text:
Do Banks Discriminate? More Often T...
Do Banks Discriminate? More Often Than You Think
Staff | Labor and Employment | Jan 24, 2017
Two lawsuits filed against JPMorgan Chase last week serve as a reminder that discrimination is still alive and well in the banking industry.
The bank agreed to a $55 million settlement with the federal government over allegations it worked with mortgage brokers who charged minority owners more than white customers with comparable credit profiles.
The lawsuit alleged that between 2006 and 2009, brokers associated with JPMorgan Chase charged 53,000 African American and Hispanic loan seekers $1,000 more than their white counterparts, according to a report in the Washington Post.
This is nothing new in the banking industry. Mortgage lenders big and small have engaged in racial discrimination for decades.
The bank's discriminatory behavior is not limited to customers. An administrative complaint was filed by the Justice Department against JPMorgan Chase on the same day as the racial discrimination settlement was announced over allegations of gender discrimination. 93 women alleged workplace discrimination on the grounds they were paid less than their male counterparts, the complaint said.
Still, despite reports of lawsuits such as these, progress has been made. The government has become more vigilant in protecting people seeking a mortgage from racial discrimination and employees from a discrimination-free work environment by filing lawsuits, introducing legislation, and offering more avenues to hold banks accountable.
A History of Lending Discrimination
The roots of lending discrimination can be traced back to the 1930s, when the government-sponsored Home Owner's Loan Corporation introduced the process of "redlining," according to a report in the Washington Post. The group drew up color-coded maps of American cities to determine which neighborhoods were worthy of receiving mortgages, with areas least likely to receive them marked in red. These redlined communities were often home exclusively to African Americans and Hispanics.
While other minorities at the time like Jews, Italians, Poles, and Czechs were considered less desirable tenants, they still had the opportunity for upward mobility given time to assimilate and "conform to the American standard of living," according to Slate. However, African Americans and Hispanics were were not afforded the same mobility because it was perceived their mere presence in a neighborhood could drive down property values.
Private banks soon adopted this policy, and people of color were routinely denied housing loans because of their skin color for decades. The federal government outlawed these practices in 1968 when it passed the Fair Housing Act, but banks shifted their tactics to skirt the law.
For instance, the practice of "reverse redlining" became popular during the housing boom of the previous decade. Instead of denying minorities mortgage loans, banks intentionally targeted minority communities with predatory loans, or loans with very high interest rates, which led to high rates of foreclosure in certain neighborhoods. According to the Washington Post,, a unit of Bank of America agreed to settle with the Justice Department for $335 million over allegations of reverse redlining in 2011.
Just a year later, Wells Fargo would be forced into a similar agreement with the Justice Department. The bank agreed to pay $175 million in order to avoid a lawsuit, over allegations that it engaged in reverse redlining from 2004 to 2009, according to a Reuters report.
In 2013, another of the country's largest banks, PNC Bank, agreed to pay $35 million in restitution to African American and Hispanic customers. It was alleged that the bank charged higher interest rates on mortgages to minority customers than white borrowers with similar credit from 2002 to 2008.
Racial discrimination is not limited to big banks, as many regional banks around the country have also been accused of similar practices.
A 2015 report in the New York Times revealed that government officials had uncovered redlining practices in some form among banks in Buffalo, Milwaukee, Providence, Rochester, and St. Louis just the previous year. The largest savings bank in New Jersey, Hudson City Savings Bank, was also cited in the report after it settled a lawsuit with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Justice Department for $33 million over similar allegations.
The combined work of all these banks has led to a very low number of minorities with home loans. In 2014, African Americans held 5.2 percent of the nation's home loans, compared with 8.7 percent in 2006, according to Federal Reserve Bank statistics cited by the NYT. Hispanics accounted for a slightly higher 7.9 percent of home loans in 2014, but that number stood at 11.7 percent in 2006. By comparison, whites accounted for 61.7 percent of home loans in 2006 and 69.1 percent in 2014, according to the Fed's statistics.
While it is true that whites make up the majority of the population — nearly 75 percent according to the last census — their percentage of all home loans is still disproportionately high. In the 10 years between the 2000 and 2010 census, whites as a percentage of the entire population fell from 77.1 percent to 74.8 percent, yet their homeownership increased nearly 8 percent from 2006 to 2014.
During that same period, the African American and Hispanic population as a percent of the entire population increased by a combined 4.5 percent, yet their ownership of home loans decreased by 7.3 percent.
How Can Minorities Protect Themselves Against Lending Discrimination?
While the history of racial discrimination among banks with regard to mortgage lending is bleak, there seems to be hope for the future. The recent rash of lending discrimination lawsuits is disheartening because it indicates rampant discrimination is still very real. Yet, the lawsuits also display how people are fighting back against discrimination. These investigations, lawsuits and subsequent media coverage will make it more difficult for banks to commit lending discrimination in the future.
The federal government has also given loan seekers more ways to seek justice if they fear they are being racially discriminated against while applying for a loan. There are two laws that protect loan seekers against discrimination, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. The former protects people seeking any form of credit from discrimination, and the latter protects people from discrimination with regards to housing, including loans.
Despite the progress, the CFPB warns that minorities seeking mortgages should still be on the lookout for discriminatory practices. Signs of discrimination include:
Receiving different treatment in person than on the phone
Being discouraged from applying for credit
Hearing the lender make disparaging remarks about race, national origin, sex, or other protected groups
Being refused credit even though you qualify for it
Being offered credit with a higher rate even though you qualify for a lower rate
Being denied credit without a reason and not told how to find out why
If you suspect that you were the victim of mortgage discrimination, you can file a complaint about the lender with the CFPB. If you were the victim of another form of discrimination, you may want to contact an attorney.
Are Banks Involved in Other Forms of Discrimination?
At banks, the customers are not the only ones who are discriminated against. There is also a well documented history in the banking industry of discrimination — on the basis of race and gender — against employees and job applicants.
Prior to the complaint filed by the Justice Department against JPMorgan Chase over allegations of gender pay discrimination last week, other banks were accused of similar practices. In 2013, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $39 million to settle a lawsuit with female brokers who claimed they were paid less than their male counterparts and denied the opportunity to manage the company's most valuable accounts, according to Reuters.
More recently, Bank of America settled a lawsuit in 2016 with a former female managing director who alleged that women at the bank were paid "substantially less" than their male coworkers and that it treated women like "second-class citizens," according to a report from Bloomberg.
That same report cited other large settlements with banks over similar allegations of gender discrimination. This included a $33 million settlement to resolve a suit by female brokers at Citigroup Inc. in 2008, and a $46 million claims pool set up by Morgan Stanley to settle a sex-discrimination claim brought by former financial advisers.
In the midst of these lawsuits, many of these banks also had to deal with lawsuits that alleged racial discrimination.
In one 2013 case involving a BoA office in Charlotte, a judge ruled that BoA racially discriminated against African American job seekers in 1993 and again from 2002 to 2005. As a result, BoA was forced to pay more than $2 million in back wages and hire 10 of the applicants who were originally rejected, according to the DOL.
That same year Merrill Lynch, which is owned by BoA, settled a lawsuit for $160 million brought by 1,400 African American brokers at the wealth management company, according to Reuters. The lawsuit, which was settled without Merrill Lynch admitting any wrongdoing, alleged that Merrill's policies discriminated against African American brokers.
Specifically, the lawsuit asked why African Americans made up less than 2 percent of all full time brokers at Merrill Lynch and why they managed smaller accounts, the Reuters report says. Even when brokers would leave the company, and accounts had to be redistributed, African American brokers were passed over in favor of white brokers, even those in the first months of the new broker training program.
More recently, Wells Fargo settled a lawsuit for $35 million at the end of 2016 with 500 African American financial advisers, according to Bloomberg. This lawsuit's allegations were nearly identical to those made by the Merrill Lynch brokers in their lawsuit settled in 2013. While a $160 million settlement should have deterred banks from engaging in racial discrimination against its employees, this Wells Fargo settlement suggests otherwise.
What Can Employees Do If They Experience Workplace Discrimination?
Workplace discrimination takes many forms and is not limited to race or gender. Employees and job seekers may also face discrimination for their age, a disability, and the religion they practice. Unequal treatment is not acceptable, however, and laws have been enacted to give employees and job applicants an equal opportunity work environment.
The most important thing employees should know if they experience discrimination in the workplace is that they can't be retaliated against for speaking up. Retaliation can manifest in a variety of ways, so employees who do report discrimination should take note if they are treated differently after complaining. If complaints are ignored or an employee is retaliated against, it may be time to consider hiring a lawyer and exploring legal options.
To learn more about how our labor and employment attorneys can help you, contact us today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.
Staff | Labor and Employment | Jul 16, 2019
How Pizza Delivery Drivers Get Cheated Out of Wages
Anyone might be a pizza delivery driver — a teenager, a college student, a retiree. It could be a side gig or full-time work. And because pizza vendors are so...
Caitlin Wolper | Labor and Employment | Jun 19, 2019
How Day Rates Keep FedEx Drivers From Overtime
When you're on the road, things happen. There's a crash, or construction, or dangerous weather. What might be an 8-hour workday becomes a 10-hour day just like that. But still,...
Caitlin Wolper | Labor and Employment | May 28, 2019
5 Facts About Stripper Minimum Pay Wage Laws
The adult entertainment industry is huge, and like all industries, sometimes it's so big that it's hard to know when you're being treated fairly. If you're an exotic dancer, stripper,...
Caitlin Wolper | Labor and Employment | Mar 20, 2019
Are Delivery Drivers Exempt From Overtime? The Rules Explained.
There are numerous ways in which employers might cheat workers of wages they're owed, but among the most common offenses are unpaid overtime wages or a lack of proper reimbursement....
Caitlin Wolper | Labor and Employment | Jan 31, 2019


