February 15, 1016


News Clips For The Day


https://www.yahoo.com/politics/who-will-obama-nominee-scalia-supreme-court-213450996.html

Obama's shortlist for nominees to replace Scalia includes some familiar names
Dylan Stableford
February 14, 2016


Rejecting calls from Republicans to leave the job to his successor, President Obama says he plans to nominate a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “in due time” following the conservative firebrand’s sudden death on Saturday. So who does the president plan to nominate?

According to Yahoo News Chief Political Correspondent Olivier Knox, Obama’s shortlist includes Sri Srinivasan, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit; Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who spent one year as Obama’s acting solicitor general; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; Solicitor General Don Verrilli; and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

Obama has told friends that he views nominating two women — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — to the court as a key part of his legacy. The president could now try to name a third, with Lynch and Patricia Ann Millett, who like Srinivasan is a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia circuit.

But whomever Obama decides to nominate to fill the newly vacant Supreme Court seat faces a slim chance of being confirmed, particularly in an election year.

During the GOP debate in South Carolina on Saturday night, all six Republican presidential candidates urged the Senate to block Obama’s pick.

“The Senate needs to stand strong and say, ‘We’re not going to give up the Supreme Court for a generation by allowing Barack Obama to make one more liberal appointee,” Sen. Ted Cruz said.

On Sunday, Cruz said he would “absolutely” filibuster any Obama appointee.

“This should be a decision for the people,” the Texas senator said on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.“ “Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace [Scalia], they need to win the election. But I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortions on demand, partial-birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification, and I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.”

At the debate, Donald Trump admitted that if he were in Obama’s position, he would “certainly want to try and nominate a justice.” The Republican frontrunner even offered two possible choices: Diane Sykes, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Bill Pryor, a judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Alabama’s former attorney general. Both Sykes and Pryor were nominated to appeals courts by President George W. Bush.

Back in August, Trump said that his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice, but added that he would have to rule her out for "now, at least.”

Cruz has not forgotten.

“You know, the one person he has suggested that would make a good justice is his sister, who is a court of appeals judge appointed by Bill Clinton,” he said on ABC. “She is a hard-core pro-abortion liberal judge. And he said she would make a terrific justice.”

Cruz added: “It gives you an example of the type of people he would be looking to. Donald Trump is not a conservative.



“Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace [Scalia], they need to win the election. But I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortions on demand, partial-birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification, and I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.”


These kinds of outrageous claims that “conservatives” are making, “write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution” and “strip our religious liberties,” which means denial of service to US citizens on the basis of their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, etc. – have not been threatened by any political candidate. Of course, the “religious liberties” referred to by Cruz happen to be unconstitutional actions by merchants and even governmental officials such as Kim Davis.

Davis’ refusal of marriage licenses to gay couples, in a secular legal system like ours, has been clearly deemed illegal as an abridgement of a gay couple’s rights, one issue, and a misreading of the idea of religious freedom. Lots of religious people these days don’t go along with Davis’ views. I, for one, don’t want any church setting its’ rules and dogmas above well-reasoned secular law. My father liked to say, “Your rights end where his nose begins.” In a society as large and complex as ours, if every citizen is to have the basic set of rights guaranteed in our laws, those rights must be limited, like it or not.

This concept is generally agreed upon, as well, by most fair-minded people in this country. A consensus has gradually grown in our population that gay couples, whether it is by choice or by nature, are not able to have a relationship with the opposite sex, and besides, there is nothing in the Constitution that bans the marriage of same sex couples. So there, Ms. Davis and Sen. Cruz! Keep your religious views within your church of choice, and not in the public arena.

As for the lame duck issue, see the three articles below on the very iffy matter of precedents:


http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/rubio-exaggerates-sayig-its-been-80-years-lame-duc/

Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination
By Amy Sherman on Sunday, February 14th, 2016 at 12:27 a.m.

“. . . . "I do not believe the president should appoint someone," said Rubio, a Florida senator. "And it's not unprecedented. In fact, it has been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice."

