UF Law Radical Feminists resurrect memories of “high-tech lynching” as Justice Clarence Thomas visits campus.
The Supreme Court Justice will teach a class at UF Law this Winter 2020 semester.
January 28th, 2020
Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991 by President George H W Bush. Leftists tried to defeat the conservative black man by propping up the original Christine Blasey Ford, Ms. Anita Hill, at his Senate confirmation hearings. Anita Hill was a lawyer who had previously worked as a subordinate to Thomas. She testified at his Senate confirmation hearings that he had made sexual advances towards her and made “inappropriate comments”. She admitted the alleged behavior never amounted to anything worth reporting to her employers or to law enforcement.
Justice Thomas shut down the Leftist’s radical strategy with these words:
“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, by a committee of the US Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”
The student group “We Believe Survivors” organized the protest. As law students they should believe the 14thAmendment to the Bill of Rights instead: that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and that no person shall be denied equal protection of the law. Justice Thomas was ultimately admitted to the high court, no crimes have ever been charged, and no evidence of alleged misconduct was ever brought before a court of law.
As a woman, a practicing attorney, and a true feminist who believes in fairness and equality under the law, I would not hire any of these law students if I discovered they had shown such disrespect to an arriving dignitary.
The Court overrules activists attempt to raze the land of religious-historical symbols.
The Supreme Court on June 20th reversed the 4th Circuit appeals court decision that would have ordered a World War I memorial cross be removed from a public park. Obama appointee Judge Stephanie Thacker even suggested that the arms of the cross could be “chopped off” so the memorial would no longer violate the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is the first clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The American Humanist Association won at the 4th Circuit in their lawsuit against the American Legion and a Maryland state agency that maintains the war memorial, the 40-foot Blandensburg Cross (or “Peace Cross”). Offended observer “Snowflake” residents of Blandensburg, Maryland said the cross violates their freedom from religion. The American Humanist Association litigated on their behalf to pursue the removal of religious-historical monuments from the face of the land.
The High Court in a 7-2 opinion introduced a new way forward for Establishment Clause cases. Justice Alito wrote there is a “presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.” The Court broke with a systematic test that would require the justices to speculate the original intent of the people who erected the monument. The cross has stood for over a century. Even if the founders of this monument had a religious purpose in mind, the purpose of the cross has multiplied over time. The monument is not just a cross, but a war memorial, a sacred site for descendants of the fallen soldiers whose names are inscribed upon the cross, a historical landmark, and an indentifying figure of place for the people who live in and visit Blandensburg. Finally, removal of a historical religious symbol is not neutral to the community where the symbol has taken a particular meaning. “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)
University of Florida Silences Conservative Gators
December 28th, 2018
Young Americans for Freedom student organization and two students sue the University President and Board of Trustees challenging a facially and as-applied unconstitutional policy that allows Student Government representatives unbridled discretion in allocating student activity fees. The policy allows Student Government to fund only guest speakers that those Student Government representatives agree with.
University students are forced to pay the mandatory student activity fee every semester. Conservative students must pay to fund guest speakers with whom they disagree. In contrast the Young America’s Foundation are continually denied funds to invite speakers of their choice and have no ability to appeal those Student Government decisions. The YAF and students demand that university officials either implement content-neutral policy, refund mandatory student fees, or grant an opt-out provision for the mandatory fees.
The complaint was filed on December 21st, 2018 in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, case no. 18-CV-250.
June 26th, 2018
Public School sued for Religious Freedom violation
The parent of a 7th grade student in New Jersey is suing the school district for violating religious freedom. Our religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment. The very first clause of the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The public school district presented a “World Religions” curriculum to the students. Part of this education included a video about Islam. A portion of the video presents what the Plaintiff says is a call for the conversion of 7th grade students to Islam: “May God help us all find the true faith, Islam. Ameen.”
The case is in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2:18-cv-00966. As of this bLAWg post the Plaintiffs have defeated the school districts motion to dismiss because the judge sees a clearly pled complaint that requires factual development.
