Skip to content

Really good news

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Some time ago a reader shamed me into attempting to highlight some good news now and then, given my propensity to highlight the not so good to terrible news that regularly afflicts us. I tried, but eventually my resolve sort of fizzled out. I try to resist it, but I am an old white guy, so I’m far better at complaining than anything else.

However, if only briefly, I am herewith highlighting some good news:

The nation’s consumer watchdog is unveiling a proposed rule on Thursday that would restore customers’ rights to bring class-action lawsuits against financial firms, giving Americans major new protections and delivering a serious blow to Wall Street that could cost the industry billions of dollars.

The proposed rule, which would apply to bank accounts, credit cards and other types of consumer loans, seems almost certain to take effect, since it does not require congressional approval.

In effect, the move by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the biggest that the agency has made since its inception in 2010 — will unravel a set of audacious legal maneuvers by corporate America that has prevented customers from using the court system to challenge potentially deceitful banking practices.

via The New York Times

This move toward private justice systems, a feature of the TPP by the way, has allowed the corporations to complete the takeover of the three branches of the American system of government, through the simple expedient of imposing contractual terms denying their customers the right to a fair tribunal. Rather laughably, the folks who engineered this push to arbitration on behalf of the banks are claiming that this rule would hurt consumers, a claim which the Times article rather effectively refutes.

This is yet more proof of how important the choice of the next Supreme Court justice will be. I can easily see a 5 member court majority setting this rule aside. The present court, when the loathsome Scalia was alive, distorted existing law to uphold these arbitration provisions. There’s no reason to believe it would have done anything other than find a way to nullify this rule. Even if corporate shill Hillary gets in, she’s unlikely to appoint anyone that bad. Nor is she likely to appoint someone to the board to reverse Cordray’s action. A Trump appointee, no doubt, would reverse this and screw us in numerous other ways, all, we would be told, to benefit consumers. Trump, after all, made and is making a living off of defrauding people, so he and his minions would jump at the chance to make fraud even more legal than it already is. So, it matters who’s president as well, even between the choices that will be foisted on us.

Anyway, this truly is good news.

Filed in Good News, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Justice Department throws NC Governor a lifeline

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Not that I disagree with the Justice Department on this, but I do believe, if they stick to it, that it will enhance Republican Governor McCrory’s chances to get re-elected:

The U.S. Department of Justice has unequivocally upended one of North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory’s first promises to his constituents: That the discriminatory HB2 law would not jeopardize federal education funding to the state. In a letter to McCrory Wednesday, a Justice Department official called HB2 “facially discriminatory” against transgender individuals and said the department had determined the law violates both Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

via Daily Kos
It may mean the loss of Federal fund to the state. The Justice Department has demanded that the state agree that it will not enforce the law. This gives the McGrory the opportunity to back down, but to blame the backdown on that bane of all white Southerners: federal interference in a state’s right to promote hate. Well, they don’t put it that way, but that’s the basic idea. This way he gets to satisfy the corporations that have said they would avoid the state, and the cretins who stay up nights worrying that the person in the stall next to them doesn’t have the appropriate plumbing.
I’m guessing that’s how he’ll play it, so he was probably pretty happy to get that letter from the Justice Department.

UPDATE: Looks like I called it right.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

No question it’s so, Joe

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

In case you were wondering (and you probably weren’t) what Joe Lieberman is doing these days, here’s an update courtesy of Down With Tyranny:

Wall Street banksters fund No Labels to destroy Social Security, Medicare and other social services and they have decided on Lieberman and Huntsman as their new frontmen. Reactionary politics is the name of their game and the two of them have been spotted recently lurking around Capitol Hill, shopping their ideas to lawmakers– primarily Republicans and New Dems– and to their natural allies on K Street, the corporate lobbyists. The organization founded by Eric Kingson, Social Security Works is sounding the alarm and demanding that Lieberman and Huntsman stand down. Social Security Works points out that that in the midst of a $7.7 trillion retirement security crisis and with two-thirds of retirees relying on Social Security for the majority of their income, now is not the time to be cutting Americans’ hard earned benefits. Instead, as Kingson, a congressional candidate in Syracuse, and other progressives explain as part of their campaigns, we should be expanding Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. Social Security Works:

The American people are united in our support of protecting and expanding Social Security– the most successful social insurance program in our country’s history. And right now, a majority of Democrats in Congress support our efforts. We cannot allow Lieberman and Huntsman to successfully flip Congressional Democrats– and worse yet, the next president– on the future of Social Security.

