I hope to have more details on this later after digesting the 76 page decision but it seems SCOTUS has knocked out everything in the law that Civil Rights advocates attacked except for the stop and check of status.
Immigrants do not have to "carry registation papers"; the State Police cannot arrest allegedly illegal aliens without a warrant and they cannot get such a warrant from the state courts;and overturning the law which allowed the state to charge a misdemeanor against an undocumented alien from holding a job.
Even the "stop and check" portion of the law is in danger as the court invited civil rights advocates to bring other attacks against the law.
The majority has upheld federal exclusivity in setting and prosecuting Immigration policy. Interestingly both Kennedy and Chief Judge Roberts were in the majority.
More later I hope.
Hattip: The New York Times on Line
Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
Monday, June 25, 2012
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mr. Romney, Your Silence is Deafening: Where is the Real Republican Immigration Plan
Yesterday I was pretty critical of President Obama about what I consider to be a basically valueless change in Administrations policy on Immigration. Today I want to make it clear I am just as unhappy with the Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. You see, Obama hasn't really kept his campaign promises to pass comprehensive Immigration reform, however Mr. Romney has yet to even make a promise with any proposal. I am actually more inclined to be angry at Republicans for not trying to come to the table with a plan than at Obama who has at least put forth a plan that Republicans promise to filibuster. Look it is easy to say NO! It is hard to say, "this is what we need and we know what you are looking for and here is our proposal."
Five times yesterday, Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Romney on "Face the Nation" if he would undo the Napalitano Order to not seek deportation of "Dream actors" for now. Five times he failed to say what he'd do. Thing is, I think Mitt doesn't really dislike the Presidents plan, he just can't say it without alienating every xenophobic wingnut who is supporting him on the right. Here is the thing, George W. Bush had a great plan, but the wingnuts took over and ruined any chance the Republicans had of passing the plan, fixing the problem and winning the day. That is the problem with "Pure" politics. You cannot get anything done with someone who is "my way or the highway."
The Majority of Americans favor a road to citizenship for people who are already here. The majority also seeks a plan that would make it counter productive for someone to come over here and be illegal. The people who vote in the cock-eyed primaries, aren't those people. Here is the thing, Bush was willing to fight his party, but he really couldn't fathom a way to do it. As a result he lost the Hispanic vote for McCain. McCain (who also shot himself in the foot by abandoning everything he ever stood for and with his Sarah Palin Fiasco)paid for it dearly. Romney has caved on EVERY THING for which he ever stood. Now no one, not the conservatives, not the libertarians, and not the American public will ever trust him. If I were an anti-immigration Republican, I wouldn't vote for this guy, I don't know what he will ultimately do. As a Pro-immigration Libertarian, I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a living disaster for America and especially on this issue, even if I believe a President Romeny will flip (when the pollsters tell him to.)
I will probably cast a vote for Gary Johnson, who is better than either Romney or Obama. Then again, I may be so fed up by November I may not vote at all... (don't get excited, I will probably vote, I like doing it too much to give it up.)
Five times yesterday, Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Romney on "Face the Nation" if he would undo the Napalitano Order to not seek deportation of "Dream actors" for now. Five times he failed to say what he'd do. Thing is, I think Mitt doesn't really dislike the Presidents plan, he just can't say it without alienating every xenophobic wingnut who is supporting him on the right. Here is the thing, George W. Bush had a great plan, but the wingnuts took over and ruined any chance the Republicans had of passing the plan, fixing the problem and winning the day. That is the problem with "Pure" politics. You cannot get anything done with someone who is "my way or the highway."
The Majority of Americans favor a road to citizenship for people who are already here. The majority also seeks a plan that would make it counter productive for someone to come over here and be illegal. The people who vote in the cock-eyed primaries, aren't those people. Here is the thing, Bush was willing to fight his party, but he really couldn't fathom a way to do it. As a result he lost the Hispanic vote for McCain. McCain (who also shot himself in the foot by abandoning everything he ever stood for and with his Sarah Palin Fiasco)paid for it dearly. Romney has caved on EVERY THING for which he ever stood. Now no one, not the conservatives, not the libertarians, and not the American public will ever trust him. If I were an anti-immigration Republican, I wouldn't vote for this guy, I don't know what he will ultimately do. As a Pro-immigration Libertarian, I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is a living disaster for America and especially on this issue, even if I believe a President Romeny will flip (when the pollsters tell him to.)
I will probably cast a vote for Gary Johnson, who is better than either Romney or Obama. Then again, I may be so fed up by November I may not vote at all... (don't get excited, I will probably vote, I like doing it too much to give it up.)
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination
In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Monday, July 05, 2010
Of Regan, Kennedy, and Rockwell: TIme To Reflect On Being An American Not a Republicat or Demorican
A very interesting exhibit opened at the Smithsonian Art Museum In Washington DC. this Fourth of July weekend. It is a retrospective of the works of Norman Rockwell, as seen through the eyes of two of America's greatest living movie directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Each has lent parts of their extensive Rockwell collections to the exhibit.
Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."
Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.
In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.
He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.
Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.
Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.
Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.
To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.
I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.
I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.
I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??
I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.
I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?
I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??
I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)
If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.
If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!
I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys
Hattip: NY Times
Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."
Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.
In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.
He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.
Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.
Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.
Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.
To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.
I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.
I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.
I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??
I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.
I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?
I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??
I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)
If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.
If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!
I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys
Hattip: NY Times
Saturday, July 04, 2009
We Are Not The Land Of The Free Until We Stop The Nanny State Bull Hockey
I don't have the time for a long post today. I love America. I believe in its promise. I get frustrated however when I see that we refuse to trust our people with their own money and their own bodies. There are natural consequences from every act, but legal consequences must not be based on someone Else's subjective test of right and wrong.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Response to the Ridiculous: A Measured Rant in Resonse to an Idiotic Argument Against the DREAM ACT
The DREAM ACT was reintroduced last month followed by President Barack Obama stating his intention to begin debating true immigration reform.
A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.
Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.
You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.
1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:
"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."
There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.
Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.
3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.
Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.
A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.
Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.
You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.
1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:
"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."
There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.
Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.
3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.
Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Public Hypocrite #1: Sen.Arlen Spector Wants a Attorney General Who Can Say No To The President.
This is rich. Arlen Spector, Republican Senator from Pa. and former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has announced that although Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder has excellent academic and professional credentials he is "concerned" that Holder may not be able to say no to the President.
IS HE KIDDING???? This is the man who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Alberto Gonzalez as AG. Now I understand that Holder told President Clinton he had "no problem" with Clinton pardoning Marc Rich, but Gonzalez not only had no problem with Rendition, and torture, he actually approved of them with written memos. He approved the firing of US Attorneys because they wouldn't do Karl Rove's bidding.
Hey Arlen, can you say "I am a Hypocrite??" Probably not, politicians are just not that honest.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Around the Blogosphere the Week of 12/14/08-12/20/08: Part III- In and Around NY and Long Island
IN part III of this trip around the Blogosphere I found myself looking at some of the things happening in legal life around "here." ("Here" is Long Island and the five boroughs of NYC)
1. In the News on Long Island; Freaky Driving stories:
A. From Newsday (off twitter feed): A Long Island woman jumps from a moving SUV because the driver didn't want to take her to a bar. He wanted to eat dinner. She died. I heard of dying for a drink, but this one is ridiculous.
B. Also from Newsday Suffolk County Cops taze a 62 year old driver who is experiencing bleeding on the brain. He refused to follow orders of cops, they pull him over, he won't get out of car, they taze him, have to then take him to the hospital and wind up saving his life... Now that is making Lemonade from lemons.
2. The Agitator has this post on the indictment of a NYC Police Officer who attacked a guy on a bike, then arrested the guy for running into him!! The officer probably would have succeeded in getting the bicyclist busted on Felony charges had there not been somebody there with a camera phone taking a movie of the incident. The camera man gave his recording to reporters and the cop is now the first cop to be indicted for "Testilying" in as long as I can remember. Radley of course uses the indictment as a teaching opportunity. He scolds Pennsylvania prosecutors for using an old privacy law to allow cops to prosecute people who take photos of them while they "fail" to do their jobs.
