The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: gabby giffords
The Gun

A New Strategy: How Law Students Are Targeting The Gun Industry

Gun violence is widely seen as an epidemic in the United States. According to the American Public Health Association, it is the leading cause of premature death in the country, resulting in nearly 40,000 deaths every year. While Congress struggles to pass laws to restrict access to firearms, two gun safety advocacy organizations, whose specialty is traditionally to lobby lawmakers to change gun laws, are trying a different approach to put the squeeze on the gun manufacturing industry.

Giffords, the group formed by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords that works to stem gun violence, and March for Our Lives, the movement against gun violence created by young people in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida, have launched a new effort this month aimed at recruiting law students to sign a pledge that they won’t represent the gun lobby.

The idea stems from the role that a handful of the biggest law firms in the country play in ongoing efforts to fight gun violence, according to David Pucino, Giffords’ deputy chief counsel. Law firms Kirkland & Ellis, Foley & Lardner, McGuireWoods, and Hunton Andrews Kurth and the legal arm of the National Rifle Association, among others, have fought in court against the stricter regulation of guns and have represented gun manufacturers in lawsuits filed against them over their role in mass shootings.

“[The issue of gun violence is] something that I think is pretty important to a lot of folks, but they don’t necessarily know how to action that, how to translate that into their work and their legal career,” Pucino told the American Independent Foundation. “And at the same time, there are these law firms that really take advantage of that, that represent some really reprehensible companies that have done some horrible things.”

Big law firms spend time and money recruiting law students to come work for them straight out of law school, often enticing them with glamorous perks, as an article on the website Balls and Strikes about law firms and the gun industry points out. They represent a wide variety of clients across all industries, but, as Pucino explained, they often omit their clients with ties to the gun lobby when recruiting law students, later assigning many of those young lawyers to represent those clients.

“There’s certainly the case that the legal system allows for and encourages for everyone to have representation, of course,” Pucino said. “But that fact doesn’t mean that anyone is entitled to your representation. And if your view is that you don’t want to support and aid and abet the gun violence epidemic, there needs to be an avenue for you to be able to express that and say that.”

To roll out the initiative, Giffords and March for Our Lives held events on the campuses of some of the country’s biggest law schools: UC Berkeley School of Law, Cardozo School of Law, CUNY School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, and Yale Law School. But Pucino emphasized in an email to the American Independent Foundation that the event is “broad and national,” and both groups plan to hold similar events at other law schools when students reconvene in the fall.

At these events, organizers provide students with tools and prompts to use when they’re interviewing to work at law firms that may have ties to the gun industry, including asking whether they have gun industry clients or do any pro bono work representing the gun industry. If they do, prospective employees can make it clear that they have a personal conflict of interest representing such clients because of their opposition to gun violence.

“I think so much of what’s caught up in these issues is questions of power,” Pucino said. “If you’re a young lawyer at a giant law firm, you have so little power. But the moment when you do have that power is before you sign on the dotted line, before you say, I’m going to commit to go work at this place.”

Pucino said that the success of the effort will depend on convincing as many students as possible to sign the pledge. It’s easy for a big law firm to ignore that kind of gun safety dialogue from one prospective employee, he said, but if more law students looking to enter the workforce engage with recruiters in this way, firms might think twice about the kinds of clients they take on.

“So it’s not even necessarily, Don’t go work at this firm, but ask before you sign on: Would you force me to work on a gun case? Would you force me to represent somebody whose irresponsible actions have led to a mass shooting or other violent events?”

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

Judge Will Dismiss Palin Lawsuit Against N.Y. Times Regardless Of Jury Verdict

Judge Will Dismiss Palin Lawsuit Against N.Y. Times Regardless Of Jury Verdict

By Jody Godoy and Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Monday said he will throw out Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times after concluding that the newspaper did not in an editorial maliciously link the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate to a mass murder.

In an abrupt twist in a trial seen as a test of longstanding protections for American media, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said Palin's lawsuit must be dismissed because she failed to show the Times acted with "actual malice," the established standard in such cases.