The rapper is pretty cool, and 2-D's vocals are reminiscent in a way.
I don't think Popcaan works at all here, no clue why they decided to get him on this track. The second Damon comes in, I REALLY dig the song a lot, but overall i'd say it's a bit too messy for me.
The autotuned-to-death rapping from Popcaan kind of bog Saturnz Barz down, but in general, I like it. It's one of their weirdest songs, and a definite standout on Humanz.
Purchasing Saturnz Barz from Amazon helps support Album of the Year. Or consider a donation?


Together, PLUS AB adds 22 FEET reach to WARRIOR.
PLUS A fits the WARRIOR between sections 3 and 4. PLUS A is a 4/3 extension.
PLUS B fits the WARRIOR between sections 5 and 6. PLUS B is a 6/5 extension.
They are made from ULTRA-HIGH MODULUS CARBONFIBER, the same as the top 30% of WARRIOR.
3 Open the 'top' clamp of PLUS A. insert section 3 from WARRIOR until you feel it stop. This means you have the same overlap as the amount of pole showing at the bottom of PLUS A. Close and adjust the clamp.
4 Raise the pole up, open the lower clamp, and pull the balance of the section 3 out of the PLUS A.
5 To connect WARRIOR, remove sections 4,5 from the WARRIOR Master Pole.
6 Open the clamp of section 4, and insert section 3 of the PLUS A into the clamp with a 6-8" overlap.
7 Raise sections 4,5 of the WARRIOR - the total pole is now around 46 FEET actual length.
3 Open the 'top' clamp of PLUS B. insert section 3 from WARRIOR (as above) until you feel it stop. This means you have the same overlap as the amount of pole showing at the bottom of PLUS B. Close and adjust the clamp.
4 Raise the pole up, open the lower clamp, and pull the balance of the section 3 out of the base of the second PLUS B.
5 Add sections 7,6 of WARRIOR to the base of the second PLUS B by opening the clamp of section 6, and sliding the extended section 5 from the second PLUS B until there is 6-8" overlap. Close and adjust the clamp.
6 Extend sections 6, and 7 of WARRIOR to make a pole that is 57 FEET actual length (60ft reach).
Call our USA Team on 562-684-4928 anytime to discuss the right PLUS solution for you at this time. Remember, you don't need to buy what you don't need today - if you own a WARRIOR, you can reach 65 FEET at anytime in the future.


On the Thank You Message tab, click the blue "Edit Message" button on the bottom right corner of the screen. This will launch the thank you message editor. There you can edit the Thank You message to your liking. This is what will appear on the screen after the donor makes a donation as well as what will be emailed to them.


text:
Q: how to append a column header using sed $ delimited I have an input file like this
$col1$col2$col3
$col1data$col2data$col3data

I want to add $col4 header after $col3
so I'm trying to do a
sed -i "s/$col3/$col3$col4/"
...to add a col4 header
my loops add the 4th column of data alright already, so I just need to modify the header, 1st line.
any help would be appreciated.

A: Using dollar signs as delimiters is a stupendously poor choice because they have a special meaning both to sed and to the shell. You can avoid the latter by using single quotes instead of double, but you will still need to backslash every literal dollar sign.
To only perform an action on the first line, add the line number as a condition.
sed -i '1s/\$col3/$col3$col4/' file

If you stick to double quotes, you'll need to backslash each dollar sign multiple times, to the point of being hard to understand or manipulate.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Description	 In spell description, explicit range of fire storm is 5 (---->) , while player's effective range of fire storm is 7 (without sp/10% extra explosion or vehumet's power) because we can damage the target via edge of explosion, not center.
In included screenshots, the panlord is at edge of LOS (distance between 7), but the panlord hits firestorm on me via center of explosion (range 7, effectively 9.) and x-v lookup informs me wrong safety range. (color of "5" is grey(means safe), not red(means in range, not safe)) If monster version of firestorm exists, I can accept as compensation of monster power (like perfect version of OOD) but i think error on safe range description should be corrected.


Maryann Marie Gisclair Griffin, 76, a native and resident of Cut Off, passed away on Monday, January 27, 2014.
Visitation will be from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m., Friday, January 31, at Christian Fellowship Church in Cut Off. Religious services at 12 p.m., Friday at Christian Fellowship Church with burial to follow in Cheramie Cemetery.
She is survived by her husband, Charles Joseph Griffin; sons, Randy Griffin and wife Donna, Tony Griffin and wife Joy, Andy Griffin and wife Rhonda; daughters, Bonnie Griffin, Susan Cheramie; brothers, Sam Gisclair, Roy Guidry, Morris Guidry; sisters, Emelda Cheramie, Hattie St. Pierre, Dot Martin, Adele Curole; 11 grandchildren and 20 great grandchildren.
She was preceded in death by her parents, Sam Jean Gisclair and Soliska Cheramie Gisclair; adoptive parents, Morris and Clara Gisclair Guidry; son-in-law, Chris Cheramie; brothers, Val and Larry Gisclair, Parrison Guidry and sister Melva Gisclair.
Maryann was president of Women's Department of Galliano Assembly of God, teacher of Y's for 16 years. Sunday School teacher at United Methodist Church for 20 years, member of Eastern Star. Her hobbies included cooking and baking for her family, knitting, crocheting, sewing, fishing, trawling, golfing, raising chickens and gardening. She loved her children and grandchildren very much.