3.NYS Governor David Patterson will be appointing a new Jr. Senator from NY to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the new Secy of State. So far we have Caroline Kennedy and Fran "The Nanny" Dresher. I would love to throw my hat in the ring too, as it seems the only qualification you need is that you have no qualification...
Ok you have to be at least Thirty years old.
Anyway, Kennedy is campaigning for the job (Dresher was on Larry King but she has a snowball chance in hell of getting the job unless she runs for it and gets a voice coach) Now here is the thing
In this story Caroline says she is a "Clinton Democrat". Now that does nothing for me but assuming it does something for a democrat, How can she call herself a Clinton Democrat when she supported Barack Obama against Clinton for President??? (Maybe Caroline is more qualified for the US Senate than we think, she clearly already knows doublespeak.)
Then I notice her voting record in general elections is "spotty". That means sometimes she doesn't chose to vote. Now while it is popular to say that it is everyone's duty to vote, I for one do not agree. I refuse to vote when I think that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is usually how I feel when I vote for President and sometimes Governor but at least there are lesser offices I might care about. I also do not vote when I don't know anything about the candidates or their opinions. I see nothing wrong with that. (About not voting, not knowing positions is a different post entirely, sometimes that is not my fault.)
Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg is not unqualified to be a Senator from NY because she has missed votes, nor because she has never held nor run for public office. She is unqualified because she knows nothing of the needs of New Yorkers and we do not need another celebrity senator coming from this state when there are a number of people who do know what they are talking about and what to do about the issues. Unfortunately none of them are even in Congress right now.
Finally there is this interesting choice for US Senator, one that the Governor should really think about, one who has served our state very well over the last 20+ years and who is well aware of the needs of the people of our state. I think Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog is on to something when he recommends Chief Judge Judith Kaye who retire in 2 weeks to be our new Junior Senator. The only qualm I have with Eric's post is that he compares Ms. Kennedy with Pres. G.W. Bush. I am sorry Eric, there is no comparison. Caroline was an excellent student and a very good child. She has always been thoughtful and concerned about others while she guarded her privacy. Comparing her to Bush is like comparing the Pope to Saddam Hussein. Still I think Judge Kaye would make a great democrat possibility for US Senate.
4. Finally, The New York State Bar Association has a general Practice committee. It has a blog. The blog written by Leonard Sienko has a lot of important stuff on it. You don't have to be a member of the State Bar to read the Blog. So READ THE BLOG!!
Two important posts:
A. NY has finally adopted the Model Rules for Professional Conduct. It goes into effect in March 2009. I will be blogging on that I imagine a lot in the next few months.
and
B. The IRS is willing to help struggling homeowners refi and sell their homes by allowing Federal Tax liens to take a secondary position to some mortgages. It's a start anyway.
5. Over at the Divorce hotline, Janine Barbera (aka MatMaven) has a post about the way some judges just lord over a court, forgetting the people that use the court are not there to serve them so much as to be served by them. The post is short on facts but that is fair, Janine wants to be able to continue to practice law. Besides if any judge she appeared before in the last couple of days sees himself, then he should CHANGE HIS WAYS!!!
Q: In the meantime here is a quiz... What is the shortest time span known to man??
A: The period of time it takes for a newly minted judge to forget he was ever a practicing lawyer...
Ok that is a generalization, but sadly it is true way too often. Maybe it is something they should address in judge's school.
OK so much for Part III.
1. In the News on Long Island; Freaky Driving stories:
A. From Newsday (off twitter feed): A Long Island woman jumps from a moving SUV because the driver didn't want to take her to a bar. He wanted to eat dinner. She died. I heard of dying for a drink, but this one is ridiculous.
B. Also from Newsday Suffolk County Cops taze a 62 year old driver who is experiencing bleeding on the brain. He refused to follow orders of cops, they pull him over, he won't get out of car, they taze him, have to then take him to the hospital and wind up saving his life... Now that is making Lemonade from lemons.
2. The Agitator has this post on the indictment of a NYC Police Officer who attacked a guy on a bike, then arrested the guy for running into him!! The officer probably would have succeeded in getting the bicyclist busted on Felony charges had there not been somebody there with a camera phone taking a movie of the incident. The camera man gave his recording to reporters and the cop is now the first cop to be indicted for "Testilying" in as long as I can remember. Radley of course uses the indictment as a teaching opportunity. He scolds Pennsylvania prosecutors for using an old privacy law to allow cops to prosecute people who take photos of them while they "fail" to do their jobs.
3.NYS Governor David Patterson will be appointing a new Jr. Senator from NY to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the new Secy of State. So far we have Caroline Kennedy and Fran "The Nanny" Dresher. I would love to throw my hat in the ring too, as it seems the only qualification you need is that you have no qualification...
Ok you have to be at least Thirty years old.
Anyway, Kennedy is campaigning for the job (Dresher was on Larry King but she has a snowball chance in hell of getting the job unless she runs for it and gets a voice coach) Now here is the thing
In this story Caroline says she is a "Clinton Democrat". Now that does nothing for me but assuming it does something for a democrat, How can she call herself a Clinton Democrat when she supported Barack Obama against Clinton for President??? (Maybe Caroline is more qualified for the US Senate than we think, she clearly already knows doublespeak.)
Then I notice her voting record in general elections is "spotty". That means sometimes she doesn't chose to vote. Now while it is popular to say that it is everyone's duty to vote, I for one do not agree. I refuse to vote when I think that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is usually how I feel when I vote for President and sometimes Governor but at least there are lesser offices I might care about. I also do not vote when I don't know anything about the candidates or their opinions. I see nothing wrong with that. (About not voting, not knowing positions is a different post entirely, sometimes that is not my fault.)
Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg is not unqualified to be a Senator from NY because she has missed votes, nor because she has never held nor run for public office. She is unqualified because she knows nothing of the needs of New Yorkers and we do not need another celebrity senator coming from this state when there are a number of people who do know what they are talking about and what to do about the issues. Unfortunately none of them are even in Congress right now.
Finally there is this interesting choice for US Senator, one that the Governor should really think about, one who has served our state very well over the last 20+ years and who is well aware of the needs of the people of our state. I think Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog is on to something when he recommends Chief Judge Judith Kaye who retire in 2 weeks to be our new Junior Senator. The only qualm I have with Eric's post is that he compares Ms. Kennedy with Pres. G.W. Bush. I am sorry Eric, there is no comparison. Caroline was an excellent student and a very good child. She has always been thoughtful and concerned about others while she guarded her privacy. Comparing her to Bush is like comparing the Pope to Saddam Hussein. Still I think Judge Kaye would make a great democrat possibility for US Senate.
4. Finally, The New York State Bar Association has a general Practice committee. It has a blog. The blog written by Leonard Sienko has a lot of important stuff on it. You don't have to be a member of the State Bar to read the Blog. So READ THE BLOG!!
Two important posts:
A. NY has finally adopted the Model Rules for Professional Conduct. It goes into effect in March 2009. I will be blogging on that I imagine a lot in the next few months.
and
B. The IRS is willing to help struggling homeowners refi and sell their homes by allowing Federal Tax liens to take a secondary position to some mortgages. It's a start anyway.
5. Over at the Divorce hotline, Janine Barbera (aka MatMaven) has a post about the way some judges just lord over a court, forgetting the people that use the court are not there to serve them so much as to be served by them. The post is short on facts but that is fair, Janine wants to be able to continue to practice law. Besides if any judge she appeared before in the last couple of days sees himself, then he should CHANGE HIS WAYS!!!
Q: In the meantime here is a quiz... What is the shortest time span known to man??
A: The period of time it takes for a newly minted judge to forget he was ever a practicing lawyer...
Ok that is a generalization, but sadly it is true way too often. Maybe it is something they should address in judge's school.
