January 23, 2016::End of the day round-up (pg 2)

Mike Huckabee Throws A Fit While Defending Duggar Family In Iowa

"You’re accusing me of supporting child abuse," the Republican presidential candidate shot back. "I’m gonna take you on on that because that hurts my feelings."

When the woman persisted, Huckabee said, "You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know that family and I do."

He added: 

"I never supported anything that happened to those daughters. I supported the fact that those daughters were maliciously and savagely abused not just by their brother, but by the news media who exploited them for their own purpose without regard for what it was doing to those young ladies."

Huckabee then accused the woman of abusing "the reputation of a godly family who had been through hell."
"I'm going to ask you to stop talking about them unless you personally know them," Huckabee said, before accusing her of trying to "make a scene."

"We're finished with you... You're done," Huckabee said. "You can either stay and be quiet or we're going to ask you to leave."

 Martin O’Malley Brings Workers’ Chaotic Schedules Into The Presidential Race

Some of them are familiar ground for his fellow Democratic hopefuls, such as calling for paid family leave, equal pay, and reducing the burden of college debt. But he also surfaced some ideas that haven’t gotten much traction in the campaign thus far.

Two of his so-called rights address the chaos many people who work in service jobs like retail experience: erratic schedules and the inability to get full-time positions. Under the banner “The Right To A Predictable Weekly Schedule,” O’Malley promises to “lobby for, pass, and implement the Schedules That Work Act.” That’s a bill that Democrats in Congress introduced to require that employers give at least two weeks notice of schedules and pay workers who are told to be available for an on-call shift but not asked to come in or who get sent home before the end of their scheduled shift.

Scheduling has become a more prominent issue given that at least 10 percent of the country’s workforce is given irregular or on-call shifts, and the share is even larger among retail employees — more than a quarter. “Erratic and constantly changing schedules leave many workers—especially in growing low-wage industries—unable to plan ahead to make ends meet,” O’Malley says.

In response to my query - Why is O'Malley the only candidate broaching this topic* - I received the following.  But here's the thing, I am not completely sold on either Clinton or Sanders, but O'Malley is a complete unknown to me at present.  This election is too important (just taking into consideration possible SCOTUS appointments) to "waste" my vote.

[* I believe the press/media briefly mentioned Sanders interest in this topic as well but for some odd reason it does not stand out in my mind.  Why possibly O'Malley's comments caught my attention.]

So this political ad - Hello Dem’s…. ‘Lookin’ for Fun and Feelin’ Bernie?’ — Not me. Here’s why. - courtesy of Nick Kelly, has me pondering,,, Is a outlier candidate a viable challenge within the Democratic Party? What about on the national stage against the Reich?

David Barton Removes Claim About Chaplains at the University of Virginia in New Edition of The Jefferson Lies

In the new edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton continues to assert that Jefferson wanted to establish a “transdenominational” school but he leaves out the chaplains story. From the new edition:

4. DID JEFFERSON EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION FROM THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM?

As already noted, in 1818 Jefferson and the university Visitors publicly released their plan for the new school announcing that it would be transdenominational and making clear that religious instruction would be provided to all students. But Jefferson insisted on additional steps to ensure that religious training would occur at the university.

Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 1997-2000). WND Books. Kindle Edition.

I am surprised that Barton left this story out because in February 2015, Barton told the same story to Jack Hibbs, pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills. He told this story as evidence that he is positively revising errors of academic historians.

Sadly there is not much more that can be said in regards to cases such as these. Like ALL the cases prior, the Giffords lost because they knowing violated the law(s).  Add to that, they , like the Kleins, have become cash cows for the firms representing the Reichs agenda.

New York Wedding Venue Loses Appeal To Refuse Serving Same-Sex Couples 

Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York just lost an appeal in its effort to justify discrimination against same-sex couples. An appeals court unanimously affirmed the State Division of Human Rights’ determination that the couple who owned the wedding venue, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, violated the state’s nondiscrimination law when they refused to host a wedding for Melissa and Jennifer McCarthy back in 2012.

Represented by the conservative legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Giffords argued that because their farm is private property, they should not be considered a public accommodation. They also argued that they did not actually engage in discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that being compelled to host a same-sex wedding violated their freedoms of religion and speech. The court rejected these claims outright.

