29
Nov
A few years ago, several organizations joined forces to sue the federal government to force the EPA to control greenhouse gases. Although they’ve never won in court, it has now made it to the Supreme Court and is being argued today. The group that sued to force the EPA to force controls on greenhouse gas emissions are:
- The states of Massachusetts
- Illinois
- Maine
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Rhode Island
- Washington
- Oregon
- Vermont
- California
- Greenpeace
- Center for Biological Diversity
- Friends of the Earth
- Bluewater Network
- Sierra Club
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- US Public Interest Research Group
- Physicians for Social Responsibility
Those opposing the using the EPA as a political weapon are:
- Texas
- Michigan
- Idaho
- North Dakota
- South Dakota
- Utah
- Alaska
- Nebraska
- Ohio
- Indiana
Now, you GOT to read the brief. Among other things, The Day After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth are cited as evidence. As stupid as this sounds, there is logical reason for this. They are arguing that global warming is a common interest and therefore should be regulated. I think this is a dangerous argument to make. I will state that I prefer more limited government in general. But, the bigger problem I see with their argument is they are attempting to force the government to enforce the trend du jour. Thirty years ago the evidence was overwhelming that global cooling was occurring. What if these people are wrong and usurp the research and debate over what is causing climate change by compelling their particular political wish-list of things to do on the entire country? What would be the point to research some issues of climate change when you know it will amount to nothing as the EPA is forcing certain actions regardless of what might conclude? This is dangerous folks. However, I trust the wisdom of the Supreme Court to see that. The Appeals Court did not buy into this, and I think the Supreme Court is even less likely to.
Three idiots got real lucky this week.
Now, these guys got real lucky not because Wisconsin has never seen fit to ban having sex with dead people, they got lucky because they got an incredibly stupid judge in charge of their case. Someone care to explain to that judge what the law is when a person attempts to have sex with someone without their consent?
I imagine there will now be a rush to pass legislation in Wisconsin to ban necrophilia. That’s a good thing. However, as long as they’ve got judges who can’t see the obvious, it won’t really matter right now will it?
And, per my norm, there’s some parents in Wisconsin that need to have a serious discussion with their offspring. When people talk of Grunking from now on, guess what they’ll be referring to.
The Volokh Conspiracy looks at a recent judgment in regards to datamining. Specifically, it looked at whether datamining triggers Fourth Amendment protection?
Well, here’s the Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This was also the hotbed of discussion regarding the recent decision regarding the federal wiretapping issue. To me, it’s fairly clear. The key phrase being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”. When things are in your possession or home or place of business, they are firmly in your possession. The Founders didn’t fathom the concept of telephones, the internet, cell phones, etc.. Either it was on you, or not. The problem I see here is when you use the internet, you are placing your information in someone else’s hands whether you know it or intend to. All information coming to you or from you goes through other people’s services. At that point, it is in THEIR possession. The interpretations of the Fourth Amendment will vary depending on who’s judging it. If you want to be safe, ALWAYS assume that information can be obtained, which it can be by one way or another. If you want to do something illegal, don’t advertise it on every server that connects you from point A to point B on the internet.
30
Aug
Things have changed in the US in a big way during my adult lifetime. And, it’s all the media’s fault. I have been a Republican my entire life. It wasn’t really a choice when I was young, but it has been for about 20 years. For about 100 years, there was a core seperation in what was Republican and what was Democrat. The difference was very simple. Republicans believed in lower taxes and smaller government intrusion, Democrats believed in social welfare ( not a slam, just a fact ). The two ideologies were very clearly separated. The Reagan revolution changed the Republican Party in that it had lost its identity during the Vietnam conflict and the Nixon resignation left it completely leaderless. Reagan did several great things as president. Primarily, he restored the two party system to some degree. He did this by attaching a moral code to what had otherwise been purely economic philosophies. This attracted certain very vocal elements to the Republican Party. This was a good thing IMO because the Democrats had grown comfortable in the fact the Republicans could not compete nationally. However, it has led to issues within the Republican Party that have annoyed me for some time. When debating issues, the “other side” always makes the assumption that because I am Republican, I am a Neo-Con. The two are not pre-requisite of each other. I am a person that believes in smaller government and lower taxes. That doesn’t mean I am for or against abortion or any other social issue. Period. Every now and then an issue comes along that I think allows me the perfect example to illustrate these conflicts.
No matter how much I have grown to hate drugs, the kid did have the right to display to the world how stupid he is. He did not do it on school property, so there is no issue here at all. When Deborah Morse took down his sign, she violated his most basic Constitutional Right, the right to declare to the world how stupid he is. This doesn’t need to go any further in court. It’s that clear.
And, the fact the kid insulted Jesus, ergo Christians worldwide, in his declaration of stupidity, is totally irrelevant. An appeals court has protected his right to publicly declare his stupidity, that’s as far as it needs to go. That should be the end of government involvement in this issue.
2
Aug
Congress won’t do it, the Supreme Court has refused to do it, maybe now this will get it done? Traditionally, lawyers have met a different legal standard that the rest of society has been held to. If they acted unethically or improperly, their state bar would decide their fate. Most often, those bars were politically influenced and ineffective. This, IMO, has led to the mind bogging abuses of the court system. This, is what insurance companies have claimed is a major cost to the health industry. Not so much the legal claims paid out, but the extortion that a lawsuit threat is. It costs companies untold amounts of money to deal with a lawsuit, regardless of its outcome. Now, in this case, the California Supreme Court has decided that this threat of a lawsuit IS extortion ( well, collective huge DUH! ) if it is unsupported by any other litigous situation.
This is right.
This IS tort reform.
It’s about damn time too.
I’ll be surprised if it survives the US Supreme Court tho. Although they’ve been given a conservative tag, lawyers protect each other above all.
The US Supreme Court ruled that war tribunals are not legal regarding the detainees of Gitmo. This made things a real mess. What SCOTUS did not do is give any guidance either. So, if they can not be tried as prisoners of war, and they are not US citizens, and they are not protected by The Geneva Convention, what is the proper jurisdiction? I don’t really fault SCOTUS for coming to the conclusion they did, they’re a little more experienced with law than I am. However, given the legal and political complexity of the situation, I think they should have given some guidance. The only option immediately available is to try them under court martial procedures. This makes no sense to me. Additionally, it could take years. A lot of people are complaining keeping them there is inhumane. However, several have committed suicide as opposed to being returned to their legal home. So, simply kicking them out appears inhumane as well. Sending them back to Afghanistan or Iraq just simply re-arms someone trying to kill our soldiers, so that’s not an option to me either. Congress will now attempt to correct the laws that SCOTUS says makes trying them as prisoners of war illegal. To me it is totally irrelevant. If SCOTUS has taken the position it has, I have no doubt that they will strike down any adjustments to the law that allows for war tribunals. Why, I don’t know. However, SCOTUS seems to hint that trying them under any real circumstances is illegal. IMO, they want Gitmo closed. Anything less than that will meet resistance. What to do with the people sitting there is not something they seem to want to deal with. And to me, that’s where the real problem lies. Regardless of legal wrangling, what is the best thing to do with those soldiers who were trying to kill ours? Until someone comes up with a better idea, I say leave them there.
William Jefferson is just tickled pink that some lawmakers are distracting his actions by crying foul over the FBI searching Jefferson’s office. I’m no lawyer, I don’t even play one on tv, so I read a lawyer’s take on it. Particularly, I read Orin Kerr’s take on it.
Orin does not come to a definitive conclusion, and defers to any “Speech and Debate Clause experts”. To which he’s already gotten some very insightful responses. Some kind of over my head. But, my gut feeling is no legislator is ABOVE the law. Especially when it’s not in the duty of legislating. The FBI did not interfere with Jefferson’s ability to vote, so that Pat Kennedy thing is not an issue. It may not have happened before, but that’s no justification for it not to happen. There was clear evidence that Jefferson had committed a crime using his position. There is no reason to assume that he did not facilitate that crime during the course of doing his job. Needless to say, his job has a lot to do with where he does it.
The only question I have is what does the FBI do if it stumbles across information that is classified during this search?
24
Apr
Moussaoui asked for death. Now, you gotta understand, this guy is borderline retarded. If someone commits suicide, how is that in relation to martyrdom? If the state grants Moussaoui his wish of death, they are merely assisting him in his desire to die. They are not killing him, he has already done that. I vote to finish the job. There’s no way this is an issue of martyrdom.
- Technorati Zacarias Moussaoui
3
Mar
Exposetheleft gets so many priceless images it makes me quite jealous. I don’t know how they do this.
In this particular case, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while listening to arguments regarding the Texas congressional redistricting, fell completely asleep.
Now, this could be an opportunity to trash liberals in general, but, I’m not. I’m on her side. I’m quite certain I would have snoozed as well. I have followed a similar discussion that happened in Kentucky about 10 years ago. It was mind-numbingly boring and eventually led to nothing even though we have geographically one of the most goof-ball districts in the entire country:
Now, if that yellow district looked OK to the Supremes in 2000, then I can imagine the Texas districts are just peachy. Now, ya gotta understand there is only one major difference between who gerrymandered Kentucky and who gerrymandered Texas. But as far as the math goes, Ruth I think answered that question quite visibly yesterday.
There’s a lot of discussion on Alito & the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. IMO, this is the only article worth reading:
Earlier this week, recently released documents drew attention for showing that, in a 1985 job application, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ’72 wrote that he is "particularly proud" of his work on cases arguing that "racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
Now, opponents to his nomination are using another piece of information from those documents to suggest he is far outside the mainstream in his political and social views: Near the end of his "Personal Qualifications Statement" for a high-level job in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, Alito wrote that he was "a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
Interviews with several alumni who were students in the 1970s paint a picture of Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) as a far-right organization funded by conservative alumni committed to turning back the clock on coeducation at the University…….
It was printed in the Daily Princetonian on November 18. 2005. IMO it paints exactly the picture Alito explained. Especially revealing IMO are the comments by Judge Napolitano. Sure, he most likely "joined" the group. Sure, the group, as MOST college interests groups were at that time, became radical ( ask John Kerry ). But, I think he did it to beef up his resume only, as a lot of college kids do ( see the numerous collegiate who’s who organizations ). This is much ado over nothing. It’s the only straw Kennedy can grasp at. And, it’s not going anywhere.
