled and our legal counsel has had time to analyze a translated copy of the German prior art reference provided to Global Archery by Mr. Gwyther’s counsel, Global Archery has decided to voluntarily dismiss the patent counts against Mr. Gwyther with prejudice.

The good news for Gwyther is that, within the past few days, he has received word that Newegg, a tech company supported by Lee Cheng, a famous anti-patent-troll legal expert, has reviewed this case and is going to support him throughout the legal proceedings. Newegg has donated $10,000 to Gwyther’s case and created new t-shirts partially designed by Gwyther to sell in order to raise even more money. Newegg is well known for helping defend against patent trolls and Cheng specifically spoke out about this case claiming that it,

Represents the same type of abuse of intellectual property rights Newegg has stood up to for years. Global Archery’s patents would likely not withstand an invalidity challenge, but they are leveraging them to demand settlement terms that would effectively force this enthusiast and entrepreneur out of business.

So what does this mean for all you LARP fans out there? Well, if Gwyther loses this case, there is a high probability that Global Archery will become one of the only places to get your foam-tipped arrows. But, we can all probably rest easy knowing that some of the best legal counsel when it comes to patent trolling is on Gwyther’s side. And, hey, if you feel so inclined, buy a shirt to help out Gwyther’s cause.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post LARPer Goes to Battle in the Courtroom Over Foam-Tipped Arrow Patents appeared first on Law Street.

Could Donald Trump be rehabilitating Hitler’s image? White supremacist and former leader of the KKK, David Duke, sure thinks so. Four days ago, Right Wing Watch–a project started by People for the American Way that reports on activities of right-wing political organizations in order to highlight the risks of intolerant views–posted a short clip from Duke’s radio show, in which, Duke shares his views on Donald Trump and media intent on bashing Trump for his platforms on racial issues.

Duke starts off his rant about Trump by claiming that,

The reason there’s a war on Donald Trump is because there’s a war on the real America, there’s a war on the European-American majority of the United States of America.

He goes on to point out that, rather than Donald Trump perpetuating hatred and racism, it’s actually the media and their portrayal of Trump’s candidacy that does so. To a certain extent, sure, some media outlets do cast a negative light on Trump.

There are ads that highlight his nasty language.

There are ads that attack him for the Trump University scam.

There are even ads that attack Trump for not being as conservative as he purports to be.

But part of the problem with Duke’s argument–other than the fact that he is an avid white supremacist who whole-heartedly believes that white people are being actively discriminated against by the cultural melting pot America is becoming–is that Trump has time and time again used violence inciting and racist language in his speeches. The way attack ads against Trump are structured may play up his negative features, but they aren’t making things up.

Some of the recent criticisms of Trump  compare him to Hitler in the way he uses rhetoric to promote racist ideals and the way his speeches and rallies have begun to stir up violence.

Went to the Trump rally just to see how crazy it would be……..this is insane pic.twitter.com/QFwSwmNoI0

— Alex Satterly (@alex_satterly) March 19, 2016

In a recent article from the Wrap, a holocaust survivor explained that, although Trump hasn’t provided us with enough reasons to be worried about a Hitleresque regime yet, he is unsettling and the situation seems like it could get ugly. John Kasich released an ad that highlights the ways in which Trump’s discussion of race isolates groups of people the same way Hitler’s early rhetoric against Jewish people did, before his mass genocide began.

A Huffington Post reporter weighed in on this comparison, drawing a parallel between a recent Trump rally, where Trump asked supporters to raise their hands and swear to vote for him, to scenes from Nazi Germany.

Now the real kicker of Duke’s argument comes at around the 50-second mark when Duke states that, in comparing Trump to Hitler, all of his opponents are actually just rehabilitating Hitler’s image:

The truth is, by the way, they might be rehabilitating that fellow with the mustache back there in Germany.

He even claims that these commercials comparing Trump to Hitler aren’t going to have the effect people want: they will actually boost Hitler’s image instead of defaming Trump.

This claim is outrageous and it’s important to keep in mind that it’s coming from a man who, when addressing “European” people not two minutes later, said,

The government is purposefully wiping you out and your families and your children and your future. They are purposefully transforming this country into a Third World nation.

Duke clearly has some opinions about our country that are blatantly untrue and, if he really thinks that comparing Donald Trump and Hitler is going to improve the public’s perception of the largest, most racist mass murderer in the history of humankind, he’s even more out of touch with reality than it previously seemed. The good news? After all the confusion over whether or not Trump was willing to denounce Duke and the KKK a few weeks ago, he finally got around to making a crystal clear disavowal of the two. But the thought of comparing anyone to Hitler and having it improve Hitler’s reputation is obviously ridiculous.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Seriously? David Duke Claims Trump Comparisons Improve Hitler’s Image appeared first on Law Street.

For all you milk lovers out there, West Virginia may just be the new place to visit, vacation in, or even move to after this week’s big milk decision. That’s right, you heard me! Raw milk will soon be more accessible in the state of West Virginia for the first time in almost four decades.

Senate Bill 387 was signed by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin on March 3 and will go into effect 90 days later. This bill, which is a newer draft of a bill that failed to pass last year,  specifically legalizes “herd sharing,” or the trading of animals for their milk. The most recent version of the bill also requires the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Resources to work together to create rules that will regulate the distribution and consumption of raw milk, making it more passable. Now, don’t be too quick to celebrate, because the selling of raw milk in West Virginia is still illegal, but it will be easier to get access to raw milk on farms after signing liability waivers.

So, what does this mean for your milk drinking habits? Well, let’s take a second to break down raw milk for those of you who aren’t familiar with this delicacy. Simply put, raw milk is any milk that has not been pasteurized to kill bacteria. It’s a product that has recently been in the spotlight for controversy surrounding its potential health benefits and drawbacks.

It seems like scientists are still in the process of making a judgment on whether raw milk actually is better for you than regular milk, or this whole hypothesis is just a sham. Proponents of the natural movement cite several potential benefits of un-pasteurized milk over your everyday grocery store carton. These benefits include better taste, potential health and allergy benefits, and the freedom argument–we should be able to drink whatever milk we want to drink! On the other side of the issue, raw milk haters claim that raw milk really doesn’t have any benefits relative to pasteurized milk and it is significantly more risky to drink. The CDC falls on that side of the debate, noting “The risks of drinking raw milk outweigh any possible benefits.”

But, regardless of these risk factors, West Virginia has given raw milk the benefit of the doubt! The irony in all this? In the legislature’s celebration after passing this hip new bill, they passed around a glass of milk (unpasteurized, of course) for the entire group to try. A few hours later, several of the delegates who had partaken in the milk festivities became sick with some kind of stomach bug that may or may not be linked to the milk consumption.

Several of the lawmakers claim that they don’t think it was the milk that did them in, but, whatever it was, it certainly does not look good.

The milk enthusiast that day, Representative Scott Cadle, was pushing the other members of the legislative body to “live dangerously” and try the milk. Later that day, after the illness was running rampant, he defended the milk to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, which he did not think was the main cause of illness that day:

With that many people around and that close quarters and in that air and environment, I just call it a big germ. All that Capitol is is a big germ.

It’s unclear whether or not this milk was the source, but pretty much all of the legislators claim that it definitely was not. Is that all just a facade to promote the now-legal raw milk? Who knows.

So, drink up (at your own risk) America. And make sure to click here to learn more about raw milk in your state and to stay updated on all of the rawest raw milk happenings this country has to offer.

To learn more, read: What’s the Deal with Raw Milk?

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Legalize Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last summer, contentious debates over how states can protect the religious freedoms of businesses and organizations have been underway. States like Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia have been proposing religious liberty laws that have led to strong reactions on all sides of the aisle.

On Wednesday morning, after an impressive 39-hour filibuster, Republicans in the Missouri Senate voted to end the discussion on a bill that could allow religiously affiliated organizations to refuse to participate in activities that could be considered condoning or participating in same-sex marriage. The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 39, proposes an amendment to Article I of Missouri’s state constitution that would prohibit penalizing organizations for refusing services if they go against the organization’s religious beliefs.

Democratic Senators in Missouri used their filibuster to stall the bill from going to a vote while harping on topics “including other bills, Donald Trump, slick roads, soft drink ads in foreign countries, and ‘Jesus sightings’ in foreign objects,” an NPR affiliate reported. After Republican senators voted to end the filibuster, they subsequently voted in favor of placing the resolution on the ballot this November in a vote of 23-9. The bill still has to go to the house before the resolution can be placed on the upcoming ballot, at which point Missouri voters would decide on the amendment themselves.

Bills like SJR 39 have been popping up left and right across the country as local governments try to protect  people’s First Amendment right to religious freedom. But these bills have sparked a lot of controversies. Why? Many people claim that they are laws focused on discriminating against gay people, instead of protecting religious liberty as they claim.

Around a year ago, Indiana passed a law similar to the Missouri resolution that allows businesses to cite their adherence to religious beliefs as a defense in civil suits–allowing them to refuse service to particular people or groups if doing so violates their religious beliefs. One of the biggest concerns about Indiana’s law, in particular, is its vague wording and the ambiguous nature of its purpose. While Indiana Governor Mike Pence claimed that the bill was in no way about discrimination, it is really difficult to differentiate between the intention behind the bill and its impact until you can see how it plays out in practice.

Celebrities have been jumping to defend gay marriage in comedic videos poking fun of religious freedom laws and tweets supporting the movement to prevent sexuality-based discrimination.

If you really and truly want pizza for your gay wedding in Indiana… We will make it for you. @donald_faison pic.twitter.com/y91qIkVoyt

— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) April 3, 2015

And, of course, what would a discussion of policy be without acknowledging its impact on the current presidential race. Candidates are using these religious freedom laws as talking points to entice voters, especially those on the right of our political spectrum. After Indiana’s law passed but similar bills were shut down in other states, Ted Cruz said:

On my first day of office, I will instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today

Yes, it’s tempting to want to stand up for religious freedom in our country, especially when that freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, but when the fiercest and most frequent claims of persecution come from middle-aged, white catholic men, it kind of confuses the issue.

Is baking a pizza for a gay wedding really the crux of an American war on religion? Probably not. Should we be watching out for religious minorities to protect their ability to coexist in our complex religious landscape? Definitely. Is enacting bills to protect a cake baker from cake baking for gay couples really the hard hitting way to protect the minority religions that are actually being persecuted? Almost definitively not.

