Tuesday, November 22, 2005

She wanted to "get as far away as possible, get married, and start a new life"

Should 14-yr old girl who ran willingly to meet her parents' killer (her boyfriend) be charged with anything other than bad taste? Naturally she is a juvenile. But this story is creepy.

Friday, November 18, 2005

TO Suspension Dispute

You may remember that I am rather passionate about the antics of football star Terrell Owens. I wanted to highlight this article by a practicing NYC attorney regarding Owen's appeal of his suspension. I report with much glee, that 1) the suspension will stand (no player can force a team to accept their services), and that 2) for at least 4 games of the remainder of the season, TO will be going without pay (as allowed under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which allows team discretion on disruptive acts). It is good to see a professional sports team not back down in exercising contract rights when dealing with a professional baby, er. . . athlete. All due respect to Professor Martin, but contractual terms do have meaning.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Think judges should face civil liablity for their decisions?

Well, 50, 000 or so people in South Dakota do.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Philosophy vs. Single-Issue Thinkers

Though there exist judges that believe abortion is ok whom conservatives could support, I don't think a conservative should support any judge who thinks there is an absolute Fundamental right to abortion, free from state restraints (the pre-Roe status quo-- you may remember--abortion was not criminalized via the national government). All the faithful readers of this blog and other areas of legal academia know that the penumbras are regarded as a vastly bastard-ized line of jurisprudence: mysterious indeed in its origin.

A nominee that makes it to this level will be more than just a one or two-issue "hack" who is merely looking to get a foot in the door to mandate views on pet issues. Ginsburg would be perhaps the best example: Though she held (perhaps still holds) wild views regarding sexual autonomy/freedom that are vastly outside the mainstream, she is otherwise a competent jurist (though I disagree frequently with her analysis).

It is time to be frank in this debate and recognize that no candidate for SCOTUS will fail this competence test. Therefore, to the Presidential victor go the spoils--the nominations. Democrats can try to steal his glory. But I don't think that when the music stops this will in fact take place.

Counter-Offensive turns into Team Sport

This blog provides a fascinating look at the weekend's happenings on the Sunday morning political shows; it notes that John McCain is even drawing the line on the latest attacks against Bush. Notice also Sen. Rockefeller getting blown up on Fox News. Pretty hard to explain away video of your own comments on the floor of the Senate!!!

[Anyone else wonder at the Bush Lied campaign?? Indeed, this is a President not up for election again. Why not focus a Democratic campaign on getting people elected? I suppose the sentiment is currently, "we got our governors elected on the above platform." My response is wait until you win (or don't get trounced) in a national election to see how that strawman campaign works.]

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Abortion Program on NPR

Mid-Morning program discussion between NARAL and Democrats for Life directors last week made me marvel as usual. Nevermind the constitutional issues. Upon what basis do womens' "right to choose" advocates advance this unlimited privacy/freedom interest? Since when are our freedoms unlimited? See e.g. drug laws, regulation of the medical profession, vehicle registration, homicide (including fetal) criminalization, and property taxes.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Gun control nuts are making me angry

This piece is on a liberal blog regarding Alito's stance on gun control:

Community safety: Alito, dissenting in the case of United States v. Rybar, said that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows. In response to Alito’s assertion that Congress must make findings or provide empirical evidence of a link between a regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, the majority said, nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute.

When will people and groups stop doing this? I feel like the Left is even worse about this than the reactionists on the right. The logic follows something like this. Commerce Clause > interstate commercial activity > Congress can regulate. Judge who applies the Commerce Clause = a radical with an agenda against whatever action Congress takes. (In this case, Judge Alito wants "machine" guns to be on the streets).

Truly awful analysis. So bad, in fact, that I am forced to break it out:
"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." -Federalist No. 78

Alito and Vanguard

You will likely be hearing news coverage presently questioning Judge Alito's hearing of a case involving Vanguard (The Federal District Court opinion may be found at 2001 WL 253648; apparently, the 3rd Cir. with Alito on the panel, voted without reported opinion to affirm). Below is my interpretation of why Judge Alito's non-recusal should be a non-issue regarding his fitness as a judge:

A cursory review of the case reveals that it is very questionable indeed whether Alito had any substantial outcome financially in the case. First, the facts of the case seem to parallel those of an interpleader situation (suffice it to say, that the legal consequences to Vanguard promise to be very immaterial to the overall health of any particular fund). Second, did you see those financial disclosures on the Justices? (Including even Harriet?) It seems likely that a large deal of Judges and Justices in this country have money in a Vanguard fund of some flavor. The Star Fund, according to my information, is the most commonly invested fund of this sort in the world. Should this mitigate the likelihood that a judge would feel conflicted about hearing the case? Maybe. How about suit against the PBGC, under ERISA, for a breach of fiduciary duty? Potentially a whole lotta people, including judges would "have an interest" in a suit of that nature.

Legend of Zoro

Saw it over the weekend. I wasn't aware that Zoro was defender of California's Constitution. I also was unaware that horses can be made to jump off a bluff onto a moving train.