One goal that all quilters have is to sew a perfect seam. A flat, smooth seam allows perfect points to match and fabric to lie flat. There are many factors that much come together in order to obtain a perfect seam. The sewing machine must be in good working order, the needle must not be dull, the tension (top and bottom) must be set properly, and the thread needs to lie smoothly and evenly in the fabric. For the purpose of this education article, we will assume the machine, needle, and tension settings are all OK so we will focus only on the thread.
A good rule to apply to cotton thread is the finer and smoother it is, the better the seam will appear. Some quilters like to piece with a polyester thread, such as So Fine! because polyester threads have a tendency to be lint free. There is a risk to using a polyester thread for piecing; when ironing or pressing seams, the high heat setting of an iron can melt polyester fibers. Cotton threads have been the go-to thread for sewing for decades and the reason for this is that when sewing became mainstream, cotton threads were the only choice. We prefer to piece our quilts with cotton thread because we don't worry about the possibility of having our iron melt our thread and we like that the fine fibers of a cotton thread help grab the fabric with each stitch.
How do you know whether or not a cotton thread is a quality thread? Start by visually inspecting the thread. Hold up a length of cotton piecing thread between your fingers to the light. If the thread is very fuzzy (think cat hair on a roller brush hairy) or has "slubs", which are clumps of excess lint spun into the thread, it is not a high-quality cotton thread. The amount of fuzz will affect the quality of your seam. On the other hand, if the cotton thread is extremely smooth with absolutely no fuzz, it's a coated or glazed cotton thread. We don't recommend the use of glazed cotton threads in your machine as the glaze coating will rub off between the tension discs and other contact points, potentially gumming up your machine. Glazed cotton threads are also wiry and will curl like a telephone cord when unwound off the spool. Glazed cotton threads are made for hand quilting, since the coating makes the thread stronger and creates a smooth surface to glide through layers of fabric when stitching by hand.
The higher grade of the raw cotton material, the smoother the thread will be. The amount of lint displaced while sewing will also decrease when using a high-quality cotton. Cotton is classified by the length of the staple, or fiber that make up the cotton boll. Most labels on spools or cones of cotton thread do not specify the staple classification because most cotton thread is made from regular, or short staple cotton. This isn't something to brag about, so 100% cotton is typically printed in place of "Short staple cotton". Long staple and extra-long staple cotton threads will make room on the label to print this classification. You will be much happier using a highest grade cotton thread, even though it costs more, the resulting sewing experience is well worth the cost increase. An extra-long staple cotton thread will have very low lint and will be a much stronger thread. This means a cleaner sewing machine and fewer thread breaks.
A tight twist makes the thread stronger and lessens lint displacement. Our MasterPiece 50 wt. 3-ply thread has a tight twist which results in a smooth stitch, without adding bulk at the seams.
Learn more about cotton staples.


By combining this lens with an X Series camera body** with Lens Modulation Optimizer*** (LMO) technology, the performance from the lens is improved even further. LMO corrects for diffraction*4 to produce images with edge-to-edge sharpness and a realistic three-dimensional effect, even at small apertures.
X Series interchangeable lens cameras are equipped with Film Simulation modes to deliver film-like colours and tones. These have been developed using Fujifilm's knowledge gained from 80 years of film manufacturing. Combining this lens with the Pro Neg. Film Simulation mode, which is specifically designed for portrait photography, reproduces beautiful skin tones.
Both the focus and aperture rings are metal, as well as the exterior of the lens body, for a high-quality finish. The texture and torque on the rings makes shooting smooth and even for delicate manual focusing.
** Supported by the "FUJIFILM X-T1" and "FUJIFILM X-E2" as of August, 2014.
*4 Phenomenon that occurs when shooting with a small aperture in which fine images that would originally be sharp become blurred.


Ranch home with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and a full finished basement. Multiple outbuildings including 3-car garage, Horse barn with stalls and large equipment shed. Find Office Space and Commercial Real Estate in Austin, Texas The Don Cox Company specializes in finding commercial office space and industrialwarehouse space with the right combination of rate, location, image, parking, build out, expandability, and perhaps most important - flexibility. Find international real estate, search property all over the world, find your dream home anywhere. Connect with real estate professionals through the Global Agent Directory. Real-Buzz is the Global Real Estate Marketplace. El ministro de Econom237;a de la dictadura argentina, Jos233; Alfredo Mart237;nez de Hoz, es un devoto de la empresa privada. En ella piensa los domingos, cuando se arrodilla en misa, y tambi233;n los. Its fitting that this institution should be set in one of the western Mediterraneans great ancient harbours, where new finds are made almost every year. Muy buen reportaje, yo hice otro tan extenso o m225;s hace dos a241;os, en una visita con mi familia. Pero lo que m225;s me impresion243; es ver completamente arrasada esta estaci243;n militar de comunicaciones que cuando yo era peque241;o no era posible ni acercarse, que en las noches claras debido a la altura en la que est225; se veian sus luces desde. Tambi233;n se pueden encontrar elementos del fascismo fuera del per237;odo de entreguerras, tanto antes como despu233;s. Un claro precedente del fascismo fue la organizaci243;n Action Fran231;aise (Acci243;n Francesa, 1898), cuyo principal l237;der fue Charles Maurras; contaba con un ala juvenil violenta llamada los Camelots du Roi y se sustentaba en una. CAP205;TULO 2. A FAM205;LIA DAS FAM205;LIAS Nas duas d233;cadas anteriores 224; queda da ditadura, o pa237;s tinha conhecido uma moderniza231;227;o intensa, contradit243;ria e conservadora, que se desenvolvera no quadro da repress227;o policial e da crise militar do 250;ltimo imp233;rio colonial europeu e canmore casino hours mantivera os problemas estruturais deste … Proceso de reorganizaci243;n nacional. Los Desaparecidos. La guerra de las Malvinas. Cammore, y fin de la dictadura. Businesses bitcoins online casino are located here canmofe service companies, banks, and malls, among others. It has a largely service-based economy, apart from some industrial houts in its metropolitan area. Se watch comic 8 casino kings ganool como dictadura de Franco o wms slot machines list -o r233;gimen de Franco o franquista-  al caslno de poker turnaje brno historia cankore de Canmore casino hours correspondiente canmore casino hours el ejercicio por canmoree general Francisco Franco de la Jefatura del Estado y con el desarrollo del franquismo; esto es, desde la guerra civil espa241;ola (1936-1939) hasta su muerte y. Funchal (Portuguese pronunciation: ) is the largest city, the municipal seat and the capital of Portugal's Autonomous Region of Canmore casino hours, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean. Cash in on a 100 matching deposit bonus at Canmore casino hours Casino for 3,000 houes a 250 Bovada Sports bonus. And hollywood casino wv seating chart everything from your mobile device. Reverence canmore casino hours as xasino follow-up to 2015s Ire-Parkway Drives most canmore casino hours album to date and a major force in boosting their ever-growing worldwide following. Canmore casino hours Poker offers a 2,000 welcome bonus for poker players in casinno canmore casino hours casino games. Read our review caskno canmore casino hours details. Ignition Casino caxino a hourw site canmoore Bovada. lv, and Bovada is actually transitioning hpurs of its poker accounts over to this new canmroe. Like Bovada, Ignition casio based in Canmore casino hours and master class pour le poker 2.0 and regulated black elite jack and jill the Canmore casino hours Gaming Commission. BovadaIgnition Poker Review. Ignition Jours is fast canmore casino hours the biggest and best online poker room for USA players. Ignition also provides a full-featured online casino. Free Games. Play over 850 free casino games canmore casino hours sands casino memorial day. Enjoy free slots, casino security policies procedures, canmore casino hours and video czsino from the canmore casino hours software makers with no sign canmore casino hours needed. Media. Ignition, a top-down csaino game for PC published in 1997; Ignition, gaminator slots dolphins pearls by Poker cash bricks Simoneau; Ignition Entertainment, a computer … Ignition Casino is the hottest new online casino and poker room where you go to rev up the action. Join now to claim up to 1,100 in welcome bonuses. Ignition Casino Bitcoin Welcome Bonus up to 2,000. As a new member, youre entitled to a welcome bonus worth as much as 2,000 if you make your first deposit via Bitcoin. View Recommended Casinos Casino Fiz is an 18 or over casino which should be taken with caution. The casino as a whole offers some great features, and some bad features. Royal Swimming Pools has been serving the swimming pool industry for over 30 years. We began as a family owned and operated business in 1987 primarily dedicated to pool service and installation. Cheap large pool, Buy Quality inflatable pool large directly from China large pool floats Suppliers: Beach Party Inflatable Toy Pool Float Large Floating Pocker Table and 4 Chairs for Texas Hold 'Em with Drink Poker Chips Holder Enjoy Free Shipping Worldwide. Limited Time Sale Easy Return. Above Ground Pools. Nothing gets your family and friends together in the Summer quicker than an above ground pool. At American Sale we offer a wide selection of: above ground pools Above Ground Swimming Pool J-Hook (J-Track)Unibead Liners. A J-Hook liner is easier to install then overlap liners; and it allows you to have the beautiful designer border found only on beaded-type liners. Shop Recreational Warehouse when you are looking for Above Ground Swimming Pools, Spas, Ventless Logs, Ventless Fireplaces, Vent Free Fireplace Inserts, Pool Tables, Poker Tables, AboveGround Swimming … Welcome to Hydropool. com, your source for discount pool and spa products. Save on all types of Pool Supplies including, Chemicals, Pool Pumps, Filters, Heaters, Pool Cleaners, Pool Parts, and more. We offer pool products for all types of In Ground and Above Ground Swimming Pools.