OK so much for Part III.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
BREAKING NEWS SDNY US ATTORNEY MICHAEL GARCIA RESIGNS
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY REPORTS BREAKING NEWS: SDNY US ATTORNEY MICHAEL GARCIA RESIGNS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1ST 2008.
Garcia's anticipated resignation came today at 5:30. He is leaving after just 3 years as the lead prosecutor and US Attorney in Manhattan to join a law firm (rumored to be Kirkland and Ellis )
Garcia has presided over the investigation into the Prostitution ring that brought down NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and the corruption case of Former NYS Assemblyman and AFL/CIO leader Brian McLaughlin. Thereafter, McLaughlin rolled on Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio who was also indicted.
Two weeks ago, Garcia announced that he would not indict Elliot Spitzer. It was rumored that such an agreement was secretly reached with Spitzer in order to assure he resigned as Governor.
If Hillary Clinton were to be appointed Secretary of State, Garcia would be considered a leading Republican candidate for NYS jr. Senator.
Garcia's anticipated resignation came today at 5:30. He is leaving after just 3 years as the lead prosecutor and US Attorney in Manhattan to join a law firm (rumored to be Kirkland and Ellis )
Garcia has presided over the investigation into the Prostitution ring that brought down NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and the corruption case of Former NYS Assemblyman and AFL/CIO leader Brian McLaughlin. Thereafter, McLaughlin rolled on Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio who was also indicted.
Two weeks ago, Garcia announced that he would not indict Elliot Spitzer. It was rumored that such an agreement was secretly reached with Spitzer in order to assure he resigned as Governor.
If Hillary Clinton were to be appointed Secretary of State, Garcia would be considered a leading Republican candidate for NYS jr. Senator.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Catching Up: A Week of My Favorite Posts... by Others!
Ok, just because I am in trial, (in Queens County NY) doesn't mean I am not keeping up with my reading. It is my writing that goes to pot.
Anyway, I want to get this post up, so no more small talk:
1.Over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Prof. Berman had three interesting posts that make my list this week:
A. USSC is considering alternatives to incarceration... It is about time. It is a lot cheaper to spend 60K to rehab a person, than 25 a year for 10 years to incarcerate them. Article here
B. Berman also points out that the sheep we elect to office are creating gulags for sex offenders through zoning laws. Someone has to tell me Why the concept of having paid for his crime doesn't apply to sex offenders. Especially since we keep enlarging the definition of sex offender.
C. Then there is the story on how Florida wants to stop clusters from happening. That doesn't mean they want to allow convicted Sex offenders to live anywhere, just that they don't want too many in any one place. Trouble is, that will lead to banishment.
Money quote:
2. Staying with the Sex Offender theme Sex Crimes Blog:
A. has an article on the ACLU suit against Allegany County which has a sex offender "banishment law" where they say that a sex offender (no definition)must live 2500 feet away from places where children might congregate.
B. Prof. Yung also blogs about a NIMBY (Not in MY backyard)protest and petition drive that seeks to keep a sex offender rehab out of a Utah neighborhood. The rehab would be a football field away from a daycare "center".
C. Finally, we have the most ridiculous application of the Adam Walsh Act. A law meant to protect a child from child pornography will now cause the child to have to register, because she sent a nude picture OF HERSELF to a boy. Oh my God, How will this affect Disney stars????
Money Quote:
That is because they are stupid. They only want to pander to crazed voters who they misled into believing there was a problem where one never existed. They haven't solved a real problem in so long that it is no wonder the courts are left to sort this garbage out. I have a case like this in Suffolk County NY. A Florida cop, broke the law and got a minor to send porn to him (the cop was pretending to be 14). Nevertheless, it is according to the District Attorney a crime. What is really absurd is that given the age difference, the boy and a real girl could have sex but not talk about it or simulate it over a computer?!? This garbage has really made the law appear foolish...
Ok there were a lot of other good stories about sex crimes, but we must move on.
3. There is a prolific blogger out there by the name of Radley Balko. He writes The Agitator and offers posts to Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog too. Radley was focused on Law this week:
A.This post at The Agitator leads to a story about a man who could not afford to keep up his lawn in his gated community. He had gotten hit with a 600 a month ARM increase and his adult daughter and two grand kids had to move in when they lost their home. Still the community board chose to spend nearly 1000 dollars on legal fees instead of helping the neighbor get his lawn in gear (He needed to resod the lawn which went brown in the Florida Sun when his sprinkler broke). They actually put the guy in prison. Sounds like debtor prison all over again. What was this judge thinking? I remember when I was at Legal Aid,District Court Judge Mike Steinberg fined a guy 20 dollars and then he paid the fine himself...Oh yeah, at 24k a year average cost to incarcerate someone, it should take about a month before it would be cheaper for the county to sod the home itself than keep the man in jail. Given his age and health, it could cost them more far sooner.
B. Not satisfied with lambasting stupid legislators, Balko also picks on a stupid judge, Mark Rusch, who in a capital murder case, had to be removed from the case because he signed a search warrant for police to search a lawyers office to get incriminating evidence against the lawyer's client... Then he had the evidence brought to his home where he and prosecutors handled it!!!! Where the heck did this idiot go to law school? And how the hell did he pass the bar exam? That is Constitutional law 101!!
Radley rightly asks:
C.Finally over at Slate Magazine, Balko tears apart what appears to be Obama's criminal justice policy. Namely block grants that neither Congress nor the President can oversee. Two grants he has named are for:
a)Neighborhood policing (which was a failed Clinton initiative that Bush phased out.)The Neighborhood policing initiative took $8 Billion Dollars and reduced crime by less than one(1%)percent and
b)the other is the Byrne grant for Drug Eradication which in fact took drugs off the streets but focused on low level pushers and favored numbers. This led one rouge cop to falsely arrest pretty much all the black people in his town on trumped up charges. I wish I had any hope that some of the Criminal Defense Lawyers supporting Obama were going to serve in his Justice Department or that he was going to name one to the Supreme Court...hmm on second thought...
Ok that's 9 stories. That is about all I have time for now. I hope to have some more tomorrow.
In the meantime, Jets won, blog's updated, and I am ready for more cross examination. All and all, a pretty good weekend.
Anyway, I want to get this post up, so no more small talk:
1.Over at Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Prof. Berman had three interesting posts that make my list this week:
A. USSC is considering alternatives to incarceration... It is about time. It is a lot cheaper to spend 60K to rehab a person, than 25 a year for 10 years to incarcerate them. Article here
B. Berman also points out that the sheep we elect to office are creating gulags for sex offenders through zoning laws. Someone has to tell me Why the concept of having paid for his crime doesn't apply to sex offenders. Especially since we keep enlarging the definition of sex offender.
C. Then there is the story on how Florida wants to stop clusters from happening. That doesn't mean they want to allow convicted Sex offenders to live anywhere, just that they don't want too many in any one place. Trouble is, that will lead to banishment.
Money quote:
White says he would like to have sexual offenders housed in a designated commune-like facility in Hillsborough County. The facility would be gated, well marked and a good distance from churches and schools. "Along the perimeter of that facility you could have the postings and the markings that this is a certified sex offender location -- please keep children so many feet away and children beware," White said.
2. Staying with the Sex Offender theme Sex Crimes Blog:
A. has an article on the ACLU suit against Allegany County which has a sex offender "banishment law" where they say that a sex offender (no definition)must live 2500 feet away from places where children might congregate.
B. Prof. Yung also blogs about a NIMBY (Not in MY backyard)protest and petition drive that seeks to keep a sex offender rehab out of a Utah neighborhood. The rehab would be a football field away from a daycare "center".
C. Finally, we have the most ridiculous application of the Adam Walsh Act. A law meant to protect a child from child pornography will now cause the child to have to register, because she sent a nude picture OF HERSELF to a boy. Oh my God, How will this affect Disney stars????
Money Quote:
State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, wrote the state's Megan's Law bill, the predecessor of the Adam Walsh Act, and said this case was not something the legislature envisioned.
