"So the question raised by Justice Scalia’s most recent intemperate display [his dissent in Michigan v. Bryant] remains: what does this smart, rhetorically gifted man think his bullying accomplishes?
It’s a puzzle. But having raised the question, I will venture an answer. Antonin Scalia, approaching his 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court justice, has cast a long shadow but has accomplished surprisingly little. Nearly every time he has come close to achieving one of his jurisprudential goals, his colleagues have either hung back at the last minute or, feeling buyer’s remorse, retreated at the next opportunity."
That from Linda Greenhouse, blogging for the New York Times. The post is worth a read, I encourage you to take a look.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
And the Asshole of the Month Is:
Peter King!
I know I said that I did not want to unfairly criticize people, but this guy has earned the title. First, he wants to hold McCarthyesq hearings related to the entire Muslim American population, then he tries to explain how the I.R.A., was not a terrorist group. From the NY Times:
"We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and sometimes pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.
A judge in Belfast threw him out of an I.R.A. murder trial, calling him an “obvious collaborator,” said Ed Moloney, an Irish journalist and author of “A Secret History of the I.R.A.” In 1984, Mr. King complained that the Secret Service had investigated him as a “security risk,” Mr. Moloney said.
....
Mr. King, son of a New York City police officer and grand-nephew of an I.R.A. member, offers no apologies for his past, which he has celebrated in novels that feature a Irish-American congressman with I.R.A. ties who bears a striking resemblance to the author.
....
He said he does not regret his past pro-I.R.A. statements. The Irish group, he said, was “a legitimate force” battling British repression — analogous to the African National Congress in South Africa or the Zionist Irgun paramilitary in British-ruled Palestine. “It was a dirty war on both sides,” he said of I.R.A. resistance to British rule.
....
....Niall O’Dowd, an Irish-born New York publisher and writer who worked with him on the peace process in the 1990s, broke publicly with him Monday on his Web site, IrishCentral.com, describing Mr. King’s “strange journey from Irish radical to Muslim inquisitor.”
In Northern Ireland, Mr. O’Dowd said, they saw a Catholic community “demonized” by its Protestant and British critics and worked to bring it to the peace table. Seeing his old friend similarly “demonize” Muslims has shocked him, he said.
“I honestly feel Peter is wrong, and his own experience in Northern Ireland teaches him that,” Mr. O’Dowd said. “He’s a very honest, working-class Irish guy from Queens who’s had an amazing career. Now I see a man turning back on himself, and I don’t know why.""
Prick.
I know I said that I did not want to unfairly criticize people, but this guy has earned the title. First, he wants to hold McCarthyesq hearings related to the entire Muslim American population, then he tries to explain how the I.R.A., was not a terrorist group. From the NY Times:
"We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and sometimes pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.
A judge in Belfast threw him out of an I.R.A. murder trial, calling him an “obvious collaborator,” said Ed Moloney, an Irish journalist and author of “A Secret History of the I.R.A.” In 1984, Mr. King complained that the Secret Service had investigated him as a “security risk,” Mr. Moloney said.
....
Mr. King, son of a New York City police officer and grand-nephew of an I.R.A. member, offers no apologies for his past, which he has celebrated in novels that feature a Irish-American congressman with I.R.A. ties who bears a striking resemblance to the author.
....
He said he does not regret his past pro-I.R.A. statements. The Irish group, he said, was “a legitimate force” battling British repression — analogous to the African National Congress in South Africa or the Zionist Irgun paramilitary in British-ruled Palestine. “It was a dirty war on both sides,” he said of I.R.A. resistance to British rule.
....
....Niall O’Dowd, an Irish-born New York publisher and writer who worked with him on the peace process in the 1990s, broke publicly with him Monday on his Web site, IrishCentral.com, describing Mr. King’s “strange journey from Irish radical to Muslim inquisitor.”
In Northern Ireland, Mr. O’Dowd said, they saw a Catholic community “demonized” by its Protestant and British critics and worked to bring it to the peace table. Seeing his old friend similarly “demonize” Muslims has shocked him, he said.
“I honestly feel Peter is wrong, and his own experience in Northern Ireland teaches him that,” Mr. O’Dowd said. “He’s a very honest, working-class Irish guy from Queens who’s had an amazing career. Now I see a man turning back on himself, and I don’t know why.""