The judge, however, allowed jurors to continue their deliberations in the case despite his intention to dismiss it and did not inform them of his plans. Rakoff said he plans to enter a formal dismissal only after jurors reach their own verdict.

"If you see anything in the media about this case, just turn away," the judge told jurors before dismissing them for the day.

Rakoff said he expected Palin to appeal, and that the appeals court "would greatly benefit from knowing how the jury would decide it."

The judge's action effectively takes the case out of the hands of jurors, in a trial that began on February 3.

Lawyers for the Times and Palin were not immediately available for comment.

Rakoff, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, said he was "not altogether happy" about ordering a dismissal, calling the original editorial "an example of very unfortunate editorializing on the part of the Times."

But the judge went on: "My job is to apply the law. The law here sets a very high standard for actual malice, and in this case the court finds that that standard has not been met."

Gautam Hans, a Vanderbilt University law professor, said Rakoff's order, while unusual, is reasonable and will likely hold up on appeal.

"It is very difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in defamation cases," Hans said. "That's one reason you see some antipathy toward the current state of the law, including from some Supreme Court justices."

Palin, 58, had sued the newspaper - one of America's most prominent media organizations - and its former editorial page editor James Bennet.

She contended that a June 14, 2017, editorial incorrectly linked her to a mass shooting six years earlier that wounded Democratic U.S. congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

Supreme Court Precedent

Palin had said that if she lost at trial, her appeal might challenge New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing the "actual malice" standard for public figures to prove defamation.

Headlined "America's Lethal Politics," that addressed gun control and lamented the rise of incendiary political rhetoric.

It was written the same day as a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia where Republican U.S. congressman Steve Scalise was wounded.

One of Bennet's colleagues prepared a draft that referred to the January 2011 shooting in a Tucson, Arizona, parking lot where six people were killed and Giffords was wounded.

Bennet inserted language that said "the link to political incitement was clear" between the Giffords shooting and a map previously circulated by Palin's political action committee that the draft editorial said put Giffords and 19 other Democrats under crosshairs.

The Times corrected the editorial about 14 hours later. Bennet testified that he made the additions too quickly under deadline pressure, and intended no harm to Palin.

It is rare for a major media outlet to defend its editorial practices in court, as the Times had to do in this case.

Palin had sought unspecified monetary damages.

On the witness stand, Palin compared herself, a celebrated conservative politician with a national following, to the biblical underdog David against the Times' Goliath, while accusing the newspaper of trying to "score political points."

Palin testified that the editorial left her feeling "powerless" and "mortified," and that the correction issued by the newspaper the morning after publication was accurate but insufficient and did not mention her by name.

She maintained that the Times undermined her reputation by falsely linking her to a mass murder and by not being fast or thorough enough in correcting its error.

Palin, who no longer commands as much public attention as she once did, struggled under cross-examination to provide specific examples about how the editorial harmed her reputation and cost her opportunities.

Times lawyer David Axelrod in closing arguments on Friday told jurors the editorial amounted to an "honest mistake" and was not meant as a "political hit piece."

The case placed renewed attention on Palin, the late Senator John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election.

That campaign made Palin a Republican Party star and hero to many conservatives who viewed her as an outsider willing to take on liberals and established institutions including the news media. She served as Alaska's governor from 2006 to 2009.

(Reporting by Jody Godoy and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington, D.C.Editing by Will Dunham and Noeleen Walder)

Will Palin Succeed In Restricting Press Freedom In New York Times Trial?

Will Palin Succeed In Restricting Press Freedom In New York Times Trial?

By Jonathan Stempel and Helen Coster

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has spent 4-1/2 years battling the New York Times over an editorial she said falsely linked her to a deadly Arizona mass shooting that left a U.S. congresswoman seriously wounded.

On Monday, Palin is poised to try to begin convincing jurors in a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court that the newspaper and its former editorial page editor James Bennet defamed her.

