April 23, 2005

Standing me on my head

Kevin Drum took a moment today, to remind me why he’s worth reading. He put up a post about the teacher who altered the pledge from ‘under god’ to ‘Under your belief system’. When the story first started making its way around the blogsphere, I chose not to mention it, because in the whole church/state ten-commandment argument, the pledge issue seems to pale next to the other , and is essentially a loser issue.

Kevin took a different approach:

And so the worm turns. After all, if it's OK for biology teachers to decline to teach evolution and for pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain medications, why shouldn't teachers have the right to modify the pledge for reasons of personal conscience?

It's quite a little rabbit hole we have here, don't we?

He’s right of course. We tend to assume moral objections come from religious groups, but really anyone can have a more objection. If religious groups win the right to not have to follow non-discrimination clauses, then gay groups should not have to hire anyone with religious belief that go against the purpose of that organization. Justices of the peace can feel free not to marry anyone if they feel the marriage is morally objectionable. History teachers can feel free to take the holocaust out of the lessons, sex educations can teach Stork theory, people can feel free not to rent this apartments to anyone they find morally repugnant. Really, there’s no end to the fragmentation of society which could be created.

And all of us can have our own water fountains.

Fair for all!

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 03:47 PM || Link to me || Category:: Freedom, Just Left On

Another reason why judges should not be elected

The judge handling the first scheduled wrongful death trial over the pain reliever Vioxx received $60,000 in campaign contributions last year from political action committees funded by the law firm that filed the suit.
Via CNN
Comments:
Posted by Henry at 11:16 AM || Link to me || Category:: Law, Just Left On

April 22, 2005

Foul Weather Ahead

Is Santorum nuts? I mean, I know he’s nuts, but I mean /really/ nuts? Why else would he be willing to offer a bill which removes the ability of the National Weather Service to provide free weather forecasting – forcing people to use various pay services.

Yes, I know. There’s money to be made. This quote by Barry Muyers (of Accuweather, who apparently is getting a full man-on-man kiss from Santorum with this bill) both amused me and annoyed me:

"The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people's lives and property," said Myers, whose company is based in State College, Pa. Instead, he said, "It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of 'warm and sunny.'"

Now, I’m no meteorologist – but my guess is that ‘Warm and Sunny’ forecasts are products of the same efforts which develop the ‘Run for your Lives!’ forecasts, which Barry seems to thin should be the sole purpose of the NWS. Unless, Barry is suggesting the NWS wait until some dark clouds form and then start to look at the data.

What Barry meant, really, was ‘The NWS is giving away something I want to charge for. And that’s un-American, even though Americans have paid for the service through taxes and my company uses that data to produce the services we charge for.

Which, essentially is what nutty Santorum’s bill provides for. The NWS can’t ‘compete’ with pay services.

Hattip: Kos
Comments:
Posted by Henry at 09:28 AM || Link to me || Category:: Republicans, JustLeft on

April 20, 2005

Bringing Sanity back to Sports

As a relocated-Bostonite (which I mention to avoid charges of Pro NYY bias), I fully support charges against the two knuckles heads who got into it with NYY’s Gary Sheffield last week.

Professional sports is no longer about a ‘game’ any more, and hasn’t been for a while. It’s a business – a big business, and I see no reason why people who behave in ways which – if occurred any where else – would get them arrested, can slide because the behavior happened to occur at a sporting event.

Anytime violence erupts between fans and/or players and fans, there should be a police investigation and charges (if warranted). Each and every time. I think that should extend to the field as well, whenever player to player contact clearly exceeds the norm of the “game”. Bench clearing fights in baseball should be considered crimes – and the instigators should be considered as such.

Spare me the ‘in sports adrenalin/passion runs high’ argument, because its just a diversion. These players make enough money that expecting them to be able to avoid punching someone during the execution of the contractually obligated duties. There are people, I’m sure at your work, which heighten your passions/adrenalin.

You would still get in trouble for popping one of them on the nose.

