The Use of Colons in the Titles of Law Review Articles and Comments

I didn't have much to do yesterday evening, so I decided to test a theory that I have believed for years but never examined: that law review articles tend to avoid using colons, while most student-authored notes and comments use colons.

I have both written and reviewed articles for publication and I have read numerous law review articles and comments in the course of writing my own comments and articles. In doing so, I have seen many titles. From my general experience, it seems that the titles of professor and practitioner-written articles tend to avoid the use of colons, while student-authored work continues to embrace that punctuation mark.

With my free evening, I ignored all of the possible activities that the vibrant city of Los Angeles had to offer and set to work to explore the frequency of colon-use in law review titles. My plan was to look at the most recent issue of the top 16 law journals and law reviews I could find (as ranked by Washington & Lee) and to compare the colon vs. no colon ratio in professor/practitioner-authored articles with the colon vs. no colon ratio in the titles of student-authored notes and comments.

The bright idea of determining whether this had ever been done before did not cross my mind until I was well into my project. I did some searching and found this excellent 2006 article in the best law journal written by Joshua Deahl and Bernard Eskandari. Deahl and Eskandari analyze the titles of a volume of law review articles in ten journals every five years from 1948 through 2003. The authors selected five "elite" law journals and five "second-tier" law journals.

Here is Deahl and Eskandari's graph of colon use in law journal titles:

From their summary of findings comparing titular colon use between articles and notes in elite and second-tier journals:

Since we are most interested in the current state of legal scholarship, the trends over the past decade are especially informative. According to our statistics, the four plotted categories rank in the following order, from lowest to highest percentage of colonized titles: (1) articles in elite journals, (2) articles in second-tier journals, (3) notes in elite journals, and (4) notes in second-tier journals. We suspect most people would rank the expected quality of legal scholarship by category in this same order. This lends further support to the idea that the worse the piece of scholarship, the more likely it is to have a titular colon. Only the "elite articles" clearly stand apart in 2003, with approximately thirty to forty percent fewer articles with colonized titles than each of the other categories.

Even though Deahl and Eskandari's methodology is far more rigorous than my spur of the moment project, I decided that a current snapshot of the state of law review titles could serve as a useful comparison and update to Deahl and Eskandari's work (also, I had already written most of the table below and did not want my work to go to waste). I added the "second-tier" journals that Deahl and Eskandary had examined to my sample, although I replaced the Dickinson Law Review (which is no longer being published) with the Penn State Law Review and Denver University Law Review (Dickinson was ranked 112 at the time Deahl and Eskandari published their article, and Penn State and Denver are tied for 111). This gave me a sample size of the most recent issue of 22 journals.

Here are the numbers I found. For professor/practitioner-authored work, I included both articles and essays in my totals. As noted below, I did not include book reviews. Additionally, for the Harvard Law Review, I used the second most recent issue, because the current issue is a Supreme Court 2015 examination and the "In Memoriam:" article, the foreword, and the cases included did not fit cleanly into my article/comment framework. For each publication, I have linked to the page where I found the articles and comments. Take note, however, that some journals only allowed me to link to a "most current issue" page rather than a specific page for a specific issue, so several of these links will be out of date as time goes on.

Law Journal (by Washington & Lee Ranking)	Articles/Essays		Notes/Comments
	Colon	No Colon	Colon	No Colon
Stanford Law Review	0	7	0	0
Harvard Law Review (not counting book reviews)	0	1	1	2
University of Pennsylvania Law Review	2 (does not include the "Introduction:" article)	7	0	0
Columbia Law Review	1	2	1	1
Yale Law Journal	0	2	0	2
Georgetown Law Journal	0	4	2	0
UCLA Law Review	3	4	0	0
Michigan Law Review	0	2	1	0
Minnesota Law Review	2	3	1	0
California Law Review	3	1	2	0
Cornell Law Review	2	1	1	1
Virginia Law Review	0	3	0	0
Duke Law Journal	0	2	1	1
Texas Law Review	2	0	2	0
Iowa Law Review	3	4	2	0
New York University Law Review	1	2	3	2
Penn State Law Review (tied for 111, used instead of Dickinson)	2	2	2	0
Denver University Law Review (tied for 111, used instead of Dickinson)	2	3	0	0
Nebraska Law Review	3	2	2	0
UMKC Law Review	2	5	2	2
Arkansas Law Review	3	4	3	0
Montana Law Review	2	0	4	2
TOTAL (Elite/Second-Tier)	19/14	45/16	15/13	9/4

Here is the breakdown of the percentages of titles that include colons:

• Elite Articles: 30%
• Second-Tier Articles: 47%
• Elite Notes and Comments: 62.5%
• Second-Tier Notes and Comments: 76%

Some caveats that are hopefully already obvious to readers: these numbers are by no means exhaustive, as they are from only one issue of each journal. Additionally, because I am checking the most recent issues during the fall semester, several of the issues were "symposium" issues, which tended to have a higher ratio of articles to comments. Additionally, the low sample size of notes and comments makes the percentages listed above all the more unreliable. But in the end, this is a blog post and not an article, and I am more than willing to accept grants from anybody who would like me to bolster my methods.

With those unpleasant caveats out of the way, these results are largely consistent with Deahl and Eskandari's findings, with the exception of the Second-Tier Articles percentage. I notice in the Deahl and Eskandari graph, however, that colon use in second-tier articles fluctuated widely since 1990, and this trend downward could be a continuation of that volatility. Ultimately, this snapshot of data confirmed my hypothesis -- that professor and practitioner-written articles tend to avoid using colons while student-authored work trends towards use (indeed, overuse) of that punctuation.

I confess that I fall into the pattern listed above, as the titles of every paper I published as a student included titles. I plan to actively avoid using colons in the titles of my future work, and I urge others to do the same. While Deahl and Eskandari note that avoiding colons is not a guarantee of increased success, removing this punctuation mark generally makes titles less cumbersome.

READ MORE - The Use of Colons in the Titles of Law Review Articles and Comments

Labels:

Kim Kardashian Considers Managing Kylie Jenner: 'I Could Absolutely Manage This'

In a promo clip for Sunday's finale of Keeping Up With the Kardashians. which was taped prior to Kim's robbery in Paris. the 36-yr-previous reality star helps her mother, Kris Jenner. strategy a operate trip for Kylie Jenner to Australia, and appears really fantastic at lining anything up. "I've joked a lot that I could be my sisters' manager far better than my mom could be," Kim admits. "I feel I do give a lot of imaginative input, and I know they, like, pay attention." It can be clear that the mother of two has believed a great deal about becoming a manager. "I truly feel like could fully deal with this," she adds.

These new professional aspirations come months following Kim informed the Editorialist that she was the one particular accountable for her family's accomplishment and not her 61-yr-old mother. "It really is so humorous, mainly because I will hear stories like, 'Kris Jenner is the puppet master, getting all of her little ones do this and that,' and I am like, 'If they only knew,'" she said. "I'm the 1 that will be like, 'Kylie, do this.

Kendall, you should do this.'" Kim added, "I adore when I get the chance to speak about the organization side of my life, since it plays a Massive role in what I do just about every day." Since the robbery last month, followers have only been capable to maintain up with Kim on her family's actuality demonstrate, with the exception of a couple of website and social media posts shared by her good friends and siblings.

