WOODSTOCK, Ill., Aug. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- OWC; a leading technology and new frontiers innovator, bringing new capabilities to Earth for Mac & PC users since 1988, and one of the world's most respected providers of Memory, External Drives, SSDs, Mac & PC docking solutions and performance upgrade kits, today announced that the Envoy Pro Thunderbolt 3 external SSD will be going into space and returning with a leading space exploration developer's upcoming launch. OWC is holding a contest for creatives to submit their videos, songs and images for consideration, for the chance to have that creative content included on the drive when it is sent into space.

Entrants are challenged to show the team at OWC what they've created. Participants can submit a video, a song, image(s), or any other type of content they have produced using an OWC product. Entries should be uploaded to Facebook, Twitter and/or Instagram calling out @PoweredbyOWC and using #OWCInSpace in order for all content to be properly evaluated by the OWC team. Posts should mention which OWC product was used in the creative process. Winners will be contacted by DM, so be sure to follow @PoweredbyOWC on those platforms.

The contest will begin accepting submissions on August 10th and will do so through August 21st.All submissions will be evaluated by executive and creative team members at OWC. Selected winning entrants will be uploaded onto the OWC Envoy Pro and launched into orbit with the September 2020 launch.

Prizes:One grand-prize winning entry will receive a 16" MacBook Pro, an LG 32" IPS 4K Thunderbolt monitor, and a specially-engraved OWC Envoy Pro. The top ten first-prize winning selected content providers will receive a specially engraved version of the OWC Envoy Pro drive. All winning submissions will receive a certificate of participation and a commemorative patch following the rocket launch and return. All prizes will be distributed following the launch and return of the rocket.

Contest Guidelines:Contestants are asked to upload an original video or song between one to two minutes in length, or an image or multiple images. Show OWC your out-of-this-world work, and show the world why OWC solutions are the key to unlocking true creative potential.

Guidelines for submission: all entries should be English-language content only, or if in another language, please use English subtitles. All voting results will be final, and the winners will be notified by DM, so be sure to follow @PoweredbyOWC on Facebook, Twitter and/or Instagram. Entering the contest is easy, just post content beginning August 10th.

For contest details visit: OWC in Space. Key points are:

"We have known for many years that our customers include some of the most talented and creative people around, and we want to give them the chance to have a part in this adventure with us," said Larry O'Connor, Founder and CEO, Other World Computing. "OWC is proud to provide storage and upgrades that keep our customers' content and creations safe for years, and we can't wait to see the entries, get them on the space-bound Envoy Pro, and back here to Earth!"

Send your family into space In addition to the contest, OWC will also be sending photos into space! Open to everyone 18 and older, the photos can be of anything that is significant to the photographer a family photo, a pet, a travel image, a selfie something important that you'd like to share with the galaxy! The collected images will be uploaded to the Envoy Pro, and contributors will receive a certificate of participation following space travel. Images should be within community standards; OWC will not utilize nor acknowledge any images outside the parameters. Anyone submitting an image will need a verifiable email in order to receive certificate of participation. Images can be uploaded through the OWC website.

Open to legal US residents 18 and over. Limit one entry per person. Entrants must comply with the submission policy. OWC reserves the right to disqualify any submission that does not follow the guidelines and content restrictions listed in the terms and conditions. OWC reserves the right to utilize every entry for promotional purposes. Winners will be notified via DM; be sure to follow @PoweredbyOWC on Facebook, Twitter and/or Instagram. Prizes are nontransferable and no substitution will be made. Entrants agree to receive OWC special offers via email. Void where prohibited. For submission policy information please visit: https://eshop.macsales.com/service/ideasolicitation.cfm.

OWC respects our community's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, in accordance with our community standards, we reserve the right to reject all material that is obscene, offensive, insulting, derogatory, defamatory, and intimidating to any and all classes of individuals.

About OWC Other World Computing (OWC), founded in 1988, is dedicated to helping Mac and PC enthusiasts do more and reach higher. We believe in sustainability and OWC solutions are truly built to last, go the distance, and enable users to maximize the technology investment they have already made. OWC's operation provides leadership in business sustainability, with our headquarters among the first in the world awarded LEED Platinum OWC features an award-winning technical support team as well as an unparalleled library of step-by-step DIY and informational videos. From the home desktop to the enterprise rack, to the audio recording studio to the motion picture set and beyond, there should be no compromise, and that is why OWC is here.

Get social: follow OWC on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter.

2020 Other World Computing, Inc. All rights reserved. Apple and Mac are the trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Intel and Thunderbolt are trademarks of Intel Corporation registered in the U.S. and/or other countries. Other marks may be the trademark or registered trademark property of their respective owners.

#Thunderbolt3 @getthunderbolt

SOURCE OWC

Read the original here:

OWC Sending Customer Content to Outer Space on the Envoy Pro - PRNewswire

CINCINNATI, Aug. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- As part of its commitment to support equity, diversity and inclusion within the journalism industry, the Scripps Howard Foundation will award a total of $600,000 to institutions of higher education to enhance or create programs that will inspire high school students to embark on journalism careers.

The Foundation will host a competitive application process to select two institutions, which will each receive $100,000 a year over three years.

The Foundation, the philanthropic organization of The E.W. Scripps Company (NASDAQ: SSP), is seeking to fund two programs that will:

The programs will be funded through a generous gift from Eli and Jaclynn Scripps and Jonathan and Brooke Scripps.

"Advancing equity, diversity and inclusion within the journalism industry is a priority of the Scripps Howard Foundation, its benefactors and its parent company, The E.W. Scripps Company," said Scripps Howard Foundation President and CEO Liz Carter. "We know the industry has a long way to go toward hiring talent and editorial staff that reflects the make-up of its increasingly diverse audiences. We believe these programs, with their emphasis on mentorship and real-world reporting experience, are an important step toward that goal."

The Foundation and its parent company, Scripps, have committed to increasing diversity in journalism through a variety of programs. More information about Scripps' equity, diversity and inclusion approach can be found here.

The deadline to submit a Letter of Intent is Sept. 15, 2020. The Foundation will review those responses and invite a select group to respond to a full Request for Proposals (RFP). The programs are expected to launch by the 2021-2022 academic year.

More information on how to submit a Letter of Intent can be found here.

About the Scripps Howard FoundationTheScripps Howard Foundationsupports philanthropic causes important to The E.W. Scripps Company (NASDAQ: SSP) and the communities it serves, with a special emphasis on excellence in journalism. At the crossroads of the classroom and the newsroom, the Foundation is a leader in supporting journalism education, scholarships, internships, minority recruitment and development, literacy and First Amendment causes. The Scripps Howard Awards stand as one of the industry's top honors for outstanding journalism. The Foundation improves lives and helps build thriving communities. It partners with Scripps brands to create awareness of local issues and supports impactful organizations to drive solutions.

SOURCE The E.W. Scripps Company

http://www.scripps.com

Go here to read the rest:

Scripps Howard Foundation to award $600,000 to advance diversity in journalism - PRNewswire

Are we going to tell parents they have to choose between their jobs or watching over their children?

Are we going to help the struggling middle class and small-business owner or give another round of tax cuts to the wealthy so they can buy a baby blue Lamborghini and more stock?

Will we offer refuge to persecuted families from other lands seeking a part of the American dream? Or just announce that dream is dead. Doors shut.

Are we going to ensure that every eligible American can vote, vote safely and have that vote counted? Or are we the country that will do our best to make sure that the rich and well-off, with currently approved skin tones, are the ones who control the future?

Are we going to do everything we possibly can to keep foreign interference out of our elections? Or just accept that the foreign hackers are here, well entrenched, welcomed by those in power and active? So what?

Are we going to continue to be that country whose top law enforcement official sends jackbooted thugs into cities to beat up protesters and snubs his nose at members of Congress questioning his actions? Or are we going to realize that law and order and the Constitution, including the First Amendment, are compatible.

Will we be the people who provide proper personal protective gear for medical workers and first responders? Or will we be the country that tolerates corruption running rampant in procurement and contracting, advocates ineffective and dangerous treatments, and assures people all is well when it isnt?

Will we hold everyone to the same rule of law or will we permit the powerful and favored few to become wealthy beyond imagination at our expense?

Are we going to rebuild our roads, bridges, ports and electric grid? Or do we spend the money on big corporations, hoping they will build a little in exchange for becoming too big to fail?

Are we going to help save the world from extreme temperatures, famines, droughts, flooding, plagues and dramatic loss of species? Or will we work with other nations to stop manmade damage to the environment?

Do we want to close our borders to those who werent born Americans? Or do we want to encourage young scholars to come to America, study in our universities, learn our culture and help make more corners of the Earth better off, giving back to us as much as they get along the way?

