Federal Judge Declares Voting "Unconstitutional"

"In any voting situation," stated the judge Ty Rant, "there is inherently the chance voters might vote for something our elites do not favor. As our elites must be catered to in every particular, being that they are better than the hoi polloi, voting must be considered outmoded and something we have progressed beyond."

Judge Sonia Sotomayor immediately signaled her acceptance of judge Rant's opinion.

Good News (A Rare Feature)

Here is something of a counter cultural result these days; the powers that be don't actually win all the time.

A federal jury today found former Valdosta State University (VSU) President Ronald M. Zaccari personally liable for $50,000 for violating the due process rights of former student Hayden Barnes in the case of Barnes v. Zaccari. In May 2007, Zaccari expelled Barnes for peacefully protesting Zaccari's plan to construct two parking garages on campus, calling a collage posted by Barnes on his personal Facebook page a "threatening document" and labeling Barnes a "clear and present danger" to VSU. Barnes first came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help in October 2007.

"College administrators have been blatantly and willfully violating student rights for decades, but they have far too often dodged personal responsibility. Not so today," said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "We hope this serves as a much-needed wake up call to college administrators that it's time to start paying close attention to the basic rights of their students."

"After five years, I finally feel vindicated. This is a victory for me but it's also a victory for students everywhere," said Barnes. "I hope that other college administrators take heed and see that violating students' rights can be costly and that they will be held accountable. I thank my legal team and FIRE for making this victory possible and my friends and family for standing by me through this difficult fight."

Barnes' ordeal began in the spring of 2007, when he protested Zaccari's plan to construct two new parking garages on campus at a cost of $30 million. By posting flyers and sending emails to Zaccari, student and faculty governing bodies, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Barnes expressed his concerns and proposed what he saw as environmentally friendly alternatives. Barnes also penned a letter to the editor of the VSU student newspaper about the proposed parking garage plans and wrote to Zaccari to ask for an exemption from the mandatory student fee designated for funding the construction.

In response to Barnes' activism, Zaccari personally ordered that he be "administratively withdrawn" from VSU in May of 2007, ignoring the concerns raised by members of his administration. Zaccari absurdly claimed that Barnes presented a "clear and present danger" to both Zaccari and the VSU campus on the basis of a cut-and-paste collage Barnes had posted on his Facebook page that included pictures of Zaccari, a parking deck, and the caption "S.A.V.E.—Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage." Given no notice or opportunity to defend himself, Barnes came to FIRE for help in October 2007. 

Today's verdict follows five years of litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels.

All too often university administrators, particularly at the uppermost levels, act as if they were tin pot dictators because most times there is no one able or willing to hold them accountable for their misdeeds. Cases like this can serve an important reminder that state-run colleges and universities are not personal fiefdoms to be run any way they damn well please, nor are students and faculty second-class peasants without Constitutional rights.

Who knows, maybe they will learn the lesson.

(Okay, I realize they will not but a man can dream, can't he?)

Why The Democratic Party Simply Is Not An Option For Me

From The Volokh Conspiracy:

The Supreme Court today issued a unanimous decision in favor of the property owners in the important case of Sackett v. EPA... Justice Alito’s concurring opinion includes a particularly clear description of what was at stake:

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.

While it is heartening to see none of the Supremes could sign off on this situation, it is still disturbing that the position of the Obama Administration, and thus the Democratic party as a whole, was in favor of unfettered power for the Federal Government without even the option of judicial review.

It's indefensible because it is tyrannical, and until the Democratic party accepts the notion that Washington needs to have some (any) limits on its power, even in its pursuit of Democratically anointed goals, they are a non-starter for me.

Why Is Paterno Being Singled Out?

All I'm saying on this matter is this: Joe Paterno, by all published accounts, did not witness any wrongdoing by anyone. Merely being told of the allegation by the actual witness does not shift the burden away from the witness and onto Paterno.

That being the case I have to wonder if the outrage (if such it is) is being directed at Paterno at the behest of his enemies. And make no mistake, Paterno has enemies, alumni and boosters who have been campaigning behind the scenes for his dismissal for more than a decade.

Just saying.

UPDATE:

I see the lynch mob has been successful. Oh, happy day. After all everyone knows hounding an innocent 84 year old man out his job makes the pain of child rape go away.