Let’s follow in the footsteps of West Virginia, who voted down a religious liberties bill after backlash claiming that it was discriminatory. And Georgia, who dismissed a bill when their Republican governor acknowledged it to be unnecessary for protecting religious freedom. It’s time to to support government action that–while standing up for freedom of religion and beliefs–ultimately upholds protection from discrimination for all of our citizens.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time to Talk About Religious Liberty Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Tis the season of funny campaign videos and delightful candidate gifs as everyone gears up for the elections this November. As usual, “Saturday Night Live” has been churning out some good content. Whether it was the Bernie Sanders and Larry David sketches from a few weeks ago, or this week’s nominee-centered cold open, “SNL” always seems to be right on target with its narrowly tailored critiques of the presidential candidates.

This weekend’s funniest video was a satirical political advertisement about people supporting Donald Trump and it was spectacular; definitely worth the one minute and 25 seconds of your life.

The comedic genius of this video is that you can’t even tell if it’s a joke or not until half way in. What starts as a pretty typical campaign video quickly spirals into a real statement on Donald Trump’s racist views and attitudes. You see a man in his office, a woman ironing, another man painting, and a man carrying some wood–seems normal, right? About halfway in, the characters are revealed to be nazi sympathizers, KKK affiliates, and white supremacists–all very topical characters given some of Trump’s recent political moves.

First off, Trump has been accused of being similar to Hitler this week after videos from one of his rallies surfaced in which he had everyone pledging to vote for him with salutes that almost mimicked Nazi Germany.

Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary. pic.twitter.com/EVenRilJrV

— Jenna Johnson (@wpjenna) March 5, 2016

Obviously nobody is quite contending that Trump would actually be like Hitler, but this rally certainly doesn’t make anyone feel too comfortable either.

The second “SNL” characters, the KKK affiliates, were also timely, as it has been about a week since Trump refused to publicly denounce the head of the KKK, David Duke. Trump had a lot of excuses for why he wouldn’t denounce the group and seemed to talk around the issue when asked directly about why he refused to disavow Duke. That seems suspicious at best, Trump.

Finally, the white supremacist painter. Along with Trump’s KKK battle this week, there were three white supremacist leaders who have joined together to create a group to support Trump. Although Trump has not commissioned this group or asked for their help, the implicit connection between this white “advocacy” group and Trump’s policies on banning muslim immigration and building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. is impossible to ignore. Jared Taylor, one of the white supremacists supporting Trump, claims that because white people feel more comfortable in schools and neighborhoods with other white people:

When Donald Trump talks about sending out all the illegals, building a wall and a moratorium on Islamic immigration, that’s very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people.

“SNL‘s” video was outright and unapologetic in calling Donald Trump out on the racist and bigoted policies he has been promoting nationwide during his campaign. That kind of direct hit may be just what the country needs to start realizing that some of Trump’s policies aren’t so rosy after all–they’re hateful. When it comes down to it, with some of the things Trump has been saying about immigrants and diversity in our country, an ad like the one “SNL” made may be an almost accurate reflection of his campaign. Are we really going to rally behind Donald Trump, America? Instead, let’s fight for diversity, equality, and liberty and put our faith in someone who can actually make America great.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post “Saturday Night Live” Calls Out Donald Trump’s Racism appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Emojis are a fun way to let your friends know exactly how you feel while you’re texting them, but, can they be harmful? In some cases, interpreting the meaning behind emojis is more difficult than you may think. What one person sends as a funny joke with a smiley face could be interpreted differently by the person receiving the message. In a world full of  miscommunications because of the lack of tone in a text message, it can be hard to tell just what an emoji means.

In this week’s emoji news, a 12-year-old girl has been charged with threatening her school on Instagram due to a post from this past December. According to the Washington Post, the girl posted an ambiguous message under a different student’s name involving several emojis, including the gun, knife, and bomb emojis. The message also had the word “killing” in it, although it is unclear what the full Instagram post actually said. Though the post was not under her name, the girl did admit that she was the one who had posted it when questioned by the authorities.

After the school received word of this potential threat, it notified the police. Police officers got a search warrant and managed to identify the girl through the IP address used to post the image. Once they determined that the threat was not credible, the authorities still charged the girl who posted the image with threatening a school and computer harassment. Her mom claims she was confused as to why her daughter would have posted something like this, but suspects that it may be in response to bullying. One of the biggest questions in the investigation was about what exactly the gun, knife, and bomb emojis really meant and whether or not they could be considered threatening.

Deciphering the meaning of emojis is becoming a growing concern as their popularity grows. This Virginia pre-teen isn’t the first person to get in trouble for posting seemingly threatening emojis online, and she most likely won’t be the last. Almost a year ago, a 17-year-old named Osiris Aristy was arrested after using a gun emoji pointed at a police officer emoji–which the police considered a threat against local officers. During the Silk Road Trial, the judge ruled that punctuation and emoticons were necessary to understanding the evidence presented to a jury, so all texts read on to the record had to include descriptions of the emoticons used. In a case last year, Jesse Enjaian claimed that messages sent to a girl he was allegedly harassing online lacked context when emojis were redacted from the messages. Enjaian argues that with the emojis, the messages took a very different tone.

The problem with emoji interpretation is that their meaning is extremely subjective. While one person might think that adding a winky face to the end of a text makes it fun and light-hearted, the person receiving the text might not feel the same way. The same issue pops up in court cases–does the addition of emojis make a statement more or less threatening? In addition to the question of how emojis can be interpreted, there is also the question of how our First Amendment Rights apply to the internet. Can we really say whatever we want? And where do we draw the line when it comes to threatening or violent speech?

There’s not a whole lot of answers to these questions yet since the age of cyberbullying and emoji use is basically brand new. What everyone should take into careful consideration when texting, tweeting, or posting anything online is the fact that, no matter how funny you may think you’re being, the meaning of your words can be twisted or lost in translation when communicating on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Emojis: More Serious Than You May Think appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to 2016! We are living in a world where Donald Trump is running for president (and doing surprisingly well), mermaid tails are readily available on the internet, oh, and Girl Scout cookies are being actively boycotted by pro-life groups. Because, really, there’s nothing more evil in this world than a delicious box of Thin Mints or your adorable next-door neighbor, Susie the Girl Scout, trying to sell you cookies.

The movement against these cookies, dubbed a “cookiecott” when it began last year, was started because pro-life groups are upset by supposed recent ties between the Girl Scouts of the USA and pro-choice advocates. As the cookie season has kicked into full swing this year, so have the protesters. On their website, the cookiecotters specifically point out that the World Association of  Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) “aggressively promotes youth reproductive/abortion and sexual rights.” I don’t know about you all, but I fondly remember my own days as a Girl Scout, where my troop leaders reminded me daily about my right to an abortion as an eight-year-old troop member.

The group also cites several organizations that the Girl Scouts have relationships with as serious concerns; the Coalition for Adolescent Girls is one of those “troubling” partnerships. I’m having a really hard time seeing the problem with (to quote the mission statement on the front page of the organization’s website) “a member-led and driven organization dedicated to supporting, investing in, and improving the lives of adolescent girls.” You’ve got me, cookiecott supporters. How DARE the Girl Scouts of America promote the improvement of the lives of young women!

Leaders of the anti-cookie movement also claim that the Girl Scouts have a historical relationship with Planned Parenthood, but there is little to no evidence that this relationship actually exists. In fact, on the website for the Girl Scouts of the USA there is a direct statement in the FAQ’s that the organization does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood. Honestly, even if there was any evidence that the Girl Scouts of the USA did partner with Planed Parenthood–which, other than rumors and right-wing gossip, there’s not–are we really back on the anti-women’s health organization bandwagon? I had really hoped we ended this debate months ago when we talked about all the services Planned Parenthood provides for young women on a daily basis. If anything, the Girl Scouts should be commended if they promote organizations that support women’s rights and provide affordable health services to women all over the country who need them.

In case you still haven’t been convinced by their argument yet, I’ve got a treat for you. Please sit through this excruciating six minute and 14 second video of a mind-numbingly boring midwestern mom explaining exactly why you can’t trust the Girl Scouts or their cookies. Trust me, it’s worth it.

To a certain extent, their arguments almost make sense. The Girl Scouts are tangentially connected to some groups who also happen to be connected to the pro-choice movement, just like the tweet below suggests.

#cookiecott pic.twitter.com/3jczmQBIwZ

— Devon Hensley (@DevonB324) February 13, 2016

Yes, the group has held events with speakers like Hillary Clinton and Betty Friedan, who are known for their feminist ideas and support of pro-choice policies. Yes, it may have ties to organizations with pro-choice beliefs. But, what I fundamentally do not understand about this whole argument is the fact that the organization has in no way taken a pro-choice stand on abortion, or any stand, for that matter. I don’t know where these cookie haters are getting their information, or how they have the self control to say no to Girl Scout cookies, but I think the whole thing is a little ridiculous. Girl Scout cookies are pretty much the most positive thing I can think of–they even made an appearance at the Oscars last night! So, let’s stop this cookiecott nonsense and get back to supporting an organization that motivates and supports girls and young women nationwide.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Down With Girl Scout Cookies: Did you Join the Cookiecott? appeared first on Law Street.

Picture this: you wake up in the middle of the night with insane abdominal pain and call 911 to be rushed to the hospital immediately. Once you get there, the doctors decide you are suffering from acute appendicitis and you have to quickly be prepared for an emergency surgery to remove your appendix. Before you’re put under anesthesia, you notice the nurse prepping you is stumbling around, tripping over chords, and is seemingly having a hard time doing average tasks. Worried yet?

This exact scenario unfolded earlier this month at the Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center, for which a nurse has been charged with reckless endangerment of a patient’s safety, driving under the influence, and public intoxication for showing up to work and then proceeding to work on an appendectomy while drunk.