Nevertheless, a supply shut to the Kardashians tells ET that Kim is "absolutely prepared to begin finding back to her typical lifestyle.

tiny by very little," although she's not exactly "craving the spotlight." "She's taking it day by day and isn't pushing it," the source adds. "She went by means of a incredibly traumatic encounter and it surely put a whole lot of points in standpoint for her." : Kim Kardashian Still Considering How to Deal with Robbery for Initial Time -- 'She Doesn't Want to Relive It'

Source www.etonline.com

READ MORE - Kim Kardashian Considers Managing Kylie Jenner: 'I Could Absolutely Manage This'

Labels:

Larsen and Devins on the "Amicus Machine"

Scotusblog has this post by Allison Orr Larsen and Neal Devins on the rising number of amicus briefs, and the heightened focus on obtaining briefs from Supreme Court practitioners to maximize a case's chances of being heard and a successful outcome. The post begins:

We are living in the age of the Supreme Court amicus. Last term, amici curiae, or “friends of the court,” filed 863 briefs at the court – an average of 13 per case argued – and the justices cited these briefs in 54 percent of the cases they decided. This is the new normal. Over the past six terms, as Anthony Franze and R. Reed Anderson have shown, approximately 800 amicus briefs were filed in 93-98 percent of all cases, with marquee end-of-June cases attracting briefs in the triple digits. That is over an 800-percent increase in submissions from the 1950s and a 95-percent increase from 1995. Although nobody can say for sure whether these briefs actually change case outcomes, it is clear that the justices are citing them regularly and that there are more and more “friendly” briefs from which to choose. The amicus growth spurt is significant and shows no sign of slowing down.

The post refers to Larsen and Devins' forthcoming article, The Amicus Machine, which can be downloaded here. Here is the abstract:

The Supreme Court receives a record-number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate message. The result is orchestrated and intentional – the product of what we call “the amicus machine.” 

This Article has two goals: (1) The first is to offer a new description of the origin of many Supreme Court amicus briefs, explaining how it is that the Justices and the advocates benefit from this choreographed amicus process. (2) Second, we make the perhaps surprising claim that the amicus machine is normatively desirable. Others have warned about the influence of the powerful lawyers of the Supreme Court bar generally. While acknowledging these risks, we argue that – when it comes to amicus briefs – the benefits of specialization outweigh the costs.

One area of amicus participation that may draw less attention is the filing of amicus briefs at the certiorari stage -- where the Supreme Court considers whether to take a case. The Supreme Court only grants certiorari to a small fraction of cases, and Larsen and Devins note that amicus participation at the certiorari stage may greatly increase the chances that the Supreme Court will hear the case.

As the abstract shows, Larsen and Devins ultimately argue that the trend toward amicus briefs is a good one. From the post:

In an era of infinite information and virtually limitless briefs, coordination efforts by Supreme Court experts are a controlling force on a potentially unruly system. At the end of the day, the amicus machine may be a virtue, and not a vice, of current Supreme Court practice.

The article elaborates that while businesses may have an advantage in obtaining amicus participation, particularly at the certiorari stage, there are several Supreme Court specialists who "regularly represent individual interests" who obtain amicus briefs at a rate similar to those lawyers who represent businesses.

Amicus participation in cases before the Supreme Court is a growing phenomenon, and is of critical importance at the certiorari stage. I hope that Larsen and Devins, or others with similar research interests expand the investigation of amicus participation to other jurisdictions, such as courts of appeal and state courts, to see if the trends observed in the Supreme Court remain consistent.

READ MORE - Larsen and Devins on the "Amicus Machine"

Labels:

Blac Chyna shares adorable picture of Dream Kardashian

Blac Chyna has shared another adorable image of Dream Kardashian.

The newborn little one could only be five days old, but she's currently turning into an world wide web sensation with the pictures that her 28-year-outdated mother and her father Rob Kardashian, 29, have been posting of her.

The most current photograph shared by the 'Rob & Chyna' star attributes the small tot asleep in her mother's arms, while Chyna smiled and gazed off camera. The photo was just captioned with an emoji of a exhausted encounter as the first number of days of raising their tiny bundle of joy have no doubt been exhausting. While Dream is the initially child for Rob, his fiancée is presently mom to four-yr-old King Cairo, whom she has with rapper and former boyfriend Tyga - who is now dating Rob's half-sister Kylie Jenner. In a latest Snapchat video posted by Chyna, the younger boy is noticed telling his new baby sister that he loves her.

Source kokomoperspective.com

READ MORE - Blac Chyna shares adorable picture of Dream Kardashian

Labels:

Marijuana, Federalism, and Guns

The Wall Street Journal reports:

28 states and Washington D.C., allow marijuana use in some form, including eight that allow recreational use. Yet federal law still holds that anyone who uses marijuana, even medicinally, is doing so illegally and can’t buy a gun. 

That is upsetting advocates for both gun owners and pot smokers, groups that don’t always find themselves on the same side of the cultural divide. 

“This idea that you somehow waive your Second Amendment rights if you smoke marijuana” is wrong, said Keith Stroup, founder of NORML, which advocates marijuana legalization. “In particular, if you are using marijuana as a medicine, the idea that you have to choose between your health and the Second Amendment is offensive.” 

“The Gun Control Act prohibitions are governed by the Controlled Substances Act, and marijuana remains an illegal, controlled substance under federal law,” said Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr.

This issue sets up the possibility of a very strange coalition of marijuana and gun advocates, and leads to Republican senators like Lisa Murkowski making the following statements:

Ms. Murkowski wrote Attorney General Loretta Lynch in March urging her to reconsider the policy. “In my judgment, the disqualification of an entire class of marijuana users acting consistent with state law from possessing any firearm merits a review of federal legal policy,” she wrote.

The article notes that the Ninth Circuit has held that banning those holding medicinal marijuana cards from purchasing firearms does not violate the Amendment. That case is Wilson v. Lynch, and you can find the full opinion here.

The Wall Street Journal's article highlights one of the numerous tensions between state and federal law regulating marijuana -- tensions that will doubtless gain more attention and prompt more dissent as more states continue to legalize recreational and medical marijuana. Erwin Chemerinsky, Jolene Forman, Allen Hopper, and Sam Kamin explore the federalism conflicts that marijuana legalization creates in this notable article in the UCLA Law Review. Here is the (somewhat lengthy) abstract:

The struggle over marijuana regulation is one of the most important federalism conflicts in a generation. The ongoing clash of federal and state marijuana laws forces us to consider the preemptive power of federal drug laws and the appropriate roles for state and federal governments in setting drug policy. This conflict also creates debilitating instability and uncertainty on the ground in those states moving from prohibition to regulation of marijuana. 

While the courts have yet to establish the precise contours of federal preemption doctrine in this context, we argue that the preemptive reach of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is relatively modest. Recognition of this legal reality likely played a significant role in the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) decision not to challenge the Colorado and Washington State ballot initiatives legalizing and regulating marijuana for adult use. Yet even if the federal government honors its commitment to not enforce federal drug laws against those complying with robust state regulatory regimes, the ancillary consequences flowing from the continuing federal prohibition remain profound. Banks, attorneys, insurance companies, potential investors, and others—justifiably concerned about violating federal law—are reluctant to provide investment capital, legal advice, or other basic professional services necessary for marijuana businesses to function. Those using marijuana in compliance with state law still risk losing their jobs, parental rights, and many government benefits if their marijuana use is discovered. 

We suggest an incremental and effective solution that would allow willing states to experiment with novel regulatory approaches while leaving the federal prohibition intact for the remaining states: The federal government should adopt a cooperative federalism approach that allows states meeting specified federal criteria—criteria along lines that the DOJ has already set forth—to opt out of the CSA provisions relating to marijuana. State law satisfying these federal guidelines would exclusively govern marijuana activities within those states opting out of the CSA but nothing would change in those states content with the CSA’s terms. This proposed solution embodies the best of federalism by empowering state experimentation with marijuana regulation while maintaining a significant federal role in minimizing the impact of those experiments on states wishing to proceed under the federal marijuana prohibition.

It will be interesting to see if any other conservative politicians join Murkowski in protesting the application of federal gun law to marijuana use legalized by states. Conservative politicians who take Murkowski's critical stance walk a fine line between appearing too restrictive towards gun rights or too favorable towards marijuana users.

