Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Oh, beckoning weekend: what adventures do you have in store? Motorcycles? Prison? Binge watching mediocre television on Netflix? We can't wait!
But, if you're looking for something to keep you occupied for the last couple of hours before your weekend begins, we've got a list for you: understanding Millenials, asset forfeiture reform, and not making lazy assumptions about judges' leanings based on presidential party affiliations.
As always, if you have a suggestion for next week's roundup, tweet me @PeacockEsq.
Clio: Five things you should know about working with Millennials
Every time I see a tweet, or an article, by some curmudgeonly old coot about how my generation is "lazy" or "wants things handed to them" or whatever, I have to suppress the urge to kick the person in the reproductive organs.
Clio went the other way, and wrote an article that describes me (and most of my friends) to a T: I'm always connected via a smartphone, tablet, or computer, the dirtiest word in the English language to me is "status quo" (err, stagnation), and I'm drowning in student loan debt! And despite my projected image of a sarcastic cynic, I'm actually a closeted optimist. (Shh ... it's a secret.)
WaPo's The Watch: Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
Radley Balko at WaPo has a post on Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)'s "Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act." We all know that asset forfeiture is a scam and a way for law enforcement agencies to fundraise by seizing private property, often without even charging the owner with a crime. This bill address that problem.
Balko describes the bill, how it would fix the problem (the best part is redirecting seized assets to the general Treasury fund, thereby reducing financial incentives to "seize" assets), and whether this is simply a political ploy ahead of a presidential run (he doesn't think so).
LA Times: Federal judges aren't robots or partisan hacks
Preach, brother! Michael McGough, a Times reporter, writes an opinion piece reminding the public that just because a Republican appoints a judge, doesn't mean that judge is a conservative hack. He cites a number of recent stories and court rulings where newspapers cite the appointing president's partisan affiliation as an explanation for the ruling and asks us to think deeper.
Here's a good example: the Eleventh Circuit's newest judge, Julie Carnes, is an Obama appointee, but was put on the district court by former President George H.W. Bush. Her recent appointment was rumored to be part of a compromise deal. If you just slap the label "Obama appointee" next to her name, you're misleading your readers.