The Journal of Left of Center Thinking :: March 27, 2005 - April 02, 2005

DeLay Presses assult on the Courts

A few days after threatening the courts with retribution, DeLay has requested the Judicial Committee look into the 'failings' of the State and Federal Courts in the Shiavo case.

Once again, it's important that you understand the 'failure' essentially means, decided a case in a manner which I did not agree. 6I certainly think the dozens of hearings in all levels of the court systems (state, federal, and Supreme) would suggest they didn't 'fail' in their duty, rather DeLay doesn't like the outcome.

For those of you keeping score, the desire to silence the judicial branch is nothing new. However, it appears DeLay is going to use the conservative furor over the Schiavo case to try and get it done.

Short of a constitutional amendment, though, I'm not sure what can he is expecting. As I understand it, the federal government really has no control over the state judiciaries, again with the exception of an constitutional amendment, which would be binding.

Certainly, the congress can alter what Federal Courts have subject jurisdiction over, but for a change to have been affected in this case, it seems they would have to alter how 'superior' courts treat cases from the inferior courts. It seems unlikely that they would be able to toss out 200+ years of judicial procedure - which I think is what they would need to have done in order for the outcome to have been different judicially.

They have little to no power (again, save an amendment) over the Supreme Court. Yes, I'm sure the whole specter of 'The Judicial branch has no army' will be raised, but I think it would extract a terrible price politically on DeLay if he advocated having the US intervene in cases like this, and ignore court orders. And he must surely know that.

So, what is all of this? More posturing for the rabid right base of the GOP, or is Delay seriously hoping to alter the judicial process in the United States because he disagrees with the outcome?

Update:

The Constitution would probably allow congress to remove the 'living will' cases from Federal Jurisdiction, though in the Shiavo case they passed a (limited) law which did exactly the opposite. They can't, however, dictate how the courts can decide the case. And, if they did remove JX from the federal courts, the case would rest in State courts - which decided against Schiavo's parents just like the federal courts did.

Understand something, if you really believe this is a case of judicial activism or judicial elitism, you are saying that all the courts involved were activists and elitist. The state court at various levels, and the Federal Courts at various levels. In order to change this, you would need to be suggesting a complete overhaul of the US Judicial system - nothing else would have made a difference in this case.

DeLay Presses assult on the Courts

A few days after threatening the courts with retribution, DeLay has requested the Judicial Committee look into the 'failings' of the State and Federal Courts in the Shiavo case.

Once again, it's important that you understand the 'failure' essentially means, decided a case in a manner which I did not agree. 6I certainly think the dozens of hearings in all levels of the court systems (state, federal, and Supreme) would suggest they didn't 'fail' in their duty, rather DeLay doesn't like the outcome.

For those of you keeping score, the desire to silence the judicial branch is nothing new. However, it appears DeLay is going to use the conservative furor over the Schiavo case to try and get it done.

Short of a constitutional amendment, though, I'm not sure what can he is expecting. As I understand it, the federal government really has no control over the state judiciaries, again with the exception of an constitutional amendment, which would be binding.

Certainly, the congress can alter what Federal Courts have subject jurisdiction over, but for a change to have been affected in this case, it seems they would have to alter how 'superior' courts treat cases from the inferior courts. It seems unlikely that they would be able to toss out 200+ years of judicial procedure - which I think is what they would need to have done in order for the outcome to have been different judicially.

Yes, I'm sure the whole specter of 'The Judicial branch has no army' will be raised, but I think it would extract a terrible price politically on DeLay if he advocated having the US intervene in cases like this, and ignore court orders. And he must surely know that.

So, what is all of this? More posturing for the rabid right base of the GOP, or is Delay seriously hoping to alter the judicial process in the United States because he disagrees with the outcome?

Crazy Delay

Today.

Wonder if that means the Supreme Court as well.

Fiery Animal-y Conservative Rhetoric

Will they stoop to any low to decry gay marriage and force me to look things up? The latest person to try my patience and test my google ability is Jim Welker, Republican state representative in Colorado.

Well, first of all, I'm surprised that he was looking to other countries for clues to US law, as that seems to be the stuff conservatives hate. Buy, yes, a 'woman' in India married a dog. Well, if by woman you mean '9 year old', and after 'Married' you stick on 'as part of a ritual to war off an evil omen (She had a tooth rooted to her upper gum - whatever that means).

Alas, Mr. Welker seemed to miss out on the fact that the tribal elders, who urged the marriage, have said she is free to marry a man later in life, without t the need of a divorce. Which certainly smacks of Utah-style polygamy to me.

When pressed on how this one incident may not be completely relevant to the gay marriage debate, Mr. Welker would not be swayed. He had another bestial ace up his sleeve.

Which is true. Well, if by a 'few years ago' you mean 1975. And, if you are willing to admit that was an anti-gay marriage stunt. "NO!", I hear you cry. "Gay Marriage wasn't thought of in 1975!". Wrong! In 1975, two men went into a a clerk's office and asked for a marriage license. At the time, there were no gender requirements ion the law, so the clerk issued one. As a protest, the horse- marry-er got a parade permit to bring his horse to get his marriage license. (If he wanted to be really cutting edge, he should have brought a 'male' horse, but one thing at a time).

The request was denied, because the law did say 'people' and, even if it hadn't, the horse was only 8 and would have needed her parent's permission.

In the same press conference, another Republican, Keith King, said banning gay marriage might might help prevent crime and other social problems in Colorado.

When pressed for what kinds of crimes or social problems would be prevented, King said 'The gay kind'.

Well, Okay, I made that last line up. The rest of it is all true. Well, no, it's all lies.

But, it is really what they said.

Picture Perfect Planet

There's been a few accomplishments in extra-solar-planet imaging, but they've allegedly finally been able to directly photograph one. Well, as 'direct' as any photograph of distant space objects can be.

Terri Schiavo passes away

Hopefully, her family can find some peace now.

Lawyer responsibility and Shiavo case

I've been thinking a lot about the role of the Shiavo's lawyer, and the responsibility lawyers have to their clients. Before I get too far in, though, since I'm discussing a lawyer let me get the legal disclaimer out of the way:

I am not privy to any of the discussions between the Schindler's and their lawyer. What is being discussed here are hypothetical questions I think the case raises. The discussion is not meant to imply that the lawyer in the case has not done or has failed to do anything he should have, or in any other way has acted improperly.

I'm curious, though, when it becomes the Lawyer's responsibility to advise the Shindler's that further legal options are not in their best interest. Certainly, the final choice is up to the Schindler's and if they state they want to keep going, regardless, then that's what the lawyer needs to do. A lawyer is your advocate.

On the other hand, they are also supposed to be your advisor. They are supposed to advise you what's best, which isn't always what you want. I feel bad each time I hear that they've re-filed an appeal, because I'm 90% certain that the appeal will fail, and I know they the pin all their hopes, only to see them dashed again and again.

Yes, certainly, the involvement of congress all but necessitated refilings on the federal level and, I think, appeal that decision. After that, though, with no other real changes of law, they went back to the state, and again to the federal level, and again for the Supreme Court, all of which have rejected them.

At this point I think that if I were there lawyer I would advise them that they were almost certainly just wasting their time and, most importantly, getting their hopes up for nothing. I've lost count, but courts on all levels - federal, state, and supreme have rejected arguments to have them intervene at least twice, sometimes in just the last few weeks.

Preying on Debt

The fun thing about America is that every thing which is developed to try and help people, can be turned around and used to make a quick buck. The FTC stepped in and shut down a bunch of fraudulent 'credit counseling' businesses, including one who advised the clients to pay the counseling company the money they should have paid their creditors yet made no intervention on the behalf of those people. So, their rates shot up and late fees built up while the companies .

My question is why were there no criminal charges brought? It seems like these companies weren't even forced to disgorge all the profits - just some of the profits, and some of the businesses shut down. With all the work congress sis doing to protect companies from us deadbeats consumers, where is the government protections of consumers.

Heal thyself

Remember the 'small businesses' that Bush was so worried about when he worked to pass the latest tax breaks? The ones who's significant tax burden was stymieing job creation? Apparently, they've been taking care of the problem on their own.

I'm sure now that the tax burden was lessened, they've been accurate in reporting their income.

Do As we Say...

What Do George Bush, Tom Delay, and Rick Santorum have in common. I mean in addition to voting for tort reform? They all benefited from tort law suits.

Delay and his family, the least offensive example, sued the maker of a coupling, which failed, fatally injuring Delay's father.

On the other hand, Santorum's wife got 350K for back problems from a chiropractor, apparently not concerned with the effect it would have on the doctor's malpractice insurance premiums. Santorum, who pointed out that he wasn't party of the lawsuit, testified that he was worried his wife wouldn't be able to campaign for him. So, at least his hear was in the right place.

Bush, in typical Bush style, could have been an example used to argue for tort reform. When a non-licensed driver in a rental car struck his daughter, causing no injuries and around 2,500 dollars worth of damage - they sued Enterprise for renting the car to the guy.

Double Edged Sword II

I meant to post this last week, but for a second time the Ohio Marriage amendment was cited by a judge in disallowing that state's domestic violence law to be used in cases of violence between unmarried couples.

LGBT activists spent a lot before the measure pointing out the amendment would cause things like this to occur. 'Nonsense', said the people sponsoring the amendments.

The LGBT activists hope that the effect the amendment has on common-law married couples will cause people to rethink it, but I'm not too convinced. Aside from criminal laws, which they will get the legislature to tweak individually, the people who promoted the amendment don't /want/ common-law benefits to go to unmarried couples. Penalties are okay.

God Help Us

The Colorado Supreme Court has overturned a death penalty sentence because jurors looked up and discussed biblical passages to determine God's position. The court said that it was enough that only 1 person could have been swayed, as the vote for the death sentence was 3-2.

Of course, people are seeing this as an all-out attack on the bible. Gov. Bill Owens said the ruling was "demeaning to people of faith and prevents justice from being served." This morning, octogenarian pause-reporter Paul Harvey observed, "So, in our country it's against the law to seek God's guidance."

No, in our country we have a rule of law that is, much the apparent chagrin of many people, distinct from religious texts. And, as a jury, you are obligated to use man's law in determining the guilt and punishment. The ironic part here, for all the hand wringing over this guy who has now 'escaped' the death penalty, is that if they had managed to avoid the temptation of using the bible, they probably would have come to the same conclusion and the sentence would not have been overturned.

Double Edged Sword

One of the interest side effects of the sometimes schizophrenic way society is treating gay couples is the way that these couples can be held to certain 'responsibilities' as a couple, but not others.

For example, in CA where the domestic partnership law is now pretty darn close to marriage, if you register you assume the debts of the other, and property becomes community property. That means that if you dissolve your partnership and get half of his stuff, you will have to pay taxes on that as it is not considered a transfer the way married couples property is when they get divorced. That's assuming, if your partner and you split up, and he owned the bulk of the $$, he doesn't try and move across the border to AZ, and claim that the DP is not valid there.

If the couple has a child, they will automatically be considered parents in CA, but that status is subject to change if, say, you take the child on a cross-country trip. This wouldn't seem to be a huge deal, unless your child is hurt in, say, a red state.

On the other hand, you do get a cool laser printed certificate signed by the secretary of state.