Do we want to know that what our political leaders tell us is the truth, even when it is unpleasant, or continue to shrug our shoulders at what we are told because everyone knows it is all lies?

Do we want continued outrage and drama and titillation? Or do we seek measured response, competence, fairness and civility?

See more here:

McFeatters: What kind of country will America be? - The Columbian

Hyper partisan politics and our divided nation make it easier than ever to vilify anyone, any time in any way. In the words of Michael Corleone, If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.

Used figuratively here, of course, but that is what cancel culture has wrought in todays society.

While cancellation may seek to stifle speech, it causes social and economic destruction as well. It projects permanence and public shame for its targets whether deserved or not. And it promotes a kind of techno tyranny against which we all should be vigilant.

CABOT PHILLIPS: 'CANCEL CULTURE' DISTORTS HISTORY TO PORTRAY US AS EVIL NATION THAT MUST BE TRANSFORMED

Cancel culture is not new. So lets call it what it is: a coeval form of character assassination that has gone way too far. Almost void for vagueness, it describes at the same time the campaigns against Ellen DeGeneres and Nick Cannon, and the crusades against conservative talkers, impolitic professors and lesser-known left-wing opinionators. It even blames a newlywed couple for holding their destination wedding at an historic antebellum plantation. The list is long and growing.

Technology today empowers anyone everyone to become their own media outlet. It has liberated our ability to publish widely and without reserve and has allowed opinionsthemselvesto be bountiful, ubiquitous and cheap.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Given such a surfeit, measuring the value of a voice has been reduced to a simple integer: the number of viewers that can be engaged. Validation does not depend upon principle or prescience and neither vision nor veracity seems to count for much anymore. Its all about the looks and the likes of those who follow.

Consider the litany of celebrities who endorse, promote and recommend products, services and viewpoints via social media. And countless others who aspire to be influencers by being louder, lewder or loftier than anyone else in the Twittersphere or on Facebook.

What trades for value today in the marketplace of ideas is a counterfeit notion of public discourse. But free expression of ideas is the standard currency. Freedom of speech, without threat of government regulation, is a defining feature of American democracy firmly enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

With very few exceptions, government restraint is not what most Americans fear.

We are free to write, speak, protest against or in favor of just about anything or anyone in our society.

Our Constitution, as viewed through decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, permits us to burn the flag, kneel at the national anthem, or call the president anything but a child of God all with the right to bear arms at the same time.

It protects us when we disagree with Supreme Court decisions, a controversial waror legislation that cuts to our very core. Say what you want in America, just dont yell fire in a crowded theater and the First Amendment will protect your speech.

All it takes is access to social media and you, too, can cancel your enemies of choice with impunity.

Indeed, the true power of censorship rests with the people not the government. So we should not be surprised that, today, private actors are empowered to enforce censorship or cancellation over those who express unpopular opinions.

As such, we have come to fear those who trade in hate speech and hanging by hashtag to silence and destroy the lives and livelihoods of others. Whether Left, Right, Black or White it makes no difference. Because all it takes is access to social media and you, too, can cancel your enemies of choice with impunity whether they be caustics, cynics or merely clumsy communicators.

In a bygone era, we watched similar word-of-mouth campaigns conducted under the guise of boycotts and blacklists.Both practices could be sinister assassins of brand and character, indelibly bruising a reputation and good name. Its hard to find anyone that upholds being boycotted as a badge of honor, although being blacklisted might have some cachet in progressive circles, akin to a political purple heart.

We have seen the dispossessed use boycotts as a political and economic spear against status quo and conservative elements who resisted change. Products, eventsand programs were boycotted to publicly convey moral opposition to anything that was not correct.It was one of the few weapons the powerless could wield to make their point effectively, requiring little more than a cause and an object. Think Selma and Montgomery.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., gives a resigned shrug at being unable to get across with one of his "point of order" interruptions, during the Senate Investigation Subcommittee hearing, in Washington, D.C., April 30, 1954. Pvt. G. David Schine was in the witness chair at the time. (AP Photo/WF)

Blacklists, conversely, were among several tools used by the entrenched establishment to arrest the momentum of people with contrary views. Those with power and wherewithal, usually on the Right, could isolate, insulate and shield their vested interests from the progress of others toward equity and inclusion. There were, of course, other ways to disenfranchise dissent. Think Joseph McCarthy and the Red Scare.

