The Journal of Left of Center Thinking

The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul

I have officially taken my last exam in Law School. I graduate in a few weeks. I am now in that haze between classes ending and preparing for the bar. The bar, right now, feels like I’m at the bottom of Everest, looking up.

Does God Trump California?

In what shall drive people on both sides of the issue crazy, the California Supreme Court has decided to take up the Lesbian Fertility Case.

Guadalupe Benitez went to two fertility specialists for artificial insemination. They refused to treat her, because she is a lesbian and not married (she is in a Domestic Partnership). They argued their religious beliefs exempts them from California’s civil rights laws.

And that is the larger issue, one which has been popping up again in again in medicine (and elsewhere): Can people chose not to treat (or serve) people merely because their personal religious views?

It should be noted that, from what I understand, Ms. Benitez chose this clinic because it had contracted with her health insurance provider. Also, the clinic treated her for 11 months before stopping.

Here is the Lambda Legal page on the case.

Attorney-Client Privilege

This is not a particularly new story, but I was listening to KGO (local AM station) last night, and caller after caller denounced the attorneys who kept the privilege.

The argument (condensed) seems to be that the attorneys should have (happily?) accepted disbarment as a price for doing the ‘right thing’ (IE, telling the courts that their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to the crime Mr. Logan was convicted up.)

While it’s nice to say this, and sound so morally superior, the statement shows only a very 1 dimensional thought process. First of all, disbarment (if it occurred at all) is not the only concern. The attorneys client could and I’m sure would sue his counsel for malpractice. So, not only would they be out of their jobs, they would face a civil suit for a good amount of money.

Even then, you might say, ‘moral people’ would still do the right thing. The question comes, then, what next?

The betrayal of the privilege would not get Wilson convicted. The privilege belongs to Wilson, not his attorneys. So, while the attorney could have ignored the privilege, and divulge the information, it would not admissible against Wilson. In addition, and evidence found subsequent to the disclosure could arguable be suppressed.

And, unless Wilson would also have said (Yes, I did it), it is unlikely that the attorney’s statements, alone, would be enough to have gotten Logan out. Think about it: do we really want a system where an attorney, without other proof, could get someone out of jail by saying ‘my client said he did it’. Such a system would be ripe for abuse.

Instead of focusing on the ‘privilege’, I think it might be better to focus on how Mr. Logan was convicted for something he didn’t do. That’s where the problem stems: That Mr. Logan was charged and convicted with evidence that clearly must be erroneous, as we now know (or strongly suspect) that he is not guilt.

Bush’s EPA Kills new emission standards

It has been common practice for the EPA to approve the waiver requested by California. In fact, they have never been denied when seeking stricter rules.

Oh, and the Bush flunkie who made the denial did not wait for the final recommendation by the EPA technical and legal staff. And he went against the recommendation of his own staff.

Annoyed

I’m so tired of people, including the President, suggesting we not ‘jump to conclusions’ and pointing out that a lot of the report is hearsay and other ‘unreliable’ evidence. Yes, in some cases, there probably would not be enough evidence to convict someone. But, when did that become a standard in a report? We have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these things occurred before we can issue a report stating baseball has trouble with steroids?

Please.

I admit

I am not the head of the CIA. In case you were wondering.

However, it seems to me, that if you were being called in front of congress to answer questions about why tapes of a disputed torture technique were destroyed, you might want to inquire about it before attending the hearing.

Yes. I get it. Hayden was not in charge when the tapes were made, or when they were destroyed. That said, he’s head of the friggen CIA. He should be able to find out information.

If I were God

I would have 'insisted' too.

Devil in the details

Chris at Americablog obliquely touches on the really important follow-up question to as Mitt on his ‘based on the numbers of American Muslims in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration’ statement.

Muslims make up about 1 % of the population. Mormons (including Mr. Romney) make up around 2% (according to the 2001 ARIS survey).

So, are we to take it that Mr. Romney doesn’t want any Mormon’s in his cabinet? Or, at the very least, he’ll appoint at least one atheist before a Mormon?

Based on the numbers, of course.

Will somebody please

Find a nice room with soft walls for Rudy?

Don’t let the door hit you

Mr. Lott calls it quits.

Religion Update

The image of the flying spaghetti monster has appeared in a pumpkin pie.

No word on followers setting up a vigil because, alas, the owner of the pie was so overcome by the greatness of the noodley appendage, that he ate the pie. It was deliciously omnipotent.

Ra-men.

Second Amendment Forecasting

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the first second amendment case since 1939. The 1939 case, perhaps not surprisingly, is read as ambiguous, though certainly embracing the ‘well regulated Militia’ language.

My guess is, by the way, the Court will straddle the issue: Embracing the individual right to bear arms, but recognizing the right of the states or congress to impose reasonable restrictions on that right (much like there have been restrictions placed on the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the other clauses of the bill of rights). There will probably be some three part test, to determine the ‘reasonableness’ of the regulation which, itself, will be the focus of lawsuits for years to come?

Why?

Let’s start with the individual right portion. Embracing the individual right view of the second amendment is the least radical approach. Ignoring the make-up of the court for a moment – our society has long embraced the individual’s right to bear arms and for the court suddenly to come in and say ‘Ummm, no. The state holds that right and can do what it likes’, is very unlikely. That would be the only way to embrace the ‘militia’ view of the constitution. You can’t very well say in one breath the second amendment grants power to the states and then, in the next, say but that power is limited by the people.

However, there is no possible way that the Court will simply say ‘It’s and individual right and can’t be restricted’. The logical extension of such a proclamation would make things like rocket-launchers and machine guns fair game for those who want to own them.

Which means, the outright ban on handguns will be tossed, in my opinion. However, I have a feeling the Court will leave room for regulation such as to limit the ownership of handguns.

Universal Warming?

Is mankind speeding up the destruction of the universe? No, it’s not the exhaust of the space shuttle, it’s an odd quirk in quantum theory, but one which has been ‘proven’ on a small scale.

I’m not really concerned with it. I just find this stuff fascinating. Quantum Theory is very much a mixture of magic and science.

Like parallel universes and time travel.

Hmmm, maybe that’s what happened to Michael’s 3 minutes.

O’Really?

Bill: Toby Keith and I are the only famous people who have gone to Afghanistan.

USO: If you don’t count the seven tours we’ve sent this year. And the 12 last year.

Another Day

Another conservative sex scandal.

This one is actually in the 10 commandments: Though shall not covet they neighbors wife.

Or, is there an exception for coveting your brothers wife?