The story, according to the drunk nurse, Richard Pieri, was that he had forgotten that he was on call at the hospital on February 4 until he received a call around midnight telling him to come into work on an emergency surgery. At that point, Pieri was already four or five beers deep at a local casino, but still decided it would be better to drive while intoxicated to the hospital and work on this surgery than it would be to acknowledge his mistake. In court documents, Pieri acknowledged that he just didn’t want someone else to have to come in while he was supposed to be on call. That is why he decided drunk surgery was a good plan–a great reminder to us all that alcohol can seriously inhibit good decision-making skills. Authorities later visited Piere and asked him if he knew why they were there to chat with him, Pieri nonchalantly responded, “I guess it has something to do with me being drunk on call.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs sent a statement to the Washington Post noting that it will not tolerate behavior like this, especially since it can put veterans who are coming in for care at serious risk. The VA is currently working on reinforcing its guidelines for staff and ensuring that an incident like this never happens again. Pieri’s affidavit notes that he was tasked with prep work that was legitimately important:

[He] was responsible for preparing the patient, retrieving the patient, preparing the materials inside the room, documenting the surgery, and monitoring the vitals of the patient throughout recovery.

In addition, the affidavit pointed out that the operating room, in general, can be dangerous if someone is intoxicated:

[The operating room] is filled with complicated equipment that Pieri needs to operate and has several loose wires and cords that can be tripped on or disconnected by somebody with an inability to properly ambulate themselves.

While details about the patient have not yet been released, reports indicate that he or she was readmitted to the hospital after the surgery for complaints of stomach pains. There is no evidence to suggest that this readmission has anything to do with Pieri’s drunkenness–thank goodness–but he was promptly removed from patient care responsibilities after this incident.

While this story turned out alright (for the most part), it’s a sobering reminder to us all that alcohol can have serious consequences in certain situations. Just because you think you’re alright to drive home, make a large purchase, or even perform a serious medical procedure, doesn’t mean you are. So, think carefully about when and where you drink and make responsible decisions everyone, because no one wants to be that guy who was jokingly asked, “Rick, are you drunk?” after he stumbled into work.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Drunk Nurse Arrested for Reckless Endangerment appeared first on Law Street.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) could be in trouble as eleven church members were indicted on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit fraud. After a raid conducted by the federal government this Tuesday, it became clear that several of the leaders of the FLDS Church were allegedly stealing from their members in order to profit.

This specific group actually has quite a history. FLDS began over a century ago when members fractioned off from the Mormon Church to create their own sect, which practices polygamy, after the Mormon Church stopped allowing the practice. The FLDS Church headquarters, where most of the people indicted this week live, are in Colorado City, Arizona, which borders the southernmost part of Utah. The leader of the FLDS Church is a man named Warren Jeffs, who took over after his father passed away in 2002 and is supposedly thought to be their prophet. Jeffs is currently serving a life sentence in prison for the sexual assault of two teenage girls, one fifteen and one twelve, back in 2011. It is estimated that Jeffs could have more than seventy wives and also reported that members of FLDS learn in schools that Jeffs is president of the United States.

Even more shocking than some of their beliefs and teachings is the group’s record with the law. Obviously, their leader was arrested in 2011 under sexual assault charges, but he isn’t the only one. The whole group is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for discriminating against non-church members living in their city. The DOJ claims that the religious group, which runs the entire town, denies fundamental rights like housing and police services to people who are not members of the Church–an action that is downright unconstitutional as far as separation of church and state and equality are concerned. On top of police reports of inequality, former members of the FLDS community who have been exiled have spoken out numerous times about the illegal and immoral actions of the leaders of the church. FLDS members responded to these allegations by insisting that the federal government was just trying to run them out of town for their religious beliefs and that they cannot be prosecuted just because someone doesn’t agree with their religion.

As far as this Tuesday’s incident, officers raided five stores in the town, indicting both Lyle and Seth Jeffs, who are the brothers of Warren Jeffs and head members of FLDS.

FBI raid on FLDS businesses in Hildale and Colorado City underwayhttps://t.co/hrgTDTdRHz pic.twitter.com/ZfUTyyGc6a

— KUTV 2News (@KUTV2News) February 23, 2016

FBI and sheriff's deputies surrounding another #hildale store pic.twitter.com/S6NOOydJXp

— HaileyHiggins (@HaileyHiggins) February 23, 2016

The group has allegedly been taking funds from food stamp program members and using them for their own benefit–a crime that is considered both fraudulent and money laundering. This raid was one of the largest interventions into this community that the federal government has ever done and officers hope to use evidence of fraud in order to get all the men who were indicted held until a trial determines their fate, rather than being released on bail.

While the leaders have pled not guilty, this is a huge blow to the FLDS Church, as almost all of the people taken into custody were high ranking members of the community, without whom, the group may not be able to function. The director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, Timothy Jeffries, was proud to announce that this was “a huge win for all victims of food stamp fraud, especially for those who reside in Arizona.” He also made a statement about Arizona’s commitment to continuing to solve the issue:

I am committed to fighting for the rights of individuals who are truly in need of these benefits, which helps to put food on their table. Stealing from the poor in any manner is wrong.

The  FLDS community has been asked to pray every day for Warren Jeffs’ release from prison (which is unlikely, at best) and are told that the only reason he has not been released yet is because they are not being faithful enough. Whether or not the FLDS Church will be able to continue in the absence of many of their leaders is unclear, but this could certainly spur a breakdown of the oppressive and apparently fraudulently-run group.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post FLDS Church Leaders Indicted on Charges of Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

They say that silence is golden and, apparently, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agrees. Everyone get out your party hats and balloons, because yesterday marked a ten year anniversary worth celebrating: Justice Thomas has officially gone an entire decade without asking a single question from the bench of the Supreme Court.

The last time Thomas uttered anything at all from the bench? A little over three years ago on January 14, 2013. The country erupted in cheers and excitement as Thomas spoke his first words in almost seven years of silence from the bench: “well–he did not–.” While these were the only words captured by the court transcript on that monumental day, spectators in the court claim that Thomas was making a tasteful joke about the uselessness of a law degree from his alma mater, Yale. The subsequent laughter recorded in the courtroom seems to support those claims.

The last time Thomas asked a question? Well, since yesterday marked the ten year anniversary of his inquisitive silence, that puts his last question on February 22, 2006. To put that into perspective, try to remember what you were doing on this day in 2006. Perhaps, re-watching the first “High School Musical” for the fiftieth time? Singing along to Kelly Clarkson’s “Breakaway?” Maybe even getting excited about the release of the Nintendo DS Lite! 2006 was a long time ago. He asked the question in the middle of Holmes v. South Carolina, a contentious case about the death penalty. Ironically enough, the question almost seems like it was a statement in the form of a question:

Counsel, before you change subjects, isn’t it more accurate that the trial court actually found that the evidence met the Gregory standard?

After approximately eighteen lines of text in the court transcript (which has particularly large margins and is in a font much bigger than Times New Roman), the attorney Thomas had spoken up to correct was shut down, and Thomas returned to his state of hibernation for another few years. Who knows if he will ever speak again!

Thomas is supposedly a proponent of more listening on the Supreme Court and thinks that it is more in his nature to listen than to ask a bunch of questions. Well, hey, to each their own. If he thinks he can do his job best by just sitting back and taking it all in, he can go for it. You keep doing you, Justice Thomas!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Ten Years of Silence: Will Justice Clarence Thomas Ever Speak Up Again? appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine waking up one morning to find a picture of yourself all over the internet atop a negative, satirical article with thousands of comments. You probably wouldn’t be too thrilled. This nightmare became a reality for 22-year-old mom Karena Bennett, who stumbled across a photo of her with her family after her first son was born featured in an article about a made-up mom, named Anita Sullivan, who supposedly had 14 kids with 14 different men.

Bennett encountered the article after she was tagged in a Facebook post by someone she used to work with. Confused as to why she was being tagged, Bennett clicked on the link and was shocked to see her photo at the top of the page.

The article–which, just to be clear, is a satirical piece posted on a satirical website–quickly went viral. People all over the internet shared, retweeted, and posted the story, which is how Bennett found it so quickly. She was horrified to find out that this story had people all over the world thinking that she had 14 children with fourteen different men.

Even though they didn’t use her real name, Bennett is still worried that people on the street might recognize her and call her out for being the made-up mother from the article. In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Bennet said that this story has tainted the picture of one of her fondest moments:

It was definitely a big shock. I guess it is what it is. Sometimes I feel like it isn’t such a big deal…It just stinks. I feel like I’ll never officially get everything down … It’s just hard. … It’s just still out there, and people are still commenting.

To the writers at World News Daily Report (WNDR) who put up this article, Bennett has this to say:

It’s unfortunate because some people could think this is harmless, but it isn’t. It can just keep circulating and circulating. I’m sorry, but someone has to take action.

In an attempt to hold someone accountable for disregard of her privacy and personal photos, Bennett reached out to several of her friends and family members who are attorneys to see if there was any kind of legal action she could take–she’d like to sue the website for defaming her character. Unfortunately, none of the people whom she spoke to have the skills to manage a case like this. Internet-related offenses are difficult to resolve and they often require a lot of time and money, which victims rarely have. Not to mention that issues like these are relatively new, with little precedent to help clarify new legal questions.

World Daily News Report also has a legal disclaimer on its site about its content:

WNDR shall not be responsible for any incorrect or inaccurate information, whether caused by website users or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in this website or by any technical or human error which may occur.

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people –  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.

Given the nature of the website, it seems unlikely that Bennett will receive any kind of compensation from WNDR. The real bummer here is that the emotional damage will never really be resolved. One of the worst consequences of the story going viral is all the nasty comments from those who thought the story was real. Several people also took to social media to share their opinion of her:

Anita Sullivan Jones broke a World Record by giving birth to her 14th child. https://t.co/3gAxvHzMNJ Record breaker indeed, or prostitution?

— Comrade. (@Nensoo_vission) February 19, 2016

https://twitter.com/BrownieLove75/status/700688057926717440

Bennett hopes all the chatter will die down soon and this whole nightmare won’t come back to haunt her later in life. She hopes that people will realize that the article featuring her photo is satirical (not to mention that it’s not actually about her) and will stop making ridiculous accusations about her family and moral judgment.

In the age of fast-spreading information and anonymity on the internet, it’s easy for people to be targeted without even knowing it. This story should teach all of us a lesson about protecting personal information, photos, and videos as much as possible online–otherwise, you never know where it might end up.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Woman’s Reputation Ruined After Her Photo is Misrepresented Online appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz announced this week  that he plans to get rid of inefficiency in the U.S. military’s bureaucracy by cutting out adherence to political correctness, social experiments, and, oh, that’s right… gluten-free meals.