Today, a number of marquee advertisers have joined boycotts against prominent tech and media outlets. Their decision is a patent rejection of certain content on the one hand, and a latent acceptance of cancellation on the other. Whatever the intent, it comports well within the cancel culture zeitgeist.

If their actions lead to discourse and that discourse leads to new directions, then all should be forgiven. But if the boycotts yield resistance to new ways to communicate then what has been accomplished?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Railing against cancellation, whether from the Left or the Right, is like spilling hot coffee on your dark blue suit.It may burn you up on the inside, but no one cares about it on the outside.

Restraint is the best way to vitiate the vitriol of cancel culture. And like free expression, that is a matter of individual liberty, violently protected by our Constitution.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM ADONIS HOFFMAN

Read more:

Adonis Hoffman: Cancel culture is techno tyranny it gives everyone the power to do this - Fox News

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties. Cases in the series can be found by issue and by judge at this link.

Trump Sixth Circuit judge Chad Readler cast the deciding vote to reverse a district court and rule that a government security officer had qualified immunity and could not be sued for excessive use of force in responding to a persons protest against government officials. The July 2020 decision is Sevy v Barach.

Anthony Sevy went to a Michigan state courthouse to pay a $10 parking ticket. When he tried to pay with a debit card, he was told he would have to pay an additional $1.75 processing fee. He refused and later returned with $10 worth of pennies as a form of protest, which officials refused to accept. Things escalated and two security officers became involved. According to Sevy, one of those officers, Philip Barach, grabbed him as he was leaving, threw him to the ground, and choked him until he lost consciousness while he was placed under arrest. When he awoke, he was handcuffed and taken to an elevator where, Sevy explained, Barach threw him to the ground and knocked his head against the side of the elevator. Sevy was charged with disorderly conduct, to which he pleaded no contest, and was allowed to go home.

Sevy then proceeded to sue the officers in federal court, claiming Fourth Amendment excessive force and First Amendment retaliation. The district court granted qualified immunity to the other officer but denied it to Barach, who then appealed.

All three judges ruled against Barach on the Fourth Amendment immunity claim, either based on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction. In a 2-1 vote with Readler providing the deciding vote, however, the majority reversed the district court and ruled that Barach should get immunity on the First Amendment claim. In order to overcome qualified immunity, a person must show that clearly established constitutional rights were violated. The majority maintained that Sevys First Amendment claim was not clearly established because he could point to no caselaw establishing a right to recover on a First Amendment retaliation theory for excessive use of force in executing an arrest.

Judge Karen Nelson Moore strongly dissented. Sevys First Amendment right to protest and criticize government officials, Moore explained, is clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know that he could not use any force to retaliate against an individual for the exercise of that speech. Moore continued that [a]mple precedent supports the clarity of Sevys rights, and that a reasonable officer cannot claim that they would be surprised to learn that the use of physical force in retaliation for the exercise of those First Amendment rights was a constitutional violation. A previous decision addressing identical action, as the majority seemed to be demanding, was simply not necessary according to Moore, and the decision should have been affirmed.

As a result of Readlers deciding vote, however, Sevy will not be able to pursue his First Amendment retaliation claims. The case is yet another example of an appeals court decision made possible by a Trump nominee that reversed a lower court and dismissed a claim without trial against a law enforcement official for excessive use of force, in this case in retaliation for the exercise of a First Amendment right to protest.

Read the rest here:

Trump Judge Casts Deciding Vote to Grant Qualified Immunity on First Amendment Retaliation Claim: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People For the...

That March day, on the other side of the bridge stood hundreds of Alabama state troopers, sheriffs deputies, and mounted possemen (white locals deputized by Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark). They were armed with rifles, tear gas, batons, and cattle prods. It would be detrimental to your safety to continue this march, Alabama State Police Major John Cloud announced. And Im saying this is an unlawful assembly. You are to disperse.

The subsequent violence became known as Bloody Sunday, and the shock waves it sent across the country transformed the national debate about voting rights for Black Americans.

The words that echo in 2020 are This is an unlawful assembly. This summer, police in Oregon have been declaring riots almost every night. And Oregon is not even on the cutting edge: The mayor of one southern hamlet, Graham, North Carolina, recently suspended all protests, out of a professed fear that demonstrations against Confederate monuments would lead to violence. Similarly, the troopers who brutalized the crowd of unarmed men, women, and children on Bloody Sunday saw themselves as enforcers of the law. But, textually, the words unlawful assembly embody a tension, even a contradictionbecause the First Amendment, in its very terms, protects the right of the people peaceably to assemble. So unlawful assembly is like illegal writing or forbidden religious exercise: There surely may be such a thing, but, in each case, the burden has to be on the authorities to explain why this assembly, this writing, this religious exercise is an exception to the broad protection afforded to these important political rights.