"No One But Us Non-Bigots Here"

Head shaking time:

An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to PJI...

“The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking,” City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.

Got that? So, if you want to hold weekly "readings" where you and 49 guests "discuss" Gary Regan's The Bartender's Bible: 1001 Mixed Drinks, well, there is nothing the city can do about it. Have fun. However, if you instead discuss the actual bible, well, then you are a "church" and can be regulated by the city as such.

Sorry folks, but this doesn't pass the smell test.

Only an anti-religious bigot would be okay with this.

Another Fine Whine

US eco-activist jailed for two years

An activist who became a hero to campaigners for disrupting a Bush administration auction for the oil and gas industry with $1.8m (£1.1m) in bogus bids was sentenced to two years in prison on Tuesday....

At a vigil outside the Salt Lake City courtroom where sentencing took place, supporters of DeChristopher's Peaceful Uprising civil disobedience movement shouted: "Justice is not found here."

As Bidder No 70, DeChristopher disrupted what was seen as a last giveaway to the oil and gas industry by the Bush administration by bidding $1.8m (£1.1m) he did not have for the right to drill in remote areas of Utah. He was convicted of defrauding the government last March.

Leftie blogs are outraged, OUTRAGED I SAY!, to discover the law applies to them. In fact, they claim, its all a corporatist plot!

Are you kidding me? If we ever saw an even playing field in the American justice system, perhaps, but it rarely works out that way. If you are part of the privileged corporate elite you can get away with anything, but not as an individual. Halliburton defrauding the US government of millions in Iraq? Slap on the wrist. Wall Street defrauding customers and driving the country and world into recession? No dessert tonight and do better next time. Environmental activist protests Bush land giveaway to Big Oil? Go to jail for two years.

So the crime by statute can lead up to a 10 year sentence and a $750,000 fine...and this nitwit gets 2 years (of which he will serve what, 10 months maybe) and a $10,000 fine and its the end of western jurisprudence.

If you cant do the time....

The Repeal Amendment

From the New York Times:

The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress.

Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.

The idea has been propelled by the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. First promoted by Virginia lawmakers and Tea Party groups, it has the support of legislative leaders in 12 states. It also won the backing of the incoming House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, when it was introduced this month in Congress.

Any proposal to amend the Constitution should be treated to harsh criticism as a matter of course. Amendments seek to change the fundamental "rules of the game" and as such it is a no bad thing if they are put through the crucible. This is particularly true of proposals arising in "the heat of the moment." There is little doubt the widespread unhappiness over the recent health care law was the precipitating event for the appeal of this particular proposal, and there is also little doubt that emotional reactions are often a poor replacement for thought.

That being said, however, it does not follow that should we reject or prejudge any proposal merely because of its timing.

So what are we to make of the proposed change? Obviously, the amendment seeks a way in which the states could undo the work of Congress, albeit only if 34 states were in agreement on the matter. Constitutionally speaking, what purpose could such a change serve? Well, it could be argued the Federal government of today is too far removed and insulated from the check on its power the individual states were supposed to provide. Part of the reason for this, of course, is the result of the aftermath of the Civil War and the death of "state's rights" and "nullification." But some of it can also be traced to the institution of the direct election of U.S. Senators which cut off a once important avenue of national influence for state legislatures, and the passage of the 16th amendment which greatly expanded the scope of Federal power at the expense of the power of the states.

There is considerable merit to such a view. Despite the talk of "devolving power to the states" which has been a constant in Republican circles since the Reagan era, what has actually taken place has been very limited and more of an exercise in the Federal government voluntarily restraining itself rather than a restoration of power to the states. As such, there is the danger the Federal government, left largely free to ignore the states, will structure legislation to enhance its own power at the expense of popular sovereignty.

Such an argument would rest upon accepting the idea that state legislatures, as presently constituted, are more representative than the U.S. Congress. There seems little doubt this is the case. From the standpoint of democratic theory, the fact U.S. Congressional districts have an average of almost 700,000 people in them while the median state legislative district has only 40,000 clearly points to state legislature being more representative. Furthermore, the dominance of the national political party system has resulted in member of Congress who are more wedded to the support (and money) of national interests then they were in the past. Granted, this drift has been a component of our politics for well over 100 years, but that fact does not require us to merely acquiesce to it in the future, or prohibit the people from setting limits on it for the future.

So there would seem to be some theoretical basis for the proposal of such an amendment. The question turns now to be one of how effective the proposal would be in counteracting the ills it sees. This is where critics can play a vital role, assuming they do their job well. From the Times article:

Sanford V. Levinson, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas, called the proposal “a really terrible idea” because it would give the same weight to small states as it would to large ones, allowing those with a relatively small proportion of the national population to have outsize influence.

Given the amendment would require 34 states to all sign on to overturn a Federal law, the least amount of population covered by those 34 states would amount to about 100 million out of the 300 million. However, Federal laws can be passed by states congressional delegations which come from states which amount to as few as 54 million in population in the Senate and 118 million in the House. Really this isn't all that different.

Levinson continues:

“There’s not the slightest chance it would get through Congress” or be ratified by the states, he said. “You can bet the ranch that there are enough state legislators in the large states who will not consider it a good idea to reinforce the power of small parochial rural states in which most Americans do not live.”

This, mostly, isn't a critique on the merits of the content of the amendment, as much as a practical assessment of its chances for passage. However, much of that assessment is based upon two assumptions which seem dubious at best. The first is the assumption of "small state power" which I debunked above. The second assumption is that state legislatures would feel themselves to be "on the same page" with their congressional colleagues in Washington. It seems likely state legislators might be more interested in increasing their own power rather than protecting the power in Washington, particularly as they hold so little power vis-a-vis the Federal government already.

Levinson, however, does eventually hit upon a substantive objection:

Even if it were approved, it would be extremely unlikely to have any practical effect, Professor Levinson said. “Any bill that can get through the byzantine, gridlocked process of being approved by two houses and the presidential signature is wildly unlikely to be opposed by two-thirds of the states,” he said.

This, it seems to me, might actually prove to be the case. If one were interested in doing a cost/benefit analysis on the matter we might find the proposition to be a losing one. It may prove to be so rare a circumstance it isn't worth the rigmarole. However, the Constitution already contains measures which happen rarely if ever. Impeachment and overrides of Presidential vetoes come immediately to mind, as well as the constitutional power given Congress to determine the line of Presidential succession should both the President and Vice President be unable to serve. The infrequency of the potential use of the provision alone isn't really enough to make the claim it is unnecessary. However, the prima facie case for needing the amendment, in a practical "we could actually work this way" sense, still hasn't been met in my mind.

That being said, they do have a theoretical argument and that is something.

Cross posted at Blue Crab Boulevard.

Dumb On Oh So Many Levels

The Board of Regents for the University of Wisconsin System must not be very bright people. From FIRE:

The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents recently filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Seventh Circuit decision that invalidated the University of Wisconsin's policies governing funding for student organizations. The Seventh Circuit held that Wisconsin's policy of denying student activity fee funding to student organizations who wish to use the money for worship, proselytizing, or religious instruction violated the First Amendment. The University of Wisconsin now seeks to undo prior Supreme Court precedent holding that the denial of funding to religious organizations unconstitutionally penalizes groups for their particular viewpoint, and that funding religious groups does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Indeed, if you bother to read the Seventh Circuit's opinion, it becomes clear this is a well travelled area of law with clearly holding, and recently affirmed, precedents readily apparent. Well, readily apparent to everyone but the tin eared members of the Wisconsin Board of Regents.

This is a particularly stupid course of action for two reasons: 1) In an era of tight financial constraints at the state level, the idea of spending even an additional dime on a quixotic effort to remove First Amendment rights for Catholics and other religious groups, is suspect at best. At worst it shows an "out to lunch"-ness that speaks of the worst kind of ideological fervor imaginable. 2) Given the political environment in Wisconsin presently, where a new hard line Republican governor will be able to work with a new Republican held state legislature on whatever they want to do, this action of the Regents is asinine. Republicans already view academia as suspect, so the Regents decide to act in as spendthrift a manner as possible, and as hostile to religion as possible.

So, the Regents are wrong on the legal merits, and have shown all the political instincts of Herbert Hoover looking at the Great Depression.

Bang up job guys.

This Is An Intelligence Test

If you got some time on your hand read the following links in order:

Link One:
Link Two:
Link Three:
Link Four:
Link Five:

I believe this exercise will demonstrate the difference between intellectual honesty and charlatanism.

Choose your side carefully.

Welcome To The Leviathan

Creepy is only the half of it: Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers.

When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.

Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer.

But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

"They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno's conviction did so without comment.

Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court's permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers.

This is simply nuts. If the police have justified suspicions about the possible criminal activities of an individual why shouldn't they have to go before a judge before being able to place a surveillance device? Our Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches was put in place to deny exactly the type of "fishing expeditions" the 9th Circuit has just sanctioned. Given this ruling, there would be no legal obstacle to the police simply targeting an entire geographical locale for tracking, or selcting any other reason (singling out a particular racial group for example).

As ever, the 9th Circuit has privileged state power over our rights. Just listen to the voice of tha state on the matter:

[S]upporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court's approval.

"You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS."

He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property.

"You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy." [emphasis added]

Get that? All you suckers living in apartments or on city streets have no expectation of privacy from the prying eyes of the state, who can monitor you electronically without cause if they feel like it. Of course, if you live in the burbs or in a gated community, you can have some privacy. Nice.

The truth is technological advances are making it increasingly easy for the state to monitor large numbers of people at a cheap price. The fact that non-electronic surveillance required a large amount of manpower was a check on its possible abuse. It was cost prohibitive to engage in. Electronic monitoring is relatively cheap, and getting cheaper by the day.

But will it wind up costing us our freedom? We shall see what the Supreme Court says.

The Supreme Court Fails The Country

Five addled brain morons just gutted the First Amendment in the name of Political Correctness. Today the Court struck down the right of free association for citizens.

I am seething with anger.

This means war. Conservative groups on college campus need to fight and fight hard. Is there a socialist group on your campus? Great, pack their opening meetings and vote one of your own to "lead" the group. Maybe there is a gay/lesbian alliance on your campus? Great. Get every evangelical on campus to to take over that group. A muslim student association on campus? Great, get every friend of Israel, Jewish or otherwise, to take over that group.

Fuck 'em. If they want war, then give it to them.

Really this country would be a better place if Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Breyer were never born.

From the rational part of the decision (i.e. the dissent):

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate onpublic issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direc-tion. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has beentreated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now thisCourt. I can only hope that this decision will turn out tobe an aberration.

I will not be holding my breath.

Obama Nominates An Utter Fool For Our Courts

This is blood boiling: Unqualified, and Hostile to the Constitution

Goodwin Liu [is] a left-wing law professor whom President Obama has nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. To say that Liu is thinly qualified would give him too much credit, as he has scarcely ever practiced law at all. Now, an attack Liu launched against John Roberts in 2005 has surfaced and has raised new questions about his nomination.

When President Bush first nominated Roberts to succeed Sandra O'Connor, Liu responded with an attack that tells us nothing about Roberts but a great deal about Liu. First, Liu criticized Roberts' associations:

Before becoming a judge, he belonged to the Republican National Lawyers' Association and the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, whose mission is to promote (among other things) ``free enterprise,'' ``private ownership of property,'' and ``limited government.'' These are code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.

Private property, free enterprise and limited government are "code words"? No one holding such a bizarre, anti-Constitutional view should hold public office in any capacity, certainly not as a judge.

Liu went on to attack an opinion that Roberts authored as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the famous "french fry" case, Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. You might have to be a lawyer to fully appreciate the dishonesty of Liu's description of the case and of Roberts' opinion:

Last year, for example, he wrote an opinion rejecting the civil rights claims of 12-year-old Ansche Hedgepeth, who was arrested, searched, handcuffed, booked, and detained by police for eating a single french fry in a subway station in violation of D.C. law. Although an adult committing the same infraction would have received only a citation under D.C. law, Roberts said the police's treatment of Hedgepeth served the "goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts."

From Liu's account you might think that Roberts was the D.C. official who wrote the law, not a judge called upon to rule on its constitutionality. Here is how Roberts began his opinion on the case:

No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later -- all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.

Roberts did, here, exactly what a judge is supposed to do--not impose his own opinion as to whether a law or ordinance is foolish, but evaluate its constitutionality according to established principles and precedents. It is worth noting, too, that Liu described Roberts' opinion in this case as though it were outside the mainstream, while in fact Roberts wrote for a unanimous court, and every judge who looked at the case ruled the same way. Liu here betrays the arrogance of the left-wing academic: anyone who disagrees with me is an extremist, even if his disagreement represents a consensus among competent jurists.