Comments:

Rick DeMent said (at April 20, 2005 01:20 PM):

WRT the ‘in sports adrenalin/passion runs high’ argument, in the NHL (and my god have mercy on it's soul) fights break out all the time. It's literally a part of the game. In International hockey, there are no fights and even NHL players who are otherwise goons in the NHL never get into fights playing at that level.

So that argument is pure banana oil.

Posted by Henry at 08:32 AM || Link to me || More Thoughts (1) || Category:: Just Misc

Seeing Half the Glass

As Chris correctly notes, I’m sure the MSM and conservative press will be beating the new Gallup poll number which show 57% of Americans favor an Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

What they won’t be trumpeting, I’m guessing, is that 50% of those polled also stated that prefer marriage/civil unions for gay couples over no legal recognition at all.

50%. That’s more people than who currently think GW and Congress are doing a good job, more than who currently think Private Accounts are a good idea, and about twice the number of people who feel neither the wealthy nor corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

So, I’m sure GW will start a 22 state tour to have town meetings about non-marriage legal recognitions for gay couples.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:14 AM || Link to me || Category:: Gay Stuff, Just Left On

April 19, 2005

Foolish Ramblings

Delay Today.

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous

As I’ve laid out before, none of the decisions that conservatives seem angry about actually apply international law. They refer to other countries, but not any more than the courts, in generally, have been doing for a while. (In fact, since our judicial system is based off the English system, many of the early cases relied heavily on cases decided in European courts).

The criticism about doing research on the internet is just bizarre. I’m almost done with year 1 of law school. The first semester we had to do all our research via law books in the library. It was miserable. One book to find cases relating to a topic. Another book to find a specific case. Another book to find if the case is still good law.

Second semstester, we were able to use the dreaded internet via Lexis and Westlaw. Type in search words and you get cases and summaries of law. Another click and you find the history (is it still good law?).

I shudder at the idea of going back to the books.

******Update:

I missed this little DeLay Gem:

"judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," [DeLay] said. "We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."

So, these 'intent of the constitution' proponents are going to suggest that judges who decide the way they don't like, are not serving in good behavior?

That's frightening. Absolutely frightening.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 07:49 PM || Link to me || Category:: Republicans, JustLeft on

Quote of the Day

I get along with God just fine. It's some of his fan clubs that I can't stand.

Anonymous

Comments:

Rick DeMent said (at April 20, 2005 03:26 AM):

Now that's good writing!!!!

Bill Pacer said (at April 24, 2005 09:45 PM):

This quote is very appropos. I am the proud father of Kerry Pacer, who has been battling the White County, GA "Christians" in her effort to start a GSA at her high school They have apparently proclaimed a holy war against a GSA and are willing to ban all extracurricular clubs at the school to prevent a GSA. I wanted to comment on your previous post, but was unable.

As for your note about Kerry being as 'cute as a button," I concur.

I would also suggest you not toss out your 'Kerry for President' tee shirts. My daughter is going to be an activist the rest of her life.

Henry said (at April 25, 2005 07:24 AM):

I’m sure she knows it (With her leadership award and all ),but a lot of people admire her for her standing up in what is a very difficult situation. And, more important than the news and organizations , are the people in the school who are afraid or unable to stand up - who get some strength from seeing someone else do it (and who probably don’t have the support of their family the way Kerry appears to).

Thanks for visiting and I’ll hold onto my Kerry for President materials...

Posted by Henry at 07:43 PM || Link to me || More Thoughts (3) || Category:: Just left of God

Getting to know you: FRC Edition

These are the people hosting Frist for the 'Judical Conference'. get to know them...

Here...

There are judges serving on our courts across this country who are determined to undermine our religious beliefs -- judges who have banned prayer in our schools, the Ten Commandments from our courthouses and let criminals go free because other judges made references to scripture.

And Here...

Religion and specifically Christianity has been under assault by the courts my entire life. Consider the facts: 1962, prayer taken from the schools; 1963, the Lord's Prayer and the reading of Bible passages were banned; 1980, the Ten Commandments stripped from the schools; 1985, a moment of silence banned if students were encouraged to pray. This liberal anti-Christian crusade has come from the courts which have been virtually unaccountable.

And here...