Let’s see what history shows about lame-duck presidential picks to the Supreme Court. We emailed spokespersons for Rubio and did not hear back.

. . . . Technically presidents don’t "appoint" a justice to the Supreme Court. They nominate someone who is then confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

There’s also the problem of whether Obama should be considered a lame duck or not. Some would say Obama isn’t a lame duck until after Election Day in November when his successor is chosen. Others might say all second-term presidents are lame ducks because they know they won’t serve again.

"The definition has evolved," said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Decades ago, the lame-duck label was applied to a president after an election, but the term has changed over time to include any officeholder in his or her last term.

Either way, election-year Supreme Court nominations are rare. [SEE: “http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/election-year-nominations-are-rare/.] Going through a Supreme Court confirmation battle in the middle of a presidential election has happened just five times in the past 100 years. The last one occurred in 1988.

That year, a Democratic Senate confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Anthony M. Kennedy in a 97-0 vote. He was nominated on Nov. 30, 1987.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s attempt to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice was contentious and spawned the “Thurmond Rule.” The move was withdrawn, as was a separate nomination of Homer Thornberry to the court.

In January 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy. He was confirmed less than two weeks later.

In February 1932, it took just nine days for Benjamin Cardozo, nominated by Herbert Hoover, to be confirmed.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson nominated two justices: Louis Brandeis, on Jan. 28; and John Clarke, on July 14. While it took just 10 days for Mr. Clarke to be confirmed, Mr. Brandeis was not confirmed for over four months.”


http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/what-is-the-thurmond-rule/

The Death of Justice Scalia: Reactions and Analysis -- What Is the ‘Thurmond Rule’?
7:11 PM ETFeb 13, 2016Sat Feb 13 2016 14:11:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Daniel Victor

“The Thurmond Rule — an unwritten rule, not legally binding — holds that a judicial nominee should not be confirmed in the months leading up to an election. It has its origins in June 1968, when Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, blocked President Lyndon B. Johnson’s appointment of Justice Abe Fortas as chief justice.

It is not an actual rule, which means there is no way to adjudicate how close to an election it applies, or whether it applies at all. In June 2012, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a Republican and the majority leader, invoked it to block President Obama’s nominations to circuit courts. In December 2015, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, argued that the rule was invalid.

A 2012 study by the Brookings Institution showed that the pace of judicial nominations and confirmations slowed, but did not stop, in four previous election years.”



Several Senate and House traditionally applied rules are not based in any laws. I’m thinking of the gerrymandering on both state and federal levels to disenfranchise undesirable voters, this Thurmond Rule, the endless, unfair, cumbersome delaying tactic called a filibuster (though it can be entertaining to watch on TV), and the overly close examination of presidential nominees’ personal views, etc. All these things make actions of the Legislature overly slow and basically unfair, as they block the passage of laws/nominations that would help the larger proportion of our society and restrict the “rights” of the wealthiest 1%. Republicans don’t like that!

In this case, the “conservative” elements are also – and have been since his election – truly attacking Obama personally on every level and in every instance. I do believe it is based on his race, rather than on his liberal views, and on the infuriating fact that he managed to win the Presidency by a landslide both times he ran. What a spoil sport! He also has kowtowed to no one. How annoying! His much despised use of Executive actions, moreover, is a practice which has occurred down through most if not all of our history as a nation, and by Presidents of both parties. Let’s face it, he has boldly made changes which the Republican dominated Legislature blocked, earning them the name “the party of NO.” There’s nothing new here.




http://theweek.com/speedreads/538379/samsung-warns-customers-not-discuss-personal-information-front-smart-tvs

Samsung warns customers not to discuss personal information in front of smart TVs
February 9, 2015


Samsung has confirmed that its "smart TV" sets are listening to customers' every word, and the company is warning customers not to speak about personal information while near the TV sets.

The company revealed that the voice activation feature on its smart TVs will capture all nearby conversations. The TV sets can share the information, including sensitive data, with Samsung as well as third-party services.

The news comes after Shane Harris at The Daily Beast pointed out a troubling line in Samsung's privacy policy: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party."