I tentatively predict that Republicans in the House of Representatives will be less likely to criticize federal gun laws, even if they are from a state that legalized recreational or medicinal marijuana. This is because their particular constituency may not have favored the policy ultimately adopted by the state, while senators who represent a broader constituency may be more likely to favor policies adopted by their states as a whole. Let's keep an eye on Representatives Kevin McCarthy and David Valadao (both R-CA) to see if they take stances similar to Murkowski. (I'm just naming the members of Congress I was able to locate after doing a Google search for which members of Congress represented any portion of Bakersfield, California).

While waiting for Representatives McCarthy, Valadao, and others to take a stance, I recommend reading the Chemerinsky, et al. article in full.

READ MORE - Marijuana, Federalism, and Guns

Labels:

Supreme Court Nonsense

Every once in a while, it's fun to read nonsense online. Through the magic of the internet, one can explore the finer points of legal name fraud, follow Martin Shkreli's Twitter account, or peruse the ramblings of ignorant bloggers. Recently, I have seen more and more silly articles written or shared regarding the Supreme Court in light of a certain recent election. To make things worse, these articles are often written by attorneys! I generally try to keep my attorney-written nonsense confined to my workday, and it depresses me to see this material spill over into my leisure reading. 

Because misery loves company, here are some of the stranger things I have read regarding the Supreme Court recently. These articles are written by attorneys, which raises the concern that the legalistic bunk in them may be viewed as legitimate by the general public. I'm flagging them for this reason (and because every once in a while, it's relaxing to just lash out at something awful rather than destroying something beautiful).

First is an old article, but one that I have started seeing more often now that Trump won the election. Gregory Diskant wrote this article at the Washington Post back in April in which he claimed that the Senate, by refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's appointment had waived its role in confirming Garland, and that Obama could therefore simply appoint Garland to the Supreme Court.

From the article:

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ” 

It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right. 

Here’s how that would work. The president has nominated Garland and submitted his nomination to the Senate. The president should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent. What date? The historical average between nomination and confirmation is 25 days; the longest wait has been 125 days. That suggests that 90 days is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for the Senate to consider Garland’s nomination. If the Senate fails to act by the assigned date, Obama could conclude that it has waived its right to participate in the process, and he could exercise his appointment power by naming Garland to the Supreme Court. 

Presumably the Senate would then bring suit challenging the appointment. This should not be viewed as a constitutional crisis but rather as a healthy dispute between the president and the Senate about the meaning of the Constitution. This kind of thing has happened before. In 1932, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate did not have the power to rescind a confirmation vote after the nominee had already taken office. More recently, the court determined that recess appointments by the president were no longer proper because the Senate no longer took recesses.

First, it is a massive and unsupported leap to contend that the Senate's refusal to act constitutes a waiver of its "right" to provide advice and consent. This power of the Senate is distinct from rights that individuals may waive in the context of, say the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Moreover, the Senate is not waiving any right -- its refusal to hold hearings constitutes its refusal to consent and therefore is an instance of it exercising its power.

Also, I suspect that Diskant's denial of a constitutional crisis following Garland's appointment would hold up if an equally divided Court (Garland would be recused, after all) were unable to reach a decision, leaving the ultimate question of the Senates power or lack thereof up to a Court of Appeals. This is, admittedly, an unlikely outcome, because I suspect the Supreme Court would most likely dismiss Diskant's waiver theory faster than you can say "argle bargle."

For a more recent example of Supreme Court nonsense, look no further than this article at The Hill written by J. Stephen Clark, a law professor at Albany Law School. While Diskant's article at least contains some attempt at legal rigor akin to that in Facebook copyright disclaimers, Clark's suggestion is that lawyers to little more than put their fingers in their ears, shout "la la la," and ignore rulings of the Supreme Court. For those who think this characterization is unfair, here is part of the article:

Donald Trump will get to fill a Supreme Court vacancy that should not exist. It persists only because of outlandish ideological obstruction by Senate Republicans. That obstruction will now taint the eventual appointee, whom the legal community should shun after confirmation. 

. . .

The question is whether everyone should just roll over and capitulate as if the ideological grab never happened. The Trump appointee will be a member of the Court, with all the powers that come with the position. But ignoring the obstruction that preserved the vacancy for purely ideological reasons would validate that misbehavior as a new normal. 

An alternative is shunning. The Court's influence rests on its legitimacy as an impartial arbiter. But the Trump appointee will owe his or her position to an ideological scheme meant to keep the vacancy open for however many years it took to get a conservative. Such an appointee should be shunned as an illegitimate ideological plant.

Most importantly, the appointee’s illegitimate vote can be shunned. Because the appointee’s presence on the Court will be illegitimate, so too will be any 5-to-4 decision with the appointee in the majority. While people must obviously comply with such decisions, the legal community need not internalize them as legitimate additions to the law. Instead, they should be regarded as merely provisional, lacking precedential force and subject to overruling without constraint. Commentators should carefully designate and quarantine them.

As Clark admits in the article, the Senate refused to hold hearings on Garland's nomination for political reasons. This is consistent with the Constitution, which sets up the Senate as a political check on the President's power of appointment. If people like Clark believe that the Senate should not have blocked President Obama's nomination, they should vote the Senate out. But as the most recent election reveals, this apparently is not a significant concern for most voters.

But the most egregious portion of Clark's article is the last paragraph quoted above in which Clark seems to suggest that practitioners should simply ignore any 5-4 decision in which the Justice appointed to Justice Scalia's seat is in the majority. To any non-lawyers out there who are wondering -- no, lawyers and judges cannot simply ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court because they do not think that one of the Justices should be on the Court. This is, for lack of a better phrase, pure applesauce.

Arguing with proponents of these articles' views is often an exercise in futility. But hopefully this post will flag a small fraction of the nonsense and perhaps keep a few readers from being drawn into the nonsense.

UPDATE (11/15/2016)

The Washington Times reports that no less of a legal juggernaut than Barbra Streisand recently espoused Diskant's waiver theory and urged the appointment of Merrick Garland. Nevertheless, I stand by my arguments above. I will not criticize Streisand's comments, as I am concerned that she might sue me or take some other action that would ultimately draw even more attention to her inaccurate views on how the judicial appointment system operates.

READ MORE - Supreme Court Nonsense

Labels:

White on Trump "Opening Up" Libel Laws

I have written several posts on the implications of Trump's presidency on various constitutional rights. I was going to write one on the First Amendment, but after reading this article by Ken White of Popehat, there is not much more that I want to add. From the article:

As President, Trump will appoint federal judges, from the Supreme Court to the various Courts of Appeal to the trial judges on the many District Courts. But that's not a clear or easy path to "opening up" defamation law and changing either the actual malice standard or the requirement that defamation involve false statements of fact. The Supreme Court has supported the First Amendment very strongly in the last generation, particularly in comparison with other rights. The Court has repeatedly rejected recent attempts to create new exceptions to the First Amendment or to narrow it. Consider Snyder v. Phelps, in which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals were protected speech. That represented a firm refutation of the notion that speech could be limited because it is hurtful or offensive. Or consider the somewhat obscure but incredibly important United States v. Stevens, in which the Court — ruling 8-1 again — overturned a federal law against "crush videos" (don't ask) and sternly rebuked the government's position that courts can create new ad hoc exceptions to the First Amendment based on a weighing of the value of speech. Or consider Reed v. Town of Gilbert last year, in which the Court unanimously (though with some justices taking a different route) held the line on the idea that laws that restrict speech based on content are subject to strict scrutiny.

I recommend reading the whole article. The Wall Street Journal Law blog also highlights White's article and additional similar commentary here.

