Yale University: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Yale alumna and ‘irrepressible presence’ in Congress

Is this the best Yale University can say about one of their alumna! Pathetic!

"Lee ’72, a member of Yale’s University Council and the author of the 2021 federal legislation that established Juneteenth as a national holiday, died on July 19 at 74."

Yale Today

Tesla Ordered to Pay More Than $130 Million in Damages to Black Former Worker

Is this not extremely excessive for only a single person who was allegedly subjected for only 9 consecutive months to a "racially hostile environment" at the company! It seems absurd! This was a federal trial with 8 jury members? I hope, appeal is available to the company. I hope, the company will continue to fight this order and will appeal!

Ah, it was a San Francisco federal court! Is this some form of progressive justice? A kangaroo court executed a show trial?

In my opinion, already a $1 million order would be on the border of excessive in such a case!

"... Diaz’s lawsuit alleged that employees drew swastikas and left racist graffiti and drawings around the Tesla plant. [Did he draw these graffiti himself?] He also alleged that employees often used the “N-word” [where these employees black American? Quite possible!] and other racist epithets. ...
The jury awarded Diaz $6.9 million in damages for emotional distress and $130 million in punitive damages, according to his attorney, Lawrence Organ of the California Civil Rights Law Group. ...

In court, Tesla’s attorneys argued that it investigated and resolved all incidents reported by Diaz and that it did not intend to disregard the rights and concerns of black workers at the plant.

It’s a rare instance in which Tesla ... has had to publicly defend itself in court against a former worker. ...
Private [mandatory] arbitration often lets companies avoid costly damages or commit to major corrective action. Tesla rarely takes a big hit in arbitration, though it did pay a $1 million award in May in a case brought by another ex-contractor that was similar to Diaz’s. ...
“In addition to Mr. Diaz, three other witnesses (all non-Tesla contract employees) testified at trial that they regularly heard racial slurs (including the n-word) on the Fremont factory floor. While they all agreed that the use of the n-word was not appropriate in the workplace, they also agreed that most of the time they thought the language was used in a ‘friendly’ manner and usually by African-American colleagues,” she wrote."

"... There was no witness testimony or other evidence that anyone ever heard the n-word used toward Mr. Diaz. ...
Mr. Diaz made written complaints to his non-Tesla supervisors. Those were well-documented in the nine months he worked at our factory. But he didn’t make any complaints about the n-word until after he was not hired full-time by Tesla – and after he hired an attorney. ...

The three times that Mr. Diaz did complain about harassment, Tesla stepped in and made sure responsive and timely action was taken by the staffing agencies: two contractors were fired and one was suspended (who had drawn a racially offensive cartoon). Mr. Diaz himself testified that he was “very satisfied” with the results of one of the investigations, and he agreed that there was follow-up on each of his complaints.

Even though Mr. Diaz now complains about racial harassment at Fremont, at the time he said he was being harassed, he recommended to his son and daughter – while they were all living together in the same home – that they work at Tesla with him. ..."

Tesla Ordered to Pay More Than $130 Million in Damages to Black Former Worker - WSJ The company subjected the employee to a racially hostile work environment, jury finds

Tesla ordered to pay $137M to ex-worker over racist work environment

Regarding Today’s Jury Verdict by Valerie Capers Workman, Tesla VP People

Will His Tough Talk Hurt Trump's Reelection?

Posted: 7/14/2019

President Trump’s policies and actions regarding the massive illegal immigration across the southern border of the United States could significantly reduce his reelection chances in 2020 if he does not tread carefully.

Tough talk or pushing buttons can be very tricky business in politics! Hope, Trump is a virtuoso in this respect!

His latest tweet suggesting that certain U.S. Representatives of the Dimocratic Party ought to go back where they came from could very well be over the top. I am afraid, Trump was too honest and will be deliberately misunderstood. However, Trump certainly has a point that to wonder what those constantly griping so called “progressive” representatives have done to help the countries they originated from! We will see whether the silent majority shares his opinion at the ballot box in 2020.

“I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!” this sentence is a classic Trump remark! Love his irony! Pelosi would perhaps indeed be very happy if these loudmouths are gone and give her less trouble and their departure would improve overall Dimocratic Party election results in 2020.

Sources (S):

1. TRUMP UNLEASHES: 'YOU CAN'T LEAVE FAST ENOUGH' 

State Nullification Of Federal Law

Trigger

I just (9/6/2013) came across this commentary by the Cato Institute titled “The Limits of Nullification” published on ???? (date is missing). It discusses recent legislation by Missouri and Montana to push back on federal gun (control) legislation.

Theory Of Nullification

The above commentary summarizes the theory of nullification as follows (emphasis added):

“… the theory of nullification, which has its roots in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and holds that the federal government exists by the will of the states, and that states therefore have the right to decide which federal laws are constitutionally valid within their borders.”

I agree that the federal government and the U.S. Constitution exist only because of the will and the consent of the then existing states. I don’t believe that the majority of the Founders ever conceived a big constantly expanding federal government as it exists today.

From this follows that secession of individual states from the Union is a valid option to disapprove of overbearing federal government intrusion.

Useful Nullification

The argument is easily made against a single state to opt for nullification of federal laws. It would be difficult indeed if every state was given the choice whether to abide by or to nullify any given federal law.

How about if a significant number of states (e.g. >= 10%) jointly declare to nullify a federal law? Then, the expressed will of the people of these states cannot be so easily dismissed.

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Not Enough

Opponents of nullification naturally refer to the SCOTUS to settle disputes between individual states and federal law.

However, over the almost 240 year history of the USA, the SCOTUS has substantially decided in deference of federal legislation. It has more often than not and to an ever larger extent preferred or defended federal legislation over state sovereignty. SCOTUS rarely nullifies any legislation coming out of the U.S. Capitol just about 500 feet away. Thus, today federalism exists in the USA rather by name only.

More Checks And Balances

As the history of the USA so prominently shows, the existing constitutional checks and balances are not enough to ensure limited and small federal government.

Besides, the SCOTUS it should also be possible for a group of states to jointly nullify federal laws. Thus, a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be necessary.

What Else?

The 17^th Amendment of 1913 to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. It was a huge mistake to have the U.S. Senators to be directly elected by popular vote. I am a strong believer that this Progressive Era reform was anything but a reform. It reduced state influence and helped the federal government to become bigger to the liking of the proponents of Progessivism. It flies smack in the face of the Founders that so carefully crafted the U.S. Constitution.