This is not a question of differing philosophical approaches to the Constitution, this is a question of pure and simple incompetence and stupidity. Throw in a modicum of intellectual dishonesty, of which Liu has more than a modicum, and you have a nominee the Republicans should go all out to sink.

Hell, every Democrat who isn't actively a socialist should also want to sink a nominee openly hostile to free enterprise, the private ownership of property, and limited government. One cannot be against those things and be for the Constitution.

Double Secret Tax Penalties

I was perusing the Pelosi monstrosity of a "health care" plan, just trying to find out how the new tax on "unacceptable" health insurance would work, including just how "unacceptable insurance" was defined by the act. On page 501 we are given the following helpful information:

‘‘(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means any of the following:

‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the ).

Section 100(c) of WHAT? Obviously they forgot to say of this act.

O.K., so I go to 100(c) of this act and is acceptable coverage defined there? Nope, gotta go to 302(d)(2).

(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes of
4 this division, the term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ means
5 any of the following:
6 (A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN
7 COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
8 benefits plan.

That's it? How do we define a "qualified health benefits plan"? Turns out we don't. Instead, the "Commissioner" along with the Treasury gets to decide who gets taxed.

12 The Commissioner shall make determinations under
13 this paragraph in coordination with the Secretary of
14 the Treasury.

There are no statutory guidelines given in this. It seems to be entirely at the discretion of the Executive Branch. How is this allowable under the Constitution? How is this not Congress ceding the power to tax to the President?

All I can say is, ugh.

Ugh.

Thank God For Lawyers?

Uh...maybe not. Charges dropped in Mo flag desecration case

Charges have been dropped against a southeast Missouri man accused of flag desecration.

Misdemeanor charges were filed Friday against 30-year-old Frank Snider III of Cape Girardeau. But prosecutor Morley Swingle told the Southeast Missourian newspaper that he later dropped the charges because of a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared flag-burning protected under the First Amendment.

Swingle told the newspaper he had been unaware that the case invalidated state flag desecration laws like the one passed in Missouri in 1980. [emphasis added]

Hell, I'm no lawyer and I knew this. If this is a representative example of our public servants....

Be very afraid.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Catholic Beliefs Are "Outrageous"

This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg no longer attends the "Red Mass"--a Roman Catholic service for members of the legal profession in Washington--because she doesn't want to be lectured by bishops on the evils of legal abortion....

"Before every session, there's a Red Mass," Ginsburg said. "And the justices get invitations from the cardinal to attend that. And a good number of the justices show up every year. I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion."

Sorry Justice Ginsburg, but it would be a pro-abortion Catholic mass that would be "outrageous."

Nice to know there is a Supreme Court Justice who seems to believe they are the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable for a believer to believe.

Thanks For Your Peculiar Understanding Of "The Law" Justice Ginsburg...

...but no thanks.

Basically she claims the following:

White people, who work harder and are more accomplished then their co-workers by any objective measure, should not believe they deserve promotions or pay raises or any other perk, while there is a minority around who can receive said promotion or pay raise. In fact, white workers deserve nothing, and the reson they deserve nothing is that they are white.

She, rather laughably, finds this notion completely in keeping with the Constitution. Maybe her copy has a reverse 3/5th provision in it.

More Idiots At Work (Law School Division)

You know, its a good rule when you read something like Slate to not believe a word their "experts" put forward. Today gave a classic example. If Frank Ricci Loses, Blame Scalia

Many conservatives have taken up the cause of Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter who sued the city, claiming that officials discriminated against him when they rejected the results of a promotion exam, on which he did well, because all but one of the top scoring candidates were white. Ricci's claim is now before the Supreme Court. I've written about it once to explain why Ricci's argument is a threat to an important part of modern civil rights law, and I'm writing again now because a lot of people have suggested that Ricci has been treated unusually and unfairly in the courts. In fact, he's been treated just like any other plaintiff suing for employment discrimination. The anger and frustration of the top-scoring firefighters who expected promotions is understandable. But the outrage on the right is also ironic, because the reason that people who sue for employment discrimination—like Frank Ricci—rarely win their cases is that conservative judges have spent decades making sure they usually lose.