I think that Trump's support for "opening up" defamation law suggests, at best, ignorance of First Amendment law and, at worst, contempt for constitutional rights. But when it comes to defamation, the First Amendment will likely emerge unscathed from Trump's presidency, though I agree with White that his brash statements about libel may embolden more litigants to file defamation lawsuits.

READ MORE - White on Trump "Opening Up" Libel Laws

Labels:

Right after the Election, Here's What Kanye West Has to Say

That is no slight at ‘Ye, but still, he has no practical experience at governing, which appears to not matter to the American public. Let’s just say he has a probability.

When it comes to social commentary, Kanye definitely has an exciting get on points. He recently was asked by the BBC about his bid for the White Home and gave an response we can all now rather a lot relate to. “When I speak about the concept of being president, I’m not saying I have any political views,” he advised Annie Mac. “I really do not have views on politics, I just have a view on humanity, on individuals, on the (the) truth. If there is anything that I can do with my time to somehow make a big difference although I’m nonetheless alive, I’m all for it.” Kanye West announced that he was working for president for the duration of the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards. As quickly as Donald Trump was elected president over Hillary Clinton.

the hashtag #Kanye2020 started circulating more than the interwebs.

Whilst some have been joking, some others are taking his possible bid really seriously. “There's only one guy who can save us now #kanye2020,” 1 Twitter user tweeted. “Well I suppose that's 1 way to make the prospect of #Kanye2020 seem to be much less improbable #Election2016,” another stated.

Source www.bet.com

READ MORE - Right after the Election, Here's What Kanye West Has to Say

Labels:

No, It is Not Legal to Smoke Marijuana While Walking On the Sidewalk in Downtown Los Angeles

...or in any other California city or town for that matter. On November 8, California passed Proposition 64 (text of the Proposition here, analysis here) which legalized the recreational use of marijuana. The LA Times reports on the passage of Prop 64 here. From the LA Times:

The approval of the ballot measure creates the largest market for marijuana products in the U.S. It comes six years after California voters narrowly rejected a similar measure. Activists said passage would be an important moment in a fight for marijuana legalization across the U.S.

“We are very excited that citizens of California voted to end the failed policy of marijuana prohibition," said Nate Bradley, executive director of the California Cannabis Industry Assn. "Proposition 64 will allow California to take its rightful place as the center of cannabis innovation, research and development.”

Discouraged law enforcement officials said they will closely monitor implementation of the ballot measure.

At this point, it looks like the sites I typically link to for California laws have not yet been updated to reflect Prop 64's passage. I will add links to those sections when they become available. For now, the text of the news laws is available in the text of the proposition itself.

The central statute in Prop 64 is the newly created Health and Safety Code 11362.1 which states:

(a) Subject to Sections 11362.2, 11362.3, 11362.4, and 11362.45, but notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful under state and local law, and shall not be a violation of state or local law, for persons 21 years of age or older to:
 

(1) Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis;
 

(2) Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than eight grams of marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis, including as contained in marijuana products;
 

(3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants;
 

(4) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products; and  

(5) Possess, transport, purchase, obtain, use, manufacture, or give away marijuana accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever.
 

(b) Paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) is intended to meet the requirements of subdivision (f) of Section 863 of Title 21 of the United States Code (21 U.S.C. § 863(f)) by authorizing, under state law, any person in compliance with this section to manufacture, possess, or distribute marijuana accessories.

(c) Marijuana and marijuana products involved in any way with conduct deemed lawful by this section are not contraband nor subject to seizure, and no conduct deemed lawful by this section shall constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest.

What was I thinking with my extremely specific, negatively worded title? True, it has been a little off-putting that in the three days since Prop 64's passage I have:

1. Walked through a cloud of marijuana smoke to get to the front door of my office building in the center of downtown Los Angeles;
2. Walked past a young professional in a suit on the sidewalk in downtown Los Angeles in the early evening who was smoking marijuana while chatting with friends;
3. Had the privilege of being stuck behind a slow person taking up the entire sidewalk (which, in itself, should be a crime) who also happened to be smoking marijuana.

But all of this looks legal right?

Not so fast. Newly created Health and Safety Code section 11362.3 states:

(a) Nothing in Section 11362.1 shall be construed to permit any person to:

(1) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products in any public place, except in accordance with Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code.

(2) Smoke marijuana or marijuana products in a location where smoking tobacco is prohibited.

(3) Smoke marijuana or marijuana products within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, or youth center while children are present at such a school, day care center, or youth center, except in or upon the grounds of a private residence or in accordance with Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code or Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code and only if such smoking is not detectable by others on the grounds of such a school, day care center, or youth center while children are present.

(4) Possess an open container or open package of marijuana or marijuana products while driving, operating, or riding in the passenger seat or compartment of a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle used for transportation.

(5) Possess, smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products in or upon the grounds of a school, day care center, or youth center while children are present.

(6) Manufacture concentrated cannabis using a volatile solvent, unless done in accordance with a license under Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 or Division 10 of the Business and Professions Code.

(7) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products while driving, operating a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle used for transportation.

(8) Smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products while riding in the passenger seat or compartment of a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle used for transportation except as permitted on a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle used for transportation that is operated in accordance with Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code and while no persons under the age of 21 years are present.

Smoking marijuana is prohibited in any public place, unless the place is a business registered to sell marijuana (a quick summary of the exception in Business and Professions Code section 26200). This means that people walking down the sidewalk in a city or suburb or outside of a home or office building are in a public place and therefore violating Section 11362.3, which is an infraction (under the newly created Health and Safety Code section 11362.4).

Notably, while Section 11361.1 states that permitted marijuana possession or use cannot serve as a basis for search or seizure by law enforcement, Section 11361.3's prohibition on marijuana use in public and possession of open containers of marijuana in vehicles covers most conduct that would have served as the basis for such searches and seizures before Proposition 64's passage. Those who thought that Prop 64 would reduce incidents of search and seizure due to officers' detecting the scent of marijuana were therefore mistaken.

Those considering taking advantage of California's new marijuana laws should consider smoking marijuana as a combination of smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. You cannot smoke cigarettes inside of (most) businesses or (in Los Angeles) on restaurant patios -- and you cannot smoke marijuana in these locations either. You cannot drink a beer while walking down a sidewalk -- and you cannot smoke marijuana while walking down the sidewalk either. You cannot drive with an open container of alcohol -- and you cannot drive with an open container of marijuana either.

Would-be marijuana smokers should treat smoking marijuana as subject to the combined restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes, and should therefore avoid smoking in public -- particularly if they are in downtown Los Angeles during the early morning or evening hours when I am most likely to be outside. We'll all be better off that way.

READ MORE - No, It is Not Legal to Smoke Marijuana While Walking On the Sidewalk in Downtown Los Angeles

Labels:

Build Your Own Lawsuit With A "Lawgo" Set

I only just learned of this (nearly one year old) article at Legal Cheek, but I thought it was worth sharing. Legal Cheek reports:

A Canadian law firm has taken the fun and exciting world of Lego and made it more tedious — by producing a civil litigation version of the hit toy. 

In what appears to be a marketing stunt — or is it a new line of business? — Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LPP, or JSS Barristers for short, has created a Lego-themed “Litigation Action Pack” called ‘Lawgo’ (pictured above). 

The boutique civil litigation firm, based in the Canadian city of Calgary, has even produced a toy barrister with accompanying robes and a court bench. The figures are recommended for those between 18 and 99 years of age.

A picture of the Lawgo set is available at Legal Cheek's website.

Interestingly, the Lawgo set is recommended for people between 18-99 years old, suggesting that the toy is meant as a gag gift for lawyers or those about to practice law. This is a shame, since it would be nice to see younger children inspired to join a profession that is even more admirable than the Jedi Order.

