SCOTUS Rules In The Wannabe Eminem Case!

I can't be touched. Anthony Elonis got redemption after the Supreme Court ruled that his imprisonment and conviction invalid. He went to social media to rap a verse about killing his ex-wife in Eminem fashion.

If I want to say "I'm a kill you" in a musical verse, is it a threat?

Well the Supreme Court says "no". It's not a threat if you're expressing frustrations about killing without preemptive attack. It has to be the actions done and not said. The court ruled in favor of a man who spent time in the prison after he took shots at his estranged wife after he found out she cheated on him.

Elonis v. United States is a decision that ruled in favor of plaintiff Anthony Elonis.

The court invalidated his conviction. He is no longer an active felon in the state of Pennsylvania.

Anthony Elonis (formerly known as Tone Dougie) was convicted on four counts of threats to local law enforcement, his estranged wife, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class, relayed through interstate communication. He was sentenced to 5 years in federal time out. He posted his lyrics of violence on Facebook.

There you go.........!

Remember what you post on social media can be seen by everyone. Just because you keep it private, doesn't mean it's private. Your friends and their friends and strangers can exploit you. Once its online, it's forever.

Big rulings are coming. Obamacare and gay marriage on the way.

In his lyrics he would say:

Did you know that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife?

It's illegal.

It's indirect criminal contempt.

It's one of the only sentences that I'm not allowed to say.

Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I was just telling you that it's illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife...

Elonis said that his rap verse were similar to Eminem.

He would also post that he would take out others. That caught the FBI's attention.

"...Took all the strength I had not to turn the bitch ghost

Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat

Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her partner..."

Elonis' conviction was based on multiple public Facebook posts he wrote, including the following about his wife: “If I only knew then what I know now... I would have smothered your ass with a pillow. Dumped your body in the back seat. Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder.”

Elonis fought the state of Pennsylvania to regain his freedom. After a few appeals, he got it to the Supreme Court.

.

In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that it was wrong for the federal authorities and state of Pennsylvania to assume that Elonis had the intentions of planning a domestic attack through social media. They knew it was rap lyrics and not an inspired attack.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clearance Thomas were the dissenting opinion.

This ruling means that even if its distasteful and threatening, the court believes that if it's written by song or in poetic form (and not a plot to carry out a domestic attack), it's freedom of speech.

Elonis wanted to think like Eminem.

Marshall Mathers III, 42 is the world's greatest rapper. He comes from the city of Detroit and told his tales of hardship through his alter ego Slim Shady. The rapper released eight albums, five collaborations and starred in a blockbuster movie. He is one of the very few rappers to earn a Oscar for best song. He is the most recognizable White rapper. He is a controversial talent. He is criticized by some for rapping verse that may seem sexist, homophobic, violent, demonic, sadistic, and too commercial.

Eminem is also founder of Shady Records, the label that host his group D12, hip-hop collective Slaughterhouse and Alabama rapper Yelawolf.

Eminem is signed on Interscope Records through Dr. Dre's Aftermath Entertainment.

Dr. Dre left the label to join Apple via his Beats Audio.

Bigger rulings coming soon. The decisions on executive powers, Obamacare and gay marriage will be decided on in the coming weeks.

SCOTUS Rules In A&F Discrimination Case!

In a ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff who filed a federal lawsuit against a suburban clothing retailer.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., was a court ruling stops selective hiring practices by companies such as New York-based clothing outlet Abercrombie & Fitch.

Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer's actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.

Hani Khan.

In a 8-1 decision, with Justice Clearance Thomas being the sole dissent rules that A&F was in violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when it dealt with accommodating to religious grounds.

Those involved the clothing company were prepared for this. They were committed to ending its discrimination practices towards hires who were Black, Hispanic, fat, and practicing Muslim.

They fired CEO Mike Jeffries out the cannon after he and his boyfriend ran the company into the ground. Mike and his boyfriend were blowing money fast. They were telling the public that they have to be catered by male models who had to look the part. The controversial business executive was bold in his demands. He didn't want fat people, Black people and unattractive people wearing his company's logo.

70 year old man-child Mike Jeffries was forced out of A&F/Hollister. The loaded him and his partner in the cannon and fired them out.

Some managers of A&F stores fired two women out the cannon after they refused to take off their hijab because of their religion.

Hani Khan, 23 was the most recognizable face of the ruling. She was fired from a California Hollister store after she was told that she could not be on the A&F floor. So they sent her to the Hollister to work in the break room. When she came onto the floor to assist a guest, a manager told her to head home and not come back.

She took her concerns to the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and they filed a federal lawsuit against the compnay.

Now based in New Albany, Ohio outside of Columbus, the board was taking a lot of heat.

Sales are down. Many stores might close and its trying to rebuilt its image. According to the new rules, you can wear whatever you want. You don't have to be a white girl with blonde hair or a white guy with ripped muscles wearing jeans tucked up with sandals.

They want to bring young teens back to the A&F and Hollister stores. They even introduced large and XXL sizes for customers.

Jeffries and his 22 years on the board wrecked the company.

The company can not deny an employee based on race, gender, religion, social, political or economic standings.

It stands for all companies in the United States and its territories.

Congratulations to Ms. Hani Khan. She defined the odds. She took on a business that thought it was "too big to fail" and won.

Supreme Court Decision (5-4): Wal-Mart Wins Major Civil Lawsuit!

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation's biggest companies.

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case.
The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.

Now, the handful of women who brought the case may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle. Two of the named plaintiffs, Christine Kwapnoski and Betty Dukes, attended the argument. Kwapnoski is an assistant manager at a Sam's Club in Concord, Calif. Dukes is a greeter at the Wal-Mart in Pittsburg, Calif.

The ruling could make it much harder to mount similar class-action discrimination lawsuits against large employers.

The majority agreed with Wal-Mart's argument that being forced to defend the treatment of female employees regardless of the jobs they hold or where they work is unfair.

Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there needs to be common elements tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at once."

But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer, "That is entirely absent here."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.

Story continues below

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Business interests lined up with Wal-Mart while civil rights, women's and consumer groups have sided with the women plaintiffs.

Both sides have painted the case as extremely consequential. The business community has said that a ruling for the women would lead to a flood of class-action lawsuits based on vague evidence. Supporters of the women feared that a decision in favor of Wal-Mart could remove a valuable weapon for fighting all sorts of discrimination.

"The court has told employers that they can rest easy, knowing that the bigger and more powerful they are, the less likely their employees will be able to join together to secure their rights." said Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "The women of Wal-Mart, together with women everywhere, will now face a far steeper road to challenge and correct pay and other forms of discrimination in the workplace."

The lawsuit, citing what are now dated figures from 2001, said that women are grossly underrepresented among managers, holding just 14 percent of store manager positions compared with more than 80 percent of lower-ranking supervisory jobs that are paid by the hour. Wal-Mart responded that women in its retail stores made up two-thirds of all employees and two-thirds of all managers in 2001.

The company also has said its policies prohibit discrimination and that it has taken steps since the suit was filed to address problems, including posting job openings electronically.