Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe Biden's vow to nominate a black woman to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court has sparked a predictable partisan fight about identity politics. But there is a more productive Supreme Court fight that we should be having.

To be sure, the background of a judicial nominee does matter. Take Clarence Thomas. When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 2003 about a state law that criminalized the burning of a cross "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons," Thomas spoke from personal experience about the horrors of growing up in Jim Crow America. The law at issue in Virginia v. Black was intended to counteract "almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South" by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups, Thomas told the hushed courtroom. "This was a reign of terror, and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror." Race comes up again and again in Thomas' writings, speeches, and opinions. As I noted a few years ago, "many of his critics may be too ignorant to know it, but Thomas' writings are steeped in African-American history and grapple repeatedly with the long shadow cast by slavery and Jim Crow."

Speaking of those critics, Biden, who was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Thomas' SCOTUS nomination came around, was not exactly gung-ho about that particular black nominee making history. In fact, Biden did what he could to prevent Thomas from becoming the Court's second black justice, including ripping Thomas' words out of context in an effort to paint the conservative jurist as a crazy libertarian.

So, as Biden himself clearly knows, race is not the only factor when it comes to Supreme Court confirmations.

Which brings us to the Supreme Court fight that we should be having. With limited exceptions, a SCOTUS nominee from a Democratic (or Republican) president can be expected to vote in predictable ways in certain types of cases, such as those dealing with hot-button favorites like abortion and guns. That's just reality.

But there is one large and very important category of cases in which a judge's partisan affiliation does not tell the whole story. That category is criminal justice. For example, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, judges appointed by President Donald Trump have clashed repeatedly with each other in recent years over qualified immunity for cops. Likewise, Republican-appointed federal judges on multiple appellate courts (and SCOTUS) have butted heads repeatedly in recent years over the Fourth Amendment. Criminal justice cases have divided the "conservative" judiciary.

The same thing is happening on the other side of the judicial aisle. Take the man of the hour, Breyer. A Democratic appointee, Breyer was sometimes less "liberal" on criminal justice than the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a Republican judicial pick. Why? Because Breyer's penchant for judicial deference sometimes led him to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt in major Fourth Amendment cases. By contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Democratic appointee like Breyer, sided with Scalia over Breyer in those same cases and has since established herself as perhaps the biggest Fourth Amendment hawk on the current Court.

So let's fight about judicial philosophy and criminal justice and exactly what sort of judge Biden is going to pick. Will she follow in Breyer's Fourth Amendment footsteps? Will she follow in Sotomayor's? Where does she stand on qualified immunity? Will she be the rare justice with a background as a public defender? These things are worth fighting about.

Read the rest here:
The Supreme Court Fight We Should Be Having - Reason

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia issued the Government Regulation No. 96 of 2021 on regarding the Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activities dated 9 September 2021 (GR 96/2021). GR 96/2021 is issued as the implementation to Law Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation dated 5 October 2020 that amends Law No. 4 of 2009 on Coal and Mineral Law (Mining Law).

GR 96/2021 stipulates several provisions that are considered as significant changes from the previous government regulation namely Government Regulation No. 23 of 2010 concerning the Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activities as lastly amended by Government Regulation No. 8 of 2018 on the fifth amendment of Government Regulation No. 23 of 2010 concerning the Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activities (GR 23/2010).

This update will discuss several critical changes in the GR 96/2021 in connection with the implementation of mineral and coal mining business activities, including (i) business licensing, (ii) tender system; and (iii) divestment obligation.

Business Licenses

GR 96/2021 stipulates that mining business activities must be carried out based on a Business Licensing which is the authority of the Central Government through the OSS (Online Single Submission) system, which is carried out through the granting of the following:

License as mentioned in point 3 above is a license depends on the type of mining business activities which consists of:

For information, IUP which consist of IUP Exploration and IUP Production Operation (IUP- OP) are granted by the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR) based on the application submitted by:

IUP cannot be granted to individuals with Indonesian citizenship (WNI), but for IUPs that were previously intended for WNI, they are still valid until the expiration of such license.

Mining Service Business (Usaha Jasa Pertambangan)

IUP or IUPK holders are required to use local and/or national mining service companies, that provide mining services in connection with consultation, planning, and implementation for activities in the following fields:

Thereafter, IUP and IUPK holders may use mining service companies that are Indonesian legal entities in the context of foreign investment (PMA) if no local and/or national mining service companies are technically and/or financially capable of carrying out these activities properly. The use of PMA mining service companies can be carried out after the IUP and IUPK holders make announcements through local and/or national mass media.