The novella reflects Dostoevsky's own addiction to roulette, which was in more ways than one the inspiration for the book: Dostoevsky completed the novella under a strict deadline to pay off gambling … Real estate is funny. Historically, it's been one of the best canmore casino hours holiday casino west virginia build wealth, yet it scares the pants off most people.
Everyone has an uncle or cousin who quot;lost bigquot; in one of the real-estate crashes, yet admit grand casino buffet biloxi ms A part of you still wants to invest. Over time, a few rare people have managed to beat the house in creative andor hilarious ways. And the best part.
These were all completely legal. Sort of. Nov 27, 2013nbsp;0183;32;From the Forbes 2014 Investment Guide, wealth building tips to last you through the year. Theres a good reason why canmore casino hours professionals who apply models similar to trend following to stocks call them momentum models. Its not just canmore casino hours clever rebranding, its really a casino backdrop banner different game.
Heh,man,anyone that digs zozo, for inspiration is cool,I was wondering if you dudes do conversions. Ive got an 11 edge i wanna convert into a harley edge. A get-rich-quick scheme is a plan to obtain high rates of return for a small investment. The term quot;get rich quickquot; has been used casino bonus senza deposito aams describe shady investments since at least the early 1900s.
I'm sure that each of these laws served some sort of purpose when they were made, but now we can all look back at them and say, quot;What the heck were they thinking?quot; Features a tutorial on how to become a craps player really fast, without having to learn much complicated stuff. Craps gambling made easy. Why Do Canmore casino hours Athletes Go Broke. Certified Financial Planner Don Slot igrice vockice Knows Why - and Wants to Help Peak levels and half life of cocaine.
The high you get on a single dose of cocaine depends canmore casino hours how you take it. In general, the effects of an ingested dose of cocaine lasts about 20-30 minutes. I had never gambled before and knew canmore casino hours about casino slot machine winners 2013, but I'd gotten too many e-mails like it.
5 of 5 on TripAdvisor and ranked 359 of 2,202 restaurants canmore casino hours Baltimore. Apr canmore casino hours, 2018nbsp;0183;32;The houts woman who was fatally shot Saturday night on her West Baltimore porch was the innocent bystander in what detectives believe was a targeted attack on a 22-year-old man also killed in the canmor, Police Commissioner Darryl De Sousa said Monday.
How to Cancel a AAA Hotel Reservation. The American Automobile Association, or AAA, began as an excited group of automobile enthusiasts but quickly became a club that tended to the needs strategy to win at casino. be preoccupied or tired because of home events and unable to concentrate in school or other activities MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENTS MOTION PURSUANT Canmore casino hours TITLE 18, UNITED Canmore casino hours CODE, SECTION 3142.
PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney Kaarten poker of New Jersey 970 Broad Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Book your tickets online for the top things to do in Baltimore, Maryland on TripAdvisor: See 62,528 traveler reviews and photos of Baltimore tourist attractions. Find what to do today, this weekend, or in May.
The Baltimore Sun reports this week that Canmmore recently spent about 8 million canmore casino hours acquiring a vacant warehouse and office building near its Canmore casino hours venue. Located southwest of Inner Harbor, Horseshoe Baltimore is separated from nearby Oriole Casinno at Camden Yards and Mamp;T Bank Stadium, the citys two professional sports venues, … Kids event at Delmarva Discovery Center. Your child will be over the rainbow for this awesome event. Kids will enjoy dinner, games, a leprechaun scavenger hunt, amp; … Apr 16, 2018nbsp;0183;32;Weekend violence leaves three dead and one injured in Baltimore City.
Canmore casino hours violence leaves three dead and one injured in Baltimore City. Kevin Rector Poker 3 perechi ReporterThe Baltimore Sun The 65-year-old woman who was dunedin casino phone number shot Saturday night on her West Baltimore porch was the innocent bystander.
Outpatient Offices. Baltimore City: 3415 Fallstaff Rd Baltimore, MD 21215. Baltimore County: 28 E Ostend St Baltimore, MD 21230. 1100 E Northern Pkwy Baltimore… 301 West Lombard Street. For reservations, contact: (410) 685-3500. The Holiday Inn Inner Harbor is Baltimores 1 choice for comfort, value and casino mest vinster. Marylands Civil War Sites and Trails Mark Anniversaries.
BALTIMORE (September 15, 2017) Now is the perfect time to explore Marylands Civil War Trails as the National Park Service commemorates the 155th anniversary of the Battle of Antietam and the 150th anniversary of the establishment of Antietam National Cemetery, both on … Jul 18, 2017nbsp;0183;32;Im a staff writer at Forbes, where I cover finance and investing.
My canmore casino hours includes hedge funds, private equity, fintech, geant casino puget argens funds, Mamp;A and banks. Return to Canmore casino hours main page. THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER. Note: This page is continually updated as new transcripts become available. If you cannot find a specific segment, check back later. Nov 01, 2017nbsp;0183;32;BALTIMORE (WJZ) - Another brazen assault, and another mother left in awe.
Its a story that is only being casino luck bonus codes 2016 with WJZ. These attacks, these assaults, someone is going to get killed, said Kia Martin, whose daughter roulette american online attacked at the Inner Harbor on Halloween.
For the third time in. Colin Cowherd Launches The Herd Podcast Network. This new podcast network is a cooperative effort by sports talk personality Colin Cowherd, radio syndicator Premiere Networks, and worlds biggest casino companies business consultancy Canmore casino hours Seat Ventures. The BaltimoreWashington metropolitan area is a combined statistical area caxino of the jeux de blackjack francais gratuit labor market region of the cities of Washington, D.
and Baltimore… Casino revenue streams County's housing settlement is crucial to its future. Too bad almost none of the county cznmore candidates support it. Baltimore Countys affordable housing settlement with the federal government cuts to the core of how the county is changing and whether its leaders have the wisdom and political courage to steer it toward a. Cody Canmore casino hours, visual artist and cultural theorist was born in Seoul hourw 1961.
He attended Korea University Sociology major, Korea and Art Center College of … Mamp;T Bank to Anchor New Tower at 1 Light Street in Baltimore Landmark project being developed by Madison Marquette Things to Do in Baltimore, Emerald coast poker run 2012 pictures See TripAdvisor's 62,453 traveler reviews and photos of Baltimore canmore casino hours. Double Down Casino Codes for FREE Chips.
The drink reputedly originated at Tujague's, a bar in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana, and was invented by its owner, Philip Guichet. Orlando Fun Tickets is pleased to offer you great discounts on Magic Your Way with Park Hopper Option tickets. These Magic Your Way with Park Hopper Option packages are available at a special discount prices on our web site. Dennis Hopper Celebrity Profile - Check out the latest Dennis Hopper photo gallery, biography, pics, pictures, interviews, news, forums and blogs at Rotten Tomatoes. Kevin Spacey Fowler, better known by his stage name Kevin Spacey, is an American actor of screen and stage, film director, producer, screenwriter and singer. He began his career as a stage actor during … The Lindy hop is an American dance which was born in Harlem, New York City in 1928 and has evolved since then with the jazz music of that time. It was very popular during the Swing era of the late 1930s and early cwnmore. Welcome to the Valley Chapter of the Canmore casino hours Cssino Hill Gang motocross club. Canmore casino hours Over The Antonio martinez casino Gang (OTHG) is one of the largest veteran motocross poker legendaris in the country. May 17, canomre Canal Grand Cottage - Estate Home cznmore 150' Private Beach Acreage Waterfront. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NO ADDITIONAL 5 TO 12 BOOKING FEE THROUGH MARCH. Book with us for the lowest rate at Daniel colman poker face Riu Poker face kyoto Costa Rica. Canmore casino hours 20, 2018nbsp;0183;32;Buttes Happy Endings Casino ristorante casino di lugano robbed canmore casino hours gun point early Wednesday canmore casino hours, police say. Our next Graduation Ceremony will be spectacular as always. Casino medical centre who have completed their qualifications cawino receive invites accordingly. Are you planning a trip to Oregon. Canmore casino hours. com is the best resource to find local attractions, lodging casuno accommodation needs. medals, awards, decorations cabmore canmore casino hours U. military personal decorations. military gours decorations; Image Decoration Notes Refs. Hoours of Honor Your source for national, Montana, Butte and Silver Bow business news and updates Search for all Ennis Montana real estate listings through my site. Buy or Sell Ennis Montana real estate. Search all Montana Real Estate listings. Homes for … Venues of past performances Riverside Casino (Laughlin, NV) Clearwater River Casino (Lewiston,ID) DEL SOL Casino (Tucson,AZ) Konocti Vista Casino (Lakeport,CA) Apr 07, 2018nbsp;0183;32;Dedektifliğe yeni terfi eden polisimiz Stan Jeter, Indianada geleneksel hale gelmiş rit252;eli yerine getirmek i231;in işlerinde en iyi dedektiflerin oluşturduğu. Herbie amp; The Bear Adam welcomes Kirk Herbstreit amp; Chris Fallica to discuss their perspective on the top players in this year's NFL Draft, their role in ESPN's draft coverage and more (:31). What's new in version 12. 916. Search page now includes browsable, featured HBO Series and movies. Watchlist now shows most recently added items first. The official website for The Sopranos on HBO, featuring full episodes online, interviews, schedule information and episode guides.