The trial before U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff marks a rare instance of a major media company defending its editorial practices before an American jury. Opening statements could take place as soon as Monday, following jury selection.

Palin bears the high burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that there was "actual malice" involved in the newspaper's editorial writing process.

"This is a lawsuit over an editorial, essentially an opinion. This is a potentially dangerous area," said Roy Gutterman, a Syracuse University law and communications professor. "If we give public officials a green light to litigate on editorials they disagree with, where's the end?"

Palin, 57, has accused the Times of defaming her in a June 14, 2017, editorial linking her political action committee (PAC) to the 2011 mass shooting in an Arizona parking lot that left six people dead and then-U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) wounded. Palin is seeking unspecified damages, but according to court papers has estimated $421,000 in damage to her reputation.

The editorial said "the link to political incitement was clear" in the 2011 shooting, and that the incident came after Palin's PAC circulated a map putting 20 Democrats including Giffords under "stylized cross hairs."

It was published after a shooting in Alexandria, Virginia in which Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), a member of the House of Representatives Republican leadership, was wounded.

Palin objected to language that Bennet had added to a draft prepared by a Times colleague. She said the added material fit Bennet's "preconceived narrative," and as an "experienced editor" he knew and understood the meaning of his words.

The Times quickly corrected the editorial to disclaim any connection between political rhetoric and the Arizona shooting, and Bennet has said he did not intend to blame Palin.

Bennet's "immediate sort of emergency mode or panic mode" upon learning what happened strongly suggests he had been unaware of any mistake, said Benjamin Zipursky, a Fordham University law professor.

"Negligence or carelessness - even gross negligence - is clearly not good enough for Palin to win," Zipursky said.

Supreme Court Precedent

It has been 58 years since the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "actual malice" standard in the landmark decision called New York Times v. Sullivan, which made it difficult for public figures to win libel lawsuits.

Two current justices, conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have suggested revisiting that standard.

Palin has signaled in court papers she would challenge the Sullivan case precedent on appeal if she loses at trial.

Don Herzog, a University of Michigan law professor, said Palin would have trouble showing that the Times "subjectively doubted or disbelieved" the truth of what it presented as fact.

"In context, and given the kind of publication it was, this is a matter of opinion and so simply not actionable in defamation," Herzog said.

While the trial could spotlight office politics at the Times, the newspaper could argue that mistakes do happen under deadline pressure.

It has said that despite Palin's efforts to demonstrate its "liberal bias" and views on gun control, the editorial was never about her and did not undermine her reputation.

"Gov. Palin already was viewed as a controversial figure with a complicated history and reputation, and in the time since the editorial was published, Gov. Palin has prospered," the Times said in a January 17 court filing.

The trial is expected to last five days.

Gutterman said he expects the Times to prevail.

"It's unfortunate that this happened at one of the most prominent newspapers in the county, on deadline, but even a mistake does not rise to actual malice," Gutterman said.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Helen Coster in New York; Editing by Will Dunham and Noeleen Walder)

5 Ways Republicans Reaffirmed Their Awfulness This Week

5 Ways Republicans Reaffirmed Their Awfulness This Week

Reprinted with permission fromAlterNet.

Donald Trump (or more accurately, Steve Bannon) is obviously horrifying. But so is the entire Republican Party. Yes, the Democrats are a long way from ideal and politics is a dirty game on all sides. That said, who except for the very worst among us right now doesn’t wish we were fighting to make a Democratic White House and Congress move forward? Instead, we’re in a struggle to minimize the distance we get dragged backward. The reality is, that’s not just an executive branch issue. The GOP has been an absolute nightmare since about 1964, and this administration is just the least polished turd of the modern era. Trump (again, I mean Bannon) couldn’t fulfill his vision without the party onboard. Good thing they don’t have any actual decency or ethics to stop them from going with the program.