Two-week-long Jazz and Chamber music festival with internationally known artists.
Please join us for our 24th year of unique and thought-provoking dental continuing education in one of the most beautiful settings in the world.
3 days of Regattas in Cul de Sac lagoon and St Jean Bay.
Costume parade through the streets of Gustavia from 3pm to 7pm, and parties in restaurants from lunchtime till midnight. This is preceded earlier in the week by the short but charming"Children's Parade". Ash Wednesday marks the end of Carnaval, and the ceremonial burning of a straw statue of Vaval – King of Carnaval. This happens at sunset on Shell Beach, and is followed by live music and drinks at restaurant Do Brasil.
A three day by invitation-only Regatta featuring 48 of the most impressive superyachts in the world, all at least 100' long, including many beautifully preserved wooden racing boats. You can view many of the participating boats in Gustavia harbor after 5pm most days.
An important stop on the Caribbean regatta circuit, the"Les Voiles de St. Barth" regatta will include over 70 boats, divided into six classes from classic sloops to mega yachts. The results from each days racing are posted in the events tent on the Quai in Gustavia, where you can also enjoy live music each night.
Each year during the first weekend in May, beach built island schooners and sloops from all over the Caribbean gather in Gustavia to commemorate the great days of trading by sail between the islands. The event takes place over three days and includes sailing, an island market, live music, and much more.


A brilliant puzzle game that puts you in charge of investigating someone's phone you have found, to realise she is now missing.
A diabolical excuse for a game.
A delightful swimming puzzle game that will definitely make gamers either sink or swim.
A brilliant mix of tactics, RPG elements and tower defense that utilises the best of each to create a rewarding game at its core.
is 30 in 1 Game Collection an innovator or a game with quantity over quality?
The horror point and click adventure puzzle game that utilises escape room style puzzles in a creepy setting whilst being stalked by something out of The Ring.


text:
Privates :) und Spiel » catch: It needs a lot of money,
Nightladys » Deine erste Kategorie » Privates :) und Spiel » catch: It needs a lot of money,
#1 | catch: It needs a lot of money, 30.09.2019 10:03
NEW YORK -- The UConn womens basketball team is getting its own reality show.UConn Huskies: The March to Madness debuts March 1 on HBO with a special hour-long edition, followed by half-hour episodes on each subsequent Wednesday.The series follows the team as they try and win a fifth consecutive national championship, giving behind-the-scenes access to the team and its Hall of Fame coach Geno Auriemma.HBO did a similar show last year, following the Gonzaga mens basketball team over the course of the season.UConn sits at No. 1 in The Associated Press womens basketball poll and has won 82 consecutive games.The cable network announced the show on Tuesday. Kyle Garlick Dodgers Jersey .C. -- When North Carolina freshman Ryan Switzer reported to training camp in August he was a little miffed to learn he was third on the depth chart at punt returner. Kirk Gibson Jersey . The 29-year-old Baines has established himself as one of the top attacking full backs in the country and was the subject of two bids from United during the last off-season. Everton manager Roberto Martinez says that keeping Baines at the club is a "massive boost and exciting for the future" because he brings "maturity and football knowledge in a very specialized position on the pitch" and an "infectious and positive influence to the rest of the squad. https://www.cheapdodgersonline.com/75h-hyun-jin-ryu-jersey-dodgers.html . The catch: It needs a lot of money, and it needs it fast. Austin Barnes Jersey . JOHNS, N. Austin Barnes Dodgers Jersey . The 27-year-old Scrivens will be joining his third NHL club since signing with the Toronto Maple Leafs as a free agent in 2010. The move also reunites with him with head coach Dallas Eakins from their time together with the American Hockey Leagues Toronto Marlies. ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Forward Stefan Noesen has agreed to a one-year contract to stay with the Anaheim Ducks.Anaheim confirmed the two-way deal Monday.Noesen (NAY-sun) appeared in one game in each of the past two seasons for the Ducks, who acquired him from Ottawa in 2013.The 2011 first-round pick by the Senators has spent most of the past three seasons in the AHL with Anaheims affiliates in Norfolk and San Diego. He scored 32 points in 65 games for tthe Gulls last season.ddddddddddddThe 23-year-old Texas natives pro career has been hindered by two major injuries. He missed practically all of the 2013-14 season with torn ligaments in his left knee, and he missed four months of the 2014-15 season after an opponents skate blade nearly severed his right Achilles tendon. ' ' '
l people my gold medal was my fondest [memory], P » « will be one of seven holdovers from the previous staff,

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


NEW ORLEANS – Georgia Tech seniors E.C. Gibbs and Matt DiDia, along with sophomores Hunter Clasen and Subbu Sivanesan, were named Tuesday to the U.S. Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) 2009 All-Academic Team.
Tech's men and women combined to have nine student-athletes honored by the USTFCCCA, one more than the Yellow Jackets combined total for the last two years. The four selections for the men this year are the most in the program's history, while the women's five is also a program record.
Gibbs earned the honor for the second consecutive year after holding a 3.45 grade-point average in Management this past season. The Cullman, Ala. native ended his career on the Flats having run the third-fastest 1500-meter time (3:41.65) in school history. He also posted the 12th-best time in the country during his senior year and second best in the East Region this season. Gibbs garnered Outdoor All-ACC honors at the conference championships.
During his four-year career, Gibbs earned Academic All-ACC honors three times in track and field and once in cross country.
Clasen, DiDia and Sivanesan all made their first appearance on the team. The trio was part of the men's 4×400-meter relay team, which placed fourth at both the ACC Indoor and Outdoor Championships.
A day after the women's All-Academic team had a record 531 members, the men's national squad set a record of its own with 327 student-athletes representing 107 Division I institutions on the list.
In order to qualify for the USTFCCCA All-Academic Track and Field Team, the student-athlete must have compiled a cumulative grade point average of 3.25 and met either the NCAA Division I Indoor automatic or provisional qualifying standard or the NCAA Division I Outdoor regional or national qualifying standard in his respective event.


text:
T 557/13 - Poisonous or nothing wrong?
At the closure of the debate in oral proceedings in T 557/13, the Chairman announced that the Board will refer one or more questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in relation to what is often referred to as partial priority, poisonous divisionals and poisonous priorities. The questions are not yet formulated - the decision will be given in writing. The topic is however of such an interest that we want to post it already now on our blog -- we will come back to the topics once the referral is done.
Background / Summary of Facts and Submissions
Communication of the Board of Appeal pursuant to Article 15(1)of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal dd. 26.11.2014:
4. The Board observes the following:
4.1 According to the decision under Appeal (Point 3.2 of the Reasons), the oil-soluble polar nitrogen compound illustrated by Example 1 of Dl was a cold flow improver fulfilling the definition of Claim 1 as granted, used for enhancing the lubricity of a fuel oil composition having a sulphur content of 0.001% by weight. The characteristics of the fuel and the results of the HFRR test showing the lubricity enhancement are apparent from pages 17 and 21 of D1. According to page 21 of Dl, a treat rate (i.e. a weight of active ingredient based on the weight of the fuel) (Dl, page 18, last paragraph), expressed in ppm by weight, of 1334 (0.1334% by weight) was used. This embodiment described in Dl thus appears to comprise all of the features of Claim 1 as granted in combination. This finding according to the decision under appeal (Point 3.2, second paragraph, last sentence), was not disputed by the Patent Proprietor (now Appellant).
4.1.1 Still according to the decision under appeal (Point 3.2, second paragraph, first sentence), the description of this embodiment illustrated in Dl was identical (emphasis added) to that provided in priority document D16, namely Example 1, characteristics of the fuel on page 19 and results of the test on page 22, so that this potentially novelty destroying embodiment of Dl was entitled to the priority date as claimed, which was before the effective filing date of the patent in suit.
4.1.2 However, in this respect, the Board cannot find in D16 the alleged identity of embodiments. Apart from the fact that in the HFRR test carried out according to examples of Dl friction was not measured, the HFRR examples of Dl comprise a number of distinctions over the examples of D16, as follows:
(a) The sulphur content of Fuel I according to Dl (page 17) is 0.001 wt%, which is ten times smaller than the sulphur content of the fuel illustrated on page 19 of D16, i.e. 0.01 wt%,=.
(b) The treat rates mentioned in Dl (see page 18, last paragraph) are expressed in ppm by weight of active ingredient based on the weight of the fuel, whereas the treat rates mentioned in D16 (see page 19, last paragraph) are generically given in ppm, i.e. need not necessarily be ppm by weight.
(c) The treat rate mentioned in the results of the HFRR testing of the use of the product of Example of D1 as cold flow improver is 1334 ppm by weight (see page 21)(0.1334%by weight), whereas the treat rate mentioned in the test results concerning the use of the product of Example 1 of D16 as cold flow improver (see page 22) is 2000 ppm (by weight? by volume?) (% by weight?).
4.1.3 The Patent Proprietor/Appellant did not rely on these apparent differences between the respective disclosures of D1 and D16, nor did it explain why they were not relevant. The parties should thus be prepared to take position regarding this issue, because the question may arise whether the invoked embodiment(s) described in Dl, and deemed to be novelty destroying, were identically contained in D16 or otherwise enjoy(s) the priority date of D16, i.e. whether the finding in the decision under appeal was correctly established.
4.1.4 According to the minutes of the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, the uses of the cold flow improvers according to Examples 2 and 3 too were also discussed. They are, however, not dealt with in the decision under appeal.
4.1.5 Moreover, the use illustrated by HFRR testing of the cold flow improver according to e.g. Example 1 in Fuels II and III of Dl was not dealt with in the decision under appeal.
4.1.6 In any case, it is apparent that the HFRR testing of the product of e.g. Example 1 for cold flow improvement in Fuels II and III of Dl has no counterpart in D16.
4.1.7 As a matter of fact, the treat rate illustrated in the HFRR testing use in Fuel II, namely 60 ppm by weight, amounts to 0.006 wt.%, which is less than the minimum content (i.e. 0.01 wt.%) disclosed in D16 (see page 18, third full paragraph). Hence, it is not apparent how this embodiment based on Fuel II might enjoy the claimed priority date.
4.2 If the finding that at least one embodiments disclosed in D1 and comprising all the features of Claim 1 as granted also enjoys the priority date claimed were confirmed, than the following should still be considered.
4.2.1 One and the same "Example 1" is contained verbatim in the priority document (page 20), the parent application (page 19), the divisional application (page 19) and the patent in suit (page 6; Claim 7). This does not appear to be in dispute. These documents respectively refer in similar (?)/ identical(?) (supra) terms to the actual use of the specific product of Example 1 as cold flow improver in a fuel identified as Fuel I (Class 1 diesel fuel commercially available in Sweden), in an amount falling within the range of Claim 20 of D16, thus also within the range defined in Claim 1 at issue, in order to enhance the lubricity of a fuel composition having a sulphur content of at most 0.05% by weight, as required in any of said documents. Said use thus appears to fall within the terms of Claim 1 at issue (supra).
This also seems to be undisputed and even more evident from the fact that claim 7 as granted depends on Claim 1 at issue.
4.2.2 Hence, as also apparent from the parties' submissions, the issue of novelty apparently may hinge on the question of whether or not, under the circumstances addressed above, the patent in suit can validly claim a right of priority as regards the use of the product of Example 1 as cold flow improver, considering in particular that said use is merely embraced by the more generic definition of the invention according to Claim 1 at issue, rather than being clearly defined as a distinct alternative of the invention defined in Claim 1.
4.3 In this connection, the Board notes in particular that:
(a) The questions raised in the present case concern the issue of so-called "partial priority", which is addressed in Article 88 (3) EPC and Article 4F PCT. As regards the expression "partial priority", attention is drawn to e.g. Schricker, Fragen der Unionsprioritat im Patentrecht, GRUR Int 1967, 85-93 (copy annexed to this communication).
(b) In its letter of 3 November 2014, the Respondent held that the principles said to be established by EBA decision G 2/98 (OJ 2001,413) should be applied since this decision was of an higher order than the "additional considerations" contained in decision T 1222/11 of 4 December 2012 relied upon by the Appellant.
(c) Decision G 2/98 is essentially focussed on the meaning of the requirement "the same invention" of Article 87(1) EPC. In Point 6.7 of the reasons of G 2/98, where reference is made to the so-called "FICPI Memorandum" (historical documentation related to the EPC, document M48/I, Section C), it is indicated that "the use of a generic term or formula in a claim for which multiple priorities are claimed in accordance with Article 88(2), second sentence, EPC is perfectly acceptable under Articles 87(1) and 88(3) EPC, provided that it gives rise to the claiming of a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters.".
However, G 2/98 does not indicate in more detail how a limited number of alternative subject- matters may be clearly defined in a claim using a generic term or formula.
The conclusion and the headnote of G 2/98 do not refer to said "claiming of a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters", let alone in a situation of a potential partial priority. As pointed out by the parties, the case law does not appear to be consistently conclusive either as regards the practical application of said indications in G 2/98 to specific cases.
5. Summing up, the Board understands that the potential legal uncertainty perceived by the parties with regard to this point of law, which they appear to consider as an important one, might require clarification by means of a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, as requested by the parties.
5.1 Therefore, a possible outcome of the oral proceedings is that the Board hands down a decision to refer one or more questions regarding this point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal pursuant to Article 112(1) (2nd clause)(a) EPC.
5.2 During the oral proceedings, the Parties will thus also be heard regarding the meaning to be given to the sentence under point 6.7 of G 2/98 quoted above, and the appropriateness of a referral, taking into account also the relevant case law.
Letter of the Appellant dd 15.12.2014 regarding the oral proceedings of 17.12.2014 (citations):
The Appellant had indicated his intention to refer at the oral proceedings to Appendix 2 of his previous submissions (case-law table on partial priority). Following the Board's second communication, that summary has been revised to include T 571/10. We enclose revised copies for the convenience of the Board and Opponent.
In its first communication, the Board advised that it might decide to refer question(s) of law to the Enlarged Board. We note the Opponent has already made referral requests.
The Appellant has therefore considered its position on possible referral. In the event this topic is discussed at oral proceedings, the Appellant will refer to the enclosed draft referral questions, which capture his thinking in the light of the developing case law. For preparation purposes, we felt it was appropriate to circulate these questions in advance. They have the aims of :
• referring the points of law relevant to the outcome of this appeal
• In the order and circumstances they arise
• In a form that offers scope to review all the issues and consequences
We respectfully ask for their consideration should the Board of Appeal decide to refer the matter.
The Appellant gave a condensed and factual overview of case law where partial priority was accepted and partial priority was denied, and of 'self-collision' between parent and divisional in Appendix 2 of his letter.
The Appellant proposed possible referral questions:
Where a claim of a European patent or patent application encompasses more specific subject matter disclosed in an earlier application from which priority is claimed, for example because the claim in question contains generic term(s) or generic formula(e) encompassing both the subject matter disclosed in the priority application and alternative(s) thereto :
1. Is the expression "provided that it gives rise to the claiming of a limited number of clearly- defined alternative subject matters" from Point 6.7 of Enlarged Board opinion G2/98 to be applied as the legal test for entitlement to partial priority under Article 88(2) and (3) EPC ?
2. If the answer to 1 is 'yes', how is the test from Point 6.7 to be applied in this situation, and in particular, how is a claim containing generic term(s) or generic formula(e) to be interpreted as relating to a limited number of clearly-defined alternative subject matters ?
3. If the answer to 1 is 'no', what is the legal test for partial priority of a claim containing generic term(s) or generic formula(e), and how is it to be applied to such a claim ?
In the situation defined above, where :
(i) the European patent was, or the European patent application is, a divisional application
("Divisional") and the claim in question fails the legal test for partial priority as clarified above;
(ii) the parent European patent or patent application ("Parent") claims the same priority and,
as published, discloses specific subject matter also disclosed in the priority application
and encompassed by the claim of the Divisional; and
(iii) the Parent and Divisional designate the same EPC contracting states:
4. Does Article 76(1) EPC nevertheless prevent different effective dates being attributed to the claim of the Divisional and the priority-entitled specific subject matter in the Parent?
5. If the answer to 4 is 'no', is the term 'European patent applications' in Article 54(3) EPC to be interpreted as extending to the Parent application, thereby rendering the Divisional lacking in novelty over its Parent?
Reasons for the Decision - minutes of the oral proceedings of 17.12.14:
The Chairman declared the oral proceedings open.
He summarised the relevant facts as appearing from the file.
The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained as granted (main request) or, in the alternative, on the basis of the set of claims according to the auxiliary request 1 filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal.
The respondent (opponent) requested that the appeal be dismissed. Prompted by the Board, the respondent confirmed that it had no objections under Article 100(c) EPC with regard to the claims of the patent as granted (main request).
The parties were then heard on the compliance of claims of the patent as granted (main request) with the requirement of novelty.
In this connection, both parties addressed the issues raised by the board in its communication of 26 November 2014, in particular Point 4.1.2, and expressly confirmed the identity of (inter alia) the use of the compounds of example 1 as disclosed in D1 and D16, respectively.
The appellant requested to refer the questions submittedwith letter of 15 December 2014 to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
The parties were then heard as regards the appropriateness of a referral.
The respondent declared that it agreed with the request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
After a break for deliberation by the board, the Chairman informed the parties that the board intended to refer one or more questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Upon request by the Chairman the parties declared that they had no further requests, arguments or comments.
The Chairman then declared the debate closed and announced that the Board will refer one or more questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and that the decision will be given in writing.
The Chairman then closed the oral proceedings.
What will the exact questions be that the Board will refer?
What scope will the Enlarged Board cover?
Only the parent-divisonal situation, or also other Art.54(3) EPC between parallel applications of the same applicant claiming priority from one another, or independently filed but associated with species and genus / narrow and broad subject-matter?
A very strict interpretation of Art.54(3) EPC will lead to every later application to a genus claiming priority from an earlier application describing only a species to be Art.54(3) against not only its divisional or its parent, but also against itself: Art.54(3) EPC is NOT limited to "other" applications being possible prior rights, but includes if taken literally and in isolation of its legal history also to the application itself - as the priority assessment is since G 2/98 done per subject-matter...
What is the meaning of "limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matter" of r.6.7 of G 2/98? Does it required to be separable alternative embodiments - T 1877/08 -, or is it not required to be an explicit or implicit disclosure - T 1222/11-. (Thx to Eric Duval - see acknowledgment below).
Interesting topics!
This decision has no European Case Law Identifier yet. The minutes if the oral proceedings can be found here, and the earlier communication dd. 26.11.2014 of the Board here, and the proposal from the appellant here. The file wrapper can be found here (EP98203458).
Photo "Poison Dart Frog (Dendrobates azureu)" by Cliff obtained via Flickr under CC BY 2.0 license (no changes made).
The author wants to thanks Eric Duval (EPO) and the participants to the "Get your priorities right" session WS09, and Berthold Rutz (EPO) and the participants to the "'Poisonous' divisionals and partial priorities" session WS013 at Examination Matters 2015 (EPO The Hague, 16-17 April 2015) for drawing attention to this decision in T 557/13.
Also see "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office", 7th Edition (September 2013) II.D.4.3., and our earlier blog on "T 571/10 - Partial PRI / OR / ITY"., and various articles by others, e.g. The Doctrine of Partial and Multiple Priorities, especially from the standpoint of Toxic Priority, by M. Lawrence and articles in epi information 3/2014 and 3/2013.
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 15:41
Labels: Art. 54(3) EPC , G 1/15 , G 2/98 , novelty , partial priority , poisonous divisionals , poisonous priority , T 1222/11
Resp PI 27 May 2015 at 22:55
"A very strict interpretation of Art.54(3) EPC will lead to every later application to a genus claiming priority from an earlier application describing only a species to be Art.54(3) against not only its divisional or its parent, but also against itself"
I do not think there is an issue, if you generalise a claim, you have to avoid publication of the priority EP patent file that contains the species claim, if you want to avoid A 54-3. But maybe the ELBA will tell I am wrong....
I think that by "very strict" Roel means that an application could destroy its own novelty under Art. 54(3).
US priority discloses (only) a species. Obviously this document will never be 54(3)-prior art itself.
EP claims priority from US, discloses species and genus and claims genus.
Now the species subject-matter in EP "enjoys" priority from US, but the claimed genus does not. Upon publication of EP, the species subject-matter in EP becomes 54(3)-prior art for the claimed genus and anticipates it. Ouch.
This is probably a very common situation if you really start looking for it. The priority document might be some US provisional application that discloses some embodiments but lacks a good basis for a more generic claim (probably no big deal under US patent law, but I don't really know). There might even be a (later) US priority document that is identical to the EP application, but that won't help. Dropping the "poisonous" priority claim probably helps, but it would have to be done before the EP is published.
Roel van Woudenberg 9 June 2016 at 09:20
The number of the referral is G 1/15.
Oral proceedings were held on 7 and 8 June 2016. Tufty the Cat gave a summary of the (first day of the) oral proceedings:
http://tuftythecat.blogspot.nl/2016/06/g-115-wait-is-nearly-over.html
According to his blog, "At the end, the Chairman announced that a decision would be made "as soon as possible", but that this would be by November this year."
T 0908/10: Sufficiency of disclosure second medica...
T 359/11 - Notoriously known - not searched, not a...
T 1164/11 - Use the force
R 8/13 - Call for a Diplomatic Conference
T 1756/11 - Third party excluded from the party?
T 995/10 - Purity isn't everything
T 0081/14: use claim of a product defined as a pro...
Online consultation on reforms to the EPO boards o...
T 2541/11 - "Right to be heard not absolute, but m...
R 8/13 Partiality settled for the time being