That is because they are stupid. They only want to pander to crazed voters who they misled into believing there was a problem where one never existed. They haven't solved a real problem in so long that it is no wonder the courts are left to sort this garbage out. I have a case like this in Suffolk County NY. A Florida cop, broke the law and got a minor to send porn to him (the cop was pretending to be 14). Nevertheless, it is according to the District Attorney a crime. What is really absurd is that given the age difference, the boy and a real girl could have sex but not talk about it or simulate it over a computer?!? This garbage has really made the law appear foolish...
Ok there were a lot of other good stories about sex crimes, but we must move on.
3. There is a prolific blogger out there by the name of Radley Balko. He writes The Agitator and offers posts to Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog too. Radley was focused on Law this week:
A.This post at The Agitator leads to a story about a man who could not afford to keep up his lawn in his gated community. He had gotten hit with a 600 a month ARM increase and his adult daughter and two grand kids had to move in when they lost their home. Still the community board chose to spend nearly 1000 dollars on legal fees instead of helping the neighbor get his lawn in gear (He needed to resod the lawn which went brown in the Florida Sun when his sprinkler broke). They actually put the guy in prison. Sounds like debtor prison all over again. What was this judge thinking? I remember when I was at Legal Aid,District Court Judge Mike Steinberg fined a guy 20 dollars and then he paid the fine himself...Oh yeah, at 24k a year average cost to incarcerate someone, it should take about a month before it would be cheaper for the county to sod the home itself than keep the man in jail. Given his age and health, it could cost them more far sooner.
B. Not satisfied with lambasting stupid legislators, Balko also picks on a stupid judge, Mark Rusch, who in a capital murder case, had to be removed from the case because he signed a search warrant for police to search a lawyers office to get incriminating evidence against the lawyer's client... Then he had the evidence brought to his home where he and prosecutors handled it!!!! Where the heck did this idiot go to law school? And how the hell did he pass the bar exam? That is Constitutional law 101!!
Radley rightly asks:
Good to hear the judge was taken off the case, but shouldn’t this guy be removed from the bench?
C.Finally over at Slate Magazine, Balko tears apart what appears to be Obama's criminal justice policy. Namely block grants that neither Congress nor the President can oversee. Two grants he has named are for:
a)Neighborhood policing (which was a failed Clinton initiative that Bush phased out.)The Neighborhood policing initiative took $8 Billion Dollars and reduced crime by less than one(1%)percent and
b)the other is the Byrne grant for Drug Eradication which in fact took drugs off the streets but focused on low level pushers and favored numbers. This led one rouge cop to falsely arrest pretty much all the black people in his town on trumped up charges. I wish I had any hope that some of the Criminal Defense Lawyers supporting Obama were going to serve in his Justice Department or that he was going to name one to the Supreme Court...hmm on second thought...
Ok that's 9 stories. That is about all I have time for now. I hope to have some more tomorrow.
In the meantime, Jets won, blog's updated, and I am ready for more cross examination. All and all, a pretty good weekend.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Craig's List is a Hotbed of Online Prostitution: So Who Knew??
This must be the week for Prostitution on blogs. Instapundit sites this article about the (sewer/treasure trove{?}) that Craig's List Erotic Service Section has become in the search for "sex on the run." I think the comments below the article are interesting however.
For example:
"Posted by whb on October 5, 2008 at 2:53 a.m.
It is illegal to pay to have sex, but it is legal to pay to watch people who are paid to have sex, i.e., a porno film.
As porno films are legal to buy and watch, they should therefore be legal to make (can't have one without the other).
So, all these professionals should advertise for a co-star in an upcoming film and set up a camera at the meeting location. This should legitimize the transaction, and the police can then focus their attention on something worthwhile."
I have had this thought myself a number of times. There are issues that the "service provider" would have to resolve but it is an interesting idea. (Let me know what you think in the comments section.)
Anyway, the comments to the article seem to indicate that even in "Bible Belt" Tenn. people get the idea that maybe law enforcement ought to be doing something other than chasing down randy adult men (and the adults who make money off of meeting their sex drive).
What these citizens do not realize (and I am surprised the Instapundit doesn't point out) is that these Prostitution stings are funded by good 'ole Uncle Sam. That's right, special funding is coming from the Justice Department (by way of The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to local police departments that arrest these people. That puts cops off the street and takes local police department eyes off of the real crime in their cities and towns.
What's worse is The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act also known as HR.3887. This little baby wants to federalize the crime of prostitution. Can you imagine the increase in the US Justice Dept. budget if we did that?? Where will we get the personnel to deal with important stuff like Terrorist, Organized crime and Wall Street criminals? The scary thing is a version of the bill passed the House 405-02 in 2006! In fact the Justice Dept. opposes HR.3887
It is all part of the Neo-con game of keeping the Religious Right enraptured. No money expenditure is too large if it makes some televangelist happy...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Why Caps on Attorney Fees Hurt Citizens: Fed Prosecutors say Cook County Jail (Chicago Il.) Systemically Violates Prisoners CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote that "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." If that is the case, then the jails of Cook County Illinois (Chicago) and I think those of Nassau County NY present an utter lack of civilization on their citizen's part.
Patrick Fitzgerald, bane to the Bush-(and more exactly) Cheney administration, and US Attorney of the Northern District of Illinois has issued a scathing report which bashes the nation's largest single sight jail for being violative of its prisoners basic civil rights under the 8th amendment.
The report gives the USA N.D.IL. The right to bring an action in about 1.5 months to force the city and state to fix the problems. These are very serious charges.
Now for specifics: the study found that the jail "Key findings of the investigation conclude that the jail has failed to adequately protect inmates from harm and serious risk of harm, including physical harm caused by inappropriate and excessive force used by staff and violence by other inmates; failed to provide adequate medical and mental health care, including suicide prevention; and failed to provide adequate environmental conditions, including fire safety and sanitation, all resulting in unconstitutional living conditions."
These violations have led to suicides, murders, amputations (by the jails own doctors) and beatings at the hands of the guards. The level of violations rises to that of a constitutional violation.
What's worse is, these folks are HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. They are awaiting trial and are too poor to make bail. In other words they are PRESUMED INNOCENT
Now things in Chicago are pretty bad, but are they any less so here in Nassau County? The Nassau County (NY)Jail in East Meadow is a miserable place. There is gang violence and regular violence against people who are different (think gay). Medical attention in the jail (as opposed to the NCUMC next door) is very poor and many inmates do not get any much less proper doses of their medicines. The Jail instituted programs that made it impossible to file complaints, made it so that prisoners had to file the complaints with the same people who they were complaining about, and came up with a scheme to make sure complainants never exhausted the administrative remedies they had to finish before they could sue. Oh yeah, lawyers were not permitted to help for those that did get to file a complaint.
Now why are things like this allowed to fester?
Because Congressmen do not understand the laws they pass. Because Prisoner's have no lobby. Because politicians pander to voters by being "tough" on Crime. Because Americans are stupid. No not in the imbecile kind of way, but in the "I don't want to think about or learn about this" or the "Government will take care of this stuff" or in my personal favorite "those people don't deserve better" kind of way. Because even though most of Congress is made up of lawyers, they hate lawyers.
What happened here is that under the original civil rights law, prisoner's could file suits "willy nilly" and were costing the local governments a ton of money in legal fees for "Frivolous litigation". (One inmate sued both the Devil and G-d in two very separate law suits.)
Normal solution: require that the litigation be filed by an attorney who has reviewed it and is open to Rule 11 sanctions.
Congressional solution: Close the court house door to most prisoner civil rights suits and while we are at it, make it impossible for a lawyer to make any living in representing someone who is in jail and has a legitimate civil rights suit by capping his legal fee at 150% of the recovery.
This is the gravamen of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Now why cap the legal fee, well civil rights cases allow the court to switch the legal fee of the winning party to the losing party. That means a lawyer will get paid by the government. Now it was completely lost on the congressional geniuses that wrote this bill that most of America's best lawyers charge more than 350 per hour and that they were already taking less because they are paid at no more than 112.50 an hour under the civil rights act (See also the Lodestar case).