Samsung has now issued a new statement clarifying how the voice activation feature works. "If a consumer consents and uses the voice recognition feature, voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search," Samsung said in a statement. "At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV."

The company added that it does not retain or sell the voice data, but it didn't name the third party that translates users' speech.

Update, Feb. 10: Samsung has updated its policy and named the third party in question, Nuance Communications, Inc. Meghan DeMaria



Nuance Communications, Inc. Meghan DeMaria
http://shop.nuance.com/store/nuanceus/Custom/pbPage.responsive-paid-search-landing-page

Speech Recognition Software
Dragon NaturallySpeaking Premium 13

•The world’s best-selling speech recognition software
•Work in a relaxed hands-free mode
•Dragon Premium gets you up-to 99.9% accuracy out-of-the-box


“The TV sets can share the information, including sensitive data, with Samsung as well as third-party services. …. Samsung has now issued a new statement clarifying how the voice activation feature works. "If a consumer consents and uses the voice recognition feature, voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search," Samsung said in a statement. "At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV." The company added that it does not retain or sell the voice data, but it didn't name the third party that translates users' speech. Update, Feb. 10: Samsung has updated its policy and named the third party in question, Nuance Communications, Inc. Meghan DeMaria”


This information, though not specifying Samsung, was in an article some months back, so it isn’t new. That article said that some TVs, like some computers, can take pictures of you sitting there in your nightie (or worse) also, and that even your refrigerator may be “smart” in this way, as well. Don’t have an argument with your boyfriend in the kitchen!




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/peyton-manning-sexual-assault-allegations-tennessee-athletic-trainer-jamie-naughright/

Peyton Manning cited in suit alleging "hostile sexual environment"
CBS NEWS
February 15, 2016, 7:08 AM

Photograph -- Tennessee quarterback Peyton Manning takes the field for his last home game on Saturday, Nov. 29, 1997 in Knoxville, Tenn. Tennessee defeated Vanderbilt 17-10. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Play VIDEO -- Peyton Manning on Super Bowl 50 victory, his future


Six former students filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Tennessee last week, according to The Tennessean newspaper, claiming the athletic department has long condoned a "hostile sexual environment."

The lawsuit, filed under Title 9, references one allegation involving Peyton Manning during his time as a star college quarterback at Tennessee, reports CBS Sports Network's Dana Jacobson.

The New York Daily News reported this weekend on legal documents they obtained, originally from 2003, which detail an incident in 1996 when Manning was a sophomore at Tennessee. Athletic trainer Jamie Naughright was evaluating the then-19-year-old when he allegedly placed his exposed genitals on her head.

Manning denied the trainer's claims, saying he was simply "mooning" another athlete who was in the room. Naughright sued the university and settled out of court, which reportedly included a mutual non-disclosure agreement with Manning. She also resigned from her job at the university.

Manning was the first pick in the 1998 NFL draft. Two years later, the quarterback co-authored a book with his father, former NFL quarterback Archie Manning, in which he described the 1996 "mooning" incident as "crude maybe, but harmless," and described the female trainer as having a "vulgar mouth." Naughright sued again -- and settled again -- out of court in 2003.

The documents that surfaced over the weekend were originally filed in 2003 as part of Naughright's lawsuit against Peyton, Archie, their book publisher and ghostwriter. According to the Daily News, the court documents were never widely released, although USA Today reported on their contents.

Despite the 39-year-old's Super Bowl win last weekend, his clean image has been under the microscope. The NFL is investigating a December report from Al Jazeera America in which Manning is accused of involvement with a performance enhancing drug, human growth hormone.

"I welcome that investigation. And I understand when an allegation is made, that the NFL has no choice to investigate it. I get that," Manning told CBS Sports' Bill Cowher earlier this month. "But I can tell you what they're going to find. A big fat nothing. It's been completely fabricated as far as the allegations of what they suggested that I did. It's been nothing but pure junk."

CBS News reached out to Manning and his family, the University of Tennessee, as well as the athletic trainer who made the original allegations, but no one has responded.