Legal Cheek hopes that the law firm marketing the Lawgo set obtained permission from Lego, as otherwise the Lawgo set will run into trademark problems, particularly as a result of its logo. On the other hand, even if the firm did not obtain permission, Lego may be too afraid to sue a firm that is so obsessed with the law that they created such a product in the first place. Since I could not locate news of any lawsuits against the firm marketing the Lawgo set in the year since the product was released, I will assume that one of the theories above is true. On the other hand, I could not find any links to purchase Lawgos on the firm's website, so maybe things did not go as smoothly as hoped.

Finally, while I generally approve of products that make the practice of law more approachable or even whimsical, I am also concerned that the Lawgo product could increase negative attitudes towards lawyers. In particular, there are few feelings that are more unpleasant than stepping on a Lego (see, e.g.: this), and I worry that stepping on a similar law-themed object may compound negative feelings toward attorneys. Hopefully, people unfortunate enough to step on a Lawgo will keep their negative feelings confined to the universe of small plastic objects rather than letting their feelings spill over to the legal community.

READ MORE - Build Your Own Lawsuit With A "Lawgo" Set

Labels:

Forget Stop-and-Frisk: The Trump Supreme Court's True Threat to Fourth Amendment Protections

When discussing the Fourth Amendment under Trump's upcoming presidency, commentators tend to remain fixated on Trump's remarks in which he calls for a universal stop-and-frisk program. (See, e.g., coverage here and here). I have already blogged that Trump's apparent proposal for a national stop-and-frisk program would be unconstitutional and it is unclear how Trump would implement such a program. Indeed, to do so would almost certainly require the commandeering of state authorities, which would violate the Tenth Amendment -- which Trump vowed to protect in a statement released earlier today.

If Trump appoints judges who adopt Justice Scalia's approach to the Fourth Amendment, this will likely lead to lower Fourth Amendment protections through limits on the exclusionary rule. The Roberts Court has steadily eroded this rule, which prohibits the introduction of evidence that is discovered as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation. Scalia was a notable opponent of the rule, and commentators noted that his death and eventual replacement could represent a possible turning point for the exclusionary rule.

Indeed, even without Justice Scalia, the Court in Utah v. Strieff held 5-3 that an officer's admittedly wrongful detention of a suspect did not warrant the exclusion of evidence discovered after the officer called in the suspect's name and found that there an outstanding warrant for the suspect. The Court held that the search incident to the arrest on the warrant was far enough attenuated from the initial, wrongful stop that the drugs found on the defendant's person were admissible.

If Trump appoints Justices like Justice Scalia who are hostile to the exclusionary rule, I expect that Strieff's logic will soon be extended to other common law enforcement scenarios. For instance, a Court with Trump appointees would likely uphold as constitutional a search in a case in which an officer stops a suspect in a "high drug area" without any other basis for suspicion, calls in the suspect's identity, finds an outstanding warrant, and discovers drugs during a search incident to arrest on the warrant.

Evidence of flagrant or systemic police misconduct -- which was absent in Strieff -- will also likely be absent from the case described above. Overworked defense attorneys who do not explore an officer's history of searches and seizures combined with carefully crafted police reports will reduce the chances of finding flagrant violations of the Fourth Amendment on a case-by-case basis. And I do not suspect that conducting studies on departments to determine the existence of systemic search-and-seizure misconduct will be high on Trump's list of priorities for the Department of Justice.

Those who are concerned about the future of Fourth Amendment protections should avoid getting too caught up in Trump's stop-and-frisk rhetoric. While Trump's flippant disregard for the Constitution warrants criticism and concern, Trump's Supreme Court is most likely to erode Fourth Amendment protections by following trends established long before Trump's presidency was on anybody's radar.

READ MORE - Forget Stop-and-Frisk: The Trump Supreme Court's True Threat to Fourth Amendment Protections

Labels:

Kim Kardashian pregnant quickly?Her unexpected statements

If the household Kardashian / Jenner is prepared to welcome a happy occasion, there may possibly nicely be another a single in a couple of months … Kim Kardashian would yet again pregnant once more! A new little one Kardashian is very soon! Childbirth Blac Chyna approaching since the event should be anticipated to November sixteen. And for the event, Blac Chyna decided she would imitate Kim Kardashian for her delivery. Indeed, the potential Mrs. Kardashian made the decision she would give birth to her child in the same hospital as Kim but also in the similar luxurious area at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles!

Like what, nothing is lost in a family members … But the little one Rob Kardashian and Blac Chyna may not be the last to come into the family … It might well be that North and West Saint can welcome a minor brother or sister soon, this is certainly what would Kim Kardashian! Read through EnjoyPhoenix Unveils Travel Diary in New York, it is amazing!

Source stopru.org

READ MORE - Kim Kardashian pregnant quickly?Her unexpected statements

Labels:

Trump's Presidency and the Supreme Court

Cass Sunstein has this interesting article at Bloomberg View. Sunstein begins by correctly noting that even though Trump will appoint Justice Scalia's successor, this will leave the Court's current ideological balance unchanged. Sunstein then addresses the possibility of Trump replacing one or more of the Court's liberal justices (he mentions Justices Ginsburg and Breyer -- I would add Justice Kennedy in light of his role in recent gay rights and abortion decisions). On that topic, Sunstein writes:

Suppose, though, that one of them does resign. At that point, significant changes would be possible. But probably not many. 

One reason involves the idea of respect for precedent. The justices are usually reluctant to disturb the court's previous rulings, even if they disagree strongly with them. In this light, would a new majority really want to announce in, say, 2018, that states can ban same-sex marriage, after years of saying otherwise? That’s unlikely: Such an abrupt reversal of course, defeating widespread expectations, would make the law seem both unstable and awkwardly political. 

Would a Trump court want to overrule Roe v. Wade, which has been the law since 1973, and thus allow states to ban abortion? Considering the intensity of conservative opposition to abortion, that is somewhat more probable. But judges are not politicians, and again to avoid the appearance of destabilizing constitutional law, any majority would hesitate before doing something so dramatic. 

Would a court composed of Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and one or two Trump appointees be willing to grant broad new powers to the president? No chance. The current conservatives have expressed a great deal of skepticism about executive authority. They aren’t going to turn on a dime merely because the president is a Republican. 

There is a more general point. Many judges (and Roberts in particular) are drawn to “judicial minimalism”; they prefer to focus on the facts of particular cases. Quite apart from respecting prior rulings, they like small steps and abhor bold movements or big theories.

I agree with portions of Sunstein's analysis. Sunstein's point on respecting precedent is a good one, and is bolstered in the abortion context by the Court's 2016 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a 5-3 decision striking down Texas laws restricting abortion. While two Trump appointees would likely leave the balance of the Court opposed to the Whole Woman's Health decision, a change of course this soon after the Court's ruling would indeed appear dramatically political.

This point about precedent may not hold up in the context of affirmative action, however. The most recent Fisher v. University of Texas case that upheld the University of Texas's affirmative action program was a 4-3 decision, and therefore rested on the opinion of a minority of the nine justices that typically sit at the Supreme Court. Commentators are quick to point out that Justice Kennedy authored the opinion and that Justice Kagan, who was recused, would have brought the majority's total to five justices. But these observations do not affect the fact that the majority consisted of only four justices. Should the Court revisit affirmative action with two Trump appointees replacing any one of Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Breyer, the Court may likely to overrule its prior 4-3 decision with a new 5-4 decision restricting affirmative action.

As for Sunstein's point about incremental change, while he may well be correct, this will probably do little to appease those who wished to see a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. Even if the Court takes the minimalist approach that Sunstein describes, the incremental shifts will likely be to the right, rather than the substantial shifts to the left that liberals were hoping to see under a Clinton presidency.