NOPE, if the lawyer succeeds in saving prisoner's lives, the jury can give the victim/prisoner a buck and the lawyer gets... $1.50. That's absurd right?? I mean a guy can work for 300 hours on a case, win it, save lives because he wins it and all he gets for all that work would be a half cent an hour?? That's got to be absurd right? Well the 10th Circuit court of Appeals thought so (See this decision) but then when they looked at the decision en banc (a fancy way of saying all of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the case) they agreed that absurdity wins out, Congress screwed up and they couldn't legally fix it. Hence the Court house doors are effectively shuttered because a lawyer has to feed his family and pay his staff and we can't do that on this type of fee. Big law firms don't take too many of these types of cases pro bono. Hence disturbing behavior begins, goes unchecked, increases, and people die.
There are a few proposed laws to reform the PLRA. You can learn more about those proposals here.
Lawyers and the threat of a law suit, while expensive and not without some downside, keep people safe without sacrificing the needs of these people. Our professions ability to find a wrong and right it without taking up arms makes our nation stronger and our people healthier and safer.
Do not give in to the platitudes of others. Ask questions. When a Congressman or lobbyist wants to limit the right of someone to use the capitalistic system to better themselves, usually it betters all of us. Putting artificial stops on the free market never succeeds in anything but waste and loss of life and limb.
It is the same with Medical Malpractice and Class action fees. Doctors still want to make money, and so do insurance companies. They will continue their services. Same with Pharma and other developers. It may make things a little expensive at times, but then again, would you rather pay more for a safe drug, or less...
Patrick Fitzgerald, bane to the Bush-(and more exactly) Cheney administration, and US Attorney of the Northern District of Illinois has issued a scathing report which bashes the nation's largest single sight jail for being violative of its prisoners basic civil rights under the 8th amendment.
The report gives the USA N.D.IL. The right to bring an action in about 1.5 months to force the city and state to fix the problems. These are very serious charges.
Now for specifics: the study found that the jail "Key findings of the investigation conclude that the jail has failed to adequately protect inmates from harm and serious risk of harm, including physical harm caused by inappropriate and excessive force used by staff and violence by other inmates; failed to provide adequate medical and mental health care, including suicide prevention; and failed to provide adequate environmental conditions, including fire safety and sanitation, all resulting in unconstitutional living conditions."
These violations have led to suicides, murders, amputations (by the jails own doctors) and beatings at the hands of the guards. The level of violations rises to that of a constitutional violation.
What's worse is, these folks are HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. They are awaiting trial and are too poor to make bail. In other words they are PRESUMED INNOCENT
Now things in Chicago are pretty bad, but are they any less so here in Nassau County? The Nassau County (NY)Jail in East Meadow is a miserable place. There is gang violence and regular violence against people who are different (think gay). Medical attention in the jail (as opposed to the NCUMC next door) is very poor and many inmates do not get any much less proper doses of their medicines. The Jail instituted programs that made it impossible to file complaints, made it so that prisoners had to file the complaints with the same people who they were complaining about, and came up with a scheme to make sure complainants never exhausted the administrative remedies they had to finish before they could sue. Oh yeah, lawyers were not permitted to help for those that did get to file a complaint.
Now why are things like this allowed to fester?
Because Congressmen do not understand the laws they pass. Because Prisoner's have no lobby. Because politicians pander to voters by being "tough" on Crime. Because Americans are stupid. No not in the imbecile kind of way, but in the "I don't want to think about or learn about this" or the "Government will take care of this stuff" or in my personal favorite "those people don't deserve better" kind of way. Because even though most of Congress is made up of lawyers, they hate lawyers.
What happened here is that under the original civil rights law, prisoner's could file suits "willy nilly" and were costing the local governments a ton of money in legal fees for "Frivolous litigation". (One inmate sued both the Devil and G-d in two very separate law suits.)
Normal solution: require that the litigation be filed by an attorney who has reviewed it and is open to Rule 11 sanctions.
Congressional solution: Close the court house door to most prisoner civil rights suits and while we are at it, make it impossible for a lawyer to make any living in representing someone who is in jail and has a legitimate civil rights suit by capping his legal fee at 150% of the recovery.
This is the gravamen of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Now why cap the legal fee, well civil rights cases allow the court to switch the legal fee of the winning party to the losing party. That means a lawyer will get paid by the government. Now it was completely lost on the congressional geniuses that wrote this bill that most of America's best lawyers charge more than 350 per hour and that they were already taking less because they are paid at no more than 112.50 an hour under the civil rights act (See also the Lodestar case).
NOPE, if the lawyer succeeds in saving prisoner's lives, the jury can give the victim/prisoner a buck and the lawyer gets... $1.50. That's absurd right?? I mean a guy can work for 300 hours on a case, win it, save lives because he wins it and all he gets for all that work would be a half cent an hour?? That's got to be absurd right? Well the 10th Circuit court of Appeals thought so (See this decision) but then when they looked at the decision en banc (a fancy way of saying all of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the case) they agreed that absurdity wins out, Congress screwed up and they couldn't legally fix it. Hence the Court house doors are effectively shuttered because a lawyer has to feed his family and pay his staff and we can't do that on this type of fee. Big law firms don't take too many of these types of cases pro bono. Hence disturbing behavior begins, goes unchecked, increases, and people die.
There are a few proposed laws to reform the PLRA. You can learn more about those proposals here.
Lawyers and the threat of a law suit, while expensive and not without some downside, keep people safe without sacrificing the needs of these people. Our professions ability to find a wrong and right it without taking up arms makes our nation stronger and our people healthier and safer.
Do not give in to the platitudes of others. Ask questions. When a Congressman or lobbyist wants to limit the right of someone to use the capitalistic system to better themselves, usually it betters all of us. Putting artificial stops on the free market never succeeds in anything but waste and loss of life and limb.
It is the same with Medical Malpractice and Class action fees. Doctors still want to make money, and so do insurance companies. They will continue their services. Same with Pharma and other developers. It may make things a little expensive at times, but then again, would you rather pay more for a safe drug, or less...
Monday, March 24, 2008
Time to Let Her Daddy Come Home: Dying Child's Last Wish Is To See Her Imprisoned Father Before She Dies
There is a child dying in Lincoln Nebraska tonight. She is a very brave child. Her father was a very stupid man. You see, little Jayci Yaeger's father Jason, possessed and sold Crystal Meth. As a result he got a five year sentence in federal court. He would be going to a half way house in August 2008. Jayci doesn't have until August. She may not have until April. She has cancer, and she is dying. She and her family have asked that her dad be furloughed until she has passed away. This means he goes to the half way house now. He visits with her, holds her hand, helps her to be brave, walks with her into the valley of death. He does the job he should be doing. Then, after she passes to the place where angels go, he returns to jail, to figure out how he could have let drugs destroy the little time he had left with his daughter.
Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.
Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!
Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.
Here is how:
Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.
Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.
Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.
Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.
Now go here to sign a on line petition.
Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.
Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog
Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.
Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.
Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!
Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.
Here is how:
Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.
Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.
Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.
Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.
Now go here to sign a on line petition.
Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.
Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog
Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Hey Judge SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!
People v Thorpe
2007 NY Slip Op 06731
Decided on September 13, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
In the above cited case, after denying the defendant an opportunity to even present a defense, we learn the the judge felt the need to "participate" in the case a little differently than allowed by law. She joined in the questioning interrupting defense counsel's crossexamination of the police witnesses.
Here is the First Dept's excerpted decision on the issue of the court's interference.:
We also find reversible error in the trial court's almost continuous interference, during cross examination of the People's witnesses, in defense counsel's exploration of issues relevant to defendant's intent to sell (see People v Canto, 31 AD3d 312 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]; People v Melendez, 31 AD3d 186 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]; People v Retamozzo, 25 AD3d 73 [2005]; People v Garriga, 189 AD2d 236 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 718 [1993]). While we recognize that the dynamics of a criminal trial may result in some intervention by the trial judge in the examination of witnesses, the cumulative effect of the court's extraordinarily incessant interference in this case was to obstruct counsel's effort to present a defense for his client. This is simply unacceptable.