“The New York Daily News reported this weekend on legal documents they obtained, originally from 2003, which detail an incident in 1996 when Manning was a sophomore at Tennessee. Athletic trainer Jamie Naughright was evaluating the then-19-year-old when he allegedly placed his exposed genitals on her head. Manning denied the trainer's claims, saying he was simply "mooning" another athlete who was in the room. Naughright sued the university and settled out of court, which reportedly included a mutual non-disclosure agreement with Manning. She also resigned from her job at the university. …. Two years later, the quarterback co-authored a book with his father, former NFL quarterback Archie Manning, in which he described the 1996 "mooning" incident as "crude maybe, but harmless," and described the female trainer as having a "vulgar mouth." Naughright sued again -- and settled again -- out of court in 2003. The documents that surfaced over the weekend were originally filed in 2003 as part of Naughright's lawsuit against Peyton, Archie, their book publisher and ghostwriter. According to the Daily News, the court documents were never widely released, although USA Today reported on their contents. …. The NFL is investigating a December report from Al Jazeera America in which Manning is accused of involvement with a performance enhancing drug, human growth hormone.”


Athleticism simply isn’t the pure-hearted, character building activity that so many in this culture praise so highly. I personally think that if they want to watch something that amounts to mock warfare and ruthless aggression, especially in the case of football and hockey, they should admit that their fascination with it is little better than that of the Roman masses who watched people and animals being slaughtered in the grand coliseums that dot the countryside wherever the Romans ruled. The love of that kind of activity is an instinct, pagan and even barbaric in nature, and as a result our athletic heroes are given the privilege of abusing others with no penalty. Too bad the court fight was too difficult for Manning et al, in both of the occasions when Naughright sued, causing them to settle rather than fighting it. Laws are needed, but sometimes a lawsuit is better.

Why is it that “group-think” is so rarely benign? Peyton Manning fans are, I’m sure, excusing him for the disgusting incident because he fulfills their only real criterion – he plays ball very well. They consider that “placing his genitals on her head” (that’s really weird sounding to me) is his right as a PC (c. 1960, meaning “privileged character.” Along with the generally ignorant nature of much of our cultural heritage – The Walking Dead, dog fighting, mud wrestling, and more -- this deification of violent people is obscene to me. I don’t have the same reaction toward basketball, baseball, field hockey and horse racing, though in all of those there have been incidents of doping, sexual exploits, racism, even occasional fighting among the players, etc. Those sports aren’t dominated by violence, however. To me they are exciting, but not damaging, in most cases.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-inflammatory-german-migrant-rape-story-made-up/

Report: Inflammatory German migrant rape story "made up"
CBS/AP
January 31, 2016, 11:26 AM

Photograph -- German right-wing protesters stage a demonstration in the town of Buedingen about 20 miles southwest of Frankfurt, January 30, 2016. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach REUTERS/KAI PFAFFENBACH
Play VIDEO -- Germany struggles to absorb Syrian refugees


BERLIN - Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted last week that the tale of a Russian-German girl's disappearance "was hushed up for a long time for some reason" and added she didn't disappear "voluntarily."

He was responding to the story of "Lisa," a 13-year-old German-Russian girl in Berlin who had been reported missing by her parents on January 11, which happened to be right as the hysteria over a series of hundreds of sexual assaults in Cologne on New Years Eve by "Arab" men had reached its peak.

After turning up again about 30 hours later, "Lisa," whose name has not been released to protect her privacy, said "Middle Eastern" or "North African" men had sexually assaulted her.

The Guardian reports German prosecutors say trained specialists got "Lisa" to admit three days after her initial claims that she had made the whole thing up. Reuters also reports German officials saying they had debunked her story.

Despite warnings by German officials to "not instrumentalize this matter politically," both Russian officials and the German far right seized on the matter to criticize Germany's migrant policies.

Europe's largest economy is struggling under the weight of the more than one million migrants and refugees it's accepted into the country in the last year.