All we need in order to strengthen Social Security is to finally ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. Right now, individuals pay into Social Security on the first $118,500 of their income. But if wealthier individuals pay in on ALL of their income, we will be able to expand the benefits of millions of Americans and have enough left to extend the lifespan of the Social Security trust fund.

Via Down with Tyranny

“No Labels” is Lieberman’s faux “bi-partisan” propaganda outfit, dedicating to comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. It’s his way of cashing in on his former office by soaking money from rich people to advance their “bi-partisan” destroy the middle class agenda. It is truly amazing how much rich people will spend to further impoverish the rest of us, even when they pay almost nothing toward the benefit in question. Further proof that their overriding belief is that it is not enough that they succeed, everyone else must fail.

We here in Connecticut are well rid of Lieberman. Would that there were some legal method that could be used to remove rejected politicians from the political process entirely. One of the things I am most proud of having done in my life is cast a vote at the 2006 Connecticut State Convention for Ned Lamont. That began the process of cleansing Lieberman from our party. Unfortunately, there are many more Liebermans in the party, and more being recruited all the time. In that vein, I recommend Down with Tyranny as a great place to keep tabs on the machinations of that portion of our party that are trying to remake the party in Lieberman’s image.

Filed in Democrats, Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Someone ought to sue

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Meteor Blades and Joan McCarter at Daily Kos, are writing a series entitled The War on Voting. The latest article discusses a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina:

 

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in favor of North Carolina’s new voting law Monday, prompting plaintiffs in the case to say they would immediately appeal. The law is considered by opponents as one of the strictest in the country. But that wasn’t the viewpoint of the judge.

The law requires voters to have one of a number of state-specified, government-issued photo-IDs. It also barred people from registering and voting on the same day, cut the number of days allotted for early voting, blocked the counting of any ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct. Preregistering teenagers before they turn 18 is also no longer allowed under the law.

via Daily Kos

Let’s stipulate that the intent of the changes in these laws is to suppress voting, particularly among those groups, particularly minorities, that vote Democratic. Still, I’m struck by the fact that some of these states, in many respects, still have voting laws more liberal than we have in Connecticut. We don’t, for instance, have any early voting, except for absentee voters. Many of these cases involving restrictions of, but not elimination of, voting opportunities that are not available to Connecticut residents at all.

Connecticut was never covered by the Voting Rights Act, so its restrictions were never subjected to scrutiny. It’s very doubtful that they were the product of intentional discrimination. The legislature is helpless to liberalize many of our voting requirements because they are contained in the state constitution. There was a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2014 that would have allowed the legislature to liberalize our laws, but it was defeated by an electorate that had no idea what it contained.

Many of the challenges to restrictive voting laws have succeeded in federal court. The North Carolina plaintiffs might succeed eventually. Maybe the Koch owned ACLU could do us a favor and bring suit against Connecticut to get rid of some of the unnecessary restrictions embedded in our constitution. If they brought suit, the Malloy administration would be well advised to not defend the case, as a matter both of justice and partisan advantage.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (1)

A Democratic hypocrite of Republican proportions

Friday, April 29, 2016

It is a sad fact of life that, while they are indeed masters of the art, the Republicans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Consider Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the more loathsome Democrats out there:

Last week, Florida congresswoman and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced that she was signing on as an original cosponsor of the Stopping Abuse and Fraud in Electronic (SAFE) Lending Act, which would prohibit payday lenders from having access to borrowers’ bank accounts, close loopholes in the payday lending system and “ban lead generators and anonymous payday lending.” A partner bill has also been introduced in the Senate, featuring progressive co-sponsors Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, among others.