Hattip: ABA Journal on line found here
2007 NY Slip Op 06731
Decided on September 13, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
In the above cited case, after denying the defendant an opportunity to even present a defense, we learn the the judge felt the need to "participate" in the case a little differently than allowed by law. She joined in the questioning interrupting defense counsel's crossexamination of the police witnesses.
Here is the First Dept's excerpted decision on the issue of the court's interference.:
We also find reversible error in the trial court's almost continuous interference, during cross examination of the People's witnesses, in defense counsel's exploration of issues relevant to defendant's intent to sell (see People v Canto, 31 AD3d 312 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]; People v Melendez, 31 AD3d 186 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]; People v Retamozzo, 25 AD3d 73 [2005]; People v Garriga, 189 AD2d 236 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 718 [1993]). While we recognize that the dynamics of a criminal trial may result in some intervention by the trial judge in the examination of witnesses, the cumulative effect of the court's extraordinarily incessant interference in this case was to obstruct counsel's effort to present a defense for his client. This is simply unacceptable.
Hattip: ABA Journal on line found here
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
NEWS FLASH CRAIG MAY NOT RESIGN!! Is This The Making of a Libertarian???
NEWS FLASH: IDAHO SENATOR LARRY CRAIG IS RECONSIDERING HIS DECISION TO STEP DOWN
The NY TIMES and the Associated Press (here)report Senator Larry Craig who said he was resigning from the US Senate after it was reported he was convicted of Disorderly conduct after being accused of soliciting gay sex in a public toilet, has let it be known he is reconsidering his decision... yet again.
By the time I had a chance to look into this matter and post about it originally, it was over. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was already resigning.
I remember thinking how sad it was that this fellow didn't trust the systems of justice that he had been part of for so long that he hastily entered a guilty plea.
Then I read about his family, and where he was from. Then I realized the shame he would have felt by putting them through what they are now going through. THEN I HEARD THE TAPE...
Pardon me, but I really do not believe... THE COP!!
Evidentially neither does former prosecutor and fellow US Senator Arlen Spector from PA. He has urged Craig to stay on and fight for his seat in the US Senate.
That I find the cop to be somewhat sureal and to be lying should come as no suprise to most of my readers I guess, but when I heard the tape, I realized that there was no case and the cop was desperately trying to get Sen. Craig to incriminate himself so he wouldn't look like the buffoon he was, sitting in a toilet all day waiting for someone to do something he could say was solicitation.
Maybe my mind was colored by all the hogwash I hear NY and Long Island vice say about solicitation...
Prosecutor:"What did you say to her?"
Undercover:" I asked her if she liked to listen to oldies music."
Prosecutor:" What did she say."
UC:" She likes Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel. So I arrested her."
ADA": What was the significance of that answer?"
UC:" In my 5 months as a vice squad cop (the judge is now ruling he is a vice expert) I have learned that the names Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel are euphamisms for Full service or vaginal sex and a blow job the venacular term for oral sex..."
It's hogwash. Everyday people get cowed into pleading guilty to a violation or crime they didn't really commit because these guys are to lazy or stupid to put together a real case.
Now I will pass on the whole issue of why it is a crime to ask a guy if he wants to have gay sex with you and it is considered a badge of honor to go up to a girl and ask her if she will have straight sex with you, as long as there is no discussion of payment. But come on. He LOOKED,TAPPED & WAVED??? So obviously, not only does he want to have sex with me, but he wants to do it in a public bathroom stall... IN MINNEAPOLIS???? Yet all the scarry cat Republicans who never met a cop they didn't want to believe blindly just cast Senator Craig aside. Gosh they fought harder for Congressman Jefferson and the cold cash in his frezzer!!!
Sen. Craig. You are a Neo-con Christian Right conservative. More anethma politically to me than anything to the right of Clinton and Kennedy. ( I save a special place for those two senators and the rest of the ADA clan)
I don't think you have voted for anything I believe in in all your time in DC... With that said, I would like nothing more than for you not to continue to serve in the US Senate, though I admire your willingness to do so.
My advice to you Sir is " DO NOT RESIGN. DO NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT. TRUST OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. In the end you will prevail."
Yes, I want you out, but not like this, not for these reasons. The people of Idaho elected you. It is not for a bathroom cop in Minnesota to say who may represent them. If you are as innocent as you sound on the tape, and as you say you are, DO NOT GO. DO NOT RESIGN.
Who knows what will happen now that you have learned about police testilying??? Maybe you will start looking at the executive branch with the same distrust the founding fathers did when they proposed those first 10 amendments...
( I reserve the right to clean this up later and maybe add a few links.) I wanted to get this out. By staying up this late, I actually may have a blog scoop and I want it up ASAP.) TLD.
The NY TIMES and the Associated Press (here)report Senator Larry Craig who said he was resigning from the US Senate after it was reported he was convicted of Disorderly conduct after being accused of soliciting gay sex in a public toilet, has let it be known he is reconsidering his decision... yet again.
By the time I had a chance to look into this matter and post about it originally, it was over. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was already resigning.
I remember thinking how sad it was that this fellow didn't trust the systems of justice that he had been part of for so long that he hastily entered a guilty plea.
Then I read about his family, and where he was from. Then I realized the shame he would have felt by putting them through what they are now going through. THEN I HEARD THE TAPE...
Pardon me, but I really do not believe... THE COP!!
Evidentially neither does former prosecutor and fellow US Senator Arlen Spector from PA. He has urged Craig to stay on and fight for his seat in the US Senate.
That I find the cop to be somewhat sureal and to be lying should come as no suprise to most of my readers I guess, but when I heard the tape, I realized that there was no case and the cop was desperately trying to get Sen. Craig to incriminate himself so he wouldn't look like the buffoon he was, sitting in a toilet all day waiting for someone to do something he could say was solicitation.
Maybe my mind was colored by all the hogwash I hear NY and Long Island vice say about solicitation...
Prosecutor:"What did you say to her?"
Undercover:" I asked her if she liked to listen to oldies music."
Prosecutor:" What did she say."
UC:" She likes Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel. So I arrested her."
ADA": What was the significance of that answer?"
UC:" In my 5 months as a vice squad cop (the judge is now ruling he is a vice expert) I have learned that the names Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel are euphamisms for Full service or vaginal sex and a blow job the venacular term for oral sex..."
It's hogwash. Everyday people get cowed into pleading guilty to a violation or crime they didn't really commit because these guys are to lazy or stupid to put together a real case.
Now I will pass on the whole issue of why it is a crime to ask a guy if he wants to have gay sex with you and it is considered a badge of honor to go up to a girl and ask her if she will have straight sex with you, as long as there is no discussion of payment. But come on. He LOOKED,TAPPED & WAVED??? So obviously, not only does he want to have sex with me, but he wants to do it in a public bathroom stall... IN MINNEAPOLIS???? Yet all the scarry cat Republicans who never met a cop they didn't want to believe blindly just cast Senator Craig aside. Gosh they fought harder for Congressman Jefferson and the cold cash in his frezzer!!!
Sen. Craig. You are a Neo-con Christian Right conservative. More anethma politically to me than anything to the right of Clinton and Kennedy. ( I save a special place for those two senators and the rest of the ADA clan)
I don't think you have voted for anything I believe in in all your time in DC... With that said, I would like nothing more than for you not to continue to serve in the US Senate, though I admire your willingness to do so.
My advice to you Sir is " DO NOT RESIGN. DO NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT. TRUST OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. In the end you will prevail."
Yes, I want you out, but not like this, not for these reasons. The people of Idaho elected you. It is not for a bathroom cop in Minnesota to say who may represent them. If you are as innocent as you sound on the tape, and as you say you are, DO NOT GO. DO NOT RESIGN.
Who knows what will happen now that you have learned about police testilying??? Maybe you will start looking at the executive branch with the same distrust the founding fathers did when they proposed those first 10 amendments...