Germany's vice chancellor called Sunday for a nationalist party to be put under observation by the government agency that tracks extremists after its leader suggested that police should be allowed to shoot refugees trying to enter the country.

Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel told Bild newspaper that "there is massive doubt that (the Alternative for Germany party) stand by the free democratic order of the republic."

Frauke Petry, the head of the party also known by its German initials AfD, told the Mannheimer Morgen daily on Saturday that a border police officer "must stop illegal border crossings, and also make use of his firearm if necessary." Pushed by the newspaper for more, she continued that "no policeman wants to fire on a refugee and I don't want that either. But the last resort includes the use of armed force."

Germany saw nearly 1.1 million asylum-seekers enter the country last year and the AfD has been gaining in support as more people question whether the government will be able to deal with the influx.

Joerg Radek, vice-chairman of the GdP police union, slammed Petry's suggestion, saying no German police officer would shoot at a refugee.

"Whoever proposes such a radical approach apparently wants to overturn the rule of law and exploit the police," he said in a statement.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, meanwhile, received support from an unlikely source for her handling of Germany's refugee crisis.

Baden-Wuerttemberg governor Winfried Kretschmann, a member of the Greens party that is in opposition at the federal level, told Berlin's Tagesspiegel newspaper the chancellor's insistence on "working step by step" on a European solution to the refugee crisis was the correct path.

"Which of her counterparts in the EU will hold Europe together if she fails?" he asked. "Far and wide there's nobody in sight. Therefore I pray every day that the chancellor remains healthy."

Europe has endured a huge influx of migrants, most of whom undertake a dangerous journey in search of a better life. On Saturday, at least 37 people drowned, including children and babies, when their boat capsized during the short trip from Turkey to Greece.



“After turning up again about 30 hours later, "Lisa," whose name has not been released to protect her privacy, said "Middle Eastern" or "North African" men had sexually assaulted her. The Guardian reports German prosecutors say trained specialists got "Lisa" to admit three days after her initial claims that she had made the whole thing up. Reuters also reports German officials saying they had debunked her story. Despite warnings by German officials to "not instrumentalize this matter politically," both Russian officials and the German far right seized on the matter to criticize Germany's migrant policies. …. Germany's vice chancellor called Sunday for a nationalist party to be put under observation by the government agency that tracks extremists after its leader suggested that police should be allowed to shoot refugees trying to enter the country. Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel told Bild newspaper that "there is massive doubt that (the Alternative for Germany party) stand by the free democratic order of the republic." …. "Which of her counterparts in the EU will hold Europe together if she fails?" he asked. "Far and wide there's nobody in sight. Therefore I pray every day that the chancellor remains healthy."


I am not imagining the existence of an apparently sharp turn to the right, that has appeared in both Europe and the US, and I agree that it is at least as dangerous to free governments as Communism. There is a problem with any settled society like Germany having a truly massive influx of outsiders, who need jobs, housing or food. Too often they end up in refugee camps which are highly segregated from other people. They will become restive and so will the natives. I expect a certain amount of fighting, even rape and murder, but the law has to catch the criminals and imprison them, and it shouldn’t happen in massive numbers as it apparently did at Cologne. Catching and prosecuting criminals, while teaching the language and giving job training, would help the refugees and the Germans as well. The problem with being a refugee is that they need the means with which to blend with the larger culture, rather than merely handouts of food on a daily basis.

Hopefully, in that somewhat idealized situation, the German culture will survive as a civilized unit. The same is true for any country including the US, though we have much more land area than most European nations do for settlements. An unwanted minority can move elsewhere, and thus “dilute” the situation in a given neighborhood to reduce violence and the action of hate groups. One of the things I really fear is the possibility of order between groups breaking down. Going in with tanks and slaughtering the minority group isn’t the way, but merging them culturally so there will be peace is, in my view. I agree with Gabriel that Alternative for Germany is at least as untrustworthy as the Syrian refugees in the end. While frightened or hate filled civilians will question the peaceful path, it is still not only more just to all, but safer. Good luck to the Germans. They’re one of our most loyal natural allies, culturally and politically.