The bill is, by all accounts, a solid piece of legislation. Payday lending has recently found its way into the crosshairs of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among other consumer protection organizations, as being an industry that takes advantage of borrowers by trapping them in a cycle of debt, turning initial loans of a few hundred dollars into four or five-figure debts. The SAFE Lending Act would curtail some of the industry’s worst abuses.

However, Wasserman Schultz’s co-sponsorship of the bill makes her a bit of an oddball. As Allied Progress and a collection of other advocacy organizations pointed out in a letter sent to her office yesterday, she remains a co-sponsor of H.R. 4018. Wasserman Schultz previously faced widespread criticism from the progressive community over that bill because it is specifically designed to both make it harder for the CFPB to regulate payday lending and to encourage states outside of Florida to adopt policies favorable to payday lenders. As the Huffington Post explained:

The misleadingly titled Consumer Protection and Choice Act would delay the CFPB’s payday lending rules by two years, and nullify its rules in any state with a payday lending law like the one adopted in Florida. The memo being passed around by Wasserman Schultz staffers describes the Florida state law as a “model” for consumer laws on payday loans, and says the CFPB should “adjust their payday lending rules to take into account actions Florida has already taken.”

via Americablog

This is the woman who heads up the DNC, and is channeling money into the campaigns of DINOs. The payday situation is only the latest of her sins. Listing them all would be impossible. Perhaps the most egregious is her co-operating with Republicans in Florida to gerrymander the state in their favor, all so she could preserve a comfortable district for herself.She is the current reason I won’t contribute to the DNC, inasmuch as so much of their money is devoted to beating progressive Democrats in primaries. She has a serious primary challenger, Tim Canova. Every patriot should donate to him.

Filed in Democrats, Hypocrisy, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Who says skunks stink?

Thursday, April 28, 2016

We live in funny times. I would have thought that if you see a dead skunk in the middle of the road, and something is stinkin’ to high heaven, you can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the smell is coming from the skunk, especially if the smell gets worse the closer you examine the skunk. But apparently not:

The Supreme Court heard former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s appeal of his sentence on political corruption charges Wednesday, and appears to be leaning in his favor. McDonnell was convicted and sentenced to two years for accepting gifts from a businessman, including a $20,000 Fifth Avenue shopping spree, more than $5,000 for a monogrammed Rolex and the use of a convertible Ferrari, a custom-made golf bag, and a sizable personal loan. The questions from the justices raised concerns that “the government’s concept of bribery was so broad as to criminalize many routine actions by public officials.”

via Daily Kos

He actually argued that “buying access and influence with public officials is protected by the 1st Amendment“, and the Supreme Court, apparently, has got his back. I remember back in the olden days Justice Stewart said he couldn’t define obscenity, “but I know it when I see it”. Not a great standard to judge pornography, but it comes to mind when reading about the McDonnell case.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Another petard hoisted

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

I just heard about this, and, as a lawyer, I am mightily impressed:

Travis Kalanick, the chief executive of Uber, failed on Thursday to win the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit accusing him of scheming to drive up prices for passengers who use the popular ride-sharing service.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said Kalanick must face claims he conspired with drivers to ensure they charge prices set by an algorithm in the Uber smartphone app to hail rides, including “surge pricing” during periods of peak demand.

Passengers led by Spencer Meyer of Connecticut claimed that drivers conspired with Kalanick to charge fares set by the algorithm, with an understanding that other Uber drivers would do the same, even if they might fare better acting on their own.

via Fortune

The delicious part about this is that they are taking advantage of the legal fiction that Uber drivers are truly independent contractors. By any reasonable standard they aren’t, but Uber sticks to that fiction, so that it can avoid paying decent wages and benefits. To rub salt in the wounds of the “contractors”, they also apparently lead their customers to believe that a tip is built into the pricing structure, when in fact it is not. So that’s one petard hoisted.

