Six months after the Fatal Shooting of breonna taylor. Which raises the question should a controversial legal principle leave Police Officers largely shielded from lawsuits over wrongdoing . Our ted koppel looks for answers. There is just one little problem with this picture. Theyve got him handcuffed. That could have been one of my kids. Reporter they got the wrong guy, beat him up im glad our police are here doing their job. Reporter and when he sued, the cops claimed something called qualified immunity. Well explain coming up on sunday morning. Pauley mariah carey is a legend of popular music, with a story of triumph over adversity, she is only now ready to share in full. Yeah, yeah, yeah pauley mariah carey has had number one hits 19 times. Pauley your ability to do those high notes, where did that come from . I dont know. [laughter] ive always had kind of a raspy voice, but for me it is like playing an instrument, so it is fun. Pauley later. The one and only mariah carey. Legions
Despite the century that has elapsed our constitution still does not recognize or guarantee full protection of the law for women and gender minorities. Hj resolution 79 would bring us one step closer. The resolution removes the previous deadline set for ratifying the e. R. A. And will ensure that recent ratifications by nevada , illinois, in virginia are given full effect. The e. R. A. Offers a basic and fundamental guarantee, the equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Thats it. Very simple. In the years since it was passed by overwhelming majorities in the house and senate we have made Great Strides to secure that equality including through existing case law signed under the 14th amendment. The e. R. A. Would enshrine those principles and take the final step of ensuring that laws disadvantaging women and gender minorities are subject to the most rigorous form of constitutional scrutiny. In recent years w
Act a year or so ago. Tell us how that impacted all and what that means for every one here. Sure. The pregnancy discrimination act is a part of title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congress passed the pregnancy discrimination act in 1973 after a Supreme Court ruling, and last year, about a year and half of those a case before the Supreme Court, young versus ups, and in that case peggy young had been working for ups. She had a normal pregnancy. So there was, she had no reticular medical issues with her pregnancy particular. Her doctor recommended that she can later in the pregnancy, not live more than 20 pounds. 20 pounds. Which if youre a driver for ups, you can imagine that might be a problem. She asked for an accommodation for light duty, gps said we dont give accommodations for people who have anything other than an on the job injury. So this is your only option is to not work, and you can come back after your pregnancy but thats your only option. So she sued under the pregnan
So i think what they did is really thats kind of the foundation for the black quarterback and as you said fast forward 20 years down the road and i think how well do they read defense and throw the ball down the field if they are running i want them to protect themselves by a prime coaching d teaching them and saying if you have a choice had the choice i r you throw at the teen yards downfield rather than run it and i think that hes been pretty good in terms of knowing his limitations into the bar to valuable to the team and you cant get hurt. Hes probably a talent that i cant say weve never seen in the football league, black or white but you put his talent and surround it with a hiphop culture, some people its going to rub them the wrong way. I remember when a female Sports Reporter that was foreign and now you have women hosting shows during his and her things in all sports, basketball, football, baseball, you name it. So because something is new or doesnt fit the mold it doesnt make
Theyre doing hard work cleaning up a cluttered closet to the First Amendment where lower courts are in disagreement and everyone is a little bit at sea. The first of these, a case involving the socalled truth rats doctrine. There is a lot of speech protected by the First Amendment, there is a lot of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and this is a question of when is threatening language protected and when is it not protected . The question is in order to be unprotected by the First Amendment, does the speaker have to have intended to threaten someone . Or is it enough if a reasonable person would think this was threatening language . Do you have a subjective standard when you ask about the state of mind of the speaker or do you ask what an objective listener would take away . This is not about whether you intend to carry out the threat or not. That is not necessary. Do you have to have intended to make someone feel threatened . This case involves a man the university