Read: How Martin Luther King Jr. recruited John Lewis

By the logic of unlawful assembly, John Lewis had it coming. He and the marchers had gathered without permission. They had blocked a highway. Told to go home, they stayed. And violence followed. If you want to get technical, the marchers didnt commit the violenceit was committed by the police and the local white toughs who hung around the fringes of the march. But the marchers had gathered in a place where the police didnt want them. As one local white official explained to Martin Luther King Jr. in the aftermath of the march, Everywhere you have been, there has been violence.

Some scholars have argued recently that Americans have lost sight of peaceable assembly as an important constitutional right. One of them is Tabatha Abu El-Haj, a professor at the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, whom I spoke with last week. Abu El-Haj has written extensively about the First Amendment and the right to assemble in particular, including a 2009 article called The Neglected Right of Assembly. Abu El-Haj explained to me that while England maintained a relatively tight leash on popular assemblies, the experience of the American Revolution convinced early Americans of the importance of the people out of doors as part of citizenship and political participation. Marches, open-air meetings, and protests were routinely held on public property during the 18th and 19th centuries. Not until 1914, in fact, did New York, by then a city of 2 million, even begin to require permits for these marches.

Read more from the original source:

The Whole Concept of Unlawful Assembly Is a Mess - The Atlantic

Yes, sir, you are racist.

In fact, there is no other word to appropriately describe the rhetoric spewed by Leelanau County Road Commissioner Tom Eckerle last week.

Eckerles first utterance, a vile reference to those ns in Detroit during the preamble to a public meeting, probably was enough for us all to get the picture. That was before the 75-year-old Suttons Bay resident confirmed his bigotry to the world by doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his previous racist statements.

It appears Mr. Eckerle hasnt met a reporter to whom he wont confirm his racism with an encore barrage of n-word laced recitations of his world view.

In several instances, Eckerle coupled escalations of his rhetoric with claims he is not a racist.

We beg to differ.

His right to espouse such repugnant, ignorant and foul beliefs is protected by the First Amendment. But freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from repercussions.

We were heartened by the immediate, and decisive reaction by Leelanau County residents who, when news of Eckerles rhetoric broke, denounced his behavior and pledged to remove him from office through a recall if he didnt leave of his own volition.

And for about a day it appeared an arduous recall process would be necessary as Eckerle declared he had no plans to resign.

The only other way to boot an elected official from office is through executive action by the governor, and we appreciate Gov. Gretchen Whitmers reluctance to step between public officials and their constituents.

Eckerle and his behavior provides an opportunity for a countywide statement of values either through public declarations and reforms or at the ballot box.

We were relieved when Eckerle reversed course and loosened his stubborn grip on the office he isnt fit to hold.

The semi-retired farmer, who is two years into a six-year term on the county road board, told a Record-Eagle reporter late Friday he plans to forfeit his seat. Not because of the nationwide backlash. Or because his racism has dealt irreparable damage to his community. No, Eckerle said he will resign because he doesnt want to burden a newly-hired, soon-to-start road commission manager with the problems he created.

Thats sure thoughtful from a guy who a day ago seemed hell-bent on digging a pit big enough not just to bury himself, but to take down Leelanau County with him.

We hope all elected and appointed officials pay close attention to the lessons Eckerle presented them. Not the racist dog whistles he spends so much time repeating. No, the lesson here is one of public service.

Holding elected office comes with a bundle of sacrifices time, stress and self interest to name a few.

Self interest is the one on display this week in Leelanau County. Tom Eckerle showed us all how not so serve the constituents who relied upon him to represent them while in office.

He reminded us that some people simply are unfit for office.

The experience also begs for introspection from us all. How we respond to those who casually seed conversations with racial slurs and other more covert racism matters.

Silence is support.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Follow this link:

Editorial: Racist is the only word to describe what we witnessed - Traverse City Record Eagle

Last month, the Supreme Court wrapped up its 2019-20 term with a flurry of significant rulings.

The court confirmed that Congress and state attorneys general may subpoena third parties for evidence when legitimately investigating a sitting president; held that the executive branch must engage in reasoned decision-making when rescinding administrative protections for a vulnerable population (i.e., beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program); and defined the scope of the presidents power to remove officials from high office.