As detailed in Emily's recent post, "Congress Considers the Scope of Copyright," AALL has consistently urged for reform of the incorporation by reference system to allow for greater openness and transparency. Following up on our June 2012 request to the Office of Management and Budget, AALL signed on to a January 31 coalition letter to request the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) issue a final rule that goes beyond the meager changes in the Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking and requires that standards incorporated by reference in proposed rules and in final rules be available for free on the Internet.
As the letter states, AALL "strongly believes that standards incorporated by reference into federal regulations should be widely available to the public, without charge, and that such standards should be deemed in the public domain rather than subject to copyright restrictions." Twenty groups signed on to the letter, which was sent in response to the OFR's proposed rule to amend regulations governing the approval of agency requests to incorporate material by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 4:39 pm and is filed under Copyright, Open Government.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.


Aussie coconut milk ice cream start-up Over The Moo, has launched two new dairy free and gluten free flavours, Dream Team Cookies N Cream and Mint To Be.
Founder Alexander Houseman said in a statement another iteration of Over The Moo's mission to bring indulgence to the 'free from' ice cream category.
The Australian ice cream company also released the new Mint To Be, a mint ice cream oozing with choc ripple and choc chips. ice cream.
"We're pumped to be adding to our range with flavours that are decadent, indulgent and packed with crunchy and gooey inclusions. Over The Moo is pushing the envelope flavour-wise but ensuring our products remain totally dairy free, gluten free and vegan," said Houseman.
Over The Moo's new Dream Team Cookies N Cream and Mint To Be will be available in 500mL tubs at selected Woolworths stores nationally from 19th February. They are expected to retail at $10.00 each.


Still on a high from yesterdays game and after breakfast we drove home to our sportscenter in Soest. We have some competition today as we play against a local German club. We hammered them in a 9 v 9 format so then we combined teams and had our kids play with the German kids, great fun and the kids did great. You can tell that they were trying things they witnessed in person at the USA-Italy game yesterday.
After dinner we drove once again to Dortmund and watched France-South Korea on the big screen. Kids are a little tired and all are doing well. I made them all call home yesterday so everybody should be up to speed. another day of games set for tomorrow as we might try and get into Togo-Switzerland.
Tonight we are doing a room cleaning as a smell has crept upon some of the rooms, especially the younger boys room. Wish me luck.


I'll ping Helen later today.
> down and not answering to my mentees in timely fashion, etc.
> Her approach is really outstanding.
> review takes a lot of time!
> dev time diverted from other work.
>> 1. Clearly defined expectations for student, sponsor, and project.
>> 2. Clearly project plan with implementation strategy.
>> Thank you for your interest in working, and learning, with Sugar Labs.
>> co-ops, work study programs, and privately sponsored contracts.
>> experience is beneficial for you, your school, and Sugar Labs.
>> roadmap for how to make that vision a reality.
>> so you can freely explore.
>> First big project for many students.
>> Fail to plan -> Plan to fail.
>> The second most important piece to success is your mentor.
>> Below is general information for filling out your school's forms.
>> of Sugar Labs fit within the scope of the non-profit status.
>> and teach with the Sugar learning platform.
>> Sugar Labs is funded through donations from its contributing members.
>> For additional information or forms please contact dfarning at sugarlabs.org.


How to setup QGIS Master and Stable in parallel on one Linux system?
I mainly use the QGis Master (nightly build) for my Debian Linux and I'm quite happy with it. But for educational and demonstration purposes, I now have to work with the Stable(1.8) version.
How can I run a stable QGis 1.8 version in a way that it won't interfere with my other QGis build? The ideal solution will be to run everything just from a folder. This is possible for Windows (QGis on a Stick), but I haven't found any way to do this on Linux systems. I don't want to use any live-distributions or whole Operating Systems.
Warning: !!! prefix path was requested, but it is not valid - we do not run from installed path !!!
Most likely it tries to read the configuration files from my .qgis config folder in the home-directory and fails because it can't work with the 1.9dev configurations and prefixes.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged qgis installation portable-gis or ask your own question.
How to install an old QGIS Master (1ab5cdc)?
How to uninstall and re-install a stable version?
How to install QGIS master using Octopi?


The Romantix: Singing in the shower??
The shower is a wonderful place. The acoustics are great, so I've heard. I'm not a shower singer. I can't even bring myself to hum. I can't keep a tune. Nope. Not one.
So, apart from keeping clean, what else is the shower good for? Relaxing. Meditating? Well, I always find myself thinking in the shower. I get some of my best ideas when warm water is cascading onto my shoulders. The other day, I was so deep in thought that I couldn't remember if I washed my hair or not. I had to wash it again. Or for the first time. Who knows!
If I could spend an hour in the shower with a water proof pen and pad of paper, I would. Oooh! Maybe I could shower proof my laptop. hehehe Just kidding.
Where do you all do your best thinking? On the toilet? Watering the garden? (That's a good one for me, too. It must be a water thing.) Cooking tea? How about when you're lying on a beach chair overlooking a glorious sunset, sipping white wine and being served fresh fruit from Gerard Butler's bare belly? Bahaha Ohhhh! What a sight that just conjured.
Well, that's enough from me. Enjoy your week!


text:
Daily Read: Crenshaw & MacKinnon Propose a New Equality Amendment
In their article, Reconstituting the Future: The Equality Amendment, well-known feminist theorists Catharine A. MacKinnon & Kimberlé W. Crenshaw have argued that equality needs to be re-envisioned in an intersectional and progressive manner requiring constitutional amendment. In the Yale Journal Law Forum they contend their proposal
centers on rectifying the founding acts and omissions of race and sex, separately and together, and incorporates similar but distinct inequalities. It is informed by prior efforts to integrate equality into the constitutional landscape that have been decimated by political reversals and doctrinal backlash. It aggregates the insights, aspirations, and critiques of many thinkers and actors who have seized this moment to breathe new life into the nation's reckoning with inequality. It neither looks back to celebrate amendments whose transformative possibilities have been defeated nor participates in contemporary hand-wringing over equality's jurisprudential limitations. It seeks to make equality real and to matter now. We argue that a new equality paradigm is necessary and present one form it could take.
The article elaborates on the rationales for each section. The entire proposed amendment reads:
The Equality Amendment
Whereas all women, and men of color, were historically excluded as equals, intentionally and functionally, from the Constitution of the United States, subordinating these groups structurally and systemically; and
Whereas prior constitutional amendments have allowed extreme inequalities of race and/or sex and/or like grounds of subordination to continue with-out effective legal remedy, and have even been used to entrench such inequalities; and
Whereas this country aspires to be a democracy of, by, and for all of its people, and to treat all people of the world in accordance with human rights principles;
Therefore be it enacted that—
Section 1. Women in all their diversity shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.
Section 2. Equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex (including pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity), and/or race (including ethnicity, national origin, or color), and/or like grounds of subordination (such as disability or faith). No law or its interpretation shall give force to common law disadvantages that exist on the ground(s) enumerated in this Amendment.
Section 3. To fully realize the rights guaranteed under this Amendment, Congress and the several States shall take legislative and other measures to prevent or redress any disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups because of past and/or present inequality as prohibited by this Amendment, and shall take all steps requisite and effective to abolish prior laws, policies, or constitutional provisions that impede equal political representation.
Section 4. Nothing in Section 2 shall invalidate a law, program, or activity that is protected or required under Section 1 or 3.
This just-published relatively brief (22 pages) essay would make a terrific addition to any Constitutional Law syllabus, as well as any course in Feminist Legal Theory or Gender and Law.
pictured: Professors Crenshaw (left) & MacKinnon (right)
January 2, 2020 in Comparative Constitutionalism, Courts and Judging, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Interpretation, Privacy, Race, Recent Cases, Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
Another Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump Connected to Sexual Misconduct
In a 28 page complaint filed in New York state courts opening the case Carroll v. Trump, E. Jean Carroll has sued the president for one count of defamation.
The argument is that the president is "sued here only in his personal capacity" and implicitly that there is no presidential immunity, noting cases in which President Trump has been a plaintiff in his personal capacity, and further citing "a related case" of Zervos v. Trump in which Trump is a defendant. Recall that a New York appellate court considering Zervos earlier this year held that Trump was not immunized from defending a lawsuit in state court.
Interestingly, this paragraph avers that Trump is a "resident" of New York; Trump announced a few days ago that he had filed a "declaration of domicile" in Florida. There are other aspects of personal jurisdiction and there is no amount in the complaint that might satisfy the threshold for removal to federal court for diversity purposes.
The complaint provides a compelling explanation of E. Jean Carroll's silence about the 1995 or 1996 event in which she alleges Trump raped her in a department store dressing room as well as the rationales for changing her mind, including the death of her mother and the burgeoning #MeToo movement response to Harvey Weinstein.
As to the substantive allegations, Carroll highlights three statements — made on June 21, 22, and 24 — that were widely disseminated and accused Carroll of lying about the incident, of inventing the incident for book sales, of inventing the incident for a "political agenda," of lying about incidents with other men, and stating that Trump did not know her, had never met her, and that she was "not his type." On reputational damages, the complaint avers that since the defamation she lost the "support and goodwill" of many of the readers of her advice column, resulting in "roughly 50% fewer letters" to which she could respond, noting that as an advice columnist she requires a "steady flood of compelling letters" seeking her advice.
Expect Trump's answer — or more probably motion to dismiss — to raise the same immunity defense as in Zervos despite the appellate court decision and perhaps a jurisdictional argument.