A reverse-discrimination lawsuit like Ricci's is, legally speaking, no different from a conventional discrimination lawsuit. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on every factual issue. This was firmly established by Justice Antonin Scalia's 1993 majority opinion in a case called St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, in which a black correctional officer, Melvin Hicks, sued for race discrimination after he was demoted and later fired from his job at a halfway house. The plaintiff must first establish some basic evidence that makes it plausible that he was a victim of discrimination—he was fired or turned down for promotion, for example, for reasons that weren't obviously due to his own lack of performance or across-the-board staff reductions. Once a plaintiff makes this showing (as Ricci did), then the typical case proceeds by a process of elimination. If the plaintiff can prove that there was no good reason for his firing or nonpromotion, the law will conclude that the decision must have been discriminatory.

But, as Justice Scalia made clear in Hicks, the employer doesn't have to prove that there was a good reason for its decision; it needs only to claim that there was one.

Oh good Lord. What part of "The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on every factual issue" does this author (Stanford Law School prof Richard Ford) not understand? Look, we are dealing with individuals who have been accused of breaking the law. Since when have we thought it was OK to presume guilt? This is exactly what Ford is advocating, and acting as if the Conservatives are off their rocker for upholding the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Additionally, Ford seems to indicate that as soon as some employer puts forward any reason whatsoever the plaintiffs case is automatically dismissed. This is complete nonsense. All the Court has said is that the original task of a plaintiff (i.e. proving they were discriminated against unlawfully) does not cease and cannot be replaced by the lesser task of poking holes in the defence.

It is worrying that someone teaching at a law school could so blithely embrace the concept of having people prove they are innocent, and thus negate a basic protection of the law. It's even scarier that Prof. Ford doesn't seem to realize he's doing this.

Enforcing Laws Unconstitutional?

Hmm...what exactly needs to be thought about here? Judge puts hold on immigration penalty letters to employers

The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week that carry with them more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation's largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called "no-match" letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers. Chesney said the court needs "breathing room" before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.

She set the next hearing on the matter for October 1.

The Social Security Administration has sent out "no-match" letters for more than two decades warning employers of discrepancies in the information the government has on their workers. Employers often brushed aside the letters, and the small fines that sometimes were incurred, as a cost of doing business.

But this year, those letters are to be accompanied by notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution if they're deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

It is garbage like this that gives our judicial system generally, and liberal jurisprudence specifically, such a bad name. Notice, there is no new law at issue here. Indeed, the law in question has been on the books for decades. What has changed is its method of enforcement. Federal authorities are now increasing the level of scrutiny and telling employers to resolve discrepancies resulting from factual error or improper (illegal) documentation on their workers...or else face stiff penalties as required by law.

How is the change in enforcement methods a matter for the court exactly?

Think of it this way: There is a stretch of state highway near my home that is never patrolled by police. Basically, anybody can speed with impunity. Now, let us say that next year the state decides to crack down and puts five patrols on that road, who begin pulling people over and writing tickets hand over fist. Now, the law hasn't changed at all. Speeding is still the same offence it was the year before, only the enforcement has been stepped up. By the "reasoning" of Judge Chesney, there would be reason to grant judicial oversight on such matters. "Hey," say an enraged driver, "I was going 90 mph in a 55 mph zone for the last five years and never got a ticket! It should be unconstitutional to start giving out tickets now!" "Ohmigod!" exclaims a gullible Judge Chesney, "You may be right!"

It is rank stupidity, and leaves the judiciary open to the charge that they wish to subvert laws for the benefit of particular interests (economic, political or whatever). Alright, I don't believe liberal jurisprudence is just "open to the charge," I believe they are "guilty as charged." But think about what we are witnessing here. The interference of the judiciary in the enforcement of law based solely upon political considerations. I thought that was always supposed to be unacceptable.

UPDATE:

I love the concerns voiced in the WaPo version of this story:

There are errors in the Social Security records of an estimated 12.7 million native-born U.S. citizens, 250,000 foreign-born citizens and 4.8 million legal immigrants, potentially creating a paralyzing bureaucratic nightmare for workers and Social Security offices if their records are dragged into the sweep, union representatives said.

Whether the Social Security offices are backlogged or not is under judicial purview how exactly?