The court also clarified that federal anti-discrimination employment protections extend to LGBTQ workers; held that states may punish members of the electoral college who do not vote for the candidate they pledged to support; determined that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within a Creek Nation Indian reservation; emphasized that the First Amendment right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs contains broad anti-discrimination guarantees; and reaffirmed that states may not undermine abortion rights by enacting laws that purport to protect womens health but in fact are designed to close clinics where abortions are performed.

Each of these rulings deserves its own column. But lets start with five clear lessons that may be drawn from the courts historic term.

1) This is Chief Judge John Robertss court. When Sandra Day OConnor retired, Anthony Kennedy replaced her as the swing justice i.e., the justice most likely to swing back and forth between the courts conservative and liberal wings. Now that Kennedy has retired, Roberts has replaced him as the courts swing justice. Roberts authored or joined the majority opinion an astounding 97% (59 out of 61) of the time this term.

The only written decisions in which Roberts was not a member of the majority were Ramos v. Louisiana, which held that states must require unanimous jury verdicts as a matter of federal due process, and McGirt v. Oklahoma, which held that, for purposes of the federal Major Crimes Act, much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation where only federal authorities (and not state authorities) may prosecute tribe members for certain major crimes.

2) Roberts, although deeply conservative, is an institutionalist. When Roberts reaches the merits of a dispute, he is likely to side with the courts conservatives. But Roberts is far more likely than the other conservative justices to use procedural and prudential doctrines to enforce rule-of-law values and avoid having the court take center stage in litigation with strong partisan overtones.

Consider, for example, Robertss opinions in the 2020 case involving the Trump administrations cancellation of DACA (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California) and the 2019 case involving the Trump administrations efforts to add a citizenship question to the census (Department of Commerce v. New York). In both, Roberts joined the courts four liberal justices to hold that the administration had violated fundamental administrative law principles by failing to provide reasoned explanations for their actions. Neither opinion held that the administration was pursuing an unlawful end; both held that the means used to adopt the policy change were unlawful.

Or, consider Robertss opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo. Roberts wrote that, while he disagrees with the analytical approach used in a 2016 court decision rendering unconstitutional a Louisiana statute limiting access to abortion, the court ordinarily should follow its prior rulings. Therefore, Roberts invoked the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for to stand by whats been decided, and joined the courts four liberal justices to strike down the law.

Or, finally, consider Robertss opinions for the court in Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars. These cases considered, respectively, the power of state attorneys general and Congress to subpoena third parties for the financial records of a sitting president. In both cases, Roberts rejected President Donald Trumps sweeping claims of presidential immunity. Yet, Roberts remanded these cases back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the special concerns that arise when an attorney general or Congress investigates the president. The likely result is that the records will be made public, if ever, only after the November election.

3) Religious rights are expanding. Churches, religious organizations, and religious individuals have invoked the First Amendments free exercise clause to bring two types of cases in recent years. In the first, they have argued that it is a violation of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs if they are excluded on grounds of separation of church and state when government makes benefits available to a similar class of organizations or persons. In the second, they have argued for exemptions from required compliance with certain anti-discrimination laws on the ground that these laws intrude on their free-exercise rights. And they have succeeded in both types of cases.

Consider this terms decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue and Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru. In Espinoza, the court held that a provision of Montana law barring aid to religious schools could not constitutionally bar tuition assistance to parents who send their children to religious schools when such assistance is made available to other parents. In Our Lady of Guadalupe, the court held that, because churches must have the unlimited ability to fire those who serve as their ministers, Catholic school teachers whose teaching assignments included religion could not challenge their dismissals under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Consequently, churches and the religious stand on largely equal footing with all others when it comes to receiving public benefits. But they are exempt from certain generally applicable laws when applying those laws could interfere with the free exercise of their religion.

4) Lower courts should not lightly intervene in election disputes to protect the right to vote. In April, a federal judge in Wisconsin issued an injunction extending the deadline for the casting and counting of absentee ballots to one week beyond election day. The judge premised the injunction on the fact that Wisconsin election officials were overwhelmed by requests for absentee ballots from voters who did not wish to risk exposure to the coronavirus in personally casting their ballots. But the Supreme Court, in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, dissolved the injunction in a 5-4 ruling. The court majority applied a prudential principle that courts should not change election rules as election day approaches.

The court also acted similarly in election disputes that reached it from Alabama, Texas, and Florida. The message to lower courts seems clear: Do not lightly involve yourselves in election disputes on the ground that state officials are failing to sufficiently protect voting rights.

5) If Justice Ginsburg is replaced by another Trump appointee, the court will have a dependable, deeply conservative majority. The court recently announced that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 87, has been treated for a recurrence of cancer. If Justice Ginsburg leaves the court and President Trump succeeds in appointing a replacement, the court will almost certainly lack a swing justice to periodically join with the liberal justices to forge a majority.

President Trump has delivered on his promise to appoint deeply conservative justices. Although Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the liberal justices in two high-profile cases this term (Bostock v. Clayton County, which extended federal anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ workers, and the aforementioned McGirt, which held that much of eastern Oklahoma is a Creek Nation reservation), he and Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Trumps other appointee) have thus far reliably voted with arch-conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Yet another Trump appointee like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would leave the court with a fifth deeply conservative vote even if Chief Justice Roberts were to continue to sometimes vote with the Courts three remaining liberal justices.

More on these developments in future columns.

(John Greabe teaches constitutional law and directs the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership & Public Service at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. The opinions he expresses in his Constitutional Connections columns are entirely his own.)

Go here to see the original:

Constitutional Connections: Five takeaways from the Supreme Court's 2019-2020 term - Concord Monitor

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and the conferences player unity group exchanged letters on Friday in the aftermath of their video conference the night before.

The two sides arent exactly pen pals.

And the prospect of a Pac-12 football season being played in the fall appears extremely precarious with fall camps looming Aug. 17.

"I think I speak for a lot of players when I say that we as college athletes would love to play football this upcoming season," former Sheldon High standout and current Arizona State offensive lineman Cody Shear told The Register-Guard on Saturday. "We're approaching this rapidly, and it kind of seems like we're walking into a season full of a lot of unknowns. And I think that it would be extremely beneficial to the majority of the Pac-12 student-athletes to kind of know what they're walking into as far as this upcoming season goes for a variety of reasons."

Shear was among the 18 leaders of the #WeAreUnited movement including Oregon defensive back Jevon Holland and Oregon State defensive back Jaydon Grant who signed a letter to Scott expressing dissatisfaction with the conferences response to their call for more COVID-19 testing and other demands the group made public last Sunday.

"In no uncertain terms, this is a matter of life or death for student-athletes during these difficult times," the player letter read. "This needs to be handled with a sense of urgency, compassion, and fidelity to scientific best practices as fall camp begins in 10 days."

The Pac-12s revised 10-game conference-only slate is scheduled to start Sept. 26, with Oregon hosting Colorado at Autzen Stadium and Oregon State hosting California at Reser Stadium.

But Scott, who misspelled Hollands first name in his letter, was only able to promise the players that their demands for enhanced testing and safety protocols would be addressed by the Pac-12s medical advisory committee.

"I wanted to thank all of you for the passion and honesty with which you spoke (Thursday) evening," Scott wrote. "We will work on gathering the information listed above and providing it to you as soon as possible."

The Pac-12 is quickly running out of time to get everyone on the same page as the college football dominoes continue to topple.

On Saturday, the Mid-American Conference became the first FBS conference to cancel its season with the hope of playing a spring schedule. FBS independent UConn pulled the plug on its season Wednesday.

The FCS playoffs were canceled Friday when the Big Sky Conference, home of Portland State, became the seventh FCS conference to cancel its fall season.

Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren, whose conference was the first to cancel nonconference games including Ohio States anticipated Sept. 12 game at Oregon would prefer pushing the season to the spring, according to a report by the Detroit Free Press.

The Big Ten, which shares a geographic footprint with the MAC, announced Saturday it is delaying the start of full-contact practices.

"It's hard to go conference by conference," Shear, who started his collegiate career at Oregon before transferring to Arizona State, said of his reaction to the cancellation of fall seasons across the country. "Obviously, college football is a business and it is run and generated on money. Not all conferences make the same revenue.

"The main topic that we're kind of looking at right now is we understand how much money these programs are bringing in, and I think it's only fair that the players get to come together and have a voice about what's going on for collegiate athletics, especially around the world as far as the pandemic, as well as the racial injustice issues."

In addition to NFL-style daily testing for fall camps, the Pac-12 player unity group wants the conference to put in writing that all liability waivers from individual schools are not forcible.

"Our deepest fear is the Pac-12s negligent return to play may result in a member of our Pac-12 family dying due to COVID-19," Holland told Scott, Arizona State athletic director Ray Anderson and Utah athletic director Mark Harlan during the video conference, according to the player letter.

Pac-12 athletes who choose not to play sports this fall over concerns related to the coronavirus will still have their scholarships honored. It is still to be determined by the NCAA Board of Governors whether or not players will retain or lose a year of eligibility if the season is canceled.

During Thursdays meeting, players also raised concerns over Washington States Dallas Hobbs and Kassidy Woods, who are opting out of the season, experiencing "unlawful retaliation" for exercising their First Amendment right to support the #WeAreUnited movement.

"It was not very productive," former Oregon and current California offensive lineman Valentino Daltoso told the New York Times of the interaction with Scott. "We did not come away with many answers. He made it very clear that he does not want to meet again."

The cancellation of football, on the heels of the lucrative NCAA mens basketball tournament being canceled for the first time ever in March, would be devastating financially for the Pac-12.

Football revenue accounts for over 70% of Oregons athletic department budget. The defending Pac-12 champion Ducks are favored to repeat and enter the 2020 season ranked No. 9 in the Amway USA Today Coaches Poll.

According a report by the San Jose Mercury News, the Pac-12 has secured a loan program for its member institutions of up to $83 million per school to cover lost revenue.

University of Oregon president Michael Schill, the Pac-12 CEO Group chairman, is expected to meet with his peers Tuesday.

It appears the writing is on the wall: A football season this fall is unlikely.

"The Pac-12 has a proud history," the player letter read, "but this is not a proud moment."

Contact reporter Ryan Thorburn at rthorburn@registerguard.com or 541-338-2330, and follow him on Twitter @By_RyanThorburn and Instagram @rg_ducksports. Want more stories like this? Subscribe to get unlimited access and support local journalism.

View post:

Pac-12 football season on the brink - The Register-Guard

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced Friday guidance to protect the religious liberty of individuals and institutions participating in Department of Education programs. This action is part of ongoing efforts by the Department to advance religious liberty protections and delivers on President Donald J. Trumps Executive Order 13798, Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

This administration will continue to protect the religious liberty and First Amendment rights of every student, teacher and educational institution across the country, Secretary DeVos said. Too many misinterpret the separation of church and state as an invitation for government to separate people from their faith.

In reality, the First Amendment doesnt exist to protect us from religion. It exists to protect religion from government. Todays guidance reaffirms our commitment to protecting our first liberty and ensuring that discriminatory restrictions on access to federal grant funding are no longer tolerated.

This guidance follows recent Supreme Court victories for religious liberty, asEspinozav. Montana Department of Revenueand Trinity Lutheran v. Comercurtailed religious discrimination and thus strengthened protections for religious organizations.

The guidance was drafted pursuant to a directive from the Office of Management and Budget requiring each agency to publish policies detailing how they will administer federal grants in compliance with Executive Order 13798, as well as the Attorney Generals Oct. 6, 2017, Memorandum on Religious Liberty, and the Office of Management and Budgets Jan. 16, 2020, Memorandum.

Notably, the guidance announces a new process by which individuals and organizations can inform the Department of a burden or potential burden on their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to adequately protect their religious liberties while participating in Department programs.

The new guidance also, consistent with First Amendment principles and Department regulations, does the following:

Affirms that religious organizations are equally eligible to participate in ED-administered programs as their secular counterparts.

Affirms that financial award decisions are made based on merit, not based on an organizations religion, religious belief or the lack thereof.

States that religious organizations receiving federal financial assistance under a Department program must comply with program-specific legislation and regulations, but clarifies that these organizations may continue to carry out their missions and maintain their religious character. However, direct federal financial assistance may not be used for religious worship, religious instruction or proselytization.

Reminds states that they may not use discriminatory Blaine Amendments to deny faith-based organizations contracts or grants, as this violates Department regulations against discrimination on the basis of an organizations religious character or affiliation.

Affirms that students and/or borrowers seeking to participate in Department loan programs and beneficiaries seeking to participate in Department social service programs will not be penalized or singled out for disadvantages on the basis of religion.

Clarifies the role of the Departments Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives (CFOI) as a Department office that collaborates with faith and community leaders to maximize participation of religious organizations in Department programs while eliminating barriers in the grantmaking or regulatory process to safeguard religious liberty.

Read more:

U.S. Department of Education reaffirms commitment to protecting the religious liberty of students, religious organizations - The Highland County Press