text:
Q: Difference in seconds between two dates? The question is simple, there are many API specific methods in other languages, but I found none that that were simple and straight forward for Cross-platform C++ usage.
If I have two dates, and they are assumed to be in the same locale, what is the easiest way to differentiate them in C++?
I have (somewhat) looked at using time.h, creating two tm objects, converting them to UTC and then differentiating them.
The current format for the dates is: YY/MM/DD HH:mm:SS (stored as individual integers)
EDIT:
Ok, based on current answers, I've done the following (for now):
time_t calculate_seconds_between(
    const uint Y1, const uint M1, const uint D1, const uint H1, const uint m1, const uint S1, // YY/MM/DD HH:mm:SS
    const uint Y2, const uint M2, const uint D2, const uint H2, const uint m2, const uint S2
)
{
    time_t raw;
    time(&raw);

    struct tm t1 = *gmtime(&raw), t2 = t1;

    t1.tm_year = Y1 - 1900;
    t1.tm_mon = M1 - 1;
    t1.tm_mday = D1;
    t1.tm_hour = H1;
    t1.tm_min = m1;
    t1.tm_sec = S1;

    t2.tm_year = Y2 - 1900;
    t2.tm_mon = M2 - 1;
    t2.tm_mday = D2;
    t2.tm_hour = H2;
    t2.tm_min = m2;
    t2.tm_sec = S2;

    time_t tt1, tt2;
    tt1 = mktime(&t1);
    tt2 = mktime(&t2);

    return (tt2 - tt1);
}

Which works great.