( I reserve the right to clean this up later and maybe add a few links.) I wanted to get this out. By staying up this late, I actually may have a blog scoop and I want it up ASAP.) TLD.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Around the Universe...Too Much News!!
Wow it feels like this was a huge week. Here I was in bucolic Woodloch Pines in the Poconos having the time of my life while the world was attacking freedoms and limiting liberty. So lets see what I missed:
1. Judge Okays an "Innocent Pedophile's" Right to Publish Clean Photo's of Children on His Blog.
This article from the ABA tells of how a good scare can completely destroy liberty among those that do not understand freedom.
Self-admitted pedophile Jack McClellan has been going around telling everyone he is ok with sex with little kids and that he is Sexually attracted to these kids... but there are no kids that have stepped up to admit being with him. Hence other than having weird thoughts he hasn't done anything wrong... except to scare the bejesus out of parents in Southern California.
Two parents of youngsters sought to restrain this otherwise homeless sycophant from coming near their children. They sought to stop him from loitering near places where kids gather, and to keep 30 feet away from children. They also sought to stop him from putting and publishing pictures of kids on his website. Now these were not pornographic pictures... these are ANY PICTURES.
I originally didn't think there was a problem with the 30 foot rule, but then again, I was barely awake when I first read this article. Not only is the restraint not limited to a specific child, but it also seems like a prior restraint which could basically keep this guy out of places to eat, receive health care, even use bathroom facilities. The guy sexually idealizes kids, but as far as we can tell hasn't acted on it. This order sets him up for being arrested.
Now the problem is...what if he does. Do you want to be the judge who said we couldn't stop him until he hurt someone?
Evidentially neither did the judge in this case, one Melvin Sandvig of the LA Superior court. The problem of course is that the fear of what this guy could do is juxtaposed against the right of his to both espouse his views and at the same time be allowed the same rights as anyone else with a controversial viewpoint.
What is to stop the Judges from ruling that people who favor guns and gun usage could be effectively banished because they may massacre kids in a school?
Unpopular ideas, even illegal ones, voiced, are not a crime. If we begin to criminalize thought and speech we could easily and quickly become a totalitarian state. Ask anyone who studies Nazi Germany.
This case is not so much about pedophilia as it is about a kind of terrorism. It is actually easier in many ways to defend the active pedophile than it is to go to bat for McClellan. I think the terror of what might happens makes it different. This guy doesn't have the money to oppose the ruling. I wonder if the ACLU will step up to defend his civil rights. It has got to be a tough one. Nevertheless if it were happening here, I would agree to do it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it as hard as I can. The constitution, and the law requires it.
Which leads me to my next headline:
2. ABA Journal Ethic's Piece Highlights the Struggle of a Lawyer Who Did the Ethical Thing.
Calling it "The Toughest Call" ABA Journal Editor Mark Hansen recounts the tail of Frank Armani and Francis Belge two assigned counsel who were called on to defend a mass murdering rapist, Robert Garrow.
In conversations with Garrow, the lawyers learned he had killed and raped others and that he knew where bodies of other decedents were. He told them and then they (having the duty to preserve the evidence) went and took pictures of the "graves" and of the dead.
They refused to reveal the information received by them in confidence. They were reviled by the press and by their friends and neighbors for their ethical decision.
Belge went on to leave the practice. Armani slowly rebuilt his reputation in the Syracuse area. Both suffered unfairly for what was clearly the toughest, but the only decision they could make.
This case caused a book "Privileged Information", and a movie "Sworn to Silence." Actor Peter Coyote retells the story of making the film on his website here. If you are interested in the real practice of law, or in ethics, or just want to see a great movie, rent this one. I understand the book (which appears to be out of print) is a fascinating read as well.
By the way, Kudo's on the ABA Journal website . I just found it and I love it!!! Great place to stay up on legal news.
3. House Democrats Wimp Out on FISA Bill: Will Anyone Stand Up and Save the Constitution???
The NY Times reports (here) that the democrat congress refused to stand up to the President once again and agreed to a bill amending the FISA court and to allow greater domestic spying by the executive branch without the benefit of judicial supervision.
The administration wants the right to eavesdrop on conversations that are routed through US routers. They already can eavesdrop on calls not routed through the US. They need a warrant to eavesdrop on calls wholly within the US. But internet calls outside of the US which happen by one of our ISP's are now eligible for warrantless eavesdropping.
Here's the thing. They do not have the ability to differentiate between terror calls and non terror calls. If they listen into non terror calls, they shouldn't be able to use the information, and it should not be stored. I don't trust Gonzoles and company to do that, and apparently neither does anybody else.
Here's another thing. The Dems know that it's unconstitutional, and they had the power to stop it by not bringing it to a vote, They had a bill that was a good one, but the President threatened to veto it. Well that means that the President will be able to go around saying the Democrats refused to act to keep America safe. So they caved in.
Ok maybe we are safe from terror... (maybe) but who will protect us from the Bushies???
4. The Truth About Pot, Weed, Marijuana.
I am not in favor of continuing a drug war which frankly we are losing. I would rather educate and teach, and then tax and let Darwin work out the rest.
In that vein, here and here are two articles that tell you why Pot is bad for you... (1 joint is equal to five cigarettes!!!) Read them. Then try to figure out why you are so suicidal you would introduce this crap into your body.
Consider yourself more educated.
Ok I am back from vacation, lets see if I can get a couple of posts out this week.
TLD
1. Judge Okays an "Innocent Pedophile's" Right to Publish Clean Photo's of Children on His Blog.
This article from the ABA tells of how a good scare can completely destroy liberty among those that do not understand freedom.
Self-admitted pedophile Jack McClellan has been going around telling everyone he is ok with sex with little kids and that he is Sexually attracted to these kids... but there are no kids that have stepped up to admit being with him. Hence other than having weird thoughts he hasn't done anything wrong... except to scare the bejesus out of parents in Southern California.
Two parents of youngsters sought to restrain this otherwise homeless sycophant from coming near their children. They sought to stop him from loitering near places where kids gather, and to keep 30 feet away from children. They also sought to stop him from putting and publishing pictures of kids on his website. Now these were not pornographic pictures... these are ANY PICTURES.
I originally didn't think there was a problem with the 30 foot rule, but then again, I was barely awake when I first read this article. Not only is the restraint not limited to a specific child, but it also seems like a prior restraint which could basically keep this guy out of places to eat, receive health care, even use bathroom facilities. The guy sexually idealizes kids, but as far as we can tell hasn't acted on it. This order sets him up for being arrested.
Now the problem is...what if he does. Do you want to be the judge who said we couldn't stop him until he hurt someone?
Evidentially neither did the judge in this case, one Melvin Sandvig of the LA Superior court. The problem of course is that the fear of what this guy could do is juxtaposed against the right of his to both espouse his views and at the same time be allowed the same rights as anyone else with a controversial viewpoint.
What is to stop the Judges from ruling that people who favor guns and gun usage could be effectively banished because they may massacre kids in a school?
Unpopular ideas, even illegal ones, voiced, are not a crime. If we begin to criminalize thought and speech we could easily and quickly become a totalitarian state. Ask anyone who studies Nazi Germany.
This case is not so much about pedophilia as it is about a kind of terrorism. It is actually easier in many ways to defend the active pedophile than it is to go to bat for McClellan. I think the terror of what might happens makes it different. This guy doesn't have the money to oppose the ruling. I wonder if the ACLU will step up to defend his civil rights. It has got to be a tough one. Nevertheless if it were happening here, I would agree to do it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it as hard as I can. The constitution, and the law requires it.
Which leads me to my next headline:
2. ABA Journal Ethic's Piece Highlights the Struggle of a Lawyer Who Did the Ethical Thing.
Calling it "The Toughest Call" ABA Journal Editor Mark Hansen recounts the tail of Frank Armani and Francis Belge two assigned counsel who were called on to defend a mass murdering rapist, Robert Garrow.
In conversations with Garrow, the lawyers learned he had killed and raped others and that he knew where bodies of other decedents were. He told them and then they (having the duty to preserve the evidence) went and took pictures of the "graves" and of the dead.