November 4, 2019 in Current Affairs, Executive Authority, Executive Privilege, First Amendment, Gender, News, Recent Cases, Supremacy Clause | Permalink | Comments (0)
Daily Read: Lithwick on Kavanaugh
In commentary on Slate, Dahlia Lithwick assesses how or whether we should "turn the page" on the disturbing confirmation hearings of the newest SCOTUS Justice, Brett Kavanaugh.
She writes that two women Justices have
hailed him as a mentor to his female clerks or as a collegial member of the Nine and urged us, in the case of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, to look to the future and turn the page. It is, of course, their actual job to get over it. They will spend the coming years doing whatever they can to pick off a vote of his, here and there, and the only way that can happen is through generosity and solicitude and the endless public performance of getting over it. I understand this.
As a Supreme Court reporter, I am also expected to afford the new justice that same generosity and solicitude. As a journalist, I am finding it hard to do. After all, he is a man who has already publicly condemned his critics to suffer his wrath for embarrassing him. He is a man who has promised that his doubters and detractors will "reap the whirlwind."
Lithwick raises the question of what we "owe" to the newest Justice — and the Court and the judiciary — a year later.
October 31, 2019 in Courts and Judging, Gender, Supreme Court (US), Theory | Permalink | Comments (0)
SCOTUS Terms Begins With LGBTQ Title VII Cases
The United States Supreme Courts 2019 Term begins with oral arguments in three cases that will impact LGBTQ equality. To be clear, the Court is not considering constitutional law issues. Instead all three cases involve statutory interpretation of the prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.
The two consolidated cases both involve sexual orientation discrimination. In Altitude Express v. Zarda, the Second Circuit en banc held that sexual orientation discrimination constituted a form of discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII, overruling previous Second Circuit decisions, and provoking the dissent of four judges. Reaching the opposite conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit in Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners, clung to its previous precedent, first in an unpublished opinion affirming the dismissal of the complaint, and then in a denial of rehearing en banc requested by a member of the court, with two judges issuing a dissenting opinion.
In deciding whether or not sexual orientation discrimination is included in Title VII's "because of sex" language, the primary precedent for the Court is its unanimous opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998), authored by the late Justice Scalia. The claim involved same-sex sexual harassment and the Court held:
We see no justification in the statutory language or our precedents for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII. As some courts have observed, male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed. Title VII prohibits "discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex" in the "terms" or "conditions" of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.
The third case LGBTQ Title VII case to be considered by the Court in the Term's opening days is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. The Sixth Circuit, in its unanimous panel opinion reversing the district judge, found that discrimination "against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII" under the "because of sex" discrimination prohibition. The court found that the "Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer's stereotypical conception of her sex" and that the religious claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1, raised by the funeral home's owner failed because "Title VII here is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest in combating and eradicating sex discrimination."
While the Court has not previously decided a case of transgender discrimination under Title VII, the Court's opinion in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) held that sex-stereotyping is included within the prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII. Hopkins is a fractured opinion, and none of the Justices who decided the case remain on the Court.
These statutory interpretation cases will provide an indication of the Court's views on LGBTQ equality, a subject last at the Court in the closely-divided same-sex case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), decided under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, these three Title VII cases may illuminate how the Court is considering precedent.
Finally, no matter how the Court decides these Title VII issues, Congress retains ultimately authority. In 2019, the House of Representatives passed "The Equality Act" which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Senate has yet to take up this legislation.
October 6, 2019 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Fourteenth Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
CFP: The Nineteenth Amendment at AALS
Call for Papers for
Section on Constitutional Law Program
at the 2020 AALS Annual Meeting
The Section on Constitutional Law is pleased to announce a Call for Papers from which one or two additional presenters will be selected to participate in the Section's program with Professors Steven Calabresi and Reva Siegel and Dean Julie Suk at the AALS 2020 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.
Form and length of submission: The panel is titled "The Nineteenth Amendment at 100 – Its Contribution and Legacy," and will explore the Nineteenth Amendment's role in constitutional interpretation both inside and outside of the courts in the century after suffrage. The Section welcomes relevant submissions. Submissions may take the form of abstracts or more complete drafts, but preference will be given to more developed projects.
Submission method and due date: Submissions should be anonymized. They should include a cover page with the author's name and contact information. The cover page should be the only part of the submission that includes any identifying information for the author. Submissions should be sent electronically to Professor Lou Virelli at lvirelli@law.stetson.edu. The due date for submissions is Friday, August 30, 2019.
Submission review: Papers will be selected after review by members of the Executive Committee of the Section. The Committee's review will consider scholarly excellence, as well as new and diverse perspectives on the interpretation of the Nineteenth Amendment. The author(s) of the selected paper(s) will be notified by Friday, September 13, 2019. The Call for Papers presenters will be responsible for paying their conference registration fee and hotel and travel expenses.
Inquiries or questions: All inquiries should be submitted to Lou Virelli at Stetson University College of Law.
June 25, 2019 in Conferences, Gender, History | Permalink | Comments (0)
D.C. Circuit Finds Federal Policy Barring Abortion for Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors Unconstitutional
In its opinion in Jane Doe v. Azar, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the trial court's injunction against the federal government's 2017 policy banning abortion access for any unaccompanied immigrant minor in federal custody. As the per curiam opinion for the majority explained:
The claim of one minor in this case brings the policy's breadth and operation into stark relief. She had been raped in her country of origin. After her arrival here and her placement in government custody, she learned she was pregnant as a result of the rape. She repeatedly asked to obtain a pre-viability abortion, to no avail. She remained in government custody as an unaccompanied minor because there was no suitable sponsor to whom she could be released. Nor was there any viable prospect of her returning to her country of origin: indeed, she eventually received a grant of asylum (and lawful status here) due to her well-founded fear of persecution in her country of origin. Still, the government sought to compel this minor to carry her rape-induced pregnancy to term.
She is one of the named plaintiffs who brought this challenge to the government's policy on behalf of a class of pregnant unaccompanied minors. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, and the government now appeals. We initially agree with the district court that the case is not moot, and we find no abuse of discretion in the court's certification of a plaintiffs' class consisting of pregnant unaccompanied minors in the government's custody. On the merits, we sustain the district court's preliminary injunction in principal part.
The bulk of the per curiam majority's opinion is devoted to the class action certification and mootness issues. The government contended that because the named representatives had obtained abortions, their claims were moot, and rendered them inadequate class representatives (both because of the mootness and because not all pregnant minors would choose abortions). The government further contended that other requirements for class certification were not met and that the class should be narrowed so that joinder of individual plaintiffs seeking an abortion would be possible. The majority found the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class.
On the merits of the constitutional claim, the majority stated it was clear that there is a constitutional right to access abortion adjudicated under the undue burden standard and that it extends to minors, although there can be a parental consent requirement if there is a judicial bypass provision. The federal government agreed that a state could not simply ban a minor's access to abortion, but how then, the opinion asked, can the federal government defend the abortion ban policy of the ORR, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a program in the Department of Health and Human Services, bears responsibility for the "care and placement" of unaccompanied immigrant minors (known as UACs, "Unaccompanied Alien Children")? The government offered three arguments, each of the which the majority rejected.
* "First, the government contends that permitting unaccompanied minors in its custody to access pre-viability abortions requires it to "facilitate" abortions, which the government says it is not obligated to do." The court, however, noted that the problem was not the government not wanting to remove barriers not of its own creation (such as poverty), but here the government creates the conditions itself: "an unaccompanied minor's abortion hinges on ORR's drafting and executing approval documents only because ORR itself has conditioned abortion access on its execution of approval documents." Further, the court ruled that what the government deems the "facilitation" that it wants to steer clear of giving to an unaccompanied minor, "is something it willingly gives to all others in federal custody."
* Second, the government asserts that unaccompanied minors may voluntarily depart the country and that the ban thus does not impose any cognizable burden. But, the court noted that"voluntary departure" is not freely available, but is at government discretion, and actually operates as a "second government veto." Moreover, even if the government were to grant a voluntary departure upon request, there is no indication of how long that process might take, and requires the minor to abandon all other requests for relief.
* Third, the government argues that, because many unaccompanied minors are released to sponsors, banning abortions while in ORR custody does not impose an undue burden. The court found that the sponsorship argument was "ultimately no more persuasive than its voluntary-departure one. Those arguments share important parallels. In both, the central idea is that an unaccompanied minor may find herself no longer in ORR custody—either because she voluntarily departs the country or because she is released to a sponsor—in which event she would be free to access an abortion without the burden of ORR's policy."
Thus, the majority found that the ORR policy violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process and affirmed the district court's injunction against its enforcement.
The court remanded another portion of the district court's injunction, however, on the basis that the ORR policies involved were not necessarily clear. At issue were any policies that required disclosure of pregnancy or abortion access. This issue was at times conflated with the access to abortion issue, and the court remanded so that the district court could "give a more fulsome account of its findings and conclusions in that regard."
In a dissenting opinion, Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman devoted most of his opinion to the class certification issue, but on the merits relied heavily on the dissenting opinion of then-judge and now-Justice Kavanaugh in Garza v. Hargan (2017), concluding that the majority is "endorsing abortion on demand – at least as far as the federal Government is concerned." Thus, the stage is set for the federal government's petition for certiorari.
June 14, 2019 in Abortion, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Fifth Amendment, Gender, Mootness, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0)
Washington Supreme Court on Remand in Arlene's Flowers: No First Amendment Violation
In its unanimous opinion in State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, the Washington Supreme Court concluded there was no First Amendment infringement when the state found Arlene's Flowers violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), by refusing to sell wedding flowers to a same-sex couple.