Because Liberty Ridge is open to the public as a venue for wedding ceremonies and receptions, its facilities “fall comfortably within the broad definition of ‘place of public accommodation,'” the court wrote. “The fact that the wedding ceremonies occur on private property and pursuant to a written contract does not, as petitioners contend, remove Liberty Ridge’s facilities from the reach of the Human Rights Law; the critical factor is that the facilities are made available to the public at large.”

 

U.S. Supreme Court rules Florida's death penalty system is unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Florida's unique capital sentencing system on Tuesday in a ruling that found the state gives too much power to judges, and not enough to juries, to impose the death penalty.

In an 8-1 opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said that the state's sentencing procedure is unconstitutional because juries play an advisory role in recommending life or death. State law requires judges to make the final decision, after giving "great weight" to jurors' recommendations.
,,,
In Tuesday's opinion, Sotomayor wrote that the central problem with Florida's law is the lack of authority it allows jurors, who are not required to give a specific factual basis for their recommendation. Judges must consider the jury's vote, but they can act independently, sentencing defendants to life or death regardless of the jury's advisory opinion.

"The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death," wrote Sotomayor. "A jury's mere recommendation is not enough."

The opinion was joined by six justices, with the exception of Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote a separate concurring opinion, and Justice Samuel Alito, who was the lone voice of dissent.

Supreme Court Sides Against Amazon Workers in Compensation Case - US News

In an unanimous decision released Tuesday, the court sided with contractor Integrity Staffing Solutions, which employed workers at Amazon.com warehouses in Nevada. Two employees had sued the agency for compensation for the 25 minutes they said they waited after each of their shifts to go through metal detector meant to root out theft.

“If the employer requires it, the work should be paid,” said Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel at the National Employment Law Project, in a statement. “If we don’t have to pay for things, we take them for granted. Because the employer didn’t have to pay for the workers’ time, it didn’t care how long the screenings took, and had no incentive to add capacity to speed things up and be more considerate of the employees’ time.”

According to the court, since the screenings were not integral to the the principal activity the workers were hired to perform, the company was not required to compensate them for the time spent waiting for them under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“The screenings were not an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment. And Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the decision, which cited Department of Labor policy and Congress’ Portal-to-Portal Act.

Thomas also said the concerns expressed by workers in the case were better suited for the employer-employee bargaining table.
The U.S. Supreme Court Building stands in Washington on Nov. 6, 2013.

But workers, especially low-wage ones, have little bargaining power in the U.S. economy, evidenced by incomes that have stagnated or declined even as the labor market has improved. And Tuesday’s decision “runs contrary to everything people are saying about the need to counter wage stagnation and improve labor standards,” says Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

Supreme Court Sides Against Amazon Workers in Compensation Case - US News

Amazon Keeps Unions Out By Keeping Workers in Fear, Says Organizer | Alternet

After Amazon vanquished a rare U.S. union effort last week in a 21-to-6 vote, keeping the retail giant union-free across the United States, a union spokesperson blamed that result on a corporate campaign to make workers fear for their jobs — and told Salon a much larger union campaign could be ahead at Amazon.

“Everything Amazon did had the underlying tone of fear,” said International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers spokesperson John Carr.

Amazon did not respond to a Tuesday request for comment on the result and the allegations. Company spokesperson Mary Osako told CNN that the January 15 “vote against third-party representation” showed workers “prefer a direct connection with Amazon,” which she called “the most effective way to understand and respond to the wants and needs of our employees.”

Carr said that the IAM is still reviewing whether it had sufficient evidence to file charges alleging law-breaking by Amazon in the lead-up to the vote among a handful of mechanics at a Delaware warehouse. Under federal law, it’s generally illegal for companies to explicitly punish or threaten workers for supporting a union, but legal to hold mandatory anti-union meetings and to make “predictions” about dire consequences that could result from unionization. With the help of the firm Morgan Lewis, contended Carr, the company used such “captive audience” meetings to “put an intense amount of pressure on these workers,” and thus “of course they feared for their jobs.”

Amazon Keeps Unions Out By Keeping Workers in Fear, Says Organizer | Alternet