Mining Business Licensing for State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN)

GR 96/2021 also regulates IUPs for BUMN. This regulation stipulates that some areas of mining business permit area (WIUP) that are used for the Production Operation (OP) by BUMN can be transferred to another business entity, which 51% (fifty one percent) or more of its share ownership is owned by BUMN holding IUP whose WIUP will be transferred. Moreover, the ownership of BUMN shares in other Business Entities cannot be diluted to less than 51% (fifty one percent).

However, this transfer can be carried out after obtaining approval from the MEMR. Further, the implementing requirements will be further explained in a MEMR regulation

Granting of Metal Mineral Business Permit Areas through Auction

Mining Business Permit Areas (WIUP) consists of:

Metal Mineral and Coal WIUP can be carried out through auction, in which MEMR publicly announces the auction plan within a period of no later than 14 (fourteen) calendar days or at the latest 60 (sixty) calendar days prior to the auction.

Announcement of the plan for the auction of metallic Mineral WIUP or Coal WIUP can be carried out openly with the following provisions:

Provisions regarding Share Divestment

Business Entities holding IUP and IUPK at the Production Operation step for PMA are required to divest shares of at least 51% (fifty-one percent) in stages to the Central Government, Regional Government, BUMN, BUMD, and/or National Private Business Entities.

On the previous provisions, which was Government Regulation No. 1 of 2017 on the Fourth Amendment of GR 23/2010 (GR 1/2017), requires all PMA as a holders IUP and IUPK that after 5 (five) years of operation are required to divest their shares in stages so that in the tenth year, at least 51% (fifty one percent) is owned by locals.

The obligation to divest shares for IUP and IUPK holders at the Production Operation step is regulated with the following provisions:

Read the original here:
Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activities - Lexology

TO THE OWNERS OF THE WITHIN DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE By virtue of a certified copy of a decree to me directed from the Clerk of Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, in Cause No. 50C01-1711-MF-000075 wherein U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-KS1 was Plaintiff, and Tanya M. Mata A/K/A Tonya M. Mata; Capital One Bank (USA), NA F/K/A Capital One Bank; Briarwood Estates Condominium Association were Defendants, requiring me to make the sum as provided for in said Decree with interest and cost, I will expose at public sale to the highest bidder, on the 22nd day of March, 2022, at the hour of 1:00 pm or as soon thereafter as is possible, at http://www.zeusauction.com, the fee simple of the whole body of Real Estate in Marshall County, Indiana. Home 69 on Home Site 69 of Briarwood Estates Condominiums, a residential horizontal property regime, together with an undivided 1/92nd interest in the common area within said horizontal property regime, subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership, Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime dated April 16, 2002, and recorded on April 16, 2002, as Instrument No. 200203664, in the Office of the Recorder of Marshall County, Indiana, as thereafter amended. First Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated July 24, 2002, recorded August 7, 2002, as Instrument No. 200207091. Second Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated January 8, 2003, recorded January 28, 2003 as Instrument No. 200301050. Third Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated March 28, 2003, recorded April 3, 2003, in Document No. 200303423. Fourth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated August 27, 2003, recorded November 13, 2003, in Document No. 200312687, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Fifth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated December 4, 2003, recorded December 23, 2003, in Document No. 200314029 recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Sixth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated May 11, 2004, recorded May 27, 2004, in Document No. 200404217, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Seventh Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated December 22, 2004, recorded December 29, 2004, in Document No. 200410063, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Eighth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated August 9, 2005, recorded August 18, 2005, in Document No. 200506023, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. Ninth Amendment to Declaration of Horizontal Property Ownership Briarwood Estates Condominiums Horizontal Property Regime, dated November 3, 2005 recorded November 16, 2005, in Document No. 200508682, Recorder's Office, Marshall County, Indiana. More commonly known as: 929 Cherrywood Avenue, Plymouth, IN 46563-6715 State Parcel No.: 50-42-29-302-031.069-019 Together with rents, issues, income, and profits thereof, said sale will be made without relief from valuation or appraisement laws. Plaintiff Attorney ATTORNEY NO. 15-21-02297 Codilis Law, LLC 8050 Cleveland Place Merrillville, IN 46410 (219) 736-5579 15-21-02297 Matthew Hassel Sherrif of Marshall County CENTER TOWNSHIP 929 Cherrywood Avenue, Plymouth, IN 46563-6715 Street Address SHERIFF FILE NO: The Sheriff's Department does not warrant the accuracy of the street address published herein. SERVICE DIRECTED TO: Tanya M. Mata A/K/A Tonya M. Mata 929 Cherrywood Avenue Plymouth, IN 46563-6715 Type of Service: Sheriff NOTICE NOTE: This law firm is a debt collector. February 5, 12, 19, 2022 PN332097 hspaxlp

Originally posted here:
TO THE OWNERS OF THE WITHIN DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE - Pilot News

The issue seems rather simple: If you use a service that typically comes at a price and you do not pay, that is theft.