So how is the GOP doing its part to screw over anyone who isn’t lining its pockets or furthering its death cult intentions? Here’s a list of five ways Republicans reaffirmed their awfulness this week.

1. CPAC tried, and failed, to pretend it had morals.

Every year, the Conservative Political Action Conference offers a safe space for right wingers to strategize about how to make America white again. Recognizing that their methodologies differ, but their end goals are the same, white nationalists have increasingly appeared at CPAC as both attendees and speakers, scaremongering about nonexistent “global jihad,” bemoaning multiculturalism as a “modern political disease,” and wondering aloud why African-American slaves weren’t more grateful to their masters.

It’s no surprise 2017 conference organizers invited Milo Yiannopoulos, a professional provocateur who peddles hatred under the guise of free speech, to bring his brand of racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny to the stage. The invite was rescinded when footage of Yiannopoulos advocating for “cross-generational” relationships between “younger boys and older men” was unearthed—if that’s what you can call video that’s been available on YouTube for years. On the heels of the controversy, the alt-right troll also lost a six-figure book deal and his job at Breitbart. The good news to come out of the incident is that a right-wing—and media industry—that seemingly has no morals or standards does indeed have a low to which it will not sink. The bad news is, that low is child molestation.

A few days later, Richard Spencer, who’s been a guest of CPAC before, was tossed out of the conference as organizers continued their too-little, too-late effort to wrest their movement from the so-called alt-right they were complicit in elevating. One organizer reportedly described the alt-right as “horrible,” “venomous,” and “repulsive.” Proof of their insincerity is that Dan Schneider, executive director of the organization that stages the summit, attempted to paint the alt-right as a beautiful gathering that has recently been “hijacked [by a] hate-filled, left-wing fascist group.” Exhibit B lies in the fact that Steve Bannon, who bragged about turning Breitbart into “the platform of the alt-right,” remained on the speakers’ program.

2. Steve Bannon continued to call for the end of everything.   

Speaking of President Bannon, he and some guy named Reince Priebus shared the stage at a CPAC discussion before an adoring standing-room crowd. Bannon has previously said he wants to “destroy the state,” “bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” He expanded on that vision during Thursday’s appearance, first taking aim at the “corporatist, globalist media,” whom Bannon said were “all crying and weeping” on election night. For the press, Bannon vaguely threatened, “It’s going to get worse every day.”

“They are absolutely dead wrong about what’s going on today because we have a team that’s just grinding it through on [what] President Donald Trump promised the American people,” Bannon said, his scythe apparently left backstage. “And the mainstream media better understand something: all of those promises are going to be implemented.” He went on to state that a key goal of this White House is “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

If it seems like the appointees to every Trump cabinet position—from the climate change denialist now heading the Environmental Protection Agency to the public school opponent heading up the Department of Education—were put in place to destroy their charges, that’s not far off the mark. “If you look at these Cabinet appointees, they were selected for a reason and that is the deconstruction,” Bannon stated.

After all, who needs federal agencies ensuring we have democratic education, or clean air and water? Who cares about protections for civil rights? As Daily Kos notes, Bannon is well aware there’s no substitute institutions that can perform the role filled by our federal agencies. Bannon essentially wants to eliminate oversight for corporations and eradicate legal protections that get in the way of industry profit. It’s a frightening vision of a dark future.

3. Louie Gohmert exploited Gabby Gifford’s shooting for his own cowardly ends.

Republican members of Congress were supposed to spend this week in their home districts, doing the bare minimum of listening to the people who pay their wages. Some legislators showed up to hear from their justifiably irate constituents. But lots of Republicans, especially Tea Party GOPers, chickened out of face-to-face town halls. Tennessee Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., who was all in favor of protest when it came dressed in tricorner hats and racist sandwich boards, has done a 180.

“I do not intend to give more publicity to those on the far left who have so much hatred, anger and frustration in them,” Duncan, who is hopefully in his last term, told the Washington Post. “I have never seen so many more sore losers as there are today.”