According to Cruz, gluten-free MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) are what’s really wrong with America’s military today–they’re reducing efficiency and stressing out our commanders. I mean, how in the world are we supposed to trust the men and women serving our country if they don’t even eat bread? Bread is pretty much the most American thing I can think of, and loving it is part of our civic duty. If Ted Cruz expressing his love for gluten in his policies is wrong, then quite frankly, I don’t want to be right.

Check out the video of his address aboard the USS Yorktown in which he attempts to win the military vote. It’s golden. In the speech, Cruz announces his ideas for Reaganesque military policy, which he hopes will keep us No. 1 in military strength worldwide. He even cited Regan’s policies as a model example of how we should run our country:

I am confident that if we put in the hard work we can, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, rebuild our military so it will be so feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies that, God willing, we won’t have to use it. That is the essence of what President Reagan used to call “peace through strength.”

The best part of the video, by far, is the huge round of applause for Cruz’s announcement that he wants to fight against “plush-bottomed pentagon bureaucrats,” and the subsequent deafening silence after Cruz rails against providing gluten-free MREs.

But, isn’t celiac disease just a made up condition to rile up liberal voters, anyway? Unfortunately for Cruz–and everyone else who was under the impression that anti-bread lobby is the actual cause of America’s dilapidation–it turns out this harebrained scheme to avoid one of the world’s best nutrients (carbs!!!) is actually a real thing. According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the consumption of gluten by people with celiac disease can seriously damage their small intestine. In addition, the disease affects one in every 100 people. And people with a parent or sibling with celiac have a one-in-10 chance of developing the disease in their lifetime. What that means for Cruz’s plan is that not all people can enjoy bread the way he can (click here to see what we can only imagine Cruz does when alone with his favorite gluten-based foods), so getting rid of gluten-free options may not be his best plan.

The real question of the day is: is it really gluten-free meals that are ruining our country? Doubtful. Don’t get me wrong, I love bread as much as then next guy, but, infuriatingly slow bureaucracy and red tape aren’t going to be fixed by sprinkling some wheat on the situation. Saving a quick buck or two by producing less diverse meals for our men and women in service won’t fix the deficit. If anything, this policy announcement could alienate military voters who feel like Cruz is trying to decrease services for members of the armed forces. It has aggravated people on the internet and even got #tedlovesbread trending, which can’t be good for his campaign… or can it, if he’s going for the whole “any press is good press” strategy.

Cruz should really get his act together if he actually wants a shot at being president, but, then again, it’s not like his competition has avoided all embarrassing moments and weird policy ideas (Donald Trump’s wall, Ben Carson’s biblical tax plan, any and everything Jeb! has ever done). One thing is clear about his policies: a lot of us feel the same way about them as Cruz’s daughter feels about kissing him… just kind of “ew.”

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bread Cruz for President! appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama’s announcement of the 2017 budget has thrown people for a loop with its liberal cuts and additions. People are starting to realize that, in his last few months as president, liberal changes are on their way. Whether these changes will be quickly undone by a Republican president in the next year or furthered by another Democrat is unclear in this mess of a presidential race that we’ve been seeing thus far. But one of these changes that could potentially have a huge impact on our education system, at least from a health standpoint, is a $10 million dollar cut to grants for abstinence-only sex education. What does this mean for our country? We may finally be able to start educating all our teens nationwide about what it means to have safe sex.

What’s the current state of sex ed in America? Well, for starters, it depends on where you look. One of the biggest problems with our current system is the fact that individual states pick and choose their own curriculums, which leads to discrepancies in what kids are learning. Some states even let counties decide their policies, meaning kids in one school district may be learning all about safe sex while kids only a few miles away are learning exclusively about abstinence. If you have twenty minutes to kill, I highly suggest this John Oliver video on sex education and why it’s so important.

Oliver provides an important–albeit, comedic–analysis of what sex-ed looks like in our country today. In some states, teachers aren’t allowed to show condoms to their classrooms. In others, teachers are still showing videos that shame teens for being sexually active or are blatantly sexist in the way they explain consent. Oliver highlights the ridiculousness of states who try to force abstinence on teenagers and also points out just how polarized the differences in sex education can be from state to state.

The idea behind a lot of these abstinence-only curriculums is the concept that introducing kids to sex will increase the amount of teens having sex at a young age. The abstinence programs are thought to keep kids abstinent, but, in reality, they frequently just lead to unsafe sex because kids don’t know anything about protection against pregnancy and STDs. There are staggering statistics to back up the fact that, in states where there are abstinence-only programs, there are higher rates of teen pregnancy. One of the only states to still have an abstinence-only sex-ed policy (that is, if the schools decide to teach about sex at all, since they are not required to) is Mississippi, which, coincidentally, also has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the country. New Hampshire, on the other hand, provides students with comprehensive sex education, which teaches about contraceptives, safe sex, and abstinence. Its teenage pregnancy rates are some of the lowest in the nation.

How are people responding to Obama’s cuts? Some people are thrilled with the cuts. We will be saving millions of dollars a year, and ending up with more educated young people–what’s not to love?

Good news of today: Obama is removing ALL funding for abstinence-only education for his 2017 budget!

— ♡ little elf ♡ (@cherrycutie) February 17, 2016

Please hold my wand while I do the jumpy-clap dance. https://t.co/DLtygyMZ6t Abstinence-only is garbage. Goooodbye.

— Lyndsay Kirkham (@Lyndsay_Kirkham) February 17, 2016

Others are not so happy. To those people, I say: look at the statistics. Not teaching your kids about sex isn’t going to keep them from having it, it’s just going to keep them from being safe when they inevitably do. Some people have ironically tweeted angrily about the policy, to show just how ridiculous some of the anti-comprehensive sex-ed opinions really are.

Obama just eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education so when my son gets pregnant he’ll be hearing from me.

— Alex Halpern (@HalpernAlex) February 17, 2016

Also in Obama’s proposed budget, along the same vein, is money for expanded access to HIV treatment and prevention for Americans as well as increased benefits under Medicare for pregnant women. Obama is really hitting a home run with the expansion of these programs and, hopefully, it will lead to a healthier and more informed American public. But, until these states start changing their policies on educating young adults about sex, I guess we’ll just stick to the golden rule about sex that we learned from “Mean Girls” and our abstinence-only fifth grade teachers.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post President Obama Cuts Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Funding appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to match some of the sexist legislation that’s been passed in state legislatures lately, a Kentucky state representative has drafted a bill to create several new hoops for men to jump through in order to purchase drugs that treat erectile dysfunction.

Representative Mary Lou Marzian wants to use her bill, HB 396, to call attention to the amount of intervention into women’s health rights from the primarily male General Assembly of Kentucky. She condescending phrases back at the men who use similar arguments to defend their anti-abortion legislation. Saying things like, “this is about family values” and “I want to protect these men from themselves,” whenever she talks about why she decided to craft this bill.

The bill itself has whereas clauses that stipulate the potential risks of taking drugs like Viagra and Cialis and a well thought out list of regulations that will be placed on men trying to buy these drugs if the bill is passed. What are these regulations? There are four in total:

1. Men will have to consult a doctor on two separate occasions before getting a prescription for these drugs.
2. These drugs will only be prescribed to married men.
3. Men will need to have a letter of consent from their spouse in order to get a prescription.

And the kicker:

4. Men will have to make a sworn statement, with their hand on a bible, saying that they will only use the drug for sexual relations with their own wife.

Marzian’s bill is specifically meant to attack another piece of legislation known as the informed consent bill, which was signed into law earlier this month by Kentucky’s Governor, Matt Bevin. That law requires women who are considering an abortion to meet with a doctor–either in person or via video–within 24 hours of going to have this abortion. The law, which was drafted and passed almost exclusively by men, is supposedly an attempt to create a state that places a greater emphasis on family values. Rep. Marzian, a Democrat from Louisville,  that Republican lawmakers frequently use these positions on abortion as talking points to improve their chances of reelection. She’s concerned with the way they frame the abortion restrictions in terms of support for :

They say they’re about protecting the family, but they won’t vote to regulate booster seats, to enforce smoking bans or for early child education.

In reality, what this bill actually does is place more requirements on women trying to get an abortion, essentially shaming them for an already potentially traumatizing procedure. These bills may not be as focused on family values as the legislature might like to claim.

What has the response to her tongue-and-cheek proposal been like? Some people don’t get it; they think that Rep. Marzian’s legislation is a bill that will likely become a law, rather than a clever form of social commentary. On Facebook, comments have gotten heated. Some readers argue that the government needs to get out of our personal lives, claiming that it’s pretty frightening that a representative thinks that filling a prescription and abortion are the same. Clearly, those commenters just don’t get it.

Just like Leslie Knope shaming men holding “Yes All Men” and “Protect HIStory” signs at a political rally, Rep Marzian is calling out the hypocrisy of men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, claiming they are just doing what they know is best for us. The bottom line is, we have got to move past this whole protector image that old white men in the government have of themselves. Women are doing just fine and know how to make decisions about their own health; we certainly don’t need men protecting us from ourselves.

Though no one expects it to actually go anywhere, the bill provokes an interesting discussion and is a brilliant way to call out the instances of sexism that we see so often in our legislatures today. Word on the street is that this liberal Kentucky representative isn’t done yet, either. She supposedly has plans in the work to introduce a new bill requiring people wanting to obtain a gun permit to talk to victims of gun violence 24 hours before receiving the permit. I guess trolling state legislators may just be the new way to get things done and make a statement these days–keep it up, Mary Lou!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Permission Slips for Viagra? Kentucky Rep. Gives Men a Taste of Their Own Medicine appeared first on Law Street.

Eighteen to 20-year-olds everywhere have their attention turned to three states who are may be in the process of lowering the drinking age to 18-years-old. California, Minnesota, and New Hampshire all have legislation in the works that would allow people under the age of 21 to drink in certain circumstances. Though each plan is unique, with its own caveats and rules, it looks like this time next year 18-year-olds may be able to enjoy a drink every once in a while in these states.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s proposed plan, House Bill 1606-FN, was introduced to its legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Thursday and is sponsored by Republican Max Abramson. The bill’s aim is to try to dampen the binge drinking culture we see so much of in today’s society by allowing people between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink beer and wine in the presence of someone over the age of 21. The bill states that lowering the drinking age in this capacity will make it so that “younger people will no longer be initiated to alcohol consumption in the absence of adult supervision.” Essentially, the state wants to introduce kids to alcohol in a safer, more controlled environment than what a lot of teens are currently experiencing.