That basic of rule of law and order is up for debate sort of in front of the Washington Supreme Court. The court will consider whether fare enforcement on public transit represents an unconstitutional violation of a passengers right to privacy.

Lower courts have rejected the case brought by a man who was asked in 2018 by Snohomish County sheriffs deputies to prove that he had paid for his ride on a bus in Everett. That seems to be a reasonable request, but Zachery Merediths lawyer is arguing that fare enforcement violated his clients civil rights under the state constitution.

According to the Associated Press, the case is similar to one last year in Maryland. There, the states highest court sided with a train passenger, concluding that Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure had been violated when the transit agency conducted a fare sweep.

Indeed, there might be a constitutional difference between the cases. A fare sweep involving a multitude of passengers could be deemed a suspicionless search, which might or might not be different from asking a single passenger for proof of payment. But when the law is so thinly sliced, it can become untenable and unenforceable.

Such enforcement is increasingly becoming an issue for transit agencies.

TriMet, the Portland areas transit agency, announced last week that it will prohibit police from checking passengers fares. According to OregonLive.com, police may still be present when transit staff check fares, and police may help TriMet employees identify someone who refuses to give their name.

Agency officials noted that if a person who has not paid their fare becomes violent with the fare inspector, police may still intervene. Well, were glad they cleared that up.

Meanwhile, it seems that fare-jumping is something transit agencies would be interested in preventing. So would the public, considering that taxpayers foot most of the bill for transit.

C-Tran policy says: All passengers must pay the appropriate full fare for the service theyre riding. Failure to pay may lead to arrest or exclusion. On TriMet, those cited for failure to pay face a fine or community service.

At the same time, it is reasonable to ask whether transit agencies should charge fares that fully pay for the service or, to the other extreme, whether fares should be free. For C-Tran, fares typically account for roughly 15 percent of the annual budget a number in line with most transit agencies. C-Trans budget for 2021 was $68.3 million, with 85 percent of that coming from sales tax revenue throughout Clark County.

In recent years, dozens of American cities have adopted free public transit or have experimented with fareless pilot programs. In 2020, a bill was introduced in Congress to create grants allowing for fare-free transit throughout the country, but it never came up for a vote.

Like many aspects of American society, public transit warrants a rethinking in the wake of COVID-19. Perhaps transit will become more essential to urban economies or perhaps a desire for social distancing and remote work will permanently reduce demand for mass transit.

But regardless of what the future holds for buses, trains, ferries, streetcars and other modes of transportation, in a nation of laws people should be expected to pay the designated fare.

The rest is here:
In Our View: Public transit warrants rethinking in wake of virus - The Columbian

Abortion and reproductive rights are essential healthcare for all people. No state or court should restrict womens freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies.

Jan. 22 was the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court determined that states restrictions on abortions were unconstitutional and that it is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

That precedent changed in September 2021 with the Texas abortion law, SB-8.

The law was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May 2019 and is in complete opposition to Roe vs. Wade. It was officially put into effect on Sept. 1, 2021 and, among other things, bannedabortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

There are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

The law also says that anyone who intends to aid in or perform an abortion after the six-week period will be penalized.

The legislation allows anyone, anywhere, to sue people involved in providing abortion care or practical support to patients in Texas, and win judgments of $10,000 or more, Paul Dillon,vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, wrote in an email.

According to Dillon, this would create a large number of unnecessary lawsuits and ultimately hurtabortion clinics.

This decision is in an effort to bypass court challenges on the constitutionality of anti-abortion legislation by putting (undue) power into the hands of civilians.

As for the Supreme Court, putting hope into the system appears to be unreliable. After being challenged by the Justice Court, the law was deemed constitutional with an 8-1 vote.

A slew of demonstrations from both sides erupted immediately after SB-8 was put into place. Even today,abortion clinics continue to be targeted by anti-abortion extremists, and the unrest between both sides is at a peak.

The debate reaches all the way to WSU. Last semester an altercation between pro-life and pro-choice protestors arose outside the Compton Union Building. WSU alum Hannah Lindenau was at the scene fighting for the pro-choice argument, waving a sign that read Mind your own uterus.

The Texas abortion ban wont stop abortions; it will only stop safe abortions, she said.

Restrictive abortion laws force women to turn to potentially harmful alternatives that can leave them dead or wanting to be.