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, who is the worst, took things a step further by exploiting the Gabby Giffords tragedy, just so he wouldn’t have to be yelled at. In a statement, Gohmert’s far more articulate press person lazily repeated lies about “groups from the more violent strains of the leftist ideology, some even being paid” who are wreaking havoc at town halls. “The House Sergeant at Arms advised us after former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot at a public appearance, that civilian attendees at congressional public events stand the most chance of being harmed or killed — just as happened there.”

Earlier this month, Gohmert voted to repeal a rule that keeps guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, like Jared Lee Loughner, the paranoid schizophrenic who shot Gifford.

Gohmert’s cynical use of Gifford’s story for political convenience was promptly called out by the courageous former senator herself.

“I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning my offices were open to the public,” Giffords said in a statement. “It’s what the people deserve in a representative…To the politicians who have abandoned their civic obligations, I say this: Have some courage. Face your constituents. Hold town halls.”

4. Republicans in 11 states are trying to make protesting illegal.

GOP legislators around the country are responding to protesters’ demands by pressuring Trump to release his tax records, investigating his potentially treasonous ties to Russia and opposing his billionaire Wall Street cabinet nominees.

Just kidding, they’re not doing any of that. Not even close.

Instead, they’re doing all they can to ensure President Bannon gets away with whatever he wants, and without the annoying sound of dissenting voices to distract him. To that end, Republicans in 11 states are trying to push bills making protesting illegal.

In Washington, state Senator Doug Erickson is trying to create a new felonious crime called “economic terrorism” for people who “intentionally break the law…by obstructing economic activity”—or, you know, what’s more commonly known as “protesting.” North Dakota’s Keith Kempenich is seriously trying to pass a bill that would allow drivers who run over protesters, like those opposed to the pipeline, to get off scot-free. GOP senators in Arizona have proposed a law that would make everyone taking part in an otherwise peaceful protest responsible for property damage, and penalized at the level of a racketeering charge. In North Carolina, state Senator Dan Bishop wants a law that would imprison people for shouting at lawmakers, in reaction to a demonstration where protesters yelled “Shame” at ex-governor Pat McCrory. Republicans in Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Virginia are pushing more laws like this.

It cannot be said enough that the party of people who spend an inordinate amount of time moaning about “political correctness” and “safe spaces” are like the human versions of Fabergé eggs.

5. Iowa state Senator Mark Chelgren is trying to kick liberals out of academia, which, good luck with that.

Last year, a conservative group launched the Professor Watchlist, a website that purports to catalog the “names of professors that advance a radical agenda in lecture halls.” Essentially it’s designed to scare progressive educators into shutting up, because the one thing the right wing hates almost as much as equality and justice is free speech.

Iowa state Senator Mark Chelgren is pursuing a similar idea. Chelgren wants to have a political test for college and university professors to make sure there aren’t too many liberals teaching on campuses.

“I’m under the understanding that right now they can hire people because of diversity,” Chelgren told the Des Moines Register. “They want to have people of different thinking, different processes, different expertise. So this would fall right into the category with what existing hiring practices are.”

“We do have a Constitution and it’s there for a reason, and it’s to try to protect equity and to make sure that we don’t judge people on the basis of their race or religion, their creed, their political beliefs,” Mary Mascher, a Democratic senator from the state, told the outlet. “We never ask that question when someone’s hired: Are you a Republican, Democrat, or independent, or Green Party or socialist or any of that. And I think that would be clearly discriminatory.”

“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity,” Pat Rynard, of media outlet the Iowa Starting Line, told Law Newz.

In conclusion, it would be great if Republicans would just admit they love McCarthyism, being told what to do and big government that serves their narrow-minded beliefs, and hate freedom, instead of putting on a big show of thinking otherwise. It would save us all a bunch of time.

Kali Holloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet.

IMAGE: White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon (L) and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus (R) watch as U.S. President Donald Trump announces his nominee for the  empty associate justice seat at the U.S. Supreme Court, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. January 31, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria