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
Showing posts with label Libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian. Show all posts
It's Election Day. Here Are My Endorsements
Anyone who blogs for business reasons will tell you: "DON'T Get Political on your business blog." So much for my listening to common sense. I see a lawyer's job in part to help lead his community. That includes supporting candidates for office; not just anyone who runs on a particular party line, but candidates they know will make a positive difference in the lives of the people they try to help every day. I am more than aware (sometimes I think I am alone in this) that no one party has a lock on good ideas or good people. I endorse "bipartisanly" not because it is "good business politics" but because it is good government and I like to think exhibits leadership.
A proviso: I consider myself libertarian. Small "l". Which means I am not actively a member of the party, but I agree with much of what they stand for.
Libertarians are usually said to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. To be libertarian, (small "l") I think you have to favor small federal government and very little government intrusion into private decisions.
With that said here are my picks and some analysis.
Governor:
Warren Redlich. He is the Libertarian. It is a minor party but Warren is anything but a minor brain. He seems to be the only candidate who understands you cannot cut taxes without cutting many MANY unnecessary and duplicative programs.
Look Cuomo is a great guy (really he is, I've known Andy politically since we were both kids. He is a tough/bully kind of politician but he also is very family oriented and has a good heart. He wants to make correct decisions, I just don't think he always knows what those might be.) Paladino is someone I'd like to like. He is a successful businessman, loves his family and is famously loyal to those he is surrounded by, but he is either a bigot or stupid at times. Until he learns to say what he means the first time he says it, there will always be a question in my mind as to which is which. Mutual friends of ours swear to me he is just a "regular guy". Maybe, but maybe you need to be more to be the highest elected state official in NY.
As for those who think that this is a wasted vote, so is voting for Paladino, however if Redlich gets enough votes (50K) the Libertarian Party gets a line in the next four elections. That will give it the power to get like minded people elected both to the statehouse and in local elections. Sure some people will be fringe candidates (so is Paladino if you think about some of the things he has said) but many will have new ideas that may work far better than the same old thing. VOTE REDLICH.
Attorney General:
Tough call. Politically, Eric Schniederman and I probably agree on a lot of social issues including death penalty, drugs and the proper emphasis of a state Atty' General's Office. Dan Donovan however is a good prosecutor and knows how to run an office. He worked under Guy Molinari, and is considered a Republican moderate. Schneiderman on the other hand knows Albany and has been an enemy of the corruption that runs the capital. He will be a watchdog over Wall Street, but I don't think he has the makeup of either of the previous two AGs (Spitzer or Cuomo.)
I will vote for Donovan and hope I was right.
Comptroller:
I have known Tom DiNapoli for 30 years. I like him personally. I am sure that Tom's heart is in the right place. He has been a good administrator but he isn't a comptroller. The Republican candidate Wilson is a tool of Wall Street.
I am voting for the Libertarian who understands Wall Street but also has the qualifications to be a Comptroller and who is just populist enough to understand he is a guardian of the Public fisc. I cast my vote for Carl E. Person. Take a look at his website. He has some interesting ideas. As with Redlich for Governor I know that not enough people will vote for Carl to elect him, but if he were to get 50K votes, it would send a strong message that the electorate wants a state government that gives greater power and less "pass down" legislation to local county and town governments.
I am not touching the US Senate or Congressional campaigns. Mostly because the Republicans decided not to show up. There are really no choices here. I don't support Schumer and I have no idea who Gillibrand is going to become. She is better than I thought she would be, but then again I didn't initially expect anything from her anyway. I will vote for Libertarian party candidates mostly as a show of dissatisfaction with the lack of a real choice.
Now locally (On Long Island) we have a bunch of Judicial elections. I am going to focus on Supreme Court and Family court.
I'd like to begin with the Supreme Court.
The most qualified candidates are without a doubt Daniel Palmeri and Andrew Crecca. I have appeared before both. They are outstanding trial judges. Palmeri is brilliant. PERIOD. Crecca has a great feel for the courtroom and for the issues. I think he has great ability to be the kind of judge who gets things done expeditiously both of these candidates are sitting judges and both are Republicans.
As for the other two spots, I urge you to vote for two Democrats (no I am not trying to be equal. I know these folks and they are worthy of the job.) The first is a sitting District Court Judge Robert Spergel
Judge Spergel has a good way of cutting through the garbage that is litigation. He needs to be careful of his urge to "get it right" and rule according to law. (He used to be a policeman, "Street Justice" may work on the street but in a court of law, law works best.) Outside of that however, he has a good "gut" understanding of when a side is taking an unfair advantage of others. He is aware of how to move a calendar and he seems unafraid to make hard and unpopular decisions. He does that expeditiously. It is important to move Supreme Court calendars quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. Supreme Court calendars move at the speed of a glacier. Having a judge who can decide tough calls and do it quickly is a good thing.
The last vote is for my colleague William "Bill" Devore. Bill has had a storied career both in and outside of the Suffolk District Attorney's office. He is a reasonable person who understands the issues that occur in people's lives. He is a good lawyer and will have the guts to make the tough call in a timely manner. He has compassion yet he is a strong lawyer who will be unafraid to decide to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing.
Here are four good candidates who all will serve us well. This is not to take away anything from the other candidates who all bring different qualities to the bench. The biggest issue is that the four judges I selected all are gutsy lawyers who do not appear to be beholden to anyone and who can do the job (or are doing the job) well. They each know the importance of moving a calendar and do so while maintaining a high level of legal acumen. Crecca and Spergel work in high-stress busy "specialty courts" (Crecca works Domestic Violence Court in Suffolk which mixes civil family and criminal court in one courtroom and Spergel is the judge in the DWI Trial Court in Nassau County, the busiest Criminal Trial Court by volume on Long Island.)
There is only one great choice for Nassau County Family Court. Merik (Rick) Aaron. Rick is a former HS Teacher. Went to Law School. He is bright and he is compassionate. He has the perfect disposition to work with juvenile delinquents and dysfunctional people (After all he worked for me for his last year of Law School!) Now for those of you who will claim some type of nepotism, I say that is just not true. I know Rick, and I have seen his work. He is THE CHOICE for Nassau Family Court.
Finally for State Assembly, I am supporting Charles Lavine a Democrat in the NY State Assembly's Thirteenth (13) AD. He has done a great job. He sits on the codes committee and he has been very effective in Albany.
I am also supporting Michael Montasano in his race in NY's Fifteenth (15)AD. Mike understands the issues that effect everyday folk. He is one of us. He is a former police officer and lawyer. He is gutsy. He challenged the Nassau County Forfeiture law and won!! Mike is a good assemblyman who will serve his constituency well.
I like Tom McDevitt in the Seventeenth (17)AD. A fine young man who is becoming more and more of a force in Albany for his district. Tom is active in his practice of law and he has been active in the Nassau County Bar Association. HE is up on the issues and provides a spirited loyal opposition to the Democrat controlled Assembly.
In the State Senate, I am supporting the Republican ticket right down the line. Why? Because a Democrat Senate has wreaked havoc on Long Island. Democrats have taken the STAR exemptions away which helped a lot of people stay in their homes in a bad economy. We pay a MTA Tax even if we never ride a rail or cross a bridge. In other words, losing in the Third Senatorial District broke up the Long Island Republican Senate block. The new guy Democrat Brian Foley wasted no time paying back his political benefactors at a great cost to Long Island. Sorry. I really don't like how Albany works. There is too much power in the leadership of each house and Governor, and the system rewards the corrupt and the stupid (can anyone say Brian McLauglin and Anthony Seminerio?)usually at the expense of Long Island and the North Country. A solid Republican Senatorial block, until Albany becomes a place where rank and file members have more power, gives Long Island the only chance it has for a fair shake.
Well let the commenting begin. I am sure I ticked off many of you and even a few friends who I'd like to support but can't in fairness to the principles I have politically and or because the other candidate is just in my humble opinion a better candidate. Agree or disagree you can help have the final say if you vote on Tuesday.
A proviso: I consider myself libertarian. Small "l". Which means I am not actively a member of the party, but I agree with much of what they stand for.
Libertarians are usually said to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. To be libertarian, (small "l") I think you have to favor small federal government and very little government intrusion into private decisions.
With that said here are my picks and some analysis.
Governor:
Warren Redlich. He is the Libertarian. It is a minor party but Warren is anything but a minor brain. He seems to be the only candidate who understands you cannot cut taxes without cutting many MANY unnecessary and duplicative programs.
Look Cuomo is a great guy (really he is, I've known Andy politically since we were both kids. He is a tough/bully kind of politician but he also is very family oriented and has a good heart. He wants to make correct decisions, I just don't think he always knows what those might be.) Paladino is someone I'd like to like. He is a successful businessman, loves his family and is famously loyal to those he is surrounded by, but he is either a bigot or stupid at times. Until he learns to say what he means the first time he says it, there will always be a question in my mind as to which is which. Mutual friends of ours swear to me he is just a "regular guy". Maybe, but maybe you need to be more to be the highest elected state official in NY.
As for those who think that this is a wasted vote, so is voting for Paladino, however if Redlich gets enough votes (50K) the Libertarian Party gets a line in the next four elections. That will give it the power to get like minded people elected both to the statehouse and in local elections. Sure some people will be fringe candidates (so is Paladino if you think about some of the things he has said) but many will have new ideas that may work far better than the same old thing. VOTE REDLICH.
Attorney General:
Tough call. Politically, Eric Schniederman and I probably agree on a lot of social issues including death penalty, drugs and the proper emphasis of a state Atty' General's Office. Dan Donovan however is a good prosecutor and knows how to run an office. He worked under Guy Molinari, and is considered a Republican moderate. Schneiderman on the other hand knows Albany and has been an enemy of the corruption that runs the capital. He will be a watchdog over Wall Street, but I don't think he has the makeup of either of the previous two AGs (Spitzer or Cuomo.)
I will vote for Donovan and hope I was right.
Comptroller:
I have known Tom DiNapoli for 30 years. I like him personally. I am sure that Tom's heart is in the right place. He has been a good administrator but he isn't a comptroller. The Republican candidate Wilson is a tool of Wall Street.
I am voting for the Libertarian who understands Wall Street but also has the qualifications to be a Comptroller and who is just populist enough to understand he is a guardian of the Public fisc. I cast my vote for Carl E. Person. Take a look at his website. He has some interesting ideas. As with Redlich for Governor I know that not enough people will vote for Carl to elect him, but if he were to get 50K votes, it would send a strong message that the electorate wants a state government that gives greater power and less "pass down" legislation to local county and town governments.
I am not touching the US Senate or Congressional campaigns. Mostly because the Republicans decided not to show up. There are really no choices here. I don't support Schumer and I have no idea who Gillibrand is going to become. She is better than I thought she would be, but then again I didn't initially expect anything from her anyway. I will vote for Libertarian party candidates mostly as a show of dissatisfaction with the lack of a real choice.
Now locally (On Long Island) we have a bunch of Judicial elections. I am going to focus on Supreme Court and Family court.
I'd like to begin with the Supreme Court.
The most qualified candidates are without a doubt Daniel Palmeri and Andrew Crecca. I have appeared before both. They are outstanding trial judges. Palmeri is brilliant. PERIOD. Crecca has a great feel for the courtroom and for the issues. I think he has great ability to be the kind of judge who gets things done expeditiously both of these candidates are sitting judges and both are Republicans.
As for the other two spots, I urge you to vote for two Democrats (no I am not trying to be equal. I know these folks and they are worthy of the job.) The first is a sitting District Court Judge Robert Spergel
Judge Spergel has a good way of cutting through the garbage that is litigation. He needs to be careful of his urge to "get it right" and rule according to law. (He used to be a policeman, "Street Justice" may work on the street but in a court of law, law works best.) Outside of that however, he has a good "gut" understanding of when a side is taking an unfair advantage of others. He is aware of how to move a calendar and he seems unafraid to make hard and unpopular decisions. He does that expeditiously. It is important to move Supreme Court calendars quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. Supreme Court calendars move at the speed of a glacier. Having a judge who can decide tough calls and do it quickly is a good thing.
The last vote is for my colleague William "Bill" Devore. Bill has had a storied career both in and outside of the Suffolk District Attorney's office. He is a reasonable person who understands the issues that occur in people's lives. He is a good lawyer and will have the guts to make the tough call in a timely manner. He has compassion yet he is a strong lawyer who will be unafraid to decide to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing.
Here are four good candidates who all will serve us well. This is not to take away anything from the other candidates who all bring different qualities to the bench. The biggest issue is that the four judges I selected all are gutsy lawyers who do not appear to be beholden to anyone and who can do the job (or are doing the job) well. They each know the importance of moving a calendar and do so while maintaining a high level of legal acumen. Crecca and Spergel work in high-stress busy "specialty courts" (Crecca works Domestic Violence Court in Suffolk which mixes civil family and criminal court in one courtroom and Spergel is the judge in the DWI Trial Court in Nassau County, the busiest Criminal Trial Court by volume on Long Island.)
There is only one great choice for Nassau County Family Court. Merik (Rick) Aaron. Rick is a former HS Teacher. Went to Law School. He is bright and he is compassionate. He has the perfect disposition to work with juvenile delinquents and dysfunctional people (After all he worked for me for his last year of Law School!) Now for those of you who will claim some type of nepotism, I say that is just not true. I know Rick, and I have seen his work. He is THE CHOICE for Nassau Family Court.
Finally for State Assembly, I am supporting Charles Lavine a Democrat in the NY State Assembly's Thirteenth (13) AD. He has done a great job. He sits on the codes committee and he has been very effective in Albany.
I am also supporting Michael Montasano in his race in NY's Fifteenth (15)AD. Mike understands the issues that effect everyday folk. He is one of us. He is a former police officer and lawyer. He is gutsy. He challenged the Nassau County Forfeiture law and won!! Mike is a good assemblyman who will serve his constituency well.
I like Tom McDevitt in the Seventeenth (17)AD. A fine young man who is becoming more and more of a force in Albany for his district. Tom is active in his practice of law and he has been active in the Nassau County Bar Association. HE is up on the issues and provides a spirited loyal opposition to the Democrat controlled Assembly.
In the State Senate, I am supporting the Republican ticket right down the line. Why? Because a Democrat Senate has wreaked havoc on Long Island. Democrats have taken the STAR exemptions away which helped a lot of people stay in their homes in a bad economy. We pay a MTA Tax even if we never ride a rail or cross a bridge. In other words, losing in the Third Senatorial District broke up the Long Island Republican Senate block. The new guy Democrat Brian Foley wasted no time paying back his political benefactors at a great cost to Long Island. Sorry. I really don't like how Albany works. There is too much power in the leadership of each house and Governor, and the system rewards the corrupt and the stupid (can anyone say Brian McLauglin and Anthony Seminerio?)usually at the expense of Long Island and the North Country. A solid Republican Senatorial block, until Albany becomes a place where rank and file members have more power, gives Long Island the only chance it has for a fair shake.
Well let the commenting begin. I am sure I ticked off many of you and even a few friends who I'd like to support but can't in fairness to the principles I have politically and or because the other candidate is just in my humble opinion a better candidate. Agree or disagree you can help have the final say if you vote on Tuesday.
The Firing of Juan Williams: Liberals & Neo-Cons Two Peas in a Pod. They Only Favor Free Speech of Those With Whom They Agree.
Juan Williams is a reporter and commentator for NPR (National Public Radio). He also tries to provided the "balance" on Fox News Network presenting the so called "Liberal" side of the Fox equation.
The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:
Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.
Sorry guys you are wrong.
I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.
To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.
I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.
That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.
Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.
Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.
The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot," Williams continued. "You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.
Sorry guys you are wrong.
I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.
To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.
I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.
That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.
Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.
Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.
Some Fun Stuff for a Sunday Night: Funny Animation of The Carl Paladino Campaign and a Review of Innocent by Scott Turow
Hello all,
I have found a few light fun things to tell you about. If you have some time you might want to look into them.
First Al Nye the Lawyer Guy reviews the new Turow Mystery Innocent which takes up where Presumed Innocent left off, kind of. It is the story of Rusty Sabich a Chicago Judge who had been acquitted years ago (in the first book) of Murder, now being tried again by his old nemesis Tommy Molto for the murder of his wife... who has her own past if you remember book number one. Sabich is represented again by Sandy Stern and the book stings me knowing that Raul Julia will not be here to play that part again in another movie. Anyway, I won't give it away. Go over to see Al's opinion and order the book.
Second: I have been troubled from the start about Carl Paladino's run for Governor of NY. I wanted to like the guy who seemed kind of self made and a little unpolished. However the guy just has a part of him that makes him unbalanced. I talked to guys who know him and they like him, but I just can't help feeling he's like my friend George, a great guy to have a beer and a laugh with but not Gubernatorial material. Now I don't like Andy Cuomo for Governor either. I think he is heads and tails more qualified than Paladino is, but he is just way too liberal for me. I am going to vote Libertarian and vote for Warren Redlich. One thing about Warren, he seems to understand that you cannot cut taxes unless you cut services and waste. He has a plan to do that and so I am looking forward to the debate tomorrow night at Hofstra University
In the meantime I saw this and thought it was hysterically funny. It is the Taiwanese News bureau's cartoon take on Paladino. Shut down the sound and read the subtitles. It is about a two minutes long.
And that is it for now. Enjoy.
I have found a few light fun things to tell you about. If you have some time you might want to look into them.
First Al Nye the Lawyer Guy reviews the new Turow Mystery Innocent which takes up where Presumed Innocent left off, kind of. It is the story of Rusty Sabich a Chicago Judge who had been acquitted years ago (in the first book) of Murder, now being tried again by his old nemesis Tommy Molto for the murder of his wife... who has her own past if you remember book number one. Sabich is represented again by Sandy Stern and the book stings me knowing that Raul Julia will not be here to play that part again in another movie. Anyway, I won't give it away. Go over to see Al's opinion and order the book.
Second: I have been troubled from the start about Carl Paladino's run for Governor of NY. I wanted to like the guy who seemed kind of self made and a little unpolished. However the guy just has a part of him that makes him unbalanced. I talked to guys who know him and they like him, but I just can't help feeling he's like my friend George, a great guy to have a beer and a laugh with but not Gubernatorial material. Now I don't like Andy Cuomo for Governor either. I think he is heads and tails more qualified than Paladino is, but he is just way too liberal for me. I am going to vote Libertarian and vote for Warren Redlich. One thing about Warren, he seems to understand that you cannot cut taxes unless you cut services and waste. He has a plan to do that and so I am looking forward to the debate tomorrow night at Hofstra University
In the meantime I saw this and thought it was hysterically funny. It is the Taiwanese News bureau's cartoon take on Paladino. Shut down the sound and read the subtitles. It is about a two minutes long.
And that is it for now. Enjoy.
Happy Fourth of July: Ray Charles Sings America The Beautiful
This is an ode, a love song to a country. My Country, Our Country. I love to hear Ray Charles sing America the Beautiful. Please listen to it with me today and all weekend. The words to the original are printed here below:
America the Beautiful
Words by Katharine Lee Bates,
Melody by Samuel Ward
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!
O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!
I cannot say it better than they did. Please have a safe and happy Fourth of July.
Hattip: Scoutsongs.com
and
Youtube.com
America the Beautiful
Words by Katharine Lee Bates,
Melody by Samuel Ward
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!
O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!
I cannot say it better than they did. Please have a safe and happy Fourth of July.
Hattip: Scoutsongs.com
and
Youtube.com
This Week Around the Blogosphere: Good Trial Technique Suggestions and the Case of Julie Amero.
I know I am supposed to get this out on Sundays but with the Tony(c) awards and the Giants and Jets both in first place in their divisions and my weekly haul up to Albany to handle Depositions in a Civil Rights cases there, I am a little behind. So lets get to them.
Blonde Justice has started a series on trial prep. Blondie usually keeps her posts light and talky but she is clearly a good attorney and has a lot to share and I am always happy to see her share her valuable knowledge with us.
In Reason Magazine online, TONY(c) AWARD WINNER IN NEWS Radley Balko hits a home run with this post on the strange case of Julie Amero, the middle school substitute teacher accused of endangering the welfare of minors when X-Rated Popup ads for X-rated websites kept attacking her computer at school and she couldn't or didn't shut it down fast enough for the kiddies not to see (wonder how many of these suburban yuppie kids have the Playboy Channel plugged into their homes on cable?) Anyway, when the techies found out that the poor lady might go to jail because she had malware on her computer they helped her fight back against the puritanical Conn. State's Attorney's office. They won. Balko was a part of that fight. After looking at my stat counter from last week, it seems he is a good guy to have on your side.
As a lawyer who is constantly fighting the fight to keep good people from being labeled sex fiends by Megan Law Crazy prosecutors, in the latest Internet sex persecution, I mean Prosecution, scam, I appreciate the work done in the Amero case by the experts who came to her aid. Read the article. It is a good one.
Prolific blogger and lawyer Robert Ambrogi has put up his list of the Top 10 Expert Witness cases of the Year 2008 here. I would like to add the case of Shorty Rodrieguez where yours truly kept the governments ballistics expert from testifying on "muzzle to wound" Distance in a gun-shot case.
Winning Trial Advocacy Blog has this very good advice about taking time each month to look at your active files and make sure T's are crossed and i's are dotted. It may seem like simple advice but it is a good idea to do a regular file review and see what you have missed or what else you can do on a case. It will certainly impress the clients that you are so up to date on their files.
Last but not least was this macabre and odd little story in Time Magaizine online, about an actor who almost killed himself onstage when someone put a real knife out where the prop should have been a fake knife. In the play the actor slits his throat but this was for real.
People just didn't know it. Scary.
In the actor's next role, his character dies by gunshot wound to the head... as Time suggests, Someone ought to check out that gun first...
Ok most of the leads for these stories come from Twitter. If you are not on Twitter.com, What are you waiting for???" and if you are on Twitter, YOU BEST BE FOLLOWING ME!!! LOL
Blonde Justice has started a series on trial prep. Blondie usually keeps her posts light and talky but she is clearly a good attorney and has a lot to share and I am always happy to see her share her valuable knowledge with us.
In Reason Magazine online, TONY(c) AWARD WINNER IN NEWS Radley Balko hits a home run with this post on the strange case of Julie Amero, the middle school substitute teacher accused of endangering the welfare of minors when X-Rated Popup ads for X-rated websites kept attacking her computer at school and she couldn't or didn't shut it down fast enough for the kiddies not to see (wonder how many of these suburban yuppie kids have the Playboy Channel plugged into their homes on cable?) Anyway, when the techies found out that the poor lady might go to jail because she had malware on her computer they helped her fight back against the puritanical Conn. State's Attorney's office. They won. Balko was a part of that fight. After looking at my stat counter from last week, it seems he is a good guy to have on your side.
As a lawyer who is constantly fighting the fight to keep good people from being labeled sex fiends by Megan Law Crazy prosecutors, in the latest Internet sex persecution, I mean Prosecution, scam, I appreciate the work done in the Amero case by the experts who came to her aid. Read the article. It is a good one.
Prolific blogger and lawyer Robert Ambrogi has put up his list of the Top 10 Expert Witness cases of the Year 2008 here. I would like to add the case of Shorty Rodrieguez where yours truly kept the governments ballistics expert from testifying on "muzzle to wound" Distance in a gun-shot case.
Winning Trial Advocacy Blog has this very good advice about taking time each month to look at your active files and make sure T's are crossed and i's are dotted. It may seem like simple advice but it is a good idea to do a regular file review and see what you have missed or what else you can do on a case. It will certainly impress the clients that you are so up to date on their files.
Last but not least was this macabre and odd little story in Time Magaizine online, about an actor who almost killed himself onstage when someone put a real knife out where the prop should have been a fake knife. In the play the actor slits his throat but this was for real.
People just didn't know it. Scary.
In the actor's next role, his character dies by gunshot wound to the head... as Time suggests, Someone ought to check out that gun first...
Ok most of the leads for these stories come from Twitter. If you are not on Twitter.com, What are you waiting for???" and if you are on Twitter, YOU BEST BE FOLLOWING ME!!! LOL
Announcing The Tony(c) Awards : That Lawyer Dude Honors His Favorite Blogs and Podcasts. Today We Honor The Agitator Blog
Over the course of the next 21 days I will be slowly, tantalizingly rolling out the Tony(c) Awards. Instead of one big post on all my favorites, I do it the way the Nobel Committee does it, over the course of a few days. Why?
1. It gives me a lot of posts and one never knows when I will announce another so maybe I will coerce a few potential winners into reading and commenting on the blog over the last few weeks of the year, and
2. It is my award and I can
Now, less anybody here believe that the (c) is a copyright or that I am laying claim to the Awards that honor Broadway's greatest shows (which btw is a far better show than the Oscars and Grammy's and all the other garbage award shows put together) I am not. It is just that as many of our readership knows I sign off on most of my e-mails with the end TonyC. and since that is my name and my sign off, I thought it would be apt to name these awards that way.
In case anyone is wondering why I of all people should have an award named after me, or better why anyone should care who I think blogged best this year, I will point you to this post by one of my Blogging mentors Dennis Kennedy who each year gives out his Blawggies. (Find it in the 12-26-04 post at the end.)
Now if you don't want to read the blogs I read, or if you think this is a bad idea, or a good idea, give out your own awards and give a link to a deserving blog or blogger.
For my First Tony(c) Award 2008, I am going to give a big Shout out to:(Cue the drum roll please)
The Agitator which is my favorite blog about Politics. If you aren't reading Radley Balko you ought to be. He is intelligent, conservative, and he is controversial without being shrill (Malkin you listening??). Most importantly he is funny. Funny is a good thing. I like a blog that can make me laugh and think at the same time.
So the very First Tony(c) award goes to Cato Institute and Reason Magazine's favorite bad boy The Agitator,and its real life voice Radley Balko.
PS. Help Radley to keep blogging buy the button/magnet shown on the top of this post by clicking here and following the instructions. It only costs a couple of dollars. Come on the kid needs to eat.
Bush and Paulson Impose More Rules on Internet Gaming: They Just Can't Help Themselves Deep Down Inside, They Just Aren't Really Conservatives
Gambling has gotten the Republican Party in trouble before. After all the Jack Abramoff Scandal was all about the Republican lobbyist paying off Republican Congressmen to protect his client's (Indian Casinos) interest. That included curbing Internet gambling.
In the waining moments of the Republican congressional majority the Party bosses and the President passed a law ordering the Treasury to develop rules to ban credit card companies from permitting Americans to place bets on Internet gaming sites. This of course angered Poker players. It is also just not what the majority of Americans want. OTOH it is very popular among Christian Right leaders and the so called Republican base.
Well now that Bush is about to finally go off to that great Presidential Library in the west... Paulson (Treasury Secretary) has promulgated Rules that effectively ban any Internet gambling (except the free kind which is fine for me but not very satisfying for most poker players)from the US.
I haven't the time to rail against the Bush Administration right now, but read about the matter here.
I never thought I would say these words. Rep. Barney Frank is right. (Was that thunder I just heard?) Lord help us when we have to look to the Democrats to enforce our liberties...
In the waining moments of the Republican congressional majority the Party bosses and the President passed a law ordering the Treasury to develop rules to ban credit card companies from permitting Americans to place bets on Internet gaming sites. This of course angered Poker players. It is also just not what the majority of Americans want. OTOH it is very popular among Christian Right leaders and the so called Republican base.
Well now that Bush is about to finally go off to that great Presidential Library in the west... Paulson (Treasury Secretary) has promulgated Rules that effectively ban any Internet gambling (except the free kind which is fine for me but not very satisfying for most poker players)from the US.
I haven't the time to rail against the Bush Administration right now, but read about the matter here.
I never thought I would say these words. Rep. Barney Frank is right. (Was that thunder I just heard?) Lord help us when we have to look to the Democrats to enforce our liberties...
Stuff I Missed Blogging About: Obama, Neo-cons, Smart and Stupid Conservatives.
While I was without a Laptop, and couldn't really post the way I wanted to, a lot occurred. The last week of October and the first week of November of an election year has got to be the worst time of the year to have your laptop stolen. Here is what I would have linked to had I been able to (and a few I can link to in a more timely fashion).
To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster That is the Question
I thought these two posts were interesting. Sen. Kyl has announced his plan to filibuster any Obama judicial nominee that he feels will be too liberal. (I should note that Tomás de Torquemada was too liberal for Kyl.)
With the federal judiciary almost 25% under its need, I might suggest that Kyl be careful about what he filibusters. I wonder how Kyl feels about the fact that the gang of 14 ruined his good time by nixing the "nuclear option" now? Anyway, I think if he intends to tie up the judiciary as it has been tied up over the last 16 years, he think again. I think he has a good chance of destroying the careers of many of the Republican Senators he works with now. He has the ability to filibuster the Republicans into irrelevance.
Here is Johnathan Adler over at Volokh Conspiracy, kind of seeing it the way I do and here is Jerry Merrit at TalkLeft discussing the issue too. Who said I can't be fair and balanced?
No Son, You Can't Watch 'Sesame Street' in Prison."
While reading TalkLeft I also noticed this tidbit about an 8 year old who may have killed his abusive dad...The Police in Arizona think the kid should be charged as an adult. That would expose this 3rd grader to a sentence of life in prison.
You know, I don't remember conservatives being so wasteful or so stupid. No guys, even if an Eight year old knows right from wrong, it should not open him up to prison. In fact, I am not even sure it should be handled in court at all. If he is uncontrollable, he may need to be taken out of the home and placed in a foster care situation that would provide a great amount of supervision, but I don't think it serves the child or the state to warehouse someone for the next 70 years. Who raised the adults calling for adult treatment?? How can their be such a disconnect between the northeast and the southwest and our sensibilities? Arizona has one of the worst records for rehabilitation in the country. What hope would that leave for this child?
Conservatives With Brains.
Patterico Pontifications talks about the Decency of Barack Obama. Patterico, who is a very conservative assistant district attorney in S. California takes the time to really look at the man who ran for and is now the President Elect of the United States of America. It is clear that Obama is a decent if somewhat politically misguided. Patterico recalls all of the things that Obama did throughout the long campaign to try to tone down the rhetoric of the campaign and focus on policies. Patterico suggest that conservatives spend their time focusing on policy issues and bury issues of personality. At least Patterico gets it. America is tired and can ill afford four more years of personality assassination.
On the issue of how the Republicans go from rulers to the minority in two of the three branches of government, a wonderful piece in this week's "Weekly Standard" by P.J. O'Rourke. O'Rourke is a conservative raconteur but he is dead on in his description of the way the conservatives sold out the Regan Mandate by allowing the Neo-conservatives to set and dominate the agenda. My only disappointment is that while playing the story for a laugh, he sometimes falls into the same type of talk that cost the Republicans the Presidency. (Knocking Bill Ayers, John Edwards fidelity, etc.) His description of the Abortion albatross is right on. We need to tone down that rhetoric too and work to overturn Roe to return the issue to the states where it belongs. While we are at it, maybe we should start to find a way to limit the Commerce clause and keep the feds out of state and local issues. In the end thought O'Rourke is absoulutely right "We Blew It".
Not Too Bright Conservatives
Then there is the decision of Elizabeth Dole and her campaign to lie about her opponent's religious practices. Just because one understands the First Amendment and has a extreme view of the separation of Church and State does not mean the person is Godless. The good People of North Carolina took note of the dirty tactic and through Lizzy right out of office... Sorry but it was a deserved defeat. Kay Hagen (Dole's opponent, a Sunday School teacher)was irate, now she is elected.
Hattip: The Agitator
One other cool thing. Friday's blog post was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. That is pretty cool I think.
HatTip: twitter.com/VBalasubramani
More later this week till then follow me on Twitter:http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude
To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster That is the Question
I thought these two posts were interesting. Sen. Kyl has announced his plan to filibuster any Obama judicial nominee that he feels will be too liberal. (I should note that Tomás de Torquemada was too liberal for Kyl.)
Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.
With the federal judiciary almost 25% under its need, I might suggest that Kyl be careful about what he filibusters. I wonder how Kyl feels about the fact that the gang of 14 ruined his good time by nixing the "nuclear option" now? Anyway, I think if he intends to tie up the judiciary as it has been tied up over the last 16 years, he think again. I think he has a good chance of destroying the careers of many of the Republican Senators he works with now. He has the ability to filibuster the Republicans into irrelevance.
Here is Johnathan Adler over at Volokh Conspiracy, kind of seeing it the way I do and here is Jerry Merrit at TalkLeft discussing the issue too. Who said I can't be fair and balanced?
No Son, You Can't Watch 'Sesame Street' in Prison."
While reading TalkLeft I also noticed this tidbit about an 8 year old who may have killed his abusive dad...The Police in Arizona think the kid should be charged as an adult. That would expose this 3rd grader to a sentence of life in prison.
You know, I don't remember conservatives being so wasteful or so stupid. No guys, even if an Eight year old knows right from wrong, it should not open him up to prison. In fact, I am not even sure it should be handled in court at all. If he is uncontrollable, he may need to be taken out of the home and placed in a foster care situation that would provide a great amount of supervision, but I don't think it serves the child or the state to warehouse someone for the next 70 years. Who raised the adults calling for adult treatment?? How can their be such a disconnect between the northeast and the southwest and our sensibilities? Arizona has one of the worst records for rehabilitation in the country. What hope would that leave for this child?
Conservatives With Brains.
Patterico Pontifications talks about the Decency of Barack Obama. Patterico, who is a very conservative assistant district attorney in S. California takes the time to really look at the man who ran for and is now the President Elect of the United States of America. It is clear that Obama is a decent if somewhat politically misguided. Patterico recalls all of the things that Obama did throughout the long campaign to try to tone down the rhetoric of the campaign and focus on policies. Patterico suggest that conservatives spend their time focusing on policy issues and bury issues of personality. At least Patterico gets it. America is tired and can ill afford four more years of personality assassination.
On the issue of how the Republicans go from rulers to the minority in two of the three branches of government, a wonderful piece in this week's "Weekly Standard" by P.J. O'Rourke. O'Rourke is a conservative raconteur but he is dead on in his description of the way the conservatives sold out the Regan Mandate by allowing the Neo-conservatives to set and dominate the agenda. My only disappointment is that while playing the story for a laugh, he sometimes falls into the same type of talk that cost the Republicans the Presidency. (Knocking Bill Ayers, John Edwards fidelity, etc.) His description of the Abortion albatross is right on. We need to tone down that rhetoric too and work to overturn Roe to return the issue to the states where it belongs. While we are at it, maybe we should start to find a way to limit the Commerce clause and keep the feds out of state and local issues. In the end thought O'Rourke is absoulutely right "We Blew It".
Not Too Bright Conservatives
Then there is the decision of Elizabeth Dole and her campaign to lie about her opponent's religious practices. Just because one understands the First Amendment and has a extreme view of the separation of Church and State does not mean the person is Godless. The good People of North Carolina took note of the dirty tactic and through Lizzy right out of office... Sorry but it was a deserved defeat. Kay Hagen (Dole's opponent, a Sunday School teacher)was irate, now she is elected.
Hattip: The Agitator
One other cool thing. Friday's blog post was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. That is pretty cool I think.
HatTip: twitter.com/VBalasubramani
More later this week till then follow me on Twitter:http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude
Just When You Thought It Was Safe
So I was on this blogging roll getting a post out on a somewhat regular basis, and what happens? My laptop gets stolen out of my luggage on a trip to Tampa. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) my ass!! All that garbage at the gates of our airport is Bull hockey. We are no more safe or secure at our airports than we were on September 10 2001.
TSA is a home for crooks and thieves. They now have a license to rifle through our luggage, touch our clothes and tolietries and steal whatever they want. It is such a known fact that no one and I mean no one will insure anything you check... So I had to buy a new laptop and I missed blogging the biggest story in US political history... Well I am back now, wiser about the garbage that is the TSA and I still hate air travel.
I know my libertarian friends will hate me for this but GO AMTRACK!!! Any dollar that the government takes from me to build high speed trains throughout this country is money well spent. At 200 mph We can go from NY to LA in about 24 hours (stopping in Philly, Cleveland Chicago Denver and Vegas)Sign me up!
Follow my friends and I on Twitter: go to http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude
TSA is a home for crooks and thieves. They now have a license to rifle through our luggage, touch our clothes and tolietries and steal whatever they want. It is such a known fact that no one and I mean no one will insure anything you check... So I had to buy a new laptop and I missed blogging the biggest story in US political history... Well I am back now, wiser about the garbage that is the TSA and I still hate air travel.
I know my libertarian friends will hate me for this but GO AMTRACK!!! Any dollar that the government takes from me to build high speed trains throughout this country is money well spent. At 200 mph We can go from NY to LA in about 24 hours (stopping in Philly, Cleveland Chicago Denver and Vegas)Sign me up!
Follow my friends and I on Twitter: go to http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude
Libertarianism Defined: Not Safe for the Kids
Stripper blogger Renegade Evolution has a rather vulgar but very accurate description of why a younger generation is turning away from the Republican Party that chooses Sarah Palin as one of it's standard bearers. RenEv as she calls herself, is not kidding in her reasons or the strength of her belief in liberty. I am not sure the founders would have been able to dream her dream, but I think that any fair reading of the Constitution would agree with the reasons she is drawn to the concept of Liberty. I for one think that the days of the old Republican party are drawing to a close. I think you will soon see a viable third party that takes back the mantel of liberty from both the Democrats and the Republicans. It may not be called the Libertarian party, but it will have as main tenants of its platform a socially liberal fiscally conservative bent. While I have seen these sentiments put more eloquently, this a succinct and simple definition worth the read, for ADULTS ONLY.
Meanwhile, I am headed to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Meeting in Tampa Florida. Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Hopefully I will get a full blog up before the end of the week. I still need to blog about big and little lies and how a good cross-examiner works with them.
Meanwhile, I am headed to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Meeting in Tampa Florida. Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ThatLawyerDude. Hopefully I will get a full blog up before the end of the week. I still need to blog about big and little lies and how a good cross-examiner works with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)