They refused to reveal the information received by them in confidence. They were reviled by the press and by their friends and neighbors for their ethical decision.
Belge went on to leave the practice. Armani slowly rebuilt his reputation in the Syracuse area. Both suffered unfairly for what was clearly the toughest, but the only decision they could make.
This case caused a book "Privileged Information", and a movie "Sworn to Silence." Actor Peter Coyote retells the story of making the film on his website here. If you are interested in the real practice of law, or in ethics, or just want to see a great movie, rent this one. I understand the book (which appears to be out of print) is a fascinating read as well.
By the way, Kudo's on the ABA Journal website . I just found it and I love it!!! Great place to stay up on legal news.
3. House Democrats Wimp Out on FISA Bill: Will Anyone Stand Up and Save the Constitution???
The NY Times reports (here) that the democrat congress refused to stand up to the President once again and agreed to a bill amending the FISA court and to allow greater domestic spying by the executive branch without the benefit of judicial supervision.
The administration wants the right to eavesdrop on conversations that are routed through US routers. They already can eavesdrop on calls not routed through the US. They need a warrant to eavesdrop on calls wholly within the US. But internet calls outside of the US which happen by one of our ISP's are now eligible for warrantless eavesdropping.
Here's the thing. They do not have the ability to differentiate between terror calls and non terror calls. If they listen into non terror calls, they shouldn't be able to use the information, and it should not be stored. I don't trust Gonzoles and company to do that, and apparently neither does anybody else.
Here's another thing. The Dems know that it's unconstitutional, and they had the power to stop it by not bringing it to a vote, They had a bill that was a good one, but the President threatened to veto it. Well that means that the President will be able to go around saying the Democrats refused to act to keep America safe. So they caved in.
Ok maybe we are safe from terror... (maybe) but who will protect us from the Bushies???
4. The Truth About Pot, Weed, Marijuana.
I am not in favor of continuing a drug war which frankly we are losing. I would rather educate and teach, and then tax and let Darwin work out the rest.
In that vein, here and here are two articles that tell you why Pot is bad for you... (1 joint is equal to five cigarettes!!!) Read them. Then try to figure out why you are so suicidal you would introduce this crap into your body.
Consider yourself more educated.
Ok I am back from vacation, lets see if I can get a couple of posts out this week.
TLD
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
STIFLE HIM ARLENE: Senator Spector Introduces a Bill to Ban the Use of Presidential Signing Statements in Court Decisions
Does any elected official in Washington DC actually read the US Constitution???
Senator Arlene Spector (R-Pa.) has introduced a bill to ban Courts from using Presidential signing statements to reflect part of the history of any law.
You can access a copy of the proposal here. It's only 2 pages long and worth the read.
Far be it from me to not understand where the good Senator is coming from. I hate Bush's stupid self serving signing statements too. Screwing with the delicate balance of Powers set up by the US Constitution is not the way to fix it however.
The bill is of course DOA when it hits the oval office. Moreover, it should be.
This is an example of over-kill and it is Constitutionally unexceptable.
First it says that the Supreme Court (hereinafter SCOTUS) actually all courts, are banned from referencing Presidential signing statements or relying on them in determining cases. The Constitution does not require that and it is not a good precedent to allow one branch of government to officially silence another branch of government.
Secondly the bill would give Congress the right to expedite matters in the courts and to file amicus briefs through the House or Senate Counsel offices. These briefs must be accepted by the court. Nope, the cases in controversy in the courts belong to the litigants. Amicus approval should in the first instance be up to them. If they unreasonably withhold that approval, or the court thinks it would help reach a better determination if other parties weigh in, then it may ask for or accept these briefs.
Finally, Congress now also wants the right to file a clarifing statement to any case where a court wants to interpret the law. It will come up with a statement and if it passes by a majority vote it will be used to clarify what Congress meant when it passed the law. Now that should really leave laws in limbo.
The purpose of law and precedent is so people can rely on the law in making everyday decisions. Can you imagine what would happen if everytime Congress changed hands, they could "clarify" what the Congress that passed a law meant when it passed the law. Besides isn't that what the court does. Doesn't the fact that there are no judicial terms mean in part that courts is the branch with longevity? Isn't that one of the purposes of life terms?
When a court interprets a law, it can use legislative history to help interpret what Congress meant when the law passed, and it should likewise have the benefit of the President's thoughts on the matter, at the time the law was enacted. The court does not have permission to check its brain at the door however. It must use these tools as it sees fit. Litigants can site to them and they too should be able to cite the statements of Congressmen and Senators as well as Presidents. What are we saying to our courts when we tell them they can cite foreign law and cases but not the words of our own popularly elected President???
Some scholars have been bothered that when President Bush signs a Law, his signing statements are often orders to his executive branch as to how he wants the law enforced. His statements often cherry pick the things he likes about the bill while objecting and trying to accept himself from the parts he doesn't like. I agree with these scholars that the President is wrong to do that. He should enforce all the laws. The remedy however should not be to ban his ideas about a piece of legislation. It is instead to Impeach him if they think he is failing to do his job.
That is not an easy thing to do, but it is the appropriate check on Presidents that refuse to enforce the law. Trying to take back power through unconstitutional means is both overkill and bad make that lazy lawmaking.
Senator Arlene Spector (R-Pa.) has introduced a bill to ban Courts from using Presidential signing statements to reflect part of the history of any law.
You can access a copy of the proposal here. It's only 2 pages long and worth the read.
Far be it from me to not understand where the good Senator is coming from. I hate Bush's stupid self serving signing statements too. Screwing with the delicate balance of Powers set up by the US Constitution is not the way to fix it however.
The bill is of course DOA when it hits the oval office. Moreover, it should be.
This is an example of over-kill and it is Constitutionally unexceptable.
First it says that the Supreme Court (hereinafter SCOTUS) actually all courts, are banned from referencing Presidential signing statements or relying on them in determining cases. The Constitution does not require that and it is not a good precedent to allow one branch of government to officially silence another branch of government.
Secondly the bill would give Congress the right to expedite matters in the courts and to file amicus briefs through the House or Senate Counsel offices. These briefs must be accepted by the court. Nope, the cases in controversy in the courts belong to the litigants. Amicus approval should in the first instance be up to them. If they unreasonably withhold that approval, or the court thinks it would help reach a better determination if other parties weigh in, then it may ask for or accept these briefs.
Finally, Congress now also wants the right to file a clarifing statement to any case where a court wants to interpret the law. It will come up with a statement and if it passes by a majority vote it will be used to clarify what Congress meant when it passed the law. Now that should really leave laws in limbo.
The purpose of law and precedent is so people can rely on the law in making everyday decisions. Can you imagine what would happen if everytime Congress changed hands, they could "clarify" what the Congress that passed a law meant when it passed the law. Besides isn't that what the court does. Doesn't the fact that there are no judicial terms mean in part that courts is the branch with longevity? Isn't that one of the purposes of life terms?
When a court interprets a law, it can use legislative history to help interpret what Congress meant when the law passed, and it should likewise have the benefit of the President's thoughts on the matter, at the time the law was enacted. The court does not have permission to check its brain at the door however. It must use these tools as it sees fit. Litigants can site to them and they too should be able to cite the statements of Congressmen and Senators as well as Presidents. What are we saying to our courts when we tell them they can cite foreign law and cases but not the words of our own popularly elected President???
Some scholars have been bothered that when President Bush signs a Law, his signing statements are often orders to his executive branch as to how he wants the law enforced. His statements often cherry pick the things he likes about the bill while objecting and trying to accept himself from the parts he doesn't like. I agree with these scholars that the President is wrong to do that. He should enforce all the laws. The remedy however should not be to ban his ideas about a piece of legislation. It is instead to Impeach him if they think he is failing to do his job.
That is not an easy thing to do, but it is the appropriate check on Presidents that refuse to enforce the law. Trying to take back power through unconstitutional means is both overkill and bad make that lazy lawmaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)