Why, you might ask, is the Uber CEO a defendant, and not Uber itself. Well, that’s yet another petard hoisted:

“In creating Uber, Kalanick organized price-fixing among independent drivers who should be competing with one another on price,” Meyer’s lawyer Andrew Schmidt said. “Today’s decision confirms that apps are not exempt from the antitrust laws.”

Uber was not named as a defendant, despite being valued at well over $50 billion in recent funding rounds.

Rakoff said in a footnote that Uber passengers are subject to “user agreements” requiring them to resolve various disputes through arbitration.

In other words, Kalanick is a defendant because he deprived people, by stealth, of their right to go to court against Uber but he forgot to exempt himself.

So, hats off to Andrew Schmidt, or whoever came up with this idea. It won’t happen, but it would be nice to see them truly hammer Kalanick. Rakoff might rule for the plaintiffs, but the Appeals Court will reverse.

As a side note, this tendency to deprive people of their rights to go to court (a feature, we’re told, and not a bug in the TPP) is becoming more and more widespread. It should be among the injustices people like Bernie rail against, though most people are not informed enough to resent it. It is endemic in our system right now. I recently found, buried in the fine print of an owner’s manual for a hard drive I bought, that by buying the drive I had agreed to arbitrate any disputes I might have. On closer inspection, I could have also discovered this on the outside of the box, had I Superman’s super vision. And here’s a story of hedge fund managers shifting the responsibility for their own criminal behavior onto investors who had no part in their wrongdoing, yet another way of cooking the legal books to exempt the .01% from responsibility for their crimes.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Immune from attack

Monday, April 25, 2016

I’m a Bernie guy, but I try to be rational and realistic. There are some Bernie folks out there, otherwise reasonable people, who believe that Bernie will get the nomination when Hillary is indicted because of her email server. Not only is that not going to happen, it shouldn’t happen, because she didn’t do anything seriously wrong. It’s depressing to see people buy into Republican memes when it serves their purposes. And as I’ll develop, unless she does get indicted, which I repeat won’t happen, the “scandal” will come to nothing.

Here’s a more superficially realistic concern, yet one that we can easily dismiss:

The other day I was listening to a political show on the radio, and a guy called into say that, although he was “Cruz guy”, he believed that Trump could beat Hillary because of Hillary’s sordid past, as detailed in a book by Roger Stone.

That’s when it hit me: if Trump is the nominee, it will be five months of Vince Foster, the Mena drug operation, the Clinton body count, and so on.   I hope the Hillary campaign wishes a motherfucker would, but they’d best be prepared for a media that says “some say the Clinton personally murdered upwards of 50 people, some say they do not, the truth lies in the middle.”

As crazy as the last eight years of anti-Obama have been, I don’t think it quite touches the insanity of the anti-Clinton stuff in the mid-to -late ’90s, at least within mainstream political discourse.  The Republicans never even got around to impeaching Obama the way I thought they would.

via Balloon Juice

The Cruz guy who thinks Trump could beat Hillary is the very model of the person who would never vote for Hillary (or any Democrat) in the first place, so the fact that he buys into these smears means Hillary has a net loss of exactly 0 votes. The question is, how many people, who might otherwise vote for her, will choose to vote for Trump instead because of any of these smears that Roger Stone fabricated? The fact of the matter is that Hillary is well-nigh scandal proof. Why did the Republicans get no traction with Benghazi? For that matter, why are they getting no traction with the email issue? On issues like that, they have essentially immunized her. She has been the victim of so many specious attacks that people’s eyes glaze over when they hear another attack of that ilk.