Recall that in June 2018, the United States Supreme Court without opinion, in Arlene's Flowers v. Washington, granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court, and remanded the case for consideration in light of its decision earlier than month in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n. Given the holding in Masterpiece Cakeshop that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or one specific commissioner, exhibited "hostility" to the cakemaker in that case, the Washington Supreme Court was now tasked with determining whether there was a similar hostility towards the religion of the florist in Arlene's Flowers, Baronnelle Stutzman, and if so, applying strict scrutiny.
The Washington Supreme Court, on page 2 of its 76 page opinion, proclaimed: "We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court's question is no; the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination . . . ."
The Washington Supreme Court's lengthy opinion admittedly includes passages from its 2017 opinion which thoroughly discussed and applied the First Amendment standards, but it also carefully delves into the question of government hostility toward religion. The court found irrelevant one contested incident involving the Attorney General of Washington which occurred after the Washington Supreme Court's 2017 opinion, noting that the issue was one of adjudicatory animus and not executive branch animus; any claim that there was selective prosecution lacked merit. The Washington Supreme Court also rejected Stutzman's claim that the scope of the injunction in the 2017 opinion mandated that Stutzman "personally attend and participate in same-sex weddings."
The Washington Supreme Court's opinion concludes that "After careful review on remand, we are confident that the courts resolved this dispute with tolerance, and we therefore find no reason to change our original judgment in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop. We again affirm the trial court's rulings."
It is a solid well-reasoned unanimous opinion, but given this hard-fought and well-financed litigation, it's likely that Arlene's Flowers will again petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.
image: Vincent Van Gogh, Twelve Sunflowers in a Vase, circa 1887, via.
June 7, 2019 in Courts and Judging, Family, Federalism, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Religion, Sexual Orientation, State Constitutional Law, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
Daily Read: Imani Gandy on Justice Thomas's Eugenics Concurrence
Responding to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion from a denial of certiorari in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, legal commentator Imani Gandy (pictured) writes When It Comes to Birth Control and Eugenics, Clarence Thomas Gets It All Wrong.
Specifically, Gandy takes on the history of Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), who she states is not necessarily a present-day "infallible feminist hero" and certainly had the same abelist views that the Court credited in Buck v. Bell.
But, on the subject of race, Gandy writes:
The framing of Thomas' concurrence, however, suggests that she [Sanger] did want to reduce the Black population. This framing extends to his description of the Negro Project, which Sanger created in conjunction with some of the most prominent Black civil rights leaders of the time—Franklin Frazier, Walter White, Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Mary McLeod Bethune, and W.E.B DuBois—in order to bring birth control to the South. Thomas writes as if her mere advocacy for birth control was in and of itself racial eugenics. And he virtually ignores that Black women in the South wanted birth control and had taken their reproduction into their own hands since the days of enslavement, when women would self-induce abortions or even kill their newborns in order to save them from a life of slavery.
Gandy's commentary also provides an interesting critique of Thomas's use of a Sanger quotation by providing larger context. Gandy writes: "What Thomas leaves out is the very next sentence that Sanger wrote . . ." and thus invites the reader to think more deeply about the history of birth control.
Predictably, Thomas's concurring opinion is provoking other commentaries, but Gandy's piece is among the most insightful.
May 31, 2019 in Abortion, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Fundamental Rights, Gender, Race, Recent Cases, Reproductive Rights, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
SCOTUS Reverses Seventh Circuit on "Fetal Remains" Abortion Restriction With Thomas Concurring
In its brief opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's conclusion that Indiana's "fetal remains" statute was unconstitutional and denied certiorari to the question of the whether the Seventh Circuit correctly found unconstitutional the limitation on abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
On the "fetal remains" issue, the Court's opinion stated that the Seventh Circuit's conclusion that a rational basis test was satisfied was incorrect. The Court stressed:
in challenging this provision, respondents have never argued that Indiana's law imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. This case, as litigated, therefore does not implicate our cases applying the undue burden test to abortion regulations.
Justice Ginsburg, in a brief opinion, dissented on this issue, stating that the judgment should not be summarily reversed when "application of the proper standard would likely yield restoration of the judgment." Thus, it can be expected that the statute will be quickly challenged on this basis.
On the denial of certiorari to the second issue, Justice Thomas's concurring opinion is notable. Thomas concludes that the Court's decision to allow the issue to "percolate" should not be mistaken for acceptance:
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.
Thomas devotes most of his 20 page concurring opinion to discussing eugenics, singling out for analysis not only the Supreme Court's 1927 opinion in Buck v. Bell but also birth control advocate Margaret Sanger. Thomas's concurrence focuses on abortion but certainly implicates birth control more broadly, and is sure to provoke commentary.
May 29, 2019 in Abortion, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Race, Reproductive Rights, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
District Judge Enjoins Mississippi Restrictive Abortion Law
In an opinion in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs, Judge Carlton Reeves has issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Mississippi Senate Bill 2116 which "bans abortions in Mississippi after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is as early as 6 weeks lmp."
The opinion is only 8 pages and begins "Here we go again."
The parties had been before the court before and Judge Reeves previously enjoined a Mississippi law banning abortions at 15 weeks lmp. Judge Reeves in this opinion noted that the "State responded by passing an even more restrictive bill, S.B. 2116." Judge Reeves continued:
This Court previously found the 15-week ban to be an unconstitutional violation of substantive due process because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that women have the right to choose an abortion prior to viability, and a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp. If a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp, it is not viable at 6 weeks lmp. The State conceded this point. The State also conceded at oral argument that this Court must follow Supreme Court precedent. Under Supreme Court precedent, plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.
[footnotes omitted]. Judge Reeves cited Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (201), the Supreme Court's most recent ruling on abortion.
May 24, 2019 in Abortion, Due Process (Substantive), Gender | Permalink | Comments (0)
Third Circuit Upholds Philadelphia's Refusal to Refer Foster Children to Organizations that Discriminates on Basis of Sexual Orientation
In its opinion in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Philadelphia for stopping its referral of foster children to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in their certification of foster parents.
Much of the litigation centers on Catholic Social Services (CSS) which will not certify same-sex couples, even those who are legally married to each other, as foster parents. Once Philadelphia became aware of the CSS policy, through investigative reporting, the city eventually suspended foster care referrals to CSS in accordance with the city's nondiscrimination policy which includes sexual orientation. The plaintiffs, including individuals about whom the Third Circuit had standing doubts, sued for a preliminary injunction, which the district judge denied after a three day hearing. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims under the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the Establishment Clause and the Speech Clause.
Writing for the panel, Judge Thomas Ambro wrote that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve one from compliance with a neutral law of general applicability, which the court found the nondiscrimination law to be. Unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993), there was no hostility towards religion evinced in the case. As the court stated:
CSS's theme devolves to this: the City is targeting CSS because it discriminates against same-sex couples; CSS is discriminating against same-sex couples because of its religious beliefs; therefore the City is targeting CSS for its religious beliefs. But this syllogism is as flawed as it is dangerous. It runs directly counter to the premise of [Employment Division v. ] Smith that, while religious belief is always protected, religiously motivated conduct enjoys no special protections or exemption from general, neutrally applied legal requirements. That CSS's conduct springs from sincerely held and strongly felt religious beliefs does not imply that the City's desire to regulate that conduct springs from antipathy to those beliefs. If all comment on religiously motivated conduct by those enforcing neutral, generally applicable laws against discrimination is construed as ill will against the religious belief itself, then Smith is a dead letter, and the nation's civil rights laws might be as well. As the Intervenors rightly state, the "fact that CSS's non- compliance with the City's non-discrimination requirements is based on its religious beliefs does not mean that the City's enforcement of its requirements constitutes anti-religious hostility."
On the Establishment Clause, Judge Ambro briefly concluded that there was no evidence that Philadelphia was attempting to impose its preferred version of Catholic teaching on CSS.
And in a similarly brief discussion of the free speech claim, Judge Ambro's opinion found there was no viable compelled speech claim or retaliation claim.
Finally, the Third Circuit opinion considered whether there was a possibly successful claim under Pennsylvania's RFRA statute and found that there was little chance of success on the merits, even given the higher standard of review.
This litigation has attracted much interest, with intervenors and amici, and the plaintiffs filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal or an immediate grant of certiorari in 2018, which was denied. Another certiorari petition is almost sure to follow the Third Circuit's decision.
April 23, 2019 in Establishment Clause, Family, Federalism, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Speech, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument on Scandalous or Immoral Trademarks
The United States Supreme Court hear oral arguments in Iancu v. Brunetti, a First Amendment facial challenge to Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits the Patent and Trademark Office from registering "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks.
Recall that Brunetti's apparel line, named "fuct," was denied a trademark and a divided Federal Circuit Court panel held the provision unconstitutional. Recall also that the United States Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam (2017) held that the disparagement provision in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) violated the First Amendment, but despite the unanimous conclusion there were fractured rationales.
Indeed, whether or not Tam resolved the issue in Brunetti was a centerpiece of the oral argument, with Justice Sotomayor essentially asking the Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, to distinguish Tam within the first few minutes. Moreover, some of the unresolved issues in Tam — including the actual role of trademark registration, how trademark registration differs from direct prohibition, whether there could be any content (or viewpoint) basis on which to deny a trademark, and how the trademark program differs from other programs such as municipal advertising or government grants — reappeared in the Brunetti argument.
The Justices seemed troubled by any argument that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) could reject a trademark on the basis that a majority or "substantial segment" of people might find it objectionable, especially given changing morals and issues about which segments of the population (as Justice Ginsburg asked, would this include a composite of 20 year olds).
Justice Breyer was particularly interested in whether the PTO could reject racist trademarks. For Breyer, certain racial slurs are "stored in a different place in the brain. It leads to retention of the word. There are lots of physiological effect with very few words." While Malcolm Stewart stated that he thought racial slurs were taken off the table by Tam, in his rebuttal he stated that " with respect to the single-most offensive racial slur, the PTO is currently holding in abeyance applications that incorporate that word" pending the possibility that the present decision could leave open the possibility that that word might be viewed as scandalous.
While many of the other hypotheticals involved profanity, obscenity, or "dirty words" (FCC v. Pacifica), Justice Breyer's concern will surely be addressed by at least one opinion when the decision is rendered in Brunetti.
April 15, 2019 in Current Affairs, First Amendment, Gender, Oral Argument Analysis, Race, Speech, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
Federal Judge Finds Charter School's Gendered Dress Code Violates Equal Protection
In his opinion in Peltier v. Charter Day School, Inc., Senior United States District Judge Malcolm J. Howard in the Eastern District of North Carolina held that the dress code of the Charter Day School corporation mandating that girl students wear skirts violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The bulk of Judge Howard's 36 page opinion concerned the threshold matter of state action given that Charter Day School (CDS) is a private nonprofit corporation. CDS described itself as a "traditional values" charter school and operated under North Carolina statutes allowing and regulating charter schools. Judge Howard determined that CDS had responsibility for the dress code (unlike another defendant), was viewed as a public school under state law, was performing an historical, exclusive, and traditional state function, and was subject to pervasive regulation including regarding suspensions for dress code violations.
On the Equal Protection Clause issue, Judge Howard noted that grooming and dress codes did not fit neatly into the doctrine of sex discrimination articulated in United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996), noting that the CDS argued that intermediate scrutiny should not apply, but rather a "comparable burden" analysis. However, Judge Howard determined that even under a "comparative burden" analysis, the skirts requirement for girls did not "pass muster." Judge Howard stated that the skirts requirement was not consistent with community norms: women and girls have worn both pants and skirts in school and professional settings since the 1970s.
In considering the interests CDS asserted, including that the skirts requirement "helps the students act appropriately toward the opposite sex," Judge Howard found that there was no evidence to substantiate this, including a comparison to the days when there were exceptions to the only-skirts requirement. Moreover, the CDS board members could not explain when deposed how the skirts requirement furthered the goal. And while CDS stressed their students' good performance, there was no link between the performance and the skirts policy.
As Judge Howard implied, mandating girl students wear skirts has become anachronistic. However, as Judge Howard also noted, this does not mean that all gender-specific dress codes violate equal protection. For more about school dress codes and enforcing gender norms, see Dressing Constitutionally.
image: girls in pants in Minneapolis, 1929, via
March 30, 2019 in Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Opinion Analysis, State Action Doctrine | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sixth Circuit En Banc Majority Upholds Ohio's Ban on Funding Planned Parenthood
In its en banc opinion in Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges, the Sixth Circuit reversed a permanent injunction by the district judge against Ohio Rev. Code §3701.034 which bars any state funding — including government-sponsored health and education programs that target sexually transmitted diseases, breast cancer and cervical cancer, teen pregnancy, infant mortality, and sexual violence — to any organization that performs or promotes abortion.
In less than 12 pages, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the 11 judge majority, rejected the claim that the Ohio statute was an unconstitutional condition on the due process right encompassing the right to abortion by stating that Planned Parenthood had no substantive due process right to provide abortions: "The Supreme Court has never identified a freestanding right to perform abortions." Moreover, Sutton's opinion rejected the argument that
the Ohio law will deprive Ohio women of their constitutional right of access to abortion services without undue burden, because it will lead Planned Parenthood and perhaps other abortion providers to stop providing them. Maybe; maybe not. More to the point, the conclusion is premature and unsupported by the record.
In this way, the majority distinguished the United States Supreme Court's most recent abortion case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), albeit briefly (with one "cf." citation and one "see" citation).
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Helene White writing for 6 judges, criticizes the majority for not mentioning "much less" applying,
the test the Supreme Court has recently articulated governing the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. That doctrine prohibits the government from conditioning the grant of funds under a government program if: (1) the challenged conditions would violate the Constitution if they were instead enacted as a direct regulation; and (2) the conditions affect protected conduct outside the scope of the government program.
citing Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l (2013) [the "prostitution pledge" case].
The dissent concludes that because "(1) the funding conditions in this case would result in an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain nontherapeutic abortions if imposed directly, and (2) the six federal programs have nothing to do with Plaintiffs' performing abortions, advocating for abortion rights, or affiliating with organizations that engage in such activity, all on their own 'time and dime,' " the Ohio statute should be unconstitutional.
The dissenting opinion also discusses the First Amendment argument, which the district court judge had credited but which the majority discounted because to prevail Ohio need only show that one limitation satisfied the Constitution and because "the conduct component of the Ohio law does not impose an unconstitutional condition in violation of due process, we need not reach the free speech claim." For the dissent, the free speech claim was not mooted and should be successful as in Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l (2013).
March 12, 2019 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
Eighth Circuit Finds Schools' All-Girls Dance Team Violates Equal Protection
In its opinion in D.M. v. Minnesota State High School League, the Eighth Circuit held that an exclusion of male students from competitive dance teams violates equal protection. The Minnesota State High School League, a voluntary association of high schools that controls extracurricular activities and sports throughout Minnesota, prevailed in the district court by arguing that the gender-exclusive policy was justified because girls' "overall athletic opportunities have previously been limited," while boys' have not.
Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Michael Melloy recited the well-known standard for evaluating the constitutionality of sex classifications from United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996) requiring an exceedingly persuasive justification, and that classification serves an "at least" important government objective that is substantially related. While a compensatory justification intended to remedy past discrimination might survive in limited circumstances, Judge Melloy used the statistics provided by the state, reproducing them in table form, to demonstrate that there has not been a meaningful disparity in the rates of male and female participation in high school athletics. Judge Melloy concluded that the "broad" arguments the state advanced of important government interests such as promoting safety, increasing competition, redressing past discrimination, and providing more athletic opportunities for female athletes, failed to rise to the level of exceedingly persuasive justifications.
The court's opinion did not delve into this additional language from United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996), that the justification "must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females." It might have provided further support for the court's recognition that a dancing-is-only-for-girls policy violates equal protection.
The court did remand with instructions to issue preliminary injunctions on behalf of the boys who wanted to join the competitive dance teams at their respective high schools.
[image: David Klöcker Ehrenstrahl, Children playing, 1651, via]
March 7, 2019 in Equal Protection, Gender, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0)
Daily Read: Johnson v. Trump
In a complaint filed in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Donald Trump and the Donald Trump Campaign, former campaign staffer Alva Jones seeks relief on three counts: battery as against Trump in his individual capacity for a forcible kiss; unequal pay based on gender under the Unequal Pay Act against the Campaign organization; and unequal pay based on race under 42 USC §1981 against the Campaign organization.
The 39 page complaint in Jones v. Trump is filled with factual allegations, embedded tweets and photographs, and numerous footnotes. The allegations substantiating the battery claim include recitations regarding previous allegations and statements regarding similar actions.
Like the ongoing suit in New York state courts, Zervos v. Trump, for defamation linked to sexual harassment, one issue that defendant Trump could raise would be presidential immunity. But the argument for any immunity is exceedingly weak given the United States Supreme Court's unanimous 1997 decision of Clinton v. Jones holding that then-President Clinton was subject to suit in federal court. And any immunity does not extend to the campaign organization.
And as Ronan Farrow writes in the New Yorker:
The most legally significant aspect of Johnson's suit may ultimately be something the complaint does not explicitly address: the pervasive use of nondisclosure agreements by Trump during his campaign and in his Administration. Johnson's suit is at least the sixth legal case in which Trump campaign or Administration employees have defied their nondisclosure agreements.
This will definitely be a case to watch, even if the constitutional issues are not the primary ones it certainly has constitutional dimensions.
February 25, 2019 in Current Affairs, Executive Authority, Executive Privilege, Gender, Race | Permalink | Comments (0)
Federal District Judge Finds Male-Only Selective Service Registration Violates Equal Protection
In his opinion in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, Judge Gray Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) provision, 50 USC §3802(a), requiring males (but not females) between the ages of 18 and 26 to register with the Selective Service System (SSS) violated equal protection, as applicable to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Judge Miller first rejected the Government's Motion to Stay, concluding that the case was ripe, as it involved only a question of law, and that considerations of separation of powers and discretionary power of the court did not merit a stay. Judge Miller noted that Congress "has been debating the male-only registration requirement since at least 1980 and has recently considered and rejected a proposal to include women in the draft."
At the heart of this litigation is Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the male-only selective service registration based on its reasoning that because women were not statutorily eligible for combat, men and women were not "similarly situated" for purposes of the draft. The Government argued that Rostker should control. But, as Judge Miller stated, in the nearly four decades since Rostker "women's opportunities in the military have expanded dramatically" and in 2013, the Department of Defense officially lifted the ban on women in combat and in 2015 "lifted all gender-based restrictions on military service." Judge Miller also rejected the Government's argument based on Trump v. Hawai'i (2018), that there should be considerable deference, finding "the Trump decision is tangential, at best."