A bizarre story out of California...a 48-year-old man was arrested for suspected elder abuse... About 2 years ago, the mother fell in the kitchen and became disabled. The son fed her and took care of her for about two weeks there on the kitchen floor before she died. The father and the son then left her body there on the kitchen floor and simply stepped over it until it was discovered by authorities ... At least the son gave his disabled and dying mother food and water. That's more than [Schiavo] Judge Greer was willing to do.
Comments:
Posted by Henry at 11:58 AM || Link to me || Category:: The Way Right, Just Left on

As Expected...

The new Pope

In the Vatican, he has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women's ordination...

And More via Kevin Drum

He wrote a letter of advice to U.S. bishops on denying communion to politicians who support abortion rights...He publicly cautioned Europe against admitting Turkey to the European Union and wrote a letter to bishops around the world justifying that stand on the grounds that the continent is essentially Christian in nature.

Via Sullivan

We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." - Pope Benedict XVI
Comments:
Posted by Henry at 09:51 AM || Link to me || Category:: Just left of God

Destroying the Fabric of Society

This is exactly the type of shenanigans that makes the conservatives hate the gay community. Britain has included a gay man as a finalist in a ‘Wonder mum’ award, despite the fact that he’s gay and not a woman.

Apparently someone felt that his work (and that of his partner of 8 years) with foster children (a mere 10) was somehow motherly.

Staff at Asda, Donnington Wood, in Telford, then picked Mr Ryder out from dozens of entries as the man chosen to represent the region for the national Wonder Mum finals in London.

What a sad state of affairs.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 08:24 AM || Link to me || Category:: Gay Stuff, Just Left On

April 18, 2005

Quote of the Day

Scott Today.

John Bolton is exactly the kind of person that we need at the United Nations. He is an effective diplomat who has a proven record of results and so we hope that the Senate will move forward quickly and confirm his nomination. The President appointed him because he believes he's the best person to be our ambassador during these times when the United Nations is talking about reform. And the United Nations needs to move forward on reform

So, there you go.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 12:08 PM || Link to me || Category:: Bush and Co, Just Left On

April 17, 2005

Right to Privacy?

Atrios mentions Griswold as the granddaddy of the right to privacy law, predating Roe and Lawrence in the court’s willingness to recognize a right to privacy.

However, the concept actually predates Griswald by about 75 years (though Griswold may be the first to apply it to so-called sexual privacy). According to American Law Reports, the phrase was introduced in a Harvard Law Review article in 1890, by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis.

That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life--the right to be let alone, the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession-- intangible, as well as tangible.

Indeed, you can trace the right of privacy back, from Griswold (1965) thorough Wolf v. People of the State of Colo. (1949):

To rely on a tidy formula for the easy determination of what is a fundamental right for purposes of legal enforcement may satisfy a longing for certainty but ignores the movements of a free society. It belittles the scale of the conception of due process. The real clue to the problem confronting the judiciary in the application of the Due Process Clause is not to ask where the line is once and for all to be drawn but to recognize that it is for the Court to draw it by the gradual and empiric process of 'inclusion and exclusion.

...and to cases which themselves predate the Warren/Brandies piece, such as Davidson v. City of New Orleans (1877):

But, apart from the imminent risk of a failure to give any definition which would be at once perspicuous, comprehensive, and satisfactory, there is wisdom, we think, in the ascertaining of the intent and application of such an important phrase [Due Process] in the Federal Constitution, by the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the cases presented for decision shall require, with the reasoning on which such decisions may be founded.

The right to privacy, as known by that name is certainly not written into the constitution. The underlying concepts, however, have existed since the constitution was written (and before that) in laws surrounding the protection of person, property, and (if you will) spirit. The courts have long recognized that, as society evolves, the courts will need to establish what rights are fundamental under Due Process.

Conservatives focus on the sexual / reproductive privacy rights the courts have carved out, but the right to privacy is much broader in scope, and the removal of such a right would have impact far beyond whether or not two guys are free to have sex in the privacy of their own home.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 02:25 PM || Link to me || Category:: Law, Just Left On
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2