Finally, to take a brief step into the uncertain and unpleasant world of political prognostication, many commentators expect that Trump will have the opportunity to replace Justice Ginsburg in addition to appointing Justice Scalia's successor, as she is now 83 years old and is unlikely to remain on the Court for four more years. Democrats, however, will likely begin to operate under a time frame of two, rather than four, years as Trump's presidency begins and as his Court begins to take shape. If Democrats manage to mobilize in 2020, they may take back the Senate. Once they have done so, they may well adopt the Republican tactic of refusing a hearing should any seats open up on the Supreme Court. While such an approach would represent a reversal of position for Democrat's who condemned Senate Republicans' refusal over the past many months, they would likely accept this inconsistency in favor of the influence that such a refusal could have on the Court.

I do not like the approach I described above -- whether it is practiced by Republicans or Democrats. But 2016 ushered in a new level of political combat over Supreme Court appointments, and I do not expect these political precedents to be overturned anytime soon.

READ MORE - Trump's Presidency and the Supreme Court

Labels:

1000's get in touch with for Kanye West to step up and dethrone President Donald Trump in 2020

When Kanye West declared “I have made the decision in 2020 to run for president” at the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards. the notion of a rapper currently being president wasn’t taken notably significantly. But who is much better in tune with the men and women of America, a musician obsessed with generating and trying to speak by means of his art about what it signifies to be human, or a reality Tv star greatest regarded for pretend-firing individuals? In light of Trump’s run for Republican candidate, his subsequent run for president, and now his shock vote as the new president-elect, 'YEEZY 2020' no longer feels that improbable. @kanyewest You still excellent for that presidential run Ye? West has obtained thousands of tweets about his planned campaign in the hours following Trump's victory speech. Recall when we laughed when @kanyewest announced he was working for 2020 but now something is obviously doable #ElectionNight @kanyewest I have faith in you. Please conserve America 2020 🙏🏾 Kanye not too long ago mentioned his political aspirations and what motivates him to want to be president on Annie Mac’s BBC Radio 1 present. "When I talk about the concept of becoming president,” he explained, "I am not saying I have any political views, I just have a see on humanity, on people, on the reality. “We are numb, we're numb to 500 kids getting killed in Chicago a 12 months, we're numb to the fact that it was seven police shootings in the starting of July,” he continued. ”If there is something that I can do with my time and my day, to by some means make a variation while I am alive I am going to try out to do it.” If Trump by some means manages to make it through his 4-yr phrase without receiving himself impeached, the Democratic celebration will surely be seeking for a new and various variety of candidate to face him in 2020 as Trump has completely altered the encounter of US politics overnight.

Kanye West has previously performed at the Democratic Nationwide Convention, been invited to the White Home by President Obama on various events, and lately posed for a selfie with Hillary Clinton. We have noticed that you are utilizing an ad blocker. Marketing aids fund our journalism and hold it actually independent. It assists to build our global editorial group, from war correspondents to investigative reporters, commentators to critics. How to disable your ad blocker for independent.co.united kingdom Click the Adblock/Adblock Plus icon, which is to the proper of your address bar. On Adblock click "Will not run on pages on this domain". On Adblock Plus click "Enabled on this site" to disable ad blocking for the existing site you are on. If you are in Firefox click "disable on independent.co.uk ". If you are Personal Browsing in Firefox, "Tracking Protection" might result in the adblock notice to present. It can be temporarily disabled by clicking the "shield" icon in the handle bar. Click the Ghostery icon.

In versions prior to six. click "whitelist site". In model six. click "trust internet site" or add independent.co.united kingdom to your Trusted Site list. In versions ahead of six. you will see the message "Site is whitelisted". Click "reload the page to see your adjustments". Click the uBlock icon.

Then click the large power button to whitelist the present web website, and its state will be remembered next time you go to the net web site.

Then reload the webpage.

Source www.independent.co.uk

READ MORE - 1000's get in touch with for Kanye West to step up and dethrone President Donald Trump in 2020

Labels:

Lamar Odom’s Father Will take Aim At Khloe Kardashian, But She’s Centered On Boyfriend Tristan Thompson

In a new interview, Joe has taken aim at the 32-yr-outdated Preserving Up With the Kardashians star, claiming her former husband is greater devoid of her.

Speaking to Radar On the internet on November 8, Joe Odom labeled Khloe Kardashian a “piece of work” right after the reality star divorced his former skilled athlete son, who allegedly suffered a drug relapse months prior. According to Joe, he recently spoke to his troubled son in the course of an emotional mobile phone contact — that did not involve Khloe Kardashian at all. “He did not mention [Khloe Kardashian] at all when I spoke to him on the cellphone,” unveiled Joe. “He did not mention the divorce. I identified out from the information. Lamar can be private like that. When he wants to move on he keeps quiet about it.” Khloe Kardashian rushed to Lamar Odom’s side in October of last yr following he suffered a drug overdose while partying at a brothel in Nevada and continued to help him emotionally and financially for months. Then, earlier this year, as Odom remained residing in a property rented for him by Kardashian, it was reported that Odom had returned to drug use and a short time later, Khloe Kardashian filed paperwork to end their marriage and has given that moved on with Tristan Thompson, who plays for the Cleveland Cavaliers. “She was a piece of work, man,” Joe complained to Radar On the web. “Khloe was no very good for him and he’s far better off without having her! She got my son into a whole lot of s**t.” Khloe Kardashian and Lamar Odom were married for four many years just before their romantic relationship came to an abrupt end due to Odom’s affairs with other females and his alleged drug use.

Even so, according to Odom’s dad, it was the former basketball star’s lifestyle and occupation that went downhill because of Khloe Kardashian. As he recommended, Khloe Kardashian brought unnecessary drama into Lamar Odom’s life. “His job suffered as a consequence and he lost some very good years,” continued Joe. “He just didn’t want all that. She stopped his job.

Instances have been challenging in the last year and it’s all down to Khloe,” Joe sniped. “I’ve struggled major time and Lamar wasn’t capable to support mainly because Khloe controlled all his money.”

In October of final 12 months, as Odom recovered from his drug overdose, Khloe Kardashian was calling the shots when it came to his medical care and in the end appeared open to a potential reconciliation. “At least that has transformed now,” explained Joe, incorporating, “Lamar can get on the excellent foot now. It is a shame he has had to go by way of all that he has just to get to this level.” Kylie Jenner has tapped Khloe Kardashian for her 1st Lip Kit collaboration — get the information! https://t.co/JrUOYR1Wom pic.twitter.com/Qo0ygXjNlC Given that parting techniques with Odom, Khloe Kardashian has been dating Tristan Thompson and paying tons of time with him in Cleveland, in which he plays expert basketball. Even though Khloe Kardashian was lately spotted in Los Angeles, X17 On the net confirmed on November seven that she had once once more boarded a flight to Cleveland to be with her boyfriend.

In photographs, Khloe Kardashian was seen sporting a black outfit with a red flannel shirt wrapped close to her waist.

To see a lot more of Khloe Kardashian and her loved ones, tune into Maintaining Up With the Kardashians Season twelve airing on Sunday nights at 9 p.m. on the E! Network.

Source www.inquisitr.com

READ MORE - Lamar Odom’s Father Will take Aim At Khloe Kardashian, But She’s Centered On Boyfriend Tristan Thompson

Labels:

Khloé Kardashian Confirms Kylie Jenner Lip Kit Collaboration On Instagram: When, How And Wherever To Buy Koko Kollection

“Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star Khloé Kardashian is getting into the makeup game. She worked with beauty maven Kylie Jenner to create a assortment of her personal.

Fittingly, it’s referred to as “Koko Kollection.”

The Kylie Cosmetics collaboration will drop Wednesday.