A: To convert from YY/MM/DD HH:mm:SS to struct tm you can use strptime (or make an equivalent if you don't have it)
const char * dateInput;
// ....
struct tm tm;
time_t val;

memset(&tm, 0, sizeof(struct tm));
strptime(dateInput,"%y/%m/%d %H:%M:%S",&tm);
val = mktime(&tm);

After you have the two time_t values you can call difftime.

A: The new C++11 has the chrono library (also available from boost, for non C++11 compilers )
With it you can do nifty things like
boost::chrono::system_clock::time_point start = boost::chrono::system_clock::now();
// ...
boost::chrono::duration<double> sec = boost::chrono::system_clock::now() - start;
std::cout << "took " << sec.count() << " seconds\n";

or
typedef boost::chrono::duration<long, boost::ratio<60> > minutes;
minutes m1(3);                 // m1 stores 3
minutes m2(2);                 // m2 stores 2
minutes m3 = m1 + m2;          // m3 stores 5


text:
Main Feed Posts
Contributor Feed
Post of the Week
Member Feed
No Dumb Questions
Recommended Feed
The Ricochet Podcast
The Superfeed
AEI Banter Podcast
Acton Line
Acton Unwind
The American Idea
Andrew Klavan Show
The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Podcast
Bespoke Parenting Hour
Bill Bennett Show
The Byron York Show
COSM Technology Summit
Covering Trump
China Uncovered
China vs USA
Close Consideration
Commentary Magazine Podcast
Cryptonite with Rich Goldberg
The Dave Carter Show
Daily Signal Podcast
The Delingpod
Dissed
Donor's Trust
Erick Erickson Show
Federalist Radio Hour
The Federalist Society's Teleforum
GLoP Culture
Half Percent Podcast
Heritage Explains
HubWonk
ID The Future
In the Tank
James Lileks' The Ramble
Jobmakers
King of Stuff
The Last Optimist
Law Talk
The Legendarium Podcast
The Libertarian
Madison's Notes
Martini Shot
Matters of Policy and Politics
Mock and Daisy
Music for a While
The Pacific Century
Parsing Immigration Policy
Political Economy with James Pethokoukis
Post Corona
Problematic Women
Q & A, Hosted by Jay Nordlinger
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Ralston College Podcast
Reaganism
Report Card with Nat Malkus
Reasonable Disagreements
Right Idea Podcast
Students Over Systems
SCOTUS 101
Sara Carter Podcast
Take Back Our Schools
Three Martini Lunch
What the Hell Is Going On
What's Bugging Me
Join Ricochet Login
Dismiss this notice Χ
Conservative Conversation + Podcasts
Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Join Ricochet for Free Listen to Our Free Podcasts
Senator Collins: Lioness of the Senate
Clifford A. Brown
Senator Susan Collins stood forth on the Senate floor; today she was our Deborah. Senator Lamar Alexander, following her, praised her speech as one for the ages, linked to Senator Margaret Smith. Majority Leader McConnell then said he had been a young staffer when Senator Margaret Smith was the first to denounce McCarthyism. Senator Collins's speech is important, not only for guaranteeing Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, but also for marking off the bounds of decency — as her state's first female Senator did over a generation ago.
Two weeks ago, I wrote "Senator Collins has been a true stateswoman in the Kavanaugh hearings." A week ago, I observed:
Too many Republican "men" of the Senate are passively complicit in the Kavanaugh smear (Clarence Thomas smear, part II), or cowering in vision-distorting fear. Senator Collins was praiseworthy early last week, as was Senator Grassley. Time, however, has exposed the danger of their failure to stand strongly for justice, and for protecting the seriousness of real cases of sexual violence. Senator Collins has it right, that women must lead in this matter. So let one or a group of the Republican Senators who are women, or a great, aspiring stateswoman, like Congresswoman Martha McSally, take inspiration from Deborah, and stand forth!
In the end, it was the old lioness, Susan Collins, who stood forth. In so doing, she reaffirmed Maine's official motto, emblazoned on the state seal and flag: DIRIGO (I lead). She did so in the face of extreme pressure and despite knowing a Justice Kavanaugh will likely hold against imposing her social-sexual political agenda through the courts.
I commend to your viewing, and reading, two things: Senator Collins's speech, 5 October 2018, and Senator Margaret Smith's "Declaration of Conscience," 1 June 1950. Here is the key paragraph from the "Declaration of Conscience," previously quoted in "Who Will Be the American Margaret Thatcher? Who Will Be Our Deborah? [Updated]:"
I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some real soul searching and to weigh our consciences as to the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America and the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges. I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation. Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.
Below is Senator Collins speech, printed in full. She starts her reasoning about the confirmation process by referring to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 76, "The Executive Power of Appointment." Senator Collins lays out deep and thoughtful reasoning, grounded in her reading of his opinions. Yes, much of it is her talking herself into seeing Judge Kavanaugh as a liberal (what she styles a "centrist"). But, Senator Collins has done her due diligence. As to the process, she points out recent history, in which President Clinton nominated both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, while under impeachment investigation. To see her speech in context, view the whole proceedings, with her remarks starting at 05:36:52. Yes, that is the five hour, thirty-six minute mark.
Two women from Maine spoke on the Senate floor 68 years apart, both with the same message. Think on it. In this, there is both hope for our future, and a reminder of the highly imperfect humans and institutions that govern us.
Senator Collins Announces She Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh [emphasis added]
Mr. President, the five previous times that I have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.
But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.
The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the Judge's name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed "Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States." A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known.
Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which, although debunked hours later, continue to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.
Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.
Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual Senator to decide what the Constitution's "advice and consent" duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.
I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have never considered the President's identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump.
So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the Committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And, I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.
I have also met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh. One concern that I frequently heard was that Judge Kavanaugh would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said his dissent informed Justice Roberts' opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh's approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow. When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact.
This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (PPH v. CFPB). In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for "severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact." Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a Justice who would take just this kind of approach.
Another assertion I have heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the President were to come before the Court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents miss the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the President does not have such protection currently.
Second, there are some who argue that given the current Special Counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton, in 1993, nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway. And she was confirmed 96-3. The next year, just three months after Independent Counsel Robert Fiske was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87-9.
Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him.
Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer and United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where the Court served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v Board of Education.
One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. United States, a case that challenged the Bush Administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush Administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush's White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, "We don't make decisions based on who people are, or their policy preferences, or the moment. We base decisions on the law…."
Others I met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same sex couples to marry. Yet, Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy's recent Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion for the Court's majority stating that: "The days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court."
Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case, Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent "strongly suggested" that there was a "compelling interest" in facilitating access to birth control.
There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me.
To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent "is not just a judicial policy … it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent." In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration; it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a "grievously wrong" decision–to use the judge's term–allowing racial inequality. But, someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is "grievously wrong" or "deeply inconsistent with the law." Those are Judge Kavanaugh's phrases.
As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy, on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as "settled law," Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, Meyer and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as "precedent on precedent." When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said "no."
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time, Republican presidents have appointed Justices O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices—Republican president appointed justices—who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices' nominations. Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan "Stop Souter Or Women Will Die!" Just two years later, Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion, reaffirming a woman's right to choose. Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues, despite his record of judicial independence. I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, or to any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me he had not.
Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association (ABA) gave him its highest possible rating. Its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that "his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standard."
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified: "By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court." "His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair…." Ms. Blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is, in her own words, "an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose," said that Judge Kavanaugh "fit[s] in the mainstream of legal thought." She also observed that "Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession."
That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
Despite all this, after weeks of reviewing Judge Kavanaugh's record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate's advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee.
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.
In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.
The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee's otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred; none of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night.
Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford's life-long friend Leland Keyser indicated that, under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.
In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, "I was at the party that night."
Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that, because of the distance, she would have needed a ride – yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one that drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying goodbye and distraught, none of them called her the next day – or ever – to ask why she left – is she okay – not even her closest friend, Ms. Keyser.
Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance as to how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each Senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of "more likely than not" as our standard.
The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.
Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem.
I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every person—man or woman–who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come.
Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends I have known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. To them, I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences.
Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI supplemental background investigation. This was the right thing to do.
Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley's offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.
Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter. Yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released. And yet, here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.
One theory I have heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein, leaked Professor Ford's letter at the eleventh hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly: I know Senator Diane Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. She is a person of integrity, and I stand by her.
I have also heard some argue that the Chairman of the Committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.
But the fact remains, Mr. President, that someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford's express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate – and indeed all Americans – to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.
Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination had reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction.
We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of different groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop ever more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify.
This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of "a more perfect Union."
Their vision of "a more perfect Union" does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
Mr. President, we've heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
Published in Politics
Tags: 2018 Senate Races, Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford, Chuck Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Mitch McConnell, SCOTUS, Susan Collins
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet's community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 84 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
@MarciN
12:56 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 6, 2018
What I loved most about the speech was that it was substantive. I was greatly impressed with Senator Collins's intelligence and knowledge. Everyone learned something from it. That's what speeches should be: interesting and informative.
@CliffordBrown
1:32 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 6, 2018
Miffed White Male (View Comment):
Mikescapes (View Comment):
How does a daughter's wedding date become a valid excuse for not attending the most crucial vote on the direction of constitutional government in America? Weddings can be held a week later.
Are you married?
And have you been to Montana? Let's not do empty virtue signaling. In the end, Murkowski, having struck her pose (and laid down some sort of marker towards the next SCOTUS fight), agreed to vote "present" so the vote total would likely be 50-48. That is, she agreed to not force her colleagues to jump through hoops and spoil a colleague's daughter's (and wife's) dream day.
cdor
@cdor
Larry3435 (View Comment):
And to those calling for retribution against Sen. Murkowski, please keep in mind that McConnell has only a one vote majority and will need her vote in the future. Maybe, if we can pick of three or four seats in the Senate, there might be a little leeway to engage in vindictiveness. But right now I think we have to bite our collective lip and move on graciously.
@larry3435 you are correct about Collins getting a break next time she needs to buck a conservative vote. Of course I have noticed she doesn't seem to need anyone's permission–she has always determined her own direction. I have been pissed off at her more than once, for sure.
You are also correct about Murkowski. This is no time to shoot the last bullet. She could very easily declare Independent and caucus with the Dems. For now, keep the powder dry. Besides, her vote ended up being of no significance.
cdor (View Comment):
We get a real majority by winnowing out would-be careerists and club members. We do so by putting them on the spot now, forcing them to answer in the campaign for Murkowski's vote and Flake's passive aggressive collusion in the smear of the Kavanaugh family. Win with people who will force her off her prized committee chair, or at least extract some real price in the new Congress. Win with people who will treat Flake, and any client he represents, with disfavor.
That is how we actually fix the "circus," as opposed to self serving posturing that protects the club members.
From The Hill:
Senators voted 50-48 to confirm Kavanaugh, ending a deeply bitter and rancorous fight that raged for months after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced in late June that he would retire and deprive the court of its perennial swing vote.
In a rare move, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) was the only Republican senator to oppose Kavanaugh on Saturday. But she formally voted "present" to offset the absence of GOP Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.), who left Washington, D.C., on Friday to fly to Montana for his daughter's wedding.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who is up for reelection in a state Trump won by more than 40 points in 2016, was the only Democratic senator to support Kavanaugh's nomination.
RightAngles
@RightAngles
RightAngles (View Comment):
And after people noticed how every college kid protester on the sidewalk was waving an expensive-looking professionally made sign, suddenly I started seeing overly crude ones, even one that was made from a cardboard box that had been taken apart, with the words scrawled in marker. These people are just ridiculous.
Gary Robbins
@GaryRobbins
This may be slightly off point. While Susan Collins distinguished herself, another Republican did not. I refer not to Murkowski for now, but to Sen. Steve Daines of Montana. How does a daughter's wedding date become a valid excuse for not attending the most crucial vote on the direction of constitutional government in America? Weddings can be held a week later. The vote can't. This is patently an excuse i/m/o. He, like all politicians has polled, and a vote in favor of Kavanaugh might be risky for his upcoming election. So, he bails on his allies with the wedding deflection.
How does he get away with this? Why aren't Republicans putting the squeeze on. I know the song and dance that he flies in and back if there is some desertion, and the nomination is in question . That's an easy one given likelihood of such an event. And why should he look like some kind of hero if he make this great sacrifice. B/t/w, was the date, Sat., for the vote firm when he refused to appear? I for one am calling him out. So should his colleagues.
I disagree. First, Murkowski paired with him. Second, the vote could have been 50-49. Third, the candidate who is running against Tester had agreed to loan "his plane" to Daines to get him back to D.C. where the vote would have been left open until he got back. It is all good.
Full Size Tabby
@FullSizeTabby
Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
Senator Collins argued, to herself and others, that Kavanaugh would not threaten their sacrament of unrestricted abortion on demand. Senator Murkowski isn't willing to accept the risk.
They have spent a lifetime averting their eyes, enabling Gosnells.
As a lawyer, I did not care for the part of the speech in which she spoke in terms of the decision outcomes and the specifics of particular cases. My early complaint with the opposition to Judge Kavanaugh (when it was quasi-serious) was that the opposition was based entirely on case outcomes, and not on the process for determining cases (the proper way to evaluate a judge if you are not going to turn a judge into just another politician).
The laugh from the tattooed woman!
We have only six female Republican Senators, and Murkowski is the only one who is the Chair of a Committee. That is important. After the 1994 election, Newt and the gang wanted to do away with the Small Business Committee, but realized that it was the only Committee chaired by a woman so they relented.
Also, let's remember the story of Jumping Jim Jeffords of Vermont. When he jumped to the Democrats in 2001, he had been the Chair of a committee. The Ranking Member who would become the new Democratic Chair of that committee was unwilling to Jumping Jim to continue as Chair. But in another Ranking Member agreed to do so, to help out Jumping Jim. Who was that? Senate Democratic Whip Harry Reid, who later became the Democratic Leader after Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004.
Randy Webster
@RandyWebster
Manchin had Shumer's permission when it became obvious Kavanaugh couldn't be blocked.
@Leigh
MarciN (View Comment):
What I loved most about the speech was that it was substantive. I was greatly impressed with Senator Collins's intelligence and knowledge. Everyone learned something from it. That's the way speeches should be written: interesting and informative.
There's a lesson to be learned from it, too. How often has Susan Collins been ridiculed on the Right as a "squish?" She is obviously nothing of the sort. She took a political risk; there are already millions pouring in to defeat her.
She's a moderate, which is not the same as a squish or a sell-out. I believe she is wrong on some very important issues, and her wrongness has consequences — though it must be considered that the other options from Maine are probably worse. I don't agree with all her principles, but many of them are solid, and she made a soundly reasoned decision.
I wish her vote were not so important these days. I don't want most Republicans to be more like her. But if we could trade a bunch of Democrats out for Republicans more like her, the country would be much better off.
Goldwaterwoman
@goldwaterwoman
How does a daughter's wedding date become a valid excuse for not attending the most crucial vote on the direction of constitutional government in America? Weddings can be held a week later. The vote can't
In all fairness to Daines, wedding invitations are usually sent out six to eight weeks in advance. The caterers are hired, wedding reception venue paid for, flowers ordered, church and minister, etc., etc. How could they have possibly known two months ago that it would take this long to actually vote? From what I've read there was a backup plan involving the loan of a jet to fly him to DC. I believe there's a two-hour time difference and a 4 1/2 hour flight.
I am disappointed in Senator Deb Fischer, who has a safe seat. Yes she is up for reelection, but no one is even talking about her race. She is scored "safe."
Yet, Senator Deb Fischer offered only a bloodless endorsement of Kavanaugh. She did not use her time on camera to decry the smear. She did not call out the damage to real victims when false charges are weaponized for political gain.
Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):
And, as a one-time father of the bride, I can assure you that the arrangements were probably made much more than 6 – 8 weeks in advance in order to secure the venue, the officiant, attendance by all the desired family members, the caterer, etc.
I did not understand why there seemed to be the ensuing crisis. It's not that unusual to hold a vote open until some critical legislator can get to the floor.
Even if there hadn't been the "loaned" plane, for something like this, it's not that expensive to charter a small jet to be waiting at the airstrip nearest the wedding, which need not be a commercial airport. After the bride and groom have left, and most of the guests have gone (midnight? 2 am?) drive the senator to the airstrip and fly to DC. So the senators have to stay up all night. Boo hoo.
I worked with a woman who knew she had to leave her previous job when her manager did not understand why she could not work on the morning of her wedding, since the wedding wasn't until 2 pm.
Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
Men!
My wife insisted on getting married at 8:00 in the morning. Fortunately, it was a weekend, so I didn't have to miss work.
@Weeping
Most of these are probably arranged a lot earlier than 6 -8 weeks in advance.
Weeping (View Comment):
How well I know. We married off two daughters with big weddings.
The thought of arranging huge weddings is very intimidating to me. I hope ours choose to have very small ones.
1:43 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 7, 2018
President Trump has laid down the marker on Murkowski and the Senate Club members who postured so virtuously about how offensive the process had become. Which one will be the first on the 2018 campaign trail to grab the issue of party promise keeping and basic political loyalty matching basic human decency?
Larry3435
@Larry3435
We get a real majority by winnowing out would-be careerists and club members.
Well, somebody gets a real majority if we do that. I wouldn't count on it being us.
Steve C.
@user_531302
If we start with 60 Republican Senators, then maybe we have enough leeway to start winnowing. The practical political situation is: if you have Republican Senators in blue or purple states, they are going to be more centrist than the average Republican Senator. If those Senators are your margin of control, their needs and interests need to be considered. This is not new news. It's a fact we've been living with since 1994. Your control is only as strong as the breadth of your majority.
Ricochet Audio Network
All Ricochet Podcasts
Subscribe in Google Play
Direct RSS Feed
Copyright 2023 Silent Cal Productions, LLC.
R> 4.10.5
Lost your password? Please enter your email address or username. You will receive an email with a link to set a new password.