The 1919 Supreme Court case Abrams v United States:
Five Russian immigrants were sentenced to 20 years in prison for printing and distributing pamphlets in New York City with the intent to persuade American workers to strike. The Russian-authored pamphlets implored Americans to denounce Capitalism and join the Socialist Workers Revolution. Workers were encouraged to join their Russian brothers in a domestic revolution to thwart foreign war efforts in Germany and Russia. If Americans started a socialist revolution at home and left their munitions manufacturing jobs, soldiers and bullets could not be sent over to Mother Russia to kill the commie brothers.In the dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes explained that Russians had just as much free speech to write their pamphlets as the Founding Fathers had to write the Constitution, so long as the free speech did not actually incite a domestic revolution.
Russians are STILL HERE TODAY urging Americans to join the Socialist Russia Cause (to distract us from foreign war), and a QUASI-judicial “court” with “Chief Justice Mueller” presiding is implicating the First Amendment exactly as in the 1919 case. History is golden.
September 25, 2017
FEMA sued in Texas for denying disaster aid to Churches
Three churches in Texas have filed a federal lawsuit claiming FEMA discriminates against them on the basis of religion in violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
The churches stand in the hardest hit Harvey battered areas of Texas. They decided to sue first instead of even trying to secure FEMA disaster benefits. They say that FEMA categorically (every time) denies FEMA disaster benefits to churches, so their time will be best spent suing the government entity instead of applying for aid and being denied.
Religious centers of worship like churches are the first emergency shelters in times of disaster. They serve an important societal and quasi-governmental role in perilous times by providing beds, food, clothing, and the general basic necessities of life. Sadly, when that same church seeks emergency disaster aid from FEMA they are denied the benefit. This is because of FEMA policy that states more than 50% of the primary use of the entire church facility must be used for an “eligible service”. Religious worship is not an “eligible service”. FEMA can decide that, although the church provides daycare, health services, education, and food, these services do not amount to more than 50% of the primary use of the church facility.
This is an example of the many FEMA application problems that individuals and organizations will face when applying for disaster aid. The application process may be more of an art form than business logic and science.
Case: US Southern District of Texas, Houston Division 4:17-cv-2662
September 21, 2017
TOXIC MOLD GROWTH AFTER HURRICANE IRMA
Check your policy because your insurer will probably perform a mold inspection at no out-of-pocket cost to you.
Floridians in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma are assessing whether their property was damaged “enough” to file a claim with their homeowners insurer.
Example: A homeowner’s roof was damaged in a small area, just enough so that rain water leaked into the home. The drywall is wet in one room. The homeowners are assessing whether the damage repair will be more than their deductible. In most policies, the repair cost needs to be greater than the Hurricane Deductible. The owner’s deductible is 2% of the liability limit of $260,000.00, or $5,200.00. The roof damage repair cost needs to exceed $5,200.00 before the insurer will pay. The roof repair alone may not cost enough for your insurer to step in.
MOLD MAY BE LURKING IN YOUR HOME and will begin to spread if rain water entered your home through a wind-damaged roof.
The insurer in many policies is on the line to pay for a mold inspection if mold is suspected. There is a high presumption that your home may have mold if your home leaked and was left without power for days to weeks.
Mold remediation would be included in your cost of repairs and exceed your deductible amount. It is worth it to you to discuss this option with your insurer or an attorney advocate.
September 12th, 2017
WILL YOUR LIVING EXPENSES BE COVERED BY YOUR INSURER?
A Florida homeowners policy will 99% certainly cover wind damage from Hurricane Irma.
However, unless you specifically paid for an additional flood insurance policy, your policy will not include flood coverage.
Here comes the tricky part: your home may have been inundated with water from Irma ripping off your roof AND you were also flooded by storm surge or rising river or municipal rain water. The rain water from the wind damaged roof would make your home uninhabitable under your homeowners hurricane damage coverage. Your policy would cover your hotel stays, rental property, meals, and storage during the time your damage is assessed and repairs made. BUT if the standing water in your home is only due to rising waters and not wind damage from the hurricane, your policy will not cover your living expenses. You will need to initiate the FEMA disaster claim process ASAP.
If you don’t think you have flood coverage, then you probably don’t. Do not assume your living expenses will be covered if you experienced flooding.