It consists of four colours: Damn Gina is a pale pink gloss with glitter Gorge is a matte deep burgundy Okurrr is a matte orange red and Khlo$ is a matte shade of nude. Kardashian, 32, can not wait for her new beauty merchandise to drop. “I cannot believe it is eventually here!

I am so energized Kylie is sharing her lip-kit empire with me! So proud of the collaboration we have produced collectively! We have both worked truly hard on these shades! It really is perfect!” the Great American jean designer wrote on Instagram Saturday. “It's anything.

Ky, I'm so honored to be your initially collaboration! Working with you is a dream! I could not be prouder of the empire you designed and I am thrilled to be apart of it now. I adore you so much sister!!” The finest way to acquire the new makeup line is above the online on KylieCosmetics.com Wednesday. Most lip kits are restocked at 3 p.m. PST, which is the same time Koko Kollection will debut. The Instagram webpage for Kylie Cosmetics commonly drops hints prior to the launch, so make absolutely sure to test out the official web page.

Jenner also loves to drop hints on her Snapchat account, Kylizzlemynizzl. Jenner, 19, confirmed her first collaboration on Snapchat Friday, but wouldn’t tell her followers who she was operating with. “It launches subsequent week. I’m past thrilled for this 1 since it is my 1st collaboration,” she said. “So tweet me some guesses of who you believe the collaboration’s with, and keep tuned on my Snapchat.” Kardashian currently has a lip kit shade named soon after her.

It’s referred to as Koko K and is a matte soft nude with a pink hue. Nearly all people in the household has a lip kit colour named immediately after her, except for Kim Kardashian and Kendall Jenner. Even their grandmother, Mary Jo, has her very own shade.

Source www.ibtimes.com

READ MORE - Khloé Kardashian Confirms Kylie Jenner Lip Kit Collaboration On Instagram: When, How And Wherever To Buy Koko Kollection

Labels:

Let Them Consume Cake!Kris Jenner Celebrates Her Birthday (Yet again!)with Her Loved Ones and 1 Giant Cake

Fern/ Information Online The head of the KarJenner family members celebrated her 61st birthday on Saturday, and started out her day by renting out an entire theater for her relatives and buddies.

Her day ended with a relatives dinner, which included daughters Khloé and Kourtney Kardashian. Scott Disick and boyfriend Corey Gamble. Jenner was presented with a massive white birthday cake adorned with an edible sign that stated, “Happy Birthday Kris” at the finish of the meal, as her loved ones sang “Happy Birthday.” “Yeah Mom!” Khloé mentioned in a video captured on her Snapchat account Saturday night. The youngest Kardashian shared a number of recollections of her mom’s major day, and rocked a nude entire body suit and higher-waisted denim jeans with aviator glasses. All of Jenner’s daughters delivered sweet tributes to their mom on their apps, with Kardashian West producing a Jenner-inspired Kimoji and 1-day-only mobile phone scenarios in celebration of the family’s matriarch. (She didn’t send a personalized message on her app, nonetheless, as she is nevertheless staying away from social media.)

Meanwhile, Rob and his fiancée Blac Chyna sent Jenner giant silver balloons that explained, “Happy Birthday Appreciate You.”

But Kourtney could have taken the cake for finest birthday tributes, as she shared several belated birthday Instagram posts for Jenner. “A day late but I was with her all day…Happy Birthday to my lovely mother absolutely everyone falls in really like with when they meet. You make each and every minute superior. You dwell daily life to the fullest, producing each and every knowledge so a lot exciting. I am lucky to be your daughter. I enjoy you madly,” Kourtney captioned a photograph of the mother-daughter duo aboard a jet ski. She continued her Instagramming with a photograph of Jenner at a Chanel trend show, captioning the photo, “Doesn’t get any more chic than this.” Soon following, she continued her chic argument with a photograph of Jenner in an all black ensemble. “Like come on…” the eldest Kardashian sibling wrote.

Source people.com

READ MORE - Let Them Consume Cake!Kris Jenner Celebrates Her Birthday (Yet again!)with Her Loved Ones and 1 Giant Cake

Labels:

Nick Cannon Says Kim Kardashian and Kanye West Are 'American Royalty!'

Looks like Nick Cannon doesn't have any regrets in dating Kim Kardashian. or even any beef with her husband, Kanye West. In a Facebook Live chat with Cosmopolitan.

Cannon exposed his favourite celebrity couples.

and, shock surprise, Kimye came out on top rated. "I like Kim and Kanye. I believe they click on so several unique amounts," he explained, laughing. "They're at this time like American royalty if you feel about all that they represent. That is so ridiculous." Cosmopolitan did the moment refer to the Kardashian's as "America's Very first Family members ," so it can be not difficult to comprehend why Nick is echoing the mag's sentiments.

Whilst Kim and Kanye are at the prime of his checklist, Nick claimed that his all-time favorite couple was Lisa Marie Presley and Michael Jackson. "I always believed Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley [were] actually interesting," he laughed. "I wanted them to have a baby so bad!

Because that would have been like the coolest. Like, 'My grandfather's Elvis and my dad is Michael Jackson?' That would've been crazy!" Word on the street is that they are. and a lot more and much more celebrities and magazines are retaining the trend going! Kim & Kourtney Call Out Scott for Currently being a "Cougar Stalker" See How Kim Kardashian's Family members Celebrated Her Birthday Online Bruno Talks Kanye Feud, Shares Humorous Beyonce Super Bowl Story Mariah Carey & Nick Cannon Reunite With Their Twins for Pre-Mother's Day Dinner Mariah Carey Talks "Co-Parenting" With Ex Nick Cannon: "It's the Correct Thing to Do" Kris Breaks Down In New Video, Says Kim "Abandoned" Her

READ MORE - Nick Cannon Says Kim Kardashian and Kanye West Are 'American Royalty!'

Labels:

Blac Chyna is "not attracted to Rob Kardashian"and it really is not about the excess weight

Wendy Williams doesn't feel that Blac Chyna is attracted to her fiance Rob Kardashian and it really is not about the fat. The actuality star has been struggling with staying in the public eye ever considering that his sister Kim married Kanye West, and was even a no-display at their wedding since of his bodyweight.

Now, he is gearing up to the birth of his initially youngster and is finding ready to marry Chyna, but chat show host Wendy has weighed in on their relationshpi. “I truly do appreciate Rob,” the chat present host explained, recalling his early days on Preserving Up With The Kardashians. “She's taking full benefit of anything. I am glad she's not my child. It's extremely fun to view,” Wendy said, claiming Chyna is pulling a “ruse” on Rob.

Wendy said: “It's not even about Rob being overweight. It is about Rob's lack of self-confidence. A woman likes a guy to consider management.”

Last month Rob, who has been truthful with his battle of the bulge immediately after seeing his weight climb to a whopping 300lbs. But with a child on the way it looks that Rob is established to slim down to a healthier size - and he's now vowed to do so. Posting a throwback picture of himself hunting slimmer, as effectively a bikini snap of his fiancée Blac Chyna, he wrote: "Oh yeah we snapping back lol. child will be right here in four weeks and I am completed with carrying this pregnancy fat me and my infant gonna be righttttttt Inspiration TIME‼️ we almost there Chy." He also added that Chyna was searching "so bomb" in the bikini snap. Rob Kardashian shared these throwback pics of himself and Blac Chyna as he vows to lose weight In current years Rob has blamed self-esteem difficulties for the weight gain. He was so self-aware he famously skipped Kim Kardashian's wedding ceremony to Kanye West in 2014. But immediately after beginning a new partnership with Blac Chyna at the start of the yr, Rob came out of his shell and started to eliminate fat. In April, he credited Chyna for helping him to eliminate 50lbs, revealing that his target bodyweight was 200lbs. But it would seem that Rob is hoping to get back to his slimmest, posting a picture from years ago on his Instagram page.

