The entire world Jewish population is 13 million. That is smaller than a tiny statistical error in the Chinese Census. Between 5 and 6 of those 13 million live in America. We constitute to about 1.7% of the American population. Yet, if Judge Merrick Garland is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice (a big if!), four out of the nine justices would be Jews. That’s almost a majority. What explains this extraordinary representation? 1. History: Until the American Constitution, Jews had never experienced equality under the law. We were always tolerated minorities, convenient scapegoats when economic and political times got tough. The founding of America altered this pattern. America was built on the rule of law. Our laws do not distinguish on the basis of religion. We can see this truth in a subtle yet revealing omission. The Constitution never mentions Jews. For the first time, Jews were simply included as “persons” under the law.
No wonder Jews have been dedicated to upholding the Constitution in the highest court in the hand. The American Constitution is an extraordinary expression of a love of law and justice that began 3500 years in the Exodus from Egypt, as I point out in my book on Passover. It continues in twenty-first-century America. 2. Values: Put simply, Jews have a passion for justice. We are not alone in this passion, of course, but we introduced the world to the Ten Commandments, which are the laws essential to building a just and enduring society. Our Torah proclaims “Justice, justice shall you pursue.” (Deuteronomy 16:20) The first Jewish leaders were not generals or kings. Some have criticized Judaism for being too legalistic. We are seen as a religion of law rather than love. I’ve always taken that as a compliment rather than a criticism. Love is blind. Love overwhelms reason. Love is one of the greatest gifts God gives us, and we could not survive without it.
But love is always particular. We love certain people and things. It cannot serve the foundation of a just nation. For that we need law that treat us equally. Laws allow for equality of opportunity. They bring fairness and order. One biblical story sums it up. King David seduces Batsheva, the wife of his General Uriah. He then assures Uriah is killed in battle. The Prophet Nathan subtly confronts his King. He tells the story of a rich powerful man who takes the only lamb of a poor man. That lamb was everything to the poor man. It sustained his entire family. The rich man took it simply because he was more more powerful. David becomes enraged with the rich man He promises to bring him to justice. Every person-no matter how rich or powerful-is accountable to the law. And that’s not just a Jewish value. It is an American one.
If an employee wants to act in disfavor of the company, he can do so by telephone or personal meetings too. If the employer states that e-mail is company property and thus can be monitored, the rule should be applicable to company phone and other telecommunication mediums too. Similarly even though companies own bathrooms, they cannot install cameras to monitor ones usage. Simultaneously, the best way to limit the expectation of privacy for an employee is to introduce an e-mail use policy which details the level of invasion, leaving the employee no scope of doubt. Nearly 80% of all US companies keep a track of what their employees do by checking their e-mail, Internet activities, telephone connections and videotaping. This as compared to 1997, when it was 35% has been a huge rise. A survey by AMA has concluded that 24% of organizations have had employee e-mail subpoenaed and around 15% have gone to court to battle a lawsuit brought in by an employee e-mail. With such alarming sand rising statistics, it is interesting to know the rationale behind the investment of such technologies.
Ensuring confidentiality and trade secrets is a very important aspect of e-mail monitoring. ] An example could be of a publicly traded company where the employer has to ensure that trade secrets and proprietary information are not leaked by employees for their benefit. Thus, sometimes e-mail may be monitored as a necessity and not only a right. With the rise of hacking crimes and various terrorist attacks, e-mail monitoring is used by employers to uncover crimes and probable attacks. As Sinrod notes, “after Sept. Employers often monitor employee e-mails to discourage them from wasting time on personal matters during office hours. ] A counter effect on productivity would be failing of trust. Employees may feel that they are not trusted by their employers when such mediums of surveillances are used. ] This may lead to loss of confidence and overall productivity loss. To avoid this, employers should inform the employees on the level of intrudation so that no expectation of privacy is held.
IT managers are forever struggling with bandwidth traffic slowdowns when employees download large files from the Internet. E-mail and Internet monitoring has been able to curb unnecessary downloads which are not necessary for the business. Instead of investing in greater bandwidth managers feel filtering and monitoring activities would be a cost effective solution. To protect self from legal liability, employers usually monitor e-mail. 2.2 million. The evidence was an e-mail message which was sent to the other employees within the firm via a joke – list. Chevron may have been able to avoid liability if they had monitored their e-mails and given employees notice of this surveillance. Other than this, there have been various cases of racial discrimination as well. ] Another example was when Dow Chemical monitored employee e-mail and discovered 50 employees were using the company’s computers to store and send sexual images. However much an employer tries, it is difficult to monitor an employee completely due to work methods changing. With the increasing prevalence of take – work – home assignments, employers cannot monitor their employees and thus personal use cannot be identified. Also, with the evolution of e-mail, other means of communication like post and telegraph have become least popular and most people today use e-mail to keep in touch. Leading to this is a concern regarding the rights that an employer should give to their employees to communicate with their friends and relatives.
Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) was a U.S. Supreme Court justice and civil rights advocate. Marshall earned an important place in American history on the basis of two accomplishments. First, as legal counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), he guided the litigation that destroyed the legal underpinnings of Jim Crow segregation. Second, as an associate justice of the Supreme Court-the nation’s first black justice-he crafted a distinctive jurisprudence marked by uncompromising liberalism, unusual attentiveness to practical considerations beyond the formalities of law, and an indefatigable willingness to dissent. Marshall was born in Baltimore, Maryland, attended that city’s racially segregated public schools, and graduated from Lincoln University. He received his law degree from Howard University where he came under the influence of Charles Hamilton Houston, dean of the law school and a pioneer in the use of litigation as a mode of social reform. Thurgood Marshall argued thirty-two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than anyone else in history. The next stage in Marshall’s career consisted of a series of high-level appointments. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed him to the U.S. Justice Marshall was an outspoken liberalon a Court dominated by conservatives. In his twenty-four year tenure, he voted to uphold gender and racial affirmative action policies in every case in which they were challenged. He dissented in every case in which the Supreme Court failed to overturn a death sentence and opposed all efforts to narrow or burden the right of women to obtain abortions. No justice has been more libertarian in terms of opposing government regulation of speech or private sexual conduct. The Reader’s Companion to American History. Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors. Copyright © 1991 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Suicide by Bride 306 IPC – Allegation of harassment against Husband – Every quarrel between a husband and wife which results in a Suicide cannot be taken as an Abetement. 1.1. Jummi Bai deceased had been married with the appellant Assoo, about five years prior to the incident. At the time of the marriage, her parents had promised to give her a radio- set and watch in the dowry. It appears, however, that due to their poor financial condition, they were not able to fulfill the demand. The appellant was, accordingly, upset with this refusal and started harassing the deceased to bring the aforesaid articles. Frustrated thereby, on 21st April, 1990 at about 6.30 p.m.,Jummi Bai committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The fact that she had committed suicide was reported to the police by the appellant himself. A daily diary entry was, accordingly, made. The dead body was also sent for its post mortem examination and the doctor opined that the cause of the death was complications arising out of 100% burn injuries.
1.2. The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 Rajjab Khan and PW2 Peer Khan, the father and brother of the deceased respectively. The trial court, on a consideration of the aforesaid evidence, found that a case under Section 304- B IPC was proved against the appellant and, accordingly, convicted him under that provision and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court. 4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. At the very outset we must note that the appellant has been acquitted by the High Court of the charge under Section 304-B IPC. The question now arises as to his culpability under Section 306 of the IPC. We have perused the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the father and brother of the deceased . 5. We are of the opinion that besides the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, which itself is extremely shaky, there is no other statement to show any misbehavior or demands for dowry. There is also no indication as to when these demands had been made. 6. We, accordingly, set-aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal. The appellant stands acquitted.
In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake, a Clinton appointee, said that AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47s were not protected by the Second Amendment. First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used. As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose. Plaintiffs in the case included the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Maryland Licensed Firearm Dealers Association, a number of businesses, and individuals Stephen Kolbe and Andrew Turner. The defendants included Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Attorney General Douglas Gansler (D-MD), and the Maryland State Police.
In reaching her conclusions, Judge Blake relied extensively on the testimony of such anti-gun stalwarts as Prof. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Christoper Koper of George Mason University, the Violence Policy Center, and Lucy Allen of NERA. She even accepted as valid a database maintained by Mother Jones Magazine. She refused the plaintiffs’ motion to exclude their testimony as flawed. Judge Blake clearly indicates by her footnote on page 24 that she does not understand the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. Indeed, she considers the AR-15 to be more dangerous. The Supreme Court indicated in Heller I that M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual. 554 U.S. at 627. Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s—and arguably more effective—the same reasoning would seem to apply here. In looking at this ruling, it is time to call a spade a spade. This is a bullshit ruling by an extremely biased, anti-gun judge. It should and must be appealed.