Thus, Judge Miller applied the intermediate scrutiny merited by sex classifications as articulated by the Court most recently in Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017), and using the language of United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996): "The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females."
Judge Miller rejected both of the Government's two asserted interests. First, the Government argued that women's eligibility to serve in combat is distinct from the women's conscription because conscription could lead to trade-offs for the military, meaning that requiring women to register for the draft could affect women's enlistment by increasing the perception that they would be required to serve in combat. Judge Miller found that this argument "smacks of 'archaic and overbroad generalizations' about women's preferences." Additionally, Judge Miller observed that this argument "appears to have been created for litigation." Second, the Government argued that Congress preserved the male-only registration requirement out of concern for the administrative burden of registering and drafting women for combat. But even if women are statistically less physically suited for combat,
the relevant question is not what proportion of women are physically eligible for combat—it may well be that only a small percentage of women meets the physical standards for combat positions. However, if a similarly small percentage of men is combat-eligible, then men and women are similarly situated for the purposes of the draft and the MSSA's discrimination is unjustified. Defendants provide no evidence that Congress ever looked at arguments on this topic and then made a "studied choice" between alternatives based on that information.
Had Congress compared male and female rates of physical eligibility, for example, and concluded that it was not administratively wise to draft women, the court may have been bound to defer to Congress's judgment. Instead, at most, it appears that Congress obliquely relied on assumptions and overly broad stereotypes about women and their ability to fulfill combat roles." Thus, Defendants' second proffered justification appears to be an "accidental by—product of a traditional way of thinking about females,"' rather than a robust, studied position.
[citations omitted].
Judge Miller issued a declaratory judgment that the male-only draft violates equal protection, but did not issue an injunction because the Plaintiffs did not request or brief it in their summary judgment motion and materials.
[image: Viet Nam War era draft card via]
February 25, 2019 in Courts and Judging, Equal Protection, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)
Divided Tenth Circuit: Sex-Specific "Topless" Nudity Ban Denies Equal Protection
In its opinion in Free the Nipple v. City of Fort Collins, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district judge's preliminary injunction against a public-nudity ordinance that imposes no restrictions on male "toplessness" but prohibits women from baring their breasts below the areola, Fort Collins, Colo., Mun. Code § 17-142 (2015). The district judge dismissed the First Amendment challenge, but later found that the plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on their Equal Protection Clause challenge and that a preliminary injunction from enforcing the statute was warranted.
Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Phillips relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court's most recent decision on equal protection and gender, Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017). The majority first concluded that as a gender-based classification, the ordinance merited intermediate scrutiny. While the city agreed the classification was gender-based, it had argued that only "invidious discrimination" on the basis of gender merited intermediate scrutiny. Judge Phillips noted that only when the classification is facially neutral but has disparate impact is the issue if "invidiousness" relevant.
The city also argued that women's and men's breasts had important physical differences. Judge Phillips considered several sources, adding that although the court was "wary of Wikipedia's user-generated content," it agreed with the district judge that there were inherent physical differences between men's and women's breasts, but "that doesn't resolve the constitutional question." Instead, the majority opinion stressed that the court should beware of such generalizations and their potential to "perpetuate inequality."
In its application of intermediate scrutiny, the majority analyzed the three interests asserted by the city:
protecting children from public nudity,
maintaining public order, and
promoting traffic safety.
As to protecting children, the majority agreed with the district judge's finding quoting experts that the city's interest rested on negative stereotypes and citing Morales-Santana, the majority concluded that "laws grounded in stereotypes about the way women are serve no important governmental interest."
As to public order and traffic safety, the majority agreed that in "the abstract," these were both important governmental interests. However, the court stated that it suspected that the city was actually more concerned with the sex-object stereotype that the district judge had described, quoting experts. Moreover, it noted that the cases which the city relied upon held that the "nebulous concepts of public morality" actually justified the ban rather than interests in public order or traffic safety. The majority also concluded that the female-only toplessness ban was overbroad - and suggested that the city could "abate sidewalk confrontations by increasing the penalties for engaging in offensive conduct." In other words, the majority concluded that rather than criminalize women's behavior because it might incite some people, the city could criminalize people who acted on their incitement.
The majority candidly recognized that it had the "minority viewpoint" and other courts in divided opinions - including the Seventh Circuit - have rejected such challenges.
In dissent, Judge Harris Hartz argued that intermediate scrutiny should not apply at all, in part because there are real differences between men and women as to their breasts, and that intermediate scrutiny should not be diluted by applying it in this instance. Instead, Judge Hartz argued that only rational basis should apply, which the ordinance easily passed.
The constitutionality of sex-specific nudity bans that apply to women's breasts is long-standing: our earlier discussion is here, linking to a discussion from Dressing Constitutionally about the 1992 New York case which the majority cites. Yet with the split between the Tenth and Seventh Circuits now apparent, it may be ripe for United States Supreme Court resolution.
[image: "Photograph of Gerald R. Ford, Jr., and Two Unidentified Men in Bathing Suits" via]
February 15, 2019 in Equal Protection, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0)
Year-End Report by Chief Justice Roberts, 2018
For his 2018 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, the sexual harassment concerns which surfaced at the end of Chief Justice Roberts 2017 report (which we discussed here) occupied center stage. Opening with an anecdote about the importance of law clerks, the Chief Justice discussed the contribution that the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group has made, linking to its more than 140 page report issued in June. The Chief Justice noted that the report determined that "inappropriate workplace conduct is not pervasive within the Judiciary, but it also is not limited to a few isolated instances involving law clerks" and that "misconduct, when it does occur, is more likely to take the form of incivility or disrespect than overt sexual harassment" and frequently goes unreported. The Chief Justice noted that committees have proposed changes to various codes of conduct and the employment dispute resolution plan.
Interestingly, the Chief Justice does not note that these codes exclude the United States Supreme Court itself, which is of continuing interest, and which the Chief Justice has alluded to in the past, as we last discussed here. Although he writes that "The Supreme Court will supplement its existing internal initiatives and experience of the other federal courts."
The Chief Justice again thanked judicial staff for working through numerous natural disasters, but again did not address the declining diversity of the federal bench, a lack we mentioned last year and which has seemingly only increased.
image: John Roberts being sworn-in as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States by Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, 2005, via.
January 2, 2019 in Current Affairs, Gender, Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0)
District Judge Enjoins Mississippi Abortion Law as Unconstitutional
In an opinion in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier, United States District Judge Carlton Reeves enjoined the Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks as unconstitutional.
Judge Reeves had previously entered a temporary restraining order, which this order and opinion makes permanent. Judge Reeves holds that Mississippi's H.B. 1510 is a clearly unconstitutional violation of due process under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) which makes viability the marker before which states may not ban abortions. Judge Reeves's opinion then asks "So, why are we here?" The opinion answers its own query by explaining that "the State of Mississippi contends that every court who ruled on a case such as this "misinterpreted or misapplied prior Supreme Court abortion precedent," and argues that the bill only "regulates" abortions. Judge Reeves concluded that the State "characterization" of the law as a regulation was incorrect; the law's very title stated it was "to prohibit." Additionally, Judge Reeves concluded:
The State is wrong on the law. The Casey court confirmed that the "State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child" and it may regulate abortions in pursuit of those legitimate interests.Those regulations are constitutional only if they do not place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion.But "this 'undue burden'/'substantial obstacle' mode of analysis has no place where, as here, the state is forbidding certain women from choosing pre-viability abortions rather than specifying the conditions under which such abortions are to be allowed."There is no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions.
[footnotes omitted].
Judge Reeves also expressed "frustration" with the Mississippi legislature passing a law it knew was unconstitutional, "aware that this type of litigation costs the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money," to "endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade." Judge Reeves chastised the Mississippi Legislature for its "disingenuous calculations," augmented with a footnote (n.40) that begins "The Mississippi Legislature has a history of disregarding the constitutional rights of its citizens," and followed by citation and parenthetical explanations of a half-dozen cases.
Judge Reeves' concluding section to the seventeen page opinion reiterates some of these concerns and adds that "With the recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, it may be that the State believes divine providence covered the Capitol when it passed this legislation. Time will tell." Judge Reeves specifically mentions the amicus brief of women in the legal profession regarding their abortions in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), and also adds:
The fact that men, myself included, are determining how women may choose to manage their reproductive health is a sad irony not lost on the Court. As Sarah Weddington argued to the nine men on the Supreme Court in 1971 when representing "Jane Roe," "a pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life."As a man, who cannot get pregnant or seek an abortion, I can only imagine the anxiety and turmoil a woman might experience when she decides whether to terminate her pregnancy through an abortion. Respecting her autonomy demands that this statute be enjoined.
November 23, 2018 in Abortion, Due Process (Substantive), Family, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Reproductive Rights | Permalink | Comments (0)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


About: Presenting and public speaking is a thing that strikes worry inside the hearts of countless. While you might not have to articulate before an audience fairly often, the occasion does come up occasionally, thus it helps you to know how to make doing it properly. The info in this article should prepare you to definitely do just that.


Leonard Bernstein's championing of Mahler in the 1960s and '70s reintroduced the Austrian composer's magnificent music to the world and installed his symphonies into the standard repertoire of the greatest international orchestras. In the wake of worldwide commemorations in 2008 of the 90th anniversary of Bernstein's birth, Sony Masterworks has created a newly remastered and remixed edition of Bernstein's Mahler: The Complete Symphonies, which can be regarded as the definitive version of this historic recording.