His excess weight reduction vow comes following a image of the couple at a pumpkin patch emerged final week. In the picture Rob seems more substantial and reports declare he has gained 50lbs in excess of the past six weeks.

Blac, who is previously mum to King Cairo, from her romance with Tyga, lately unveiled that she now weighs 188lbs in a current Snapchat video.

The model, who is 5ft 2, as soon as claimed that she wished to put on 100lbs during her pregnancy so she could drop the bodyweight afterwards.

Nonetheless not long ago Blac has admitted she has made adjustments to her diet and exercising regime and she's truly lost a minor excess weight.

She stated: "I started out consuming a lot more clean and strolling. From 135 to 183 to 176.2.” Blac and Rob, who became engaged in April, following a whirlwind romance, are set to welcome their very first kid together upcoming month. The Live Occasion you are striving to watch is either unavailable or has not started off Please refresh this webpage in your browser to reload this reside occasion video

Source www.mirror.co.uk

READ MORE - Blac Chyna is "not attracted to Rob Kardashian"and it really is not about the excess weight

Labels:

Kendall Jenner Reveals Her Terrifying Struggle With Sleep Paralysis On KUWTK —But Momma Kris Is Less Than Beneficial!

Although Preserving Up with the Kardashians is back in complete swing following Rob & Chyna 's short trial run, not every person in the famous family can maintain up. Which is due to the fact soon after teasing her mental well being troubles for weeks, Kendall Jenner finally opens up about her sleep paralysis in this Sunday's all-new episode! Relevant: Rob & Chyna May possibly Allow Cameras Catch Their Total Delivery! In a teaser out Wednesday, the twenty-year-old model confides in momager momma Kris Jenner that her globe-trotting organization adventures are commencing to harm her heart. Literally.

KenDoll even goes as far as saying she's afraid of going to bed currently, admitting: "I'm scared to fall asleep mainly because it keeps happening to me. It virtually feels like my heart stops."

For individuals fortunate sufficient to not have knowledgeable it, rest paralysis is a middle ground involving sleeping states the place the thoughts is conscious but the physique is asleep — leaving a feeling of staying trapped in your physique. Some individuals even endure chest pressure or choking sensations.

Unfortunately, Kris is less sympathetic than she ought to be — creating off Kenny's issues as mere complaints, saying: "The nature of what you do for a residing and your career is flying about the globe. You have designers that have presently booked you and are counting on you to present up." Relevant: We May possibly Under no circumstances Get Season two Of Rob & Chyna At This Point Do U feel Kendall will be able to get the assist she so obviously wants?? Ch-ch-examine out a sneak peek of KUWTK prior to it airs Sunday, November six at 9 p.m. EST on E! (beneath).

READ MORE - Kendall Jenner Reveals Her Terrifying Struggle With Sleep Paralysis On KUWTK —But Momma Kris Is Less Than Beneficial!

Labels:

Bruno Mars Says Kanye West Apologized For Criticizing His MTV VMA Win, Dishes on Doing work With Beyonce!

There is no beef between Bruno Mars and Kanye West. Mars covers the new concern of Rolling Stone magazine, in which he opens up about dealing with Kanye soon after he dissed his MTV Video Music Awards win and doing work with Beyonce at the 2015 Super Bowl. Bruno won the Ideal Male Video for his hit single "Locked Out of Heaven" at the 2013 MTV VMAs.

Kanye, staying Kanye, later on West went on a rant about Mars' accolade by saying that only "very" folks in Hollywood win awards. "I won 1 award!"

he tells Rolling Stone with a laugh. "But he was suitable about the quite portion. It's Kanye – bottom line, at the finish of the day, we will need Kanye. But what he explained wasn't a sting.

You can come at me all you want – I have set myself up for that. But I am my very own greatest critic.

Whatever everyone says to me, they never know s--t." "But me and him, we're cool," the "Uptown Funk" singer adds. "He known as me and apologized. Kanye loves me, guy. You know that. Who isn't going to? I am Bruno Mars!" The pop star likewise opens up about functioning with Beyonce for the 2015 Super Bowl. a gig Bruno says took some convincing.

In reality, when Coldplay frontman Chris Martin first asked about the demonstrate, Mars turned him down. "I advised him I never consider so," he says. "I just felt like I'd just accomplished it." "'You and Beyoncé, undertaking 'Uptown Funk' – I want to be accountable for giving that gift to the planet.' That is what he mentioned, in his sweet, charming, English way," Bruno reveals. Eventually, Chris asked the "Gorilla" singer to meet him at the studio, where ultimately they filmed a video of them asking for Beyonce's view about the overall performance.

And to everybody's shock, Queen Bey was down.

The pop star likewise says he learned a lot about stage presence from the "Lemonade" singer. "She's not f---ing joking close to," he explains. "She's going to get onstage and display everybody why she's the greatest just about every single time. She's received that monster in her." But Mars does have 1 hilarious memory of collaborating with the singer ahead of their halftime show. "Me and Beyoncé have been each doing work on our diet programs, stressing out," he reveals. "Then the day prior to, we're viewing playback backstage, and she's eating a bag of Cheetos. I am like, 'That's what you're executing?'" "She's like, 'There's nothing a lot more we can do these last two days.

It's gonna be what it can be gonna be. So I am gonna get pleasure from this bag of Cheetos," Mars hilariously recalls.

It definitely sounds like, in the finish, the 31-year-previous singer was pleased about his choice to do the Super Bowl.

READ MORE - Bruno Mars Says Kanye West Apologized For Criticizing His MTV VMA Win, Dishes on Doing work With Beyonce!

Labels:

Kim Kardashian Is By now Taking A Various Strategy To Social Media (UPDATE)

UPDATE (twelve p.m. ET): Possibly we spoke as well soon. There’s a possibility Kim Kardashian wasn’t quite prepared to return to social media following all. By noon on Tuesday, the actuality star deleted the photo she posted to Facebook the night in advance of. The Huffington Post has reached out to Kardashian’s rep for comment. UPDATE two (one:45 p.m. ET): Although she may possibly not be internet prepared, Kardashian is apparently arranging to make a personal visual appeal with her make up artist Mario Dedivanovic.

In accordance to Dedivanovic, Kardashian will seem as his model for a makeup class in Dubai on Jan. 13, 2017. PREVIOUSLY: Kim Kardashian has created her triumphant return to social media. The 36-year-outdated was radio silent on all platforms for just about a month right after she was robbed at gunpoint in Paris on Oct. three. but that dark time seems to be coming to an end.

On Monday, Kardashian took to Facebook to share a photograph of herself in a chair looking at her iPhone, which she captioned, “Downtime #LumeeCollab.” Two back links to Halloween-relevant posts on her internet site also appeared on Facebook Monday. Notably, Facebook was the only platform Kardashian employed, which is somewhat out of character for the reality star.

Prior to her social media break, Kardashian would have blasted the picture across all of her social channels ― particularly Instagram and Twitter. given that she has far more followers on these platforms than she does on Facebook. Should we consider Kardashian’s more restrained technique to social media as a indicator that she intends to slow down, or is she just pacing herself? Soon after Kardashian was robbed, there was much discussion about how her use of social media probably led to her being targeted and it is achievable that going forward she intends to scale back. Multiple family members members have told the press that Kardashian hasn’t been doing really properly given that the robbery, but an unnamed source just lately told Enjoyment Tonight that Kardashian “is certainly prepared to commence finding back to her typical life, little by small.”

Kim Kardashian Is Currently Taking A Unique Approach To Social Media (UPDATE) Generated from relevant, customized and trending content articles.

View your information homepage.

Source www.huffingtonpost.com

READ MORE - Kim Kardashian Is By now Taking A Various Strategy To Social Media (UPDATE)

Labels: