April 02, 2004
Go Go Gadget Expansion Of Investigative Scope!
Investigators in the Valerie Plame case have broadened their scope. Don't worry, though, I'm sure there's an explanation in the Insta-sphere wherein this is a good thing, or at least not bad.
Honor. Dignity. Over there. We've got Jell-o Wrestling Tuesdays (this week: Gail Veneman vs. Rod Paige in the Brawl For It All!) and obstruction of justice. It wasn't the outing of the secret agent - it was the lies!!!
Well, in this case, it was actually both...damn. Let's hear it for higher ethical standards!
March 29, 2004
Espionage
Well, someone's stolen John Kerry's FBI files.
Nicosia reported the theft Friday to the Twin Cities Police Department, which covers Larkspur and Corte Madera in Marin County, where he lives. The police report found no sign of forced entry.
"It was a very clean burglary. They didn't break any glass. They didn't take anything like cameras sitting by. It was a very professional job," Nicosia said.
Let the conspiracy-theorizing begin. (And the not-so-conspiratorial theorizing.)
March 24, 2004
I Done Got God In My Coffee
This line from Bill Murchison just made me laugh out loud:
Back when the thing was written?
The rest of the article is less funny, but still amusing in that "Jesus God don't leave me now!" kinda way. I love the melancholy parochial waxing for national homogeneity that undergirds all of these arguments, though - and this line, which unintentionally supports Newdow's position:
This brings up a point that I've been wondering about - where did the state or the courts get the right to tell us whether we're one nation under God? Neither of them are religious entities, as provided for in the aforementioned Constitution.*
*Edited for clarity.
March 22, 2004
That Ass-Kicking Will Be 20 Quid, Mate
Via Philosoraptor, what happens when the government decides that you need to pay for their mistakes - literally.
Blunkett’s fight has been described as “outrageous”, “morally repugnant” and the “sickest of sick jokes”, but his spokesmen in the Home Office say it’s a completely “reasonable course of action” as the innocent men and women would have spent the money anyway on food and lodgings if they weren’t in prison. The government deems the claw-back ‘Saved Living Expenses’.
This is, in part, in response to people who spent as many as 25 years in prison for crimes they didn't commit - and now have to pay for the privilege. This isn't just wrong - it's demeaning to human life. If you don't want to spend the money wrongly imprisoning someone - here's a novel idea! - don't wrongly imprison people.
Wow
Wow. Just, wow:
...
According to the Bush administration, which is defending the pledge, its recitation is no more a religious act than pocketing a coin imprinted with "In God We Trust." The administration's brief says both are simply patriotic acknowledgments of "the nation's religious history" and of the "undeniable historical fact that the nation was founded by individuals who believed in God," an empirical statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and state.
I mean wow, guys. Really. Wow.
February 23, 2004
More Junk
The next bill down the pike: We Have No King But Jesus Act of 2004.
My favorite part is this bit:
Any decision of a Federal court which has been made prior to or after the effective date of this Act, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act, is not binding precedent on any State court.
So, basically, we can throw out large portions of federal case law and interpretation because it was made legally but wouldn't be legal under a law that didn't exist when the case was decided. In addition, there's no such thing as the Establishment Clause:
Well, I take that back - there's just no Establishment Clause for the Supreme Court.
Do this many weird-ass proposals normally come down the pike this rapidly, and we just don't hear about them?
February 20, 2004
Installation At No Extra Charge
Bush has installed William Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, over the Senate's wishes.
Between this and the fact that I just watched Hudson Hawk, I need a stiff drink.
February 07, 2004
Just Show Up, They'll Do The Rest
This is...disturbing.
Federal officials have refused to say why they want information about the conference, the legal group that hosted it and four Des Moines-area peace activists involved.
But officials with the National Lawyers Guild, host of the Nov. 15 conference, said they intend to move Monday to block the subpoena, one of five delivered this week by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.
I used to have arguments with conservative friends of mine about the need for openness and transparency in the legal process, and how laws like the PATRIOT Act undermine the basic spirit of the American legal system. The response was almost universally, "If you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." (This from people who support tort reform.)
That line presumes that we have a perfectly functioning justice system, and that the innocent will always be able to mount a persuasive and ultimately successful defense against accusations. Even though this investigation isn't necessarily under the PATRIOT Act, it still highlights the error in that line of thinking - these groups are being investigated under a grand jury, with no clue as to what they're being investigated for. How can innocence rise to the surface when the accused has no idea what they're innocent or guilty of?
February 05, 2004
So I Creep...Yeah, Yeah
I'm torn about this idea.
I've done computer repair before, and I always made the utmost effort to stay out of people's files unless I absolutely needed to look at them (for instance, if your Microsoft Word won't work, I might look in the registries and install folders for the program). My job was to make a computer work, not to look at what you're using it for. I was told, very strictly, not to discuss what I found on anyone's computer if I discovered anything, unless it was actively illegal (for instance, suppose in the course of making your Microsoft Word work, your last document popped up, and they were plans to kill the president - that, I'd report).
On the other hand, whenever I've taken my computer in to be repaired, I obsessively remove anything on my computer that's even remotely personal. Because, although I don't think it's ethical to look at what's on someone else's computer...it's certainly not illegal if the computer was given to you, and I don't trust people I don't know not to invade my privacy.
But, I have problems giving my computer to someone who's going to be performing an extensive FBI check on it, particularly when the guidelines are likely to be looser than I might like. I have thousands of MP3s on my computer - but they're all from CDs I own (seriously!). The ACLU has this right: what the FBI is asking for is a fishing expedition, pure and simple.
This oversteps the boundary of asking computer repair shop owners and workers for help in investigating specific cybercrimes to asking them to investigate all of their customers as if they already were criminals. This, to me, steps over the line, particularly since the suggestion appears to be that it's okay to look for files you wouldn't normally find in the course of your repair work.
I suppose a way to ameliorate this would be for repair people to draft an agreement with each customer that would either allow or prohibit access to software as well as hardware. I'm not sure entirely how it would work, but I'm simply not comfortable with the idea that bringing my system in for a hardware cleaning could result in me being investigated for music piracy.
January 26, 2004
If You Vote Democrat, You're a Criminal
Phyllis Schlafly has taken time out of living in the 50's to reveal the Democratic strategy Democrats didn't know they had;
The nation's 4 million convicted felons could be enough to swing the November election. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic if they could, so felons are a voting bloc that Democrats are just itching to harvest.
But Phyllis isn't content with simply omitting facts. Nope, she accuses Democrats of attempting to subvert the legislative process by using activist judges to give felons voting rights. This is patently ridiculous. First, she equates Democrats with organizations like the ACLU, suggesting that they're working on our behalf (if they were, they'd never have helped Sean Hannity sue his college), then she suggests the lawsuits are part of an electoral strategy. Suits such as these will not be settled without many appeals and high court decisions. As such, there is no possible way that the lawsuits would lead to voting rights for felons in 2004. There will be stays, appeals and injunctions that keep these wars from being won far into the future. Unless, of course, Bush expands his political courtship of these groups and pushes legislation granting them voting rights. After all, they seem key to his 2004 electoral strategy.
Civil Liberties Holla Back Two Times
Part of the Patriot Act was declared unconstitutional.
In response, George W. Bush has said that we need to stop allowing activist judges on the bench - he'd never heard of these "Amendment" whatsits before.
“The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature,” the judge said.
I'm all full of nummy patriotic goodness right now. Anyone got a flag for me to sign?
January 23, 2004
Sturm Und Drang
Remember when Congress repealed conflict of interest laws?
Well, damn, neither do I.
In a letter to Rehnquist, Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut asked the chief justice to tell them what "canons, procedures and rules" are in place to determine when justices should recuse themselves from cases.
Good for Joe in particular. Of course, as we learned in 2000, having presidential campaigns pay the salary of immediate family members isn't a reason to recuse oneself from a case that could decide a presidential election, so what's a little sojurn between friends?
I'm not worried. Antonin Scalia and Dick Cheney are two of the most principled men I've ever met.
Over The Edge
This parody/dialogue/brain squeezin', courtesy of Meghan Cox Gurdon Blanchmorton Crescentop is enough to make me want to convict Martha Stewart right now.
What's really fucked up about Gurdon is that she seems to think that Stewart, who embodies monied indolence and cluelessness, somehow manages to offend the person who flies to Paris for bedsheets, likes urine-stained art and listens to hip-hop. The complaint is utterly nonsensical - "I'm a snobbish, modern elite, just like you, who is angry that you talk down to normal people, of which I am not one. Therefore, as a part of a remarkably small number of people, I am driving public opinion on you, as set to Jay-Z's Black Album." Apparently, every domestic caretaker in America is a part of a bling-bling elite.
Hey, maybe that's why Bush is supporting this marriage act! Every married couple gets a bottle of Hennessy and a framed 2x2 image of a colonoscopy framed by ripped-up dollar bills, just like Christ intended.
January 19, 2004
Supremely Ideological
Apparently, there's a big study underway trying to discern whether or not judges are political. Are there decisions motivated by enlightened jurisprudence or mere ideology?
I don't know what the study will find, but the most amazing thing I saw during my Con Law class was how easy it was to predict how any given judge would fall on any issue. Cases that had political or ideological dimensions were almost always decided based upon the judge's ideology and, it seemed to me, the legal reasoning was created in such a way to justify the judge's decision, the decision didn't come from the reasoning. It was like watching a mathematician decide on an answer and then construct an equation.
I assume that the study will find discrepancies, i.e judges appointed by conservatives who ended up being very liberal, and vice versa. But I think this has to do with the judge having a personal evolution in his ideology, it doesn't mean that the judge is not making his rulings based upon his ideology. It does not mean that judges aren't political.
January 16, 2004
What About The Kids?
Bush appoints Charles Pickering in a recess appointment.
Well, oddly enough, he just took care of 25% of Senate Democratic "obstructionism". Bold step.
January 12, 2004
Don't Ask, Won't Show
Talkleft is not going to be happy when they read this story:
The justices let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court, which concluded last June that the Justice Department was within its rights when it refused to release the names of more than 700 people, most of them Arabs or Muslims, arrested for immigration violations in connection with the attacks.
December 29, 2003
Balk!
Nice little story on how federal judges are beginning to balk at the Bush Administration's requests in the War On Some People Who Commit Some Terror.
The thing about the PATRIOT Act(s) and the various chestpuffery from the Bush folks is that I wouldn't trust anybody with the powers they claim they have. If Abraham Lincoln came back to life and won the Presidency next year, I still wouldn't want him to have access to PATRIOT Act powers. (Which sounds remarkably cartoonish, I know. The greatest Presidents in history...now with PATRIOT POWERS!!!.)
That the people who determine the constitutionality and legality of laws are finally standing up and reinforcing those qualities is the awesome.
(Yes, I know Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and that virtually any president I put in there would have similar concerns about them, from Washington to Clinton. That's the point.)
Yes Virginia, There Is A Different Legal Philosophy
Concerned Women for America (Women Who Haven't Liked Women Since 1934!) goes off on the 9th Circuit yet again, even deigning to list some wacky "liberal" decisions!
The "reversal rate" rant is itself a bit of a canard. I've posted on this before, but here's a map of the Federal District Court system. The first thing you'll notice is that the Ninth Circuit is HUGE. The total population of the region (using 2000 Census estimates) is 55.5 million people, or nearly 20 percent of the nation's population - not including Guam or the Mariana Islands. The Eighth District, which is second to the Ninth in terms of number of states, has 19.3 million people in it - only 35% of the population. The 6th is probably the second-most populous, and it has only slightly over 30 million people in its jurisdiction. It also deals with wide swaths of two international borders, immigration from three major areas (Canada, Mexico, and Asia), the world's fifth-largest economy, and a variety of other attendant geographical, social, cultural, economic and political issues.
This article on the nature of the 9th Circuit's relation to the USSC also sheds some light on the reversal rate - namely that the composition of the Circuit leads to a judicial philosophy that differs from the Supreme Court, but is still valid (the unusual longevity of the Rehnquist Court doesn't track with the ongoing yearly fluctuation in lower courts, hence differences in the legal philosophies of those appointed by Democrats vs. Republicans).
"The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in America" is a blindly ideological statement, based more in contextless blathering than actual fact. But goddamn, is it handy!
It's a part of an ongoing conservative appeal to power...which is completely contradictory to their stated political philosophy, but when they have the power, they make the rules. In these times, we must bow to the wisdom and authority of those in charge, and let them make the decisions for us. Mainly because they're going to be the decisions that conservatives like.
December 23, 2003
December 22, 2003
Integgerty and Honisty
How successful are we at fighting terror? Really?
Probably not as successful as you've been led to believe.
In fact, he was guilty of paying off a corrupt bureaucrat to get a commercial driver's license, including a permit to transport hazardous materials. His sentence: three years' probation.
But the terrorism case against him never got off the ground. Prosecutors soon realized he was not a terrorist or involved in any terrorist organization, and even said so publicly.
To the Justice Department, however, Alubeidy, and a group of 19 other Middle Eastern men caught up in the driver's license scam, still count. They are included on a list of more than 280 cases that the department cites as evidence that it is winning the war on terrorism.
John Ashcroft - the man so blessed with the gift of fighting terrorism that you become a terrorist just because he thinks about it. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt until I found out that one of the victories in the war on terrorism was holding Shareef Abdur-Rahim to seven points on 3-of-16 shooting.
That's just sad.
December 18, 2003
Score One for Freedom
In a rare civil rights victory today, a high court ruled that the Government could not detain American citizens, captured on American soil, as enemy combatants.:
The decision, which ordered that Padilla be released from military custody within 30 days, could force the government to try the "dirty bomb" plot suspect in civilian courts. The White House said the government would seek a stay.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization.
More Ignorance, Please
In today's NRO, Jennifer Roback Morse writes about the problem of the infertile couple in attempting to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage.
Oh, and she fails miserably, but I think you figured that out - why else would I be talking about it?
As a matter of fact, the law, at least the law of divorce, tacitly recognizes a difference between divorcing couples with or without children.
However, since the law doesn't consider a couple with children any more married than a couple without children, but instead simply a couple with more complicated legal arrangements, the point it moot.
Good, because that was as irrelevant as all hell.
Let me run the bullshit extractor over this.
bzztKATHUNKbzzzzzzzt...
Okay, how's this sound:
Better? Or at least clearer?
Skipping ahead past the anecdotal tale of her and her husband's own infertility, in which she basically states that she couldn't love her husband as a man, as a spouse or as a father if she had sperm donated...
Okay, we won't skip past the whole thing.
Oh, to be young and married to someone who won't stop spouting off pithy pop-psychiatric rationales about pregnancy at every waking moment...
God, is this the woman to lecture the rest of us on healthy marriage, or what? There's nothing like viewing the man with whom you've decided to spend the rest of your life and who will act as the father of your child as an emasculated bank account.
Truly, this is what love is.
Something is wrong with you and you should go to Someone who is a Professional to find out what that Something is before you get in a relationship with Anyone.
Anyway, the Morses adopt, and all is happy:
Wading through the bullshit...
bzztKATHUNKbzzzzzzzt...
They actually love each other now, and their marriage is directed towards that, in no small part because she just shut her fat yap after they adopted. This, of course, means homosexual marriage should be illegal.
The natural purposes of sexuality exist independently of our wishes or definitions. It is no disrespect to infertile couples to say so. Indeed, they are more painfully aware of it than most married couples. Yet the natural, organic reality of marriage is still open to them. A lifetime of self-giving, fruitful love has a life-transforming power of its own.
Keep in mind that this woman has given no coherent definition of what "self-giving, fruitful love" is besides adopting a kid because you're infertile and having a good marriage. Why should homosexuals be barred from marriage?
The only reason to have sex is to have kids, even if you can't have kids. But if you can't have kids, you're still allowed to have sex, because you understand. Even if you don't.
It's time for me to go have some self-giving, love-inducing lunch, followed by a fruitful, life-transformingly powerful nap.
December 16, 2003
Redistricting II - The Switchup
A professor who was a former redistricting expert for the Republicans in Texas has turned against the GOP plan, saying that it "goes too far and stacks the deck against minorities and Democrats."
He's not getting a Christmas card from the White House this year.
December 15, 2003
The War On All People Who Are Around Some People Who Use Some Drugs
The Supreme Court just keeps on rollin', handing down a decision that potentially makes everyone in a car legally liable if illegal drugs are found in the car.
Rehnquist said police had probable cause to suspect that passenger Joseph Jermaine Pringle knew that there was $763 in the glove compartment and five baggies of cocaine in an armrest in the backseat.
An appeals court had thrown out Pringle's drug conviction and 10-year prison sentence on grounds that his arrest violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches or seizures.
You know, this may not stop anyone from hotboxing their Dodge Omni...but it sure as hell is going to persuade me to get a taxi if I ever get offered a ride by a guy named Stoner.
Via commenter Andy, the facts of the case, which shine a different (and less invasive) light on the case.
December 11, 2003
The Worst Decision Of All Time Ever In The History Of Infinity
I'm going to be a man and face up to the fact that I was wrong with the initial version of this post. I misunderstood this as a fight over different provisions than what it was actually discussing, the assumption that we were still fighting over the old "money=speech" saw (which I don't believe is true, but this tackles an entirely different issue).
I'm sorry for insulting whoever it is that runs the Spoons Experience (I can't call another person "Spoons", sorry), and others who oppose this ruling. The furthest-reaching effects of this are incredibly wrong, and overstep the boundary from regulating the effect of money on campaigns to simply prohibiting speech with regards to campaigns - it's a different issue than I thought it was, and for that, I apologize.