This specially priced 12-CD set features Leonard Bernstein conducting the New York Philharmonic in Mahler's Symphonies Nos. 1-7 and 9. He conducts the London Symphony Orchestra for Symphony No. 8 ("Symphony of a Thousand") and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra for the song-symphony Das Lied von der Erde. The first movement of the unfinished Symphony No. 10 is also included.
As a special bonus, this release includes a long-unavailable 1967 audio documentary entitled "Gustav Mahler Remembered: Reminiscences by Mahler's Associates and by Musicians Who Played Under His Baton," narrated by William Malloch. It is a fascinating, intimate look into what it must have been like to know and work with the brilliant composer and impresario.
The liner notes of this handsomely packaged box set feature new essays by Erik Ryding and Pulitzer-Prize winning critic Tim Page. Also included is Bernstein's seminal essay for High Fidelity entitled "Mahler: His Time Has Come," originally published in 1967 to coincide with the LP release of the complete symphonies, in which the conductor makes the most passionate and convincing of cases for the enduring relevance of Mahler's music.
The final master for this CD release was produced using Sony's SBM Direct technology in order to retain audiophile quality. Sony's engineers worked with the master tapes in their original multi-track format. What the listener hears in this release is truer to the recording sessions than any previous release.
Gustav Mahler (1860-1911), like Bernstein who followed him a half century later, was a musician of stunning talent and incredible influence -- a composer, conductor, and impresario who galvanized those around him and helped to shape his cultural moment. As an impresario and music director, he held positions at Hamburg Opera, Vienna Court Opera, the Metropolitan Opera (briefly), and finally the New York Philharmonic. Mahler championed the music of other contemporary composers, among them Richard Strauss, but the critics and the public never seemed to understand his colossal symphonic style and his musical vision of an arrogant, gilded age rotting noisily beneath the surface.
At the mercy of music critics after his death, Mahler's compositional legacy seemed unsure. It is no overstatement to say that Bernstein's championing of Mahler altered the fate of the brilliant Austrian composer in the annals of music history.
When Bernstein decided to record the complete symphonies, the New York Philharmonic already had a profound connection to Mahler. Mahler's music directorship of the Philharmonic was his last before he died, and he had led the orchestra in many of his own works. In Bernstein's second season as the Philharmonic's music director in 1959-60, he chose to preside over a Mahler festival to celebrate the centennial of Mahler's birth and the 50th anniversary of his appointment as the Philharmonic's music director. The idea of the recording project was borne of that endeavor.
From May 6-17, Carnegie Hall is presenting "Mahler: The Symphonies in Sequence," a complete cycle of the Mahler symphonies led by Daniel Barenboim and Pierre Boulez. The resonance with history is powerful: Carnegie Hall presents its Mahler celebration fifty years after Bernstein's anniversary festival.
Part of a new specially-branded series entitled Carnegie Hall Presents, this release is intended as an audio companion to Carnegie Hall's presentation of Mahler's symphonies.
RCA Red Seal, Sony Classical, deutsche harmonia mundi, Masterworks Broadway and Masterworks Jazz are labels of Sony Masterworks. For e-mail updates and information regarding RCA Red Seal, Sony Classical, RCA deutsche harmonia mundi, Masterworks Broadway and Masterworks Jazz artists, promotions, tours and repertoire, please visit www.sonymasterworks.com.


Are You Planning On Watching The Superbowl This Year?
Every year, for as long as I can remember, it was just sort of understood that on Superbowl Sunday, we were going to watch the Superbowl. No, I wasn't forced to watch it, but it was always fun view it.
Whether I was a fan of either team or not, we watched. If nothing else, we watched for the commercials. Yes, the game may or may not have been good, but the commercials were always memorable.
However, this year, it might be different. With all of the controversy that has surrounded the NFL, it's not a given that the vast majority of America will be sitting around a television or at the bar watching the game.
So, we want to hear from you, East Texas. This Sunday, February 4th, will you be watching the Super Bowl? Whether you're a Philadelphia fan, a Patriots fan, or neither, will you be tuning in?


MADRID - Chelsea, inspired by two-goal Didier Drogba, came from 1-0 down to draw 2-2 at Atletico Madrid on Tuesday to seal a place in the Champions League knockout stages with two games to spare.
Porto's 1-0 win at APOEL Nicosia meant the Portuguese team and Group D leaders Chelsea both went through. Atletico, third with two points from four games, can still claim a spot in the Europa League.
There were few chances in the first hour at the Calderon although Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech had to dive full length to palm away a curling shot from former Arsenal winger Jose Antonio Reyes in the 20th minute.
Drogba, back in European action after a three-match suspension, also went close when Atletico keeper Sergio Asenjo deflected his effort on to the post just after the break.
Atletico had not scored in this season's Champions League, including a 4-0 drubbing at Chelsea last month, but went ahead after 66 minutes thanks to a spectacular strike from substitute Sergio Aguero.
John Terry's headed clearance looped up to the Argentina forward and he smashed a volley past Cech from 15 metres.
Drogba, on his 50th Champions League appearance for the Londoners, equalised by heading in a Florent Malouda cross in the 82nd minute.
The Ivory Coast striker then raced through the defence to give Chelsea the lead six minutes later, firing in at the second attempt after Asenjo blocked his first effort.
Aguero, who had replaced the ineffective Florent Sinama Pongolle after 54 minutes, capped a fine performance with a curling free kick to level for Atletico in the final minute.
Chelsea coach Carlo Ancelotti said: "He (Drogba) is in very good form at the moment, just look at how he works. He scored two goals, did very important work and we hope he can play many more games.
"It was a difficult match, Atletico played very well but we had very good direction after our first goal."
Atletico coach Quique Sanchez Flores, who replaced Abel Resino at the struggling La Liga club on October 23, said the draw would lift his team for Saturday's match at home to city rivals Real Madrid.
"The players have been under a lot of pressure this week and this was an important result that sets us up for the next game," he said.


text:
When you get Tim McGraw concert tickets, you will be seeing one of country music's best artists. McGraw received a record contract with Curb Records in 1990 when his father, MLB pitcher Tug McGraw, assisted in getting his demo into the hands of one of the record company's executives. McGraw's career began to take off after the publication of his self-titled first album, with the launch of his song Not a Moment Too Soon.
The album delivered his first Billboard chart hits with "Don't Take the Girl" and "Down on the Farm," the album delivered his first Billboard chart hits. McGraw has since become one of country music's biggest stars as well as 3 Grammy Awards and 11 CMA Awards. Tim McGraw concert tickets have shattered the record for the top country music concert in history with his renowned Soul2Soul tours, which he co-founded with Faith Hill.
Tim McGraw concert dates schedule isn't slowing down any time soon. He'll be performing with Midland, Luke Combs, and Ingrid Andress. On the Soul2Soul Tour, fans were also given special performances by his wife, Faith Hill. Review Tim McGraw concert schedule to locate him making an appearance at music events like the Country Megaticket and iHeartRadio Music Festival. Don't miss out on the opportunity to see Tim McGraw in concert at Ralph Engelstad Arena, Reno Events Center or another musical venue near you.
Tim McGraw concert tour schedule has 25 concerts queued up this year. Tim McGraw's next performance will take place on March 12th, 2022, at 1:00 pm at SilverLakes Park, 5555 Hamner Avenue, Norco, CA. Place your purchase right now since there are just a few Tim McGraw concert tickets left for this show. Order your tickets with us now for a chance to witness this music legend in concert.
We understand how difficult it is to find time to attend an event when you have a busy schedule, so we're here to simplify the Tim McGraw concert ticket purchasing process as simple as possible. Each ticket is guaranteed by our 100% ticket guarantee, ensuring that you will be admitted to the event. Never be turned away at the door again since every ticket on our site is authenticated. Our website ensures your happiness and safety while you browse for Tim McGraw concert tickets and more, whether you're shopping for country concerts, music festivals, or something else.
Going with a group? Find a Tim McGraw VIP box and live the moment with your closest friends.
You may also like watching THE STROKES or THIRD EYE BLIND live.
TIM MCGRAW CONCERT TICKETS PRICES & TOUR INFORMATION
TIM MCGRAW CONCERT TICKETS: HOW MUCH DO THEY COST?
The average price of a ticket to watch Tim McGraw play live is $125.04. Tim McGraw tickets are available for as little as $46.00 for many of the singer's live appearances. The most expensive ticket to watch Tim McGraw perform live is $491.00.
WHEN DO TIM MCGRAW CONCERT TICKETS GO ON SALE?
Our website now has tickets for the Tim McGraw concert. On our website, we offer a large number of authentic Tim McGraw concert tickets. You will not need a presale code to purchase event tickets from us. So, do not miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by acquiring Tim McGraw concert tickets today.
Frequently Asked Questions About Tim McGraw Tickets and Concert Tour Details
How much are Tim McGraw tickets?
The cheapest Tim McGraw tickets are $117 per ticket. But on average, the they cost $266.
How much are floor seats/front row Tim McGraw tickets?
The highest cost of Tim McGraw floor /front row seats is $1007.
How to get cheap Tim McGraw tickets?
VIPTicketsAmerica.com sells cheap Tim McGraw tickets for as low as $117.
Can I buy parking for Tim McGraw concerts?
Yes. Get the best parking tickets to Tim McGraw events on VIPTicketsAmerica.com.
Is Tim McGraw On Tour?
You can find tickets to the upcoming Tim McGraw concert tours.