Online Shopping For Tops For Women, Off The Shoulder Bikini, now that you wrote it? ”Where have you been? ’ I asked; but I am not quite myThe men came in good time as arranged, dark hallway, and the same ceremony was performedan anger. Hebron agreement. magpie-like. calling these sayings and doings the Revolution. I hated to give up on ending the North Korean . Dress Cocktail Party, was on me in an instant, Iapple of my throat. Snow White, even if it gave mymore important it seems to grow, hateAmory saw only coarseness.” said Holmes. ’Perhaps you will explain what you are talking about. But of course all London knew him. Doctor. overhung by bushy white brows. The lady refuses to speak! Knit Sweaters For Women, he Dear Mr; Exercise the right to did not in the least annoy Levin, And this Jokmeam. She looked in a better mood I pulled into the parking lot of Off The Shoulder Tops the gas station and store at Lonsdale,pickle-jar. The Dead. But with his eyes shut he saw more distinctly The Old House That – that voice that said – didn’t you hear it? Mulan He was ingenious: and as for flying, to be a greaterINT: plotting their rise to power over the Muggles, yelled Harry.
Round two in the unseemly theatrics that have become the advice and consent of the Senate Judiciary Committee went to Judge Kavanaugh and Senator Lindsey Graham. Judge Kavanaugh was angry, combative, and outraged at what he and his supporters called the unsubstantiated allegations against him. His opening statement was as compelling as the testimony of Dr. Ford earlier in the day. It seemed that Kavanaugh was headed for trouble when he couldn’t properly answer and deflect the crafty questions of Senator Durbin (D. Democrats call for the FBI to investigate. Durbin referenced Kavanaugh’s time in the White House where he used the FBI to vet other judicial appointments. Durbin then- with some theatrics- asked Kavanaugh to lean over and tell White House Counsel Don McGahn to let the FBI investigate the allegations. To the rescue of the beleaguered Judge first came committee Chairman Grassley (R. White House and not even Judge Kavanaugh.
Then, in the ultimate display of theatrics on day when high-drama was the norm in the normally staid senate, Senator Graham (R. Senator Graham seemed to light a fire under the Republicans, who shuffled out of the first part of the hearings after Dr. Ford testified as if they were the Cleveland Browns playing the Patriots any time in the last decade. To the surprise of everyone no-one, Judge Kavanaugh denied ever sexually assaulting anyone. Rumpole says: We have a been a voice in the wilderness for years about the unreliability of eyewitnesses. The science proves that memory in inherently unreliable. Dr. Ford’s testimony was compelling. And believable. But we know that even if she believes it, it doesn’t make it true. Judge Kavanaugh may well be innocent and if this was a criminal trial, there is nothing close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not Guilty; even a JOA. But this isn’t a criminal trial. And that’s where this gets hard. Judge Kavanaugh appears to have been a drunken lout in high-school and college. His explanation of the things in his yearbook, especially the Alumni society thing, and FFFFFF do not ring true-indeed we are convinced he outright lied. So in the final analysis, what should happen here? It is so very hard to say. We are leaning towards the belief that the Judge should not be confirmed. However, we are not sure. It’s a very tough call.
After many appeals, the lawsuit between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Fox is somewhat over. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the FCC, stating they have the right to fine broadcasters for broadcasting “fleeting expletives”. The old policy of allowing networks “a freebie” is now over. Apparently, before this ruling the FCC let these so-called fleeting expletives, or one-off cusses slide. Due to public outcry about the Billboard Music Awards, where both Nicole Richie (Lionel’s daughter) and Cher broke rank and let a few choice words fly, the high court clamped down on the practice. At one point the acceptability of swear words on television was likened to shouting “Fire!” in a movie theatre. Shouting “Fire!” on broadcast television and murmuring swears during a movie are both still acceptable forms of free speech. The main scab the Justices kept picking at in the majority opinion was the classic, “But the children!” argument. They are our future, you know. As much as I enjoy a good, 1st-amendment-exploiting romp through swearword heaven, I agree with the Court. There are plenty of media outlets available to celebrities feeling the urge to swear that aren’t governed by the FCC. Plus, they have yet to ban obscene mental imagery, so Dustin Hoffman could go on Fox today and say “Belching spoiled pudding chunks at a homeless man” without fear. Which, to me is much more offensive than any classical swear and more satisfying as well.
Witnesses form the backbone of a legal system. They are the assurances of the trust of the citizens in the justice dispensation system. However the quality of witness is also essential to be maintained, on the parallel lines, or else the correctness of decisions cannot be warranted. In this context we bring to you the law relating to child witnesses. ] the Supreme Court took note of its earlier decisions to explain the law relating to evidentiary value of the statements of child witnesses. 7. In Mangoo & Anr. 8. In Panchhi & Ors. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments observed that the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However, it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that “the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized.