3 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2016
    1. Title: House Democrats Stage a Sit-in on the House Floor on Gun Control - The Atlantic

      Keywords: john lewis, democratic majority, wednesday afternoon

      Summary: He tweeted during the sit-in Wednesday afternoon that GOP leaders should put his proposal to prohibit suspected terrorists from buying guns on the floor.<br>Politico reports that Speaker Ryan’s office does not seem amenable to Democrats’ move.<br>This is reminiscent of when Republicans staged a protest against the Democratic majority during the summer recess in 2008, speaking in a darkened chamber to demand action on energy legislation.<br>Can we see?<br>CSPAN is still not broadcasting a live feed of the chambers, but the network is replaying members’ speeches online.<br>John Lewis has championed nonviolent protest his entire career.<br>House Democrats, led by civil-rights pioneer and Georgia Representative John Lewis, are staging a sit-in on the House floor to protest what they see as congressional inaction on gun control.<br>“We have to occupy the floor of the House until there is action,” Connecticut Democrat John Larson said, as his fellow members began to sit down late Wednesday morning.<br>Members have instead taken to Twitter to spread awareness of their action, tweeting statements and pictures from the floor.<br>#NoBillNoBreak #DisarmHate pic.twitter.com/C7BZpzNvxL<br>The 15-hour Senate filibuster led to votes Monday on four gun-control-related measures, but all failed.<br>Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy is reportedly headed to the House floor to join his House counterparts.<br>Mr. Speaker, not one thing.”<br>She said a minority of pro-gun voices “are forcing a false choice between constitutional rights and safe streets.”<br>—Nora Kelly<br>

  2. Feb 2014
    1. Majority Reasoning: (Justice Blackmun) A. Rule: The State of Texas asserts it’s rule (a law banning all abortions) is furthered by 2 interests: (1) Protecting prenatal life and (2) the medical safety of woman. The court accepts these interests, but rejects Texas’s absolute rule because: 1. There are 2 counter-weighing interests of the woman: a. The woman has a privacy right grounded in a "penumbra" of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, because "activities relating to marriage, procreation, family relationships, and child rearing and education" are "fundamental" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." b. The woman also has an interest in avoiding possible severe physical and psychological harm if an abortion is denied. 2. Also, a fetus is not a "person" within the meaning of the constitution, so it doesn’t get protection as a person. 3. Therefore, a proper rule balances the interests of the state v. the interests of the woman: in the early stages of pregnancy, the woman has stronger interests than the state, but as a fetus becomes more advanced, the state interests in prenatal life and a woman’s health grow to be "compelling," thus overriding the woman’s interests. This results in a 3-part RULE (trimester framework) the court announces: a. first trimester of pregnancy: no/little state interest in regulating abortion, so most abortion regulations are invalid. b. second trimester: moderate state interest (medical health of woman) so most medical regulations are okay. c. third trimester: Compelling state interest (fetal viability) so can outlaw abortion except to save woman’s life. B. Application: Here (in this case) Texas’s law violates this framework, because it outlaws abortions not just in the third trimester, but also in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.
  3. Oct 2013
    1. We must not, therefore, start from any and every accepted opinion, but only from those we have defined -- those accepted by our judges or by those whose authority they recognize

      "Truth" as defined by social opinion.