Cosby Trial & the Madonna Whore Complex

*  The jury was  declared deadlocked in Bill Cosby’s trial on 6/17/17. It is time for the court system to seriously examine why our criminal justice system cannot hold a rich and powerful man responsible for sexually assaulting scores of women  whom he has drugged into a state of paralyzes. PGB

According to the news report, all eyes were on Bill Cosby’s wife,  Camille Cosby, as she entered the courtroom and found her seat while the judge was speaking.

“By allowing Cosby’s wife to enter the courtroom in the middle of proceedings while the judge was speaking, officials extended her an extraordinary and unprecedented courtesy that had not been afforded to others in the crowded courtroom. Members of the audience, including some of Cosby’s other accusers who are not testifying, have not even been allowed to leave the courtroom in the midst of proceedings for bathroom breaks without being blocked from re-entering.”

Meanwhile, Cosby attorney Brian McMonagle branded as a “stone cold” liar Cosby’s accuser, Andrea Constand, a former Temple University women’s basketball staffer who says Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2004. And he argued the approximately 60 other  Cosby accusers were merely seeking to appear on television and the Dr. Phil show, including Victoria Valentino and Linda Kirkpatrick, who sat in the last of eight jammed rows of padded wooden benches.

According to Reuters, “Camille Cosby has been deposed in a civil suit filed by an accuser and had been active behind the scenes in developing strategy in the criminal case, according to sources familiar with defense preparations. But she has made no public appearances related to the criminal proceedings. That is, until Monday.”

Camille Cosby, a “philanthropist” and art collector, is accorded great deference in the court system, though it appears she looked the other way for decades, while her husband allegedly drugged and raped scores of women.  Whereas the victims, many of whom told startlingly similar tales of being drugged and assaulted by a wealthy, powerful man, are demeaned  as liars and manipulator.

To borrow McMonagle’s words, “This ain’t right.”

Would the Framers’ Allow Signs that Create a Disturbance?

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-AZ, a proponent of U.S. President Donald Trump, has adopted a “code of conduct” for a planned  town meeting  tomorrow at the  Mesa Convention Center, near Phoenix.

It is likely that some people in Sen.Flake’s district are upset with his support of Trump’s agenda, particularly that part of the agenda which threatens reasonable labor protections,  meaningful health care for all, and environmental regulations that may just save the world for one more generation. It’s even possible that things will get uncomfortable for Sen. Flake, a former executive director of the Goldwater Institute.

So. Sen. Flake, who was elected to the Senate in 2013, has published a code of conduct for the meeting that contains the following provisions:

  • “Attendees with signs, banners or objects that create a disturbance will not be admitted.”
  • “To ensure a safe, enjoyable, and productive town hall, all attendees must comply with posted and audible instructions and failure to comply will result in immediate removal.”
  • “Constituents may begin to park or line up on the property one hour before the program begins. Doors will open an hour before the program begins.”

A progressive feminist nitpicker might find fault with Sen. Flake’s code of conduct. For one thing, the code seems designed to limit the speech of Sen. Flake’s critics.  It is not likely that he is concerned about signage that applauds his performance in office.

The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has  ruled that political signs are entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The government cannot impose “content-based regulations” on political speech. For example, the government cannot decide that signs which approve of the government are admissible but signs that express displeasure about the government are not admissible. The Court  also says it is perfectly okay if free speech creates a disturbance.

In addition, would the original framers of the U.S. Constitution deny citizens admission to a town hall meeting because they carried signs that were critical of government?

Fix the ‘Blacklisting’ Rule

President Donald Trump has officially revoked  the so-called “Blacklisting” executive order that was signed by former President Barack H. Obama in 2014 to encourage federal contractors to obey labor laws.

That’s a shame.  It’s smart public policy to save federal tax dollars by encouraging voluntary compliance with federal law. However, in truth, Obama’s executive order was needlessly flawed and arguably unconstitutional..

As written, the blacklisting rule required contractors seeking federal contracts over $500,000 to report both alleged labor violations and adjudicated violations to federal agencies. Federal agencies could then use the information  to award future contracts, cancel existing contracts, and potentially demand remedial action to address a pattern of violations.

It should be obvious even to a high school student that the federal government can’t penalize a contractor that is merely accused of a labor law violation. What if the contractor is innocent? Contractors have a right to due process of law under the U.S. Constitution. [Read more…]

Judge Gorsuch and the ‘Frozen Trucker’ case

As an attorney who specializes in workplace abuse, I read a lot of very bad court decisions. Here’s one from U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch that rivals the very worst.

Judge Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Transam Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor in which he said a trucker should be fired because he left a big truck rig with frozen brakes that was stranded by the side of the road late at night in frigid weather, three hours after his employer failed to arrive to fix the truck. The cabin was unheated and the trucker was showing signs of hypothermia. He unhooked the trailer and drove the cab to a gas station where he warmed up, and then he returned. He was fired.

“It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that” wrote Gorsuch.”There’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid.”

Do we really need a law saying you can save your life if its 14 degrees below zero,  your torso is numb and your speech slurred, and your employer has failed to rescue you after several hours time?

[Read more…]