Binge drinking is a big problem in our country today, especially among underage drinkers. According to the CDC, “about 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.” The CDC also notes that excessive drinking costs the United States “$249 billion in 2010, or $2.05 a drink, from losses in productivity, health care, crime, and other expenses. Binge drinking was responsible for 77 percent of these costs, or $191 billion.” Many people who talk about lowering the drinking age cite European habits when it comes to alcohol; younger teens can drink beer and wine at a young age and are generally introduced to casual drinking in a family setting. This then leads to lower levels of underage binge drinking, which the United States clearly has a problem with.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s bill is slightly different and would allow people over the age of 18 to drink any kind of alcohol, but only in bars or restaurants. This new bill is an extension of Senator Phyllis Kahn’s proposal from this time last year, which would allow 18-year-olds to drink in bars as long as they are with their parents. This idea comes with the hope that teens will stop drinking to excess at dorm parties in favor of drinking responsible amounts in public. People under the age of 21 still wouldn’t be able to purchase alcohol from liquor stores–they’d only be allowed to drink under the supervision of the general public at restaurants where they can be easily cut off by bartenders or waiters.

Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, who currently opposes to the bill, said of the bill,

I think we are better off staying where we are. I haven’t talked to any of the legislators about it, I don’t have an etched-in-concrete position, but this debate has been going on appropriately for many years now, and the middle ground comes down to: It should be 21, where it is now.

The governor’s statements are technically correct, and we have some existing legislation like this to judge whether or not letting kids drink with their parents helps reduce binge drinking. For example, in Wisconsin, anyone under the age of 21 can drink alcoholic beverages in licensed establishments if they are with their parents or legal guardians. This law is technically at the discretion of the restaurants, so they can prohibit minors from buying or drinking alcohol even if the underage patrons are supervised. Unfortunately, for those hoping Wisconsin may be a shining example of how our country should lower the drinking age, statistics show that Wisconsin is actually one of the states with the biggest binge drinking problem in America. To be fair, this data was taken from adults ages 21 and over, but, it certainly doesn’t help further the theory that teaching people young will promote healthier drinking habits overall.

California

The final state that is considering lowering its drinking age is California, this time in the form of a ballot initiative. The initiative was drafted and last year by Terrance Lynn, who is now in the process of collecting signatures so the measure can be placed on a ballot this coming April. Lynn will need 365,880 signatures in order to have the general public vote on whether or not they want to lower the drinking age, which may be an entirely separate battle if the initiative makes it that far.

Because this law doesn’t have any financial backing and it would directly allow 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and consume alcohol legally, California could lose up to $200 million in highway funds. Why? After the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed, states that lower their drinking age to below 21-years-old can have their highway funding cut by 10 percent. This act was passed with the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an organization working to prevent the thousands of drunk driving deaths every year, in an attempt to decrease the number these deaths substantially. While the measure would significantly reduce funding from the federal government, an estimate from the state’s Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance said that the measure could increase sales tax revenue by several million dollars per year.

Final Verdict?

People under the age of 21 shouldn’t get too excited just yet, as all of these bills and initiatives still need to be voted on before they can become. Although many people may assume a lower drinking age popular among the general public, a public opinion polling suggests otherwise. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 74 percent of Americans claim they would oppose legislation to lower the drinking age to 18 while only 25 percent say they would support it. These rates are about the same as they always have been, so these efforts may have an uphill battle when it comes to getting enough public support.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Will Some 18-Year-Olds be Able to Drink Alcohol Legally this Year? appeared first on Law Street.

This week the debate over the tampon tax has made its way to my favorite state–that’s right folks, we’re back to talking about Utah again! The discussion about the feminine tax has recently come into the national spotlight as several states (including Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New Jersey) have gotten rid of taxes on feminine hygiene products altogether. This is a step in the right direction as far as stopping taxes on necessary items goes.

Let’s start with a little background on taxes and necessities. Individual states get to decide whether or not they want to levy a sales tax on final sale goods and, for the most part, they usually tax around five to nine percent on most of these goods. A few states–Delaware, Montana, Oregon, and New Hampshire, to be exact–don’t have a sales tax, but instead opt for changes in income, excise, and tourist taxes. Here’s a handy map from Tax Foundation displaying sales taxes nationwide from mid-2015 so you can see where your state falls as far as tax rates go.

In general, in states where there is a sales tax, items that are deemed to be necessities are exempt from being taxed. This includes goods like foods and medicines, which people need on a daily basis to survive. Even if these goods are still taxed in a state, it is usually at a lower rate than the overall sales tax. For some reason, feminine hygiene products have never been included on this list, but instead are taxed as “non-necessity” or “luxury” items; although, some states do have exemptions for things like pregnancy tests, which are categorized as medical items. 

So, if it’s up to the state’s discretion to decide which goods are and are not considered tax exempt for being “necessary,” why hasn’t this tampon and pad controversy come up before now? President Barack Obama mentioned in an interview with Youtuber Ingrid Nilsen that he suspects “it’s because men were making the laws when those taxes were passed.”

So, several states have recently been working to get rid of the tax on tampons, Utah being the most recent. Democratic Senator Susan Duckworth is introducing a bill to stop the sales tax on tampons in front of the Utah House tax panel next Wednesday. She has even made the bill broad, including incontinence products and children’s diapers as necessities that she believes should not be taxed as luxury items in the state of Utah.

The main problem with Senator Duckworth’s bill? She’s pitching it to a committee of entirely men, who may have trouble sympathizing with the whole “periods” thing. The senator is concerned that the bill won’t get out of committee, but has promised to stay committed to the cause no matter what the results this week are. Opponents of the proposal have said that, although the average woman will save over $30 dollars a year on tampon taxes alone, it could lose the state around $1 million dollars in tax revenue a year. While, yes, that is quite a hit to tax revenue, lowering the tax burden on poor women who quite literally have to buy feminine products is an important option to consider. In the words of Stephanie Pitcher, a member of the Utah Women’s Coalition, “having a period is not a choice for women.”

Outraged women took to Twitter late last year to protest the labeling of tampons as luxury items, making fun of just how ridiculous some of the proponents of keeping the #tampontax on these #luxuryitems sound.

Pure indulgence!! Living the life of luxury with my selection of sanitary products!! #tampontax #TamponsForAll pic.twitter.com/3edAveFvX4

— Sara P (@xxsarajpxx) October 27, 2015

Just had to decide whether to stick the silver plated or diamond encrusted tampon up my vagina. #luxury

— Ann Scantlebury (@scanters) October 28, 2015

We all deserve a bit of luxury #tampontax pic.twitter.com/4mM9NysaNr

— Mrs Sarah Nic (@sp1305) October 28, 2015

While all these tweets are hilarious and get the main message (a desire for the end of sales taxes on tampons) across, it’s important for everyone in this battle to keep in mind that tampons are not taxed more than regular goods. People are upset because tampons are taxed at the same rate as every other good and not given an exemption or tax reduction for being necessities for most women.

Whenever it comes to cutting taxes, there’s a hard decision to make–I get that. All I’m saying is, if we don’t tax things like babies’ bibs and adult diapers, there’s at least a discussion to be had about cutting some women a tax break where they need it. I’ll leave you with this spot-on recommendation for what you should get that special woman in your life this coming Valentine’s Day because, remember, tampons aren’t a necessity, they’re a luxury. 

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Should States Lower the Tampon Tax? appeared first on Law Street.

Fans who were excited by the prospect of Bernie Sanders appearing in this week’s episode of “Saturday Night Live,” also featuring Larry David, were not disappointed. Though he wasn’t in the cold open, nor did he pop up in the Sanders’ themed sketch, which poked fun at his campaign, Sanders did show up alongside David in a sketch about the tumultuous road to America on a ship in a rough storm.

The sketch subtly calls out some of Sanders’ political platform, as his character, Bernie Sanderswitzky, chastises David’s character for claiming to be more entitled to a seat on a lifeboat than anyone else, because of his wealth. “I’m so sick of the 1 percent getting this preferential treatment. Enough is enough!” Sanderswitzky yells out upon his arrival on the ship, as the live “SNL” studio audience claps and cheers. There is also a cute joke about Sanders being a socialist; Sanderswitzky has to clarify that everybody working together to get through a problem isn’t socialism, but, rather, democratic socialism.

In addition to the political humor, there are also some funny references to Sanders’ Jewish heritage and his New York accent. All in all? A great success and some helpful positive publicity for Bernie Sanders as we round the corner towards the New Hampshire primaries, where he is predicted to win with flying colors.

There was also a nice feature sketch on Sanders where Larry David played the Senator and joked about him losing by less than one percent in the Iowa caucuses. As an added bonus, the skit’s title, “Bern Your Enthusiasm,” is a great play off of David’s show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm!”

Overall, it was a funny night for Bernie Sanders fans everywhere, and a nice tension release in what has been a stressful month of election business. It’s always great to see guest stars with good senses of humor, and this sure hits the spot when it comes to making Sanders seem like a down-to-earth candidate willing to make fun of himself every once in a while.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bernie Sanders is a Hit on “Saturday Night Live” appeared first on Law Street.

This week, in weird (and mostly irrelevant) legal news, Lauren Conrad is being sued for having several photos of surfing dogs on her website, without having any kind of copyright permission to do so–what a tragedy.

The “Laguna Beach” superstar allegedly used these photos without permission from the company that owns them, Incredible Features Inc. (IFI). The company, which claims to provide “unique images for the curious mind,” found these photos in a blog post on Conrad’s site from October of 2014, and decided to file a lawsuit against her for this violation of copyright law.

Pause. Let’s talk about copyright laws for a moment, to better understand what Conrad’s actions actually mean. As far as a basic overview goes, copyright laws are in place to protect intellectual property, which is defined by Merriam Webster as “property (as an idea, invention, or process) that derives from the work of the mind or intellect.” What exactly qualifies as intellectual property then? Pretty much anything you can think of that comes from an idea someone had–images, songs, graphics, designs. The list could go on and on.

Be warned! Just because something isn’t registered with the Library of Congress Copyright Office doesn’t mean it’s fair game, either. People hold the rights to their own intellectual property starting the second they create it, unless they give express permission for others to use and share whatever the item may be–in this case, pictures of surfing dogs. Honestly, this is probably where Conrad went wrong. In the age of easily accessible media it’s so simple to right click, download, and re-upload pictures from almost everywhere. People frequently forget that using other people’s property without their permission is a serious problem–one you can be sued for.

IFI wrote some pretty ironic lines in its request for Conrad to take the pictures down:

In the dog eat dog world of online content … Lauren Conrad, a sophisticated website operator, is cognizant of the value of high-quality photography.

Ah, the classic dog eat dog world pun. In addition to wanting Conrad to take the photos down (which it appears she already has), IFI is asking that she pay whatever money she may have earned thanks to using the photos of the adorable aquatic pups. Conrad’s response to this whole situation are still pretty unclear. TMZ, the original releaser of these lawsuit details, claims it reached out to Conrad for comments, but hasn’t heard back from the star yet.

The moral of the story here is to pay attention to the things you’re putting on the the internet and make sure you are using other people’s material appropriately. If you don’t? You might end up getting sued, and who in the world has the time for that. I mean, come on, it’s not that hard to find fun media of dogs surfing that you can use without getting into trouble!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Surfing Dogs and Stolen Photos have Lauren Conrad in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

I came across an article on Reddit (yes, college boys in my large lecture class, I know how to use Reddit too) with a headline claiming that Utah was banning porn. At first, I was shocked. Was this a joke? Could they actually enact legislation to ban pornographic material across an entire state? Isn’t there some kind of freedom of speech issue there? So, I started to read up on this law and Utah’s porn history–it’s all thankfully less NSFW than you might anticipate.

Here are the facts: Senator Todd Weiler, a state senator in the great state of Utah, introduced legislation this past week in attempt to have the state consider porn a “public health crisis.” Ironically, this is kind of along the same vein as what happened with the Zika virus recently, but on a smaller scale since it would only be statewide. The main concern Weiler seems to have is how accessible porn is becoming, especially to young teens, as he claims it “perpetuates a sexually toxic environment.” The proposed bill lists around 18 points describing the negatives affect that porn could have on society including, but not limited to, marriage failure, the fact that it treats women as objects, and that it can impact brain development and cause addiction.

So, Utah is not quite banning porn. Senator Weiler seems to be more interested in getting the potential negative effects on everybody’s radar; in fact, one of the specifically stated goals of the bill is to do just that:

This resolution recognizes the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

To be fair, this whole thing may be a little overblown. “Epidemic” and “public health crisis” seem like strong words to be using when we’re just talking about porn, right? Honestly, after looking at some of the data behind porn addiction in the U.S., it seems like it’s a pretty scary reality for some people. On top of addiction, according to some studies, the average age of exposure to porn may be as low as 11 years old, which certainly doesn’t seem like a good thing.

Utah in particular has has an especially interesting history as far as porn is concerned. In 2005, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. signed H.B. 260 into law, which essentially required internet providers to block pornographic websites at the request of consumers and heightened penalties for distributing porn, especially to minors. Then, in 2009, a man by the name of Benjamin Edelman conducted a study on which states consumed the most porn and why. The results? Almost every way you look at it, Utah came out on top, whether it was users per thousand people, per thousand homeowners, or per thousand broadband users.

In 2013, satire sites made fun of Utah by spreading a story that one of its cities had implemented a 30-day in jail minimum for first offense porn watching. The best part of this satirical news? People believed it, and, for a while, the nation thought Utah had really implemented jail sentences for watching porn–which is obviously ridiculous. The good news for Utah residents is that their laws to decrease porn use and subsequent embarrassment for being the country’s highest porn consumer led to some overall changes, and they have now slid back down the scale to a more moderate consumption of adult videos per capita–as you can see below in a graphic drawn up from Pornhub data in April of 2014.

All in all, I don’t really think this bill is the draconian First Amendment violation that it originally appeared to be. What Utah is trying to do is educate people on the potentially harmful effects that porn can have on children, teens, and even adults (when they get too attached). The senator seemingly has the stats to back up his claim and porn problems seem to be a lot more prevalent in our country than I ever really assumed they were, so maybe some public awareness could be a good thing. Then again, with the attention grabbing and misrepresentative headlines this legislation has been getting, I expect this bill to have some stiff opposition.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Is Utah Really Trying to Ban Porn? appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Louis Shenker, the young man who made waves by sneaking into the Democratic debate? Well this past week I had the opportunity to chat with the surprise guest of the debate held two weekends ago on January 17. As a quick recap, in case you didn’t hear about this wonderful feat, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts managed to sneak past several levels of security and make his way on stage at the debate, shook each of the candidates’ hands, and appeared on national television. The story originally surfaced on Twitter when people called out Shenker, said teen, for his loud silk jacket and seemingly out-of-place presence. Shenker then posted a blog describing the whole experience in nearly comedic detail–the whole thing seemed like an elaborate sitcom plot.

How I Snuck into the South Carolina Democratic Debate https://t.co/000EQUYXqH pic.twitter.com/CbRjmCkQMF

— Louis Shenker (@Louis_Shenker) January 21, 2016

In attempt to learn a little more about this daring experience and figure out just what it takes to make it onstage at a nationally viewed event, my fellow editorial intern, Sean Simon, and I talked with Louis over the phone this past Friday. It started off as your average interview conversation; Louis told us about how he is a junior in high school, how he works at a local Chinese restaurant, and how he plays guitar and didgeridoo (not to mention the fact that he has created two didgeridoos himself, one out of cardboard and one out of PVC pipe). I’d also like to take a hot sec to acknowledge the fact that this young man has actually opened up for Hoodie Allen on the didgeridoo, and, if that doesn’t scream accomplishment, I don’t know what does.

The Inspiration

Once we got into the swing of things, we asked Louis a little bit about what prompted this whole string of sneaking into debates, and this is what he had to say about the first debate he snuck into:

On Thursday, I saw on Snapchat that there was a GOP debate filter and I had no idea that that was even happening, and so I thought that that would be fun to try to see how debates ran and stuff like that. So, I thought it would be fun to try to sneak in, to try to get in there, see what it’s like, meet the candidates, see what all the hubbub was about.

Looks like Snapchat can be informative and educational–take that, mom! So, after asking around about some details and for some opinions, Shenker decided to seize the opportunity and head to the GOP debate, even after being told not to go by both his siblings and his dad. The GOP debate was apparently the perfect practice for sneaking into the Democratic debate a few days later; Shenker gave some insight into what he learned the first time and how that helped him out:

I learned a little bit more about how they ran, what the situation was and stuff like that, so by the time the Democratic debate rolled around on Sunday, I had a pretty good understanding of the workings behind the scenes and stuff like that. What would be good to say, what would be good to do, how to act, how to dress and that kind of thing. And so I tried my luck and, yeah, I was pretty lucky.

When it finally came time to talk about the debate that was on all of our minds–the one where Shenker ended up onstage shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand–we started off by asking him if he had any clue at all that he was going to end up on national television that day. His response? He hadn’t even thought he was going to get into the debate because of how small the venue was in comparison to the GOP debate a few nights before. He said that once he got in, he figured he had to see how far he could take it and try to “roll with it” a little bit. Shenker claims that by the time he was in the front row “there was really only one thing left to do, and that was to be on stage.”

Nerves and Stage Fright?

Of course, we asked the million dollar question of the interview: when were you most concerned about being caught? Interestingly enough, Shenker claims he was never even really worried about it, though there was a point when he was trying to get on stage where he had a little bit of stage fright himself:

I guess I was the most nervous when I was trying to walk backstage onto the platform for the debate because thats where I thought there’d be the most security. Either that, or just getting into the debate itself. Once I was in the debate I was pretty much in good standing.

Shaking Hands and Taking Names

Nerves or not, Shenker made it all the way to shake hands with the candidates, but those three weren’t the first potentially presidential hands he had shaken. Believe it or not, Shenker told us that he has traded handshakes with all of the presidential candidates except Ben Carson and Donald Trump. We asked him to rate his top three and (in this specific order) they included Bernie Sanders, whose handshake was firm; Jeb Bush, whose hands were pretty soft; and Martin O’Malley, who had a nice strong grip. Shenker also volunteered details about his handshake with Hillary Clinton (which, might I add, was caught on national television), saying it was pretty cold, which he attributed to potentially poor circulation. After some quick research thanks to a tip from Sean, I found that, yes, Clinton does suffer from both hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies.

Spoiler Alert: This kid’s jacket won the democratic debate. pic.twitter.com/PwKa0AVA6h — Blue (@8lve) January 18, 2016

On the other end of the spectrum, with the worst handshakes, Shenker listed John Kasich and Ted Cruz, claiming that they just weren’t that special or memorable. To the candidates’ credit, Shenker noted that all of their handshakes were really pretty above average, probably thanks to the years and years of practice they have all had as politicians.

Confidence is Key

What does Shenker have to say about the candidates’ presence in person? Well confidence is key; he said they all just exude confidence and personality, especially his pick for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders. He said to keep in mind that these candidates are real people, not idolatrous figures or greater powers, and said that that realization was one of the biggest changes to his viewpoint after meeting them: they’re real. On why he likes Sanders specifically, Shenker said,

Ever since I came across Sanders about three years ago, even before this whole election cycle started, I thought that he was a good guy. A lot of people were like ‘oh that’s just cause he’s Jewish’ but you know that’s not really the only reason that I support him. I think that a lot of his view points that he’s expressing with the struggle of money and politics as a huge issue, I think it is a tremendous issue that is really corrupting the system. He is very genuine. He seems like he cares more about people… There’s also something about liking an underdog…Having someone who sees the importance of education and infrastructure and all the social changes that resonate pretty strongly with me and my generation, I feel like he’s the candidate who gets the most.

Pretty perceptive of him–looks like it’s not just the millennial women jumping on the Sanders train!

Louis’s Advice

Last, but certainly not least, we asked Shenker to tell us when he knew he had made it and if he had any last words of wisdom for us–he hit us with some seriously existential thoughts:

I wouldn’t say [I feel] famous. I always like having cool stories and I thought this would be a cool opportunity for a story. But, once I knew I was on TV for a moment, I mean, my friends were all texting me, calling me, and stuff like that, was kind of when I realized, oh, maybe there’s something a little more to this… In ten days no one will care, no one will remember, but for now it’s fun.

And his final thoughts on the whole shebang were pretty inspirational:

People need to understand that you can’t let opportunities pass you by, or at least that’s the way I view things. Whenever there’s an opportunity, whether it’s something at school, or a dance or a concert or something, just go to it. Have fun… Too many people sit inside their house watching TV or staying on their phones and they don’t get out and actually do things… I think something important to learn is that, when you’re stagnant, you’re really just not actually living life to the best potential, and I think it’s wrong to let opportunities pass you by.

Overall, it’s pretty clear that Louis Shenker had his own one-of-a-kind experience. So, with that in mind, and opportunities ahead, go out and sneak into your own Democratic debate–or whatever your version of that may be. You never know what may be waiting for you.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Louis Shenker: How Did a 17-Year-Old Sneak into the Democratic Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

Walmart recently announced that it will be closing 154 stores in the United States as well as an additional 115 stores internationally, and people are ticked. Among the stores closing are all 102 of Walmart’s recently implemented “express” stores, which came into the world about five years ago in an attempt to compete with small town dollar stores. The company is citing several reasons for its decision to close so many stores at once, the main two being that it wants to focus on neighborhood markets and e-commerce more diligently. The express stores apparently did not go over too well and ended up functioning a little more like local markets than the executives at Walmart anticipated, and did not bring in as much of a profit as expected.

So, what problems are the mass exodus of Walmarts causing?

Food Deserts

One of the biggest issues that the affected small towns anticipate is that the disappearance of Walmarts will cause a growth in food deserts in rural and impoverished areas. The USDA defines food deserts as low-access communities where “at least 500 people and/or at least 33 percent of the census tract’s population must reside more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store.” According to the Associated Press, the closures will lead to the creation of three new food deserts. Without Walmart, residents will be stripped of access to fresh produce, meats, and all kinds of other foods. In some cases, it may even become risky to get to the closest grocery store, as the people may need to travel across highly trafficked highways just to get food.

Another concern for locals is the fact that, without competition from other vendors, some stores may start to raise prices, making healthy foods even more unaffordable. Walmart is pulling its express stores out of some of the poorest neighborhoods in America, exacerbating problems with unhealthy eating and a lack of access to proper nutrition that millions of Americans already face.

Small Town Chaos

Since the arrival of these Walmarts in the first place, many complained that the stores would take away business from local stores. Tons of self-proclaimed mom and pop shops were forced out of business when they couldn’t compete with Walmart’s “everyday low prices.” But, after dealing with the initial trouble that came with big business growing in a small town, some local business owners began to work at the Walmart stores or, at the very least, became reliant on the presence of the stores to buy their everyday items. Now that Walmart stores announced their departure, small town residents are terrified of what the results could be, claiming that it will almost definitely have a negative effect on town revenue. Some small store owners are even exploring legal options to receive the compensation they feel they deserve for being slighted in the first place.

Unemployment

Of course, possibly the most obvious effect of these closures will be the loss of jobs for around 16,000 employees, 10,000 of whom are people working in the United States. The company has announced that some employees will be transferred to other branches, which, although a nice sentiment, may be difficult for those with limited access to transportation or multiple jobs. Walmart also promised to give all employees who are not transferred 60 days of pay after their last day of work–which will be this coming Thursday–and severance if they are eligible.

Walmart has been in the news recently thanks to criticism from disgruntled employees and consumers who have drawn attention to the company’s low wages. Its average employee, even after the recent wage increases, still gets paid more than a dollar below the average U.S. retail worker. Even though Walmart has been working to increase its employees’ paychecks, it simultaneously began cutting hours and closing stores, making higher wages kind of a moot point.

Remedying the problem

Walmart executives responded to criticism by citing the large impact Walmart has in comparison to the small number of stores that are closing–the company claims the economic impacts of these closings will be minimal. Doug McMillan, CEO of  Walmart Stores, released a statement on the company’s website saying,

The decision to close stores is difficult and we care about the associates who will be impacted. We invested considerable time assessing our stores and clubs and don’t take this lightly. We are supporting those impacted with extra pay and support, and we will take all appropriate steps to ensure they are treated well.

Walmart also plans to open around 300 new stores worldwide next year. Executives say they are still committed to growing the company and fighting food deserts, but need to make sure they are doing it in a way that is disciplined and will best protect the company for years to come.

It is unfortunate that local communities that have adapted to the arrival of the big business will now have to rearrange their lives around its quick disappearance. Walmart claims to be committed to helping its employees and those who have lost jobs because of this decision, but that word may not mean much after the recent series of cutbacks and layoffs, which were supposedly made in the name of raising wages.

Whatever the future may hold, many small town residents are not happy with how they’ve been jerked around by big businesses like Walmart over past several years–in some cases, the company could be ruining people’s lives.

Walmart could be losing a lot of loyal customers with these store closures, but, quite frankly, its astronomically high yearly profits probably won’t suffer all that much.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Walmart Closures Could Hurt Many Low-Income Communities appeared first on Law Street.

For the past few weeks, the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been on everyone’s radar. This week, the standoff may be coming to an end, as local law enforcement arrested several of the movement’s leaders on Tuesday, in what turned out to be a fatal altercation.

The seven people arrested were the leader of the movement, Ammon Bundy; his brother, Ryan Bundy; and several others including Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox, Peter Santilli, Joseph O’Shaughnessy and Ryan Payne. The militia members were taken into custody at a highway stop, like the one pictured below, set up by local law enforcement and FBI in the areas surrounding the Wildlife Refuge.

Just passed @FBI & @ORStatePolice checkpoint @KTVZ #ORstandoff #KTVZ pic.twitter.com/E0N8Tm0ZPh

— Lauren Martinez (@LaurenKTVZ) January 27, 2016

The arrested occupants are being held in Multnomah County Jail, which is a little more than five hours outside of the reserve where the militia currently occupies. Since Tuesday, additional arrests and voluntary departures have left as few as five people at the wildlife refuge, according to a video posted by one of the remaining individuals.

Perhaps the most controversial part of Tuesday’s arrest is the death of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, a 55-year-old member of the takeover. Weeks before his death, Finicum  told reporters, “There are things more important than your life and freedom is one of them.” He warned that he would rather die than be taken to jail, sending an ominous warning that ended up ringing true Tuesday night. During the arrest, Ryan Bundy was also injured by a bullet, although it is unclear as to who shot him or how. All of the men and women taken into custody are being charged with conspiracy to impede federal officials by use of force, intimidation, or threats.

The FBI is attempting to shut down the operation by placing more roadblocks around the refuge and not allowing anyone in, except land owners. All law enforcement officers in the area are encouraging those who are still gathered in the refuge to leave. Several of the people who were holed up in the refuge have decided to follow that advice, as most of the leaders of this movement have been arrested and the fire behind the cause is beginning to dwindle.

Many of the journalists at the scene of the occupation left the reserve after receiving word from the FBI that they could not be guaranteed any kind of protection by law enforcement. Reporters were active on twitter, announcing the ominous warning given by the FBI:

Leaving refuge. @FBI warns media no protection #ORstandoff @KTVZ pic.twitter.com/ojWTEUgB4V

— Lauren Martinez (@LaurenKTVZ) January 27, 2016

.@OPB has left the compound entrance, along with @KGW, @KOINNews @fox12oregon and several journalists. We determined it’s not safe.

— John Sepulvado (@JohnLGC) January 27, 2016

.@OPB was told by FBI that we were on our own — essentially stuff is going down and we need to move.

— John Sepulvado (@JohnLGC) January 27, 2016

A lot of the details from this story remain fuzzy–no one has released specifics about Tuesday’s roadblock altercation and authorities still haven’t officially released Finicum’s name as the man who was killed in the shooting, though he was identified by his daughter. Oregon Governor Kate Brown voiced her opinion that she is ready for the situation to be resolved, saying, “Federal authorities must move quickly to end the occupation and hold all of the wrongdoers accountable. The spectacle of lawlessness must end.”

Who knows how much longer the occupants will, or can, hold out, but as tensions rise, it seems unlikely that the situation will be able to continue as it is for much longer.

Read More: What’s Going on in Oregon? Domestic Terrorism in the Beaver State

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Standoff at the Oregon Wildlife Refuge: Is it Over? appeared first on Law Street.

By now everyone has heard about the current water crisis in Flint, Michigan. The city’s drinking water has been contaminated with lead, making it harmful and potentially life-threatening to drink, and almost everyone is pointing fingers in an attempt to find someone to blame for this catastrophic event. All across the country, people have taken to social media to protest what they feel has been a complete failure on the part of Flint’s government. But it’s kind of hard to tell whether or not the situation is actually getting any better.

#FLINT: “a staggering level of ineptitude, if not criminal negligence.”

— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) January 23, 2016

It’s a shame that one of the recent hostages is a Flint resident, and he had better water when he was captive than when he got home #TeamDl

— DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) January 23, 2016

Photos of a local poster began circling the internet after being taken down by the State of Michigan due to backlash from the community. The poster–which featured two adorable babies bathing, along with messages confirming it was okay to wash your children in Flint water just as long as they didn’t accidentally drink it–is a shining example of just why everyone is so riled up. The situation is horrifying and negatively affecting some of the most helpless residents in Flint. Even the Girl Scouts of America have voiced their concerns, proving that this water crisis is an issue affecting everyone.

The government in Flint has been working to raise money and support for its city, even reaching out to President Obama in an attempt to have the Flint crisis declared a federal disaster so they can receive federal funding to try to remedy the situation. The President denied federal disaster status, but did give the city emergency funds of $5 million dollars. Unfortunately for Flint, that money boils down to almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, so Governor Rick Snyder has appealed his case to President Obama, hoping to have the status of the Flint emergency reconsidered. Some have estimated the city is going to need as much as $1 billion dollars in the upcoming year after looking at just how deep this lead-filled water problem goes.

The good news is people are stepping up to help the residents of Flint. Celebrities are reaching out and using their star power to donate money and water to the cause.

Pearl Jam donate $300,000 to city of Flint, Michigan amid water crisis: https://t.co/uNddI1WDsC pic.twitter.com/tWGeReyaAQ

— Consequence of Sound (@coslive) January 23, 2016

Big Sean Is Donating $10,000 To The Kids Of Flint — And You Can Help, Too https://t.co/gtMRv3wTDN

— MTV (@MTV) January 23, 2016

Jimmy Fallon donates $10,000 to Flint charity during city’s ongoing water crisis https://t.co/brHFjUKAJBpic.twitter.com/Jpe1Y57IbL

— TIME.com (@TIME) January 25, 2016

A firefighter in Chicago, who was horrified to hear about the water conditions in Flint, decided to start asking for water bottle donations, and has collected over 130 cases of water; he plans to drive them to Flint at the end of the week. Residents of Western Michigan have banded together to gather water testing kits, water filters, bottled water, and money to donate to the city in addition to sending over 200 volunteers to help hand out supplies to local Flint citizens with no access to clean drinking water. Even people outside of the Midwest have been helping out by starting dozens of GoFundMe pages to raise money for the city–and the results have been staggering.

It really is heartwarming to see how many people nation-wide are helping Flint without any reservations, which will be instrumental in sustaining the people of Flint until this crippling problem is resolved. Hopefully, with some hard work, financial support, and a new plan for handling the water supply, Flint residents will soon have the clean water they deserve. Until then, it’s time to keep the altruistic spirit of volunteerism alive and help out our friends in need.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post How Has the Nation Responded to Flint’s Cries for Help? appeared first on Law Street.

Amidst commentary on how Hillary Clinton has ramped up, pointed attacks on Bernie Sanders, and Sanders’ constant mention of how well he is polling, you may have missed one of the most interesting points of the Democratic debate this past weekend: a 17-year-old boy in a handmade silk jacket who–although he didn’t seem out of place–certainly wasn’t where he was supposed to be.

Louis Shenker, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts was seen on national television as he walked on stage to shake hands with the presidential hopefuls, but that definitely wasn’t the most exciting part of Shenker’s night. In a blog post written by the teen himself this Thursday, Shenker talks all about the pains he went through to get on stage that night, which include some pretty impressive feats. From claiming to be Martin O’Malley’s son to worming his way into the debate hall, this kid may have just pulled off one of the most impressive break-ins of the century.

So, how did he do it? According to Shenker, the recipe for success–when it comes to making your way on stage with some of the country’s most important people–is apparently comprised of a couple of white lies, a slightly above average knowledge of attendees of the Democratic debate, and a hell of a lot of confidence. Or at least, that’s what he claims in his blog post. Apparently Shenker had also snuck into the Republican debate less than a week before, though, he made less of a splash there and mostly hung in the shadows.

The teenage hero–and supposedly qualified didgeridoo player–started his evening by walking up to the gates of the Gaillard Center and claiming he was told he would receive a ticket to the event at the gate. He mentioned he was a representative of several Jewish organizations and was quickly swept up in the crowd, given a staffer pass, and whisked away to help direct people arriving at the event’s entrances. He then weaseled his way inside the media room by announcing he was writing an article for the World Jewish Congress. Finally, Shenker made his way to the main room of the debate by telling security he was a seat filler–could this guy get any more ballsy? In a last ditch attempt to secure the world’s most impressive fake-out, Shenker made it on stage after the debate, writing in his blog that his motivation was as follows:

At this point I said to myself fuck it I was going to get on stage with the candidates. So I followed the families of the candidates through the side exit to backstage and past many secret service agents none of which stopped me. Then I was onstage.

The cameras went live, and there he was, on almost every TV in the nation, immediately gaining attention for his stylish fashion sense and youthful looks. Shenker said his phone was immediately blowing up with snapchats, texts, and tweets from his friends back home who were shocked when they saw his face, front and center, shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand. Some people questioned Shenker’s presence on stage (and his choice of jacket) at the end of the debate, taking to the internet to voice their opinions and surprise:

Did anyone else see this child at the #DemDebate ?? Like a Thanksgiving themed jacket?? pic.twitter.com/e9MsQR6Mzu

— David Lew (@davidlew) January 18, 2016

 

Gonna need to know more about this jacket. #DemDebate#TheRealIssuespic.twitter.com/wjPMxUDSnb

— Kyle (@semiserious) January 18, 2016

Honestly, this had to have been a pretty cool night and an experience we can all probably be jealous of. Shenker met countless celebrities, was featured on national television in a suave, retro jacket, and pulled off a pretty magnificent stunt. His blog has gone viral and he has gained almost instant fame–Killer Mike even gave him a shoutout on Twitter.

The moral of the story? Take some risks, I guess. Don’t be afraid to shoot for the stars because, sometimes, you may literally be able to reach them. As cheesy as it sounds, we can all probably take a page out of Shenker’s book and follow his words of advice:

 If there is one thing this experience has taught me it is if you act like you are supposed to be somewhere people will believe you.

As the new year keeps rolling in, I know I’ll be keeping this advice in the back of my mind. And, hey, maybe if the presidential candidates start acting a little bit more like they belong in the White House, they too can achieve their dreams.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post What We Can Learn from the Boy who Snuck into the Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

In the beginning of 2013, the Arkansas General Assembly introduced a bill titled the “Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act” in an attempt to ban women from aborting a fetus 12 weeks or older. After several years of this law being contested in court, it has finally received the final nail in the coffin. The Supreme Court rejected the pleas to overturn lower court decisions by announcing this Tuesday that it would not be hearing oral arguments for Beck v. Edwards.

The  “Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act” became a law on March 6, 2013, even after being vetoed by then Governor Mike Beebe, and has faced controversy ever since. Around a month after the bill became a law, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the ACLU began the fight against the law by filing suit in a district court, claiming that this ban on abortion infringed on patients’ constitutional rights to privacy. The district court ultimately sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that the ban on abortion after 12 weeks was an unconstitutional violation of a woman’s privacy. Arkansas appealed this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in May of 2014, but didn’t have much luck. The court affirmed the ruling of the previous court in its opinion, stating,

This case underscores the importance of the parties, particularly the state, developing the record in a meaningful way so as to present a real opportunity for the court to examine viability, case by case, as viability steadily moves back towards conception.

In this case, Arkansas legislators are making the claim that a fetus is viable at 12 weeks, so therefore the cutoff for abortion legality needs to be at or before that benchmark. Overall, one of the biggest points of contention in the overall argument about abortion is the question of when a fetus becomes viable. But, what is viability? Justice Harry Blackman defined this term in his opinion on the well-known 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade: “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.” Now, people have been bickering for decades over what this actually means; however, most states have stuck to the norm–also laid out in Roe v. Wade–of a fetus becoming viable somewhere around 28 weeks.

Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals cited a lack of scientific evidence on the part of the State when it comes to proving that viability of a fetus starts at 12 weeks. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, provided ample evidence–in the form of doctor testimony– to support the fact that a fetus at 12 weeks cannot survive outside its mother’s womb.

In a final attempt to keep this law in place, the state of Arkansas filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the Arkansas legislature, the Supreme Court only accepts around 0.8% of the cases it receives each year, and it just decided this Tuesday that it will not be hearing Beck v. Edwards, effectively striking down the Arkansas ban on abortions past 12 weeks, for good.

So what does this mean for the future of abortion rights? We can all rest easy knowing that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy won’t be violated by the Arkansas abortion law anytime soon, since the final decision from the Court of Appeals stands, banning the ban for good. In addition, although SCOTUS didn’t want to hear Beck v. Edwards, it does have a new abortion focused case coming up this March. Arguments for Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole are set to begin March 2nd, so a verdict on whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold women’s rights is rapidly approaching.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Arkansas Abortion Law Loses its Last Shot at Legality appeared first on Law Street.

With the Iowa caucuses rapidly approaching and the New Hampshire primary not too far behind, recent poll results on both sides of the aisle have become all the rage. The slow but steady rise of support for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has certainly been a phenomenon to watch as he works on closing the gap between the support for his campaign and the support for Hilary Clinton’s–the other likely option for Democratic presidential nominee. But why has Senator Sanders been rising in the polls? And who has been boosting these numbers? Recent polling shows that it may actually be millennial women who are blowing up Bernie’s ratings, rather than the “Berniebros” that many have assumed were his main supporters.

Hillary is still polling better nationally, but recent numbers suggest that Bernie may not be too far behind, and the support he has been garnering among young voters may be just what he needs to have a shot at the nomination. In a recent USA Today/Rock the Vote Millennial Poll, people between the ages of 18 and 25 were found to show strong support for Bernie Sanders. Men under 35 are supporting Sanders over Clinton by four percentage points, but the real kicker happens to be (you guessed it) millennial women. They favor Sanders by just under 20 points, possibly disappointing their mothers who belong to the baby boomer generation currently mostly in favor of Clinton.

So why are these millennial women so into Sanders? It all comes down to the issues that they care about. The USA Today poll also reported that some of the issues younger voters cared most about were related to gun control, welcoming refugees, fixing police corruption, and getting rid of extreme poverty. These hot button topics that are worrying liberal-minded millennials are the same issues Sanders’ campaign is focusing on: racial justice, living wages, humane immigration politics, and so much more. In addition, some of the issues Sanders is most passionate about are problems directly influencing young women today, such as expanding Planned Parenthood and making college tuition lower or–dare I say it–even free. This young generation of voters is thrilled with his willingness to engage in some of the most prevalent issues in our country and the solutions he proposes to fix them. Fewer young women are buying into the idea that this opportunity for a woman president has to be seized in order to promote the feminist agenda.

Even with the upward trend in Bernie buzz, there’s still a challenging road ahead for his campaign if he wants to win the Democratic nomination. The biggest roadblock is predicted to be a lack of voter turnout amidst Sanders’ most avid supporters, as millennial voter turn out has been particularly weak in the past few years, with an all-time low in the 2014 midterm elections. But, if these voters do show up, Clinton could be in for yet another presidential nomination upset, and everybody running her campaign seemingly knows it. Clinton’s campaign has gone from practically ignoring Sanders’ presence to directly engaging with him in debates and acknowledging him as a serious opponent.

There’s a little under a month until all the polls and predictions will start giving way to actual results and the Democratic Party will start to find out who their presidential nominee will be–all of the candidates need as much help as they can get. At the end of the day, whether it stems from millennial women’s residual dreams of their own shot at being the first female president, or their honest faith in the Bernie Sanders platform, this support could be just what Bernie needs to snatch the nomination right out from under Hillary’s nose.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Millennial Women are Feeling the Bern appeared first on Law Street.