text:
Q: Why scroll Two RecyclerView inside layout with BottomSheetBehavior doesn't work? I have layout with BottomSheetBehavior
I'm using ConstraintLayout, inside layout I have two RecyclerView
before have two of them the scroll of RecyclerView works perfect,
as soon I add the second RecyclerView which contains quite small content,
maximum 3 lines, the scroll of the second RecyclerView disabled,and when I'm changing the first RecyclerView to simple LinearLayout it works as well.
Note: firstRecyclerview content is quite small ,it doesn't need to scroll, only the second one.
 <android.support.constraint.ConstraintLayout
        android:id="@+id/store_bottom_sheet"
        android:layout_width="match_parent"
        android:layout_height="match_parent"
        android:layout_marginBottom="@dimen/bottom_navigation_height"
        android:background="@android:color/transparent"
        android:fitsSystemWindows="true"
        app:behavior_hideable="false"
        app:behavior_peekHeight="350dp"
        app:layout_behavior="@string/bottom_sheet_behavior">

        <android.support.constraint.ConstraintLayout
            android:id="@+id/constraintLayout"
            android:layout_width="0dp"
            android:layout_height="60dp"
            android:layout_marginTop="8dp"
            android:background="@drawable/rounded_shape"
            app:layout_constraintHorizontal_bias="0.0"
            app:layout_constraintLeft_toLeftOf="parent"
            app:layout_constraintRight_toRightOf="parent"
            app:layout_constraintTop_toTopOf="parent">

 <ImageView
                android:id="@+id/imageView"
                android:layout_width="19dp"
                android:layout_height="23dp"
                android:layout_marginStart="16dp"
                android:layout_marginTop="19dp"
                app:layout_constraintLeft_toLeftOf="parent"
                app:layout_constraintTop_toTopOf="parent"
                app:srcCompat="@drawable/ic_search"/>
 </android.support.constraint.ConstraintLayout>

  <android.support.v7.widget.RecyclerView
                android:id="@+id/list_filter"
                android:layout_width="match_parent"
                android:layout_height="match_parent"
                app:adapter="@{viewModel.filterAdapter}"
                   app:layout_constraintLeft_toLeftOf="parent"
            app:layout_constraintRight_toRightOf="parent"
          app:layout_constraintTop_toBottomOf="@+id/constraintLayout"/>

 <android.support.v7.widget.RecyclerView
            android:id="@+id/recyclerView2"
            android:layout_width="0dp"
            android:layout_height="0dp"
            android:layout_marginTop="8dp"
            android:nestedScrollingEnabled="true"
            app:adapter="@{viewModel.findStoresAdapter}"
            app:dividerDrawable="@{@drawable/vertical_divider}"
         app:layoutManager="android.support.v7.widget.LinearLayoutManager"
            app:layout_constraintBottom_toBottomOf="parent"
            app:layout_constraintHorizontal_bias="0.0"
            app:layout_constraintLeft_toLeftOf="parent"
            app:layout_constraintRight_toRightOf="parent"
            app:layout_constraintTop_toBottomOf="@+id/list_filter"
            app:layout_constraintVertical_bias="0.0"/>
</android.support.constraint.ConstraintLayout>

A: Because two RecyclerViews scrollable in the same direction conflicts with each other. Use one RecyclerView with different ViewTypes.


text:
Santana named President of newly created Telemundo Global Studios
NBCUniversal Telemundo Enterprises is consolidating all of the company's domestic and international scripted production units under one new division, the newly created Telemundo Global Studios.
Marcos Santana has been named President of the unit, effective immediately. He'll now oversee Telemundo Studios, Telemundo International Studios, Telemundo International, as well as all of the company's co-production partnerships.
Under his direction, each entity will continue to produce its own unique brand of content geared to reach distinctive audiences.
Luis Silberwasser will continue to lead the company's U.S. networks Telemundo and Universo, as President of Telemundo Networks.
Both executives will continue to report to César Conde, Chairman, NBCUniversal International Group and NBCUniversal Telemundo Enterprises.
Santana was previously President of Telemundo International and President of Telemundo International Studios, in charge of all of Telemundo's international distribution efforts, as well as the company's distribution services to other producers around the world, international co-productions and partnerships.
Santana joined NBCUniversal Telemundo Enterprises in 2007, when Telemundo acquired the operating assets of its foreign distributor, Tepuy International Corp., where Santana was President and CEO.
Telemundo International Studios was founded in 2016 to produce short format scripted programs designed for international markets and emerging platforms. It produces big-budget miniseries in Spanish, available for different platforms, including broadcast, cable and digital media.
Telemundo Internacional is the international syndication and distribution arm of the U.S.-based Telemundo and Universo networks, as well as other content producers around the world. Its international assets include the pay TV channel Telemundo Internacional and the Telemundo channel in Africa, which offers content dubbed in English and Portuguese to more than 48 countries in the region.
Filed Under: People, TV & Radio Tagged With: Marcos Santana, Telemundo, Telemundo Global Studios