True, people don’t trust her, but it’s not because of her emails or even Benghazi. People distrust her because of stuff like Iraq, speeches to Goldman Sachs, equivocation on the TPP, her reflexive warmongering, etc. You know, issues. Note that on the issues that cause that mistrust, she is in lock step with the Republicans, making it difficult for them to attack her where she’s weakest. That sort of distrust is mostly on the left, and we’re going to be stuck with her. Bear in mind too that the Dems have been doing their oppo research on Trump, and there’s a mother lode there. Anyone who is actually going to compare candidates based on their involvement with Trumped up scandals will find more reason to vote against Trump than Hillary. In addition, Hillary will not sit passively by while she’s attacked. She will not be swift boated.

In truth and in fact, Bernie is more at risk from the swift boaters than is Hillary. He’s a relatively unknown quantity, and no one really knows how much damage attacks on an avowed socialist atheist would do in this land of the ignorant. He may be polling better than Hillary at the moment, but that is quite likely because he has not yet been subjected to the types of attacks that simply no longer work when directed at Hillary. I still think he’d be a better president, and I think we may be losing our last chance to put down the oligarchs, but I don’t believe that Hillary will lose to Trump or any other Republican because Roger Stone says she killed Vince Foster.

Filed in Hillary Clinton, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

This cracks me up

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Nothing even vaguely political about this, but I can’t stop laughing whenever I read about it:

Ships can bear the names of former presidents, war heroes, long-lost loves, or clever puns. However, the U.K. public appears to have taken a different tact when it comes the naming of a new polar vessel from the National Environment Research Council.

The NERC announced the online voting contest to name the nearly $300 million boat to be launched in 2019 recently, and the leading vote-getter so far is the simple but silly “Boaty McBoatface.”

Via CBS News

What can you expect from the land of Monty Python?

Filed in Humour | | Comments (0)

Rejected by the Day

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Recently I alluded to the fact that the New London Day, and in particular, its columnist, Dave Collins has been conducting a bit of a jihad against our State Senator, Andy Maynard. Andy suffered a brain injury before the last election. He now suffers from aphasia, which means he has trouble articulating his thoughts. As the Day knows, his constituents re-elected him with full knowledge that he had had the accident and had possibly suffered brain damage, but Collins in particular, and the newspaper in general, has insisted that Andy should not vote, because he is being manipulated by the evil Democratic Senate leaders.

Last week, on the 13th, the Day printed an article about a letter former (thank God) Congressman and current Stonington first selectman Rob Simmons wrote in which he basically pushed the same meme. Naturally, the Day gave the letter front page treatment.

I took pen to hand and wrote this:

Rob Simmons’s recent attack on Senate Democrats for allegedly manipulating Andy Maynard was an exercise in precisely what he was accusing the Democrats of doing: manipulating Andy Maynard for his own purposes. Mr. Simmons wants us to believe that he can speak for Andy, and tell us what Andy would do if only Andy were not being manipulated by those terrible Democrats. We are to believe that Simmons has only Andy’s best interest at heart, politics having nothing at all to do with it. We are also to believe that if only Andy were the Andy Rob once knew, he would vote as a Republican, like Rob always did.

Simmons undoubtedly knew the Day would give him maximum exposure, as he’s just repeating the meme the Day has been pushing for over a year in its columns and news stories. There is, in fact, no reason to believe that Andy’s aphasia has affected his ability to make his own decisions, and the constituent service offered by his office has not suffered as a result of his disability. His disability renders him an easy target. Since he can’t verbalize a response, he loses no matter what he does.

The Day called me to confirm I’d written it, but it has yet to see print and it probably never will.

This is the second letter in a row that I’ve written that the Day has rejected. My wife wrote a letter, which it did print, attacking our local (Republican) state representatives as do nothings. It drew a printed response from a letter writer, with a defense so lame as to be laughable. I wrote a response to that letter, which the Day refused to print unless I was identified as my wife’s spouse, using her name. My wife preferred not to become the issue. I didn’t fight about it, but the logic escapes me. If my letter made sense, which of course it did, what difference does my relationship to my wife make?

The Day used to be a good paper, but it is rapidly becoming Fox on the Thames.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)