An estimated 68,000 women die every yeardue to unsafe abortions, according to the World Health Organization. Access to care is limited in restrictive states, leading many to travel up to 100 miles out of state to receive an abortion.

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, we anticipate the number of out-of-state patients to dramatically increase, Dillon wrote. The potential increase in patients could also put a strain on our clinics. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that if Roe is overturned, demand for abortion in Washington will increase by 385 %.

Pro-life advocates demonstrated once again in front of the CUB last Monday, Jan. 24. When Kylie Lockington, junior wildlife ecology and conservation science major, and junior marketing major Megan Sweeney saw what was happening, they immediately ran to protest it.

Both said they wish that there had been some warning about the demonstration beforehand for the sake of those who may be triggered or traumatized by the protestors imagery.

I think WSU should at least send out an alert that there are people out here showing these extremely disturbing images, Sweeney said.

Lockington also expressed concern regarding the scientific legitimacy of the protest.

Its literally false medical information. I dont know how thats not fucking illegal, like what is that? Lockington said.

Dillon wrote that extremists opposed to abortion often promote harmful misinformation about abortion practices.

Luckily, protests are not just happening within college communities. There are also figures at the national level who are outspoken about the laws lack of a realistic timeline for women.

New York Rep.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has publicly pointed out the scientific fault in the law, as well as reproductive restrictions in general.

6 weeks pregnant = 2 weeks late on your period, Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet.

She also said that multiple factors can play into a late menstrual cycle other than pregnancy, such as a change in diet or stress level.

How is this two-week period enough time for a woman to decide if carrying a child is a feasible option for her?

What if she does not even realize she has missed her period?

How aretwo weeks enough for women to figure out the financial aspects of abortion care while juggling everyday expenses?

There are too many questions in this six-week gap that give power to lawmakers and take it away from individuals who would be the ones actually to carry and care for these children.

This mere two-week window is also extremely damaging to victims of rape or incest who may need to seek an abortion, as the trauma of their assault compounds the trauma of making such a decision in this short time. In a press conference in September 2021, Abbott failed to acknowledge these victims by only focusing on the offenders.

Abbott said he plans to work tirelessly to make sure we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them.

This logic is flawed in two ways: It fails to acknowledge a society that is still struggling to penalize sexual assault perpetrators while also continuing to perpetuate a culture of victim-blaming if the victim reports their assault at all.

Only about 310 sexual assault cases out of 1,000 are reported to the police, according to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Of those who do get reported, only 25 out of 1,000 are incarcerated.

These numbers do not give me hope that a governors plan to eliminate rapists will be enough to change a societal norm of victim-blaming and fear-based silence.

If the assault has created a pregnancy for the victim, how is simply arresting their rapist fixing the issue? Abbotts plan of arresting them will do no more than inconvenience the offender with jail time.

If other states implement abortion restrictions, how will they handle this same issue?

It sets a precedent, its just testing the limits and seeing how far they can get, and once they see that they can just manipulate the system and get what they want, they are going to keep doing that, Lockington said.

There are 26 other conservative states predicted to follow in Texas footsteps.

If other states did the same, the consequences would be enormous, Dillon wrote. One of the biggest impacts would be that any patient unable to get an abortion in the state they live would have to travel considerably farther for services.

The Texas law seems to be a catalyst for Republican states to feel free to make laws that control womens bodies, as they now know how to get around the law being unconstitutional in court.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announced two new billslast week that is said to be a direct takeaway from the Texas abortion law.

Now that other states are willing to follow in Texas footsteps, digging into Abbotts original reasoning for the bill is important to see how laws stemming from his thinking are deadly.

Its crazy to see how far we were able to come, and it just takes one thing, and we are right back to the beginning, Sweeney said. Whats all the work we did for? I dont understand how that could have happened.

This law does not just affect individuals our governments impediment to personal choice is influencing the success of our society.

Having the freedom to choose if and when to have a baby is closely connected to the overall economic success of women, according to a report by the Center of American Progress.

Women are an irreplaceablepart of the American workforce, and the impact of restricting their bodily autonomy could be catastrophic to our economy.

The threat to abortion access has never been more urgent: with patients across the country poised to lose access to abortion in the coming months, our top priority this year will be to solidify abortion access and funding in our state, Dillon wrote.

One way WSU students specifically can get involved and help protect access to safe abortion is by joining the upcoming campus chapter of Generation Action, a club affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

When will we stop letting authoritarian politicians control our futures and take back power over our own bodies?

Now is the time.

Read the original here:
OPINION: Protect our right to abortion The Daily Evergreen - The Daily Evergreen