Prick.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Obama, Tribunals and Tribulations (our)
Here is a short clip of Obama stating in no uncertain terms that he is going to close Gitmo
Here is a quote from a law Obama signed on January 7, 2011, that all but sealed the deal on Gitmo - meaning it will remain open indefinitely:
"Today I have signed into law H.R. 6523...Section 1032 bars the use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2011 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and section 1033 bars the use of certain funds to transfer detainees to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met. Section 1032 represents a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. The prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation and must be among the options available to us. Any attempt to deprive the executive branch of that tool undermines our Nation's counterterrorism efforts and has the potential to harm our national security."
Guess national security is not too important - because yesterday Obama signed an executive order providing for periodic (and indefinite) review of detainees confinement at Gitmo, which included this disturbing phrase:
"This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."
In other words - you are stuck here - if we do not follow the "review" guidlines that we have laid out for you, tough luck.
I have become so disillusioned with Obama - I do not think it was just that I had such high hopes for what he would accomplish when he took office at a time when the Democrats had control of Congress (which he squandered) - it is that he seems to stand for nothing but an innate desire to consistently compromise; the values upon which he ran are unrecognizable. He has done one truly encouraging thing since he took office, and he has somehow managed to screwed that one up too (up until this point) as SFL and David pointed out over the past two days, this being day 742.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Nice Ruling from Eleventh
"Because we conclude that the federal-funds counts of the indictment did not sufficiently allege a scheme to defraud, we vacate Schmitz’s convictions on those counts."
Gotta love when an opinion starts out that way. Unfortunately, the very next sentence says "We affirm Schmitz’s convictions for mail fraud." Duho!
The issue was really technical - the government failed in drafting the indictment, to incorporate by reference the more detailed allegations surrounding the mail fraud counts (which did allege a scheme to defraud) into the federal-funds theft counts. The defendant moved to dismiss (based upon the same reasons the opinion tossed the convictions) and the magistrate and district court denied the motion. Gotta wonder why the government wouldn't simply have taken the time to amend the indictment and save the time litigating the motions - even if it thought it was right. What's wrong with a little extra protection?
Perhaps the more interesting point in the case is that it holds squarely that it is improper for a prosecutor to ask the 'so everybody else is lying' questions: "We first conclude that there was error in the district court’s decision to allow the prosecutor to require Schmitz to say whether other witnesses were lying, and to allow the prosecutor to make comments related to these questions in his closing argument."
The court went on to note that the error was not plain (no contemporaneous objection). However, kudos to the Court for writing a thoughtful opinion that set forth the error, even if it was not fatal to the conviction. Too often the Eleventh will rule that any possible error was not harmless, and then not rule on the question of whether or not there was error in the first place. It provides zero guidance to the trial courts, and leaves defense attorneys with very little to argue on important issues like 404(b) or Bills of Particular. This panel easily could have done that, but instead it chose to do its duty and provide reasoned guidance and explanation; and they deserve credit for it.
So, Judges Martin, Cox and Black (who dissented from a portion of the case), GOOD JOB! Hopefully we will not see another one of those "...a majority of the court...vacated...rehearing..." cases.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Big First Amendment Ruling
In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the power of the First Amendment. This time in support of bigoted, terrible people who go to military funerals with signs that antagonize the grieving relatives.
The Opinion purports to be narrow, but reading some of the reasserted First Amendment principles embedded in it, one (me) cannot but wonder whether or not this opinion will later be used as a basis to overcome that terribly misguided prosecution that is ongoing in New York that I blogged about a few days ago (jury tampering for passing out pamphlets that inform jurors of their power to nullify).
"Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding West-boro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. “[S]peechon ‘matters of public concern’ . . . is ‘at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.’” Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 758–759 (1985) (opinion of Powell, J.) (quoting First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776 (1978)). The First Amend-ment reflects “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). That is because “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74–75 (1964). Accordingly, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983) (internalquotation marks omitted).
Alito dissented. He characterized the speech as an assault: "In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents’ well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention,"and then went on to note his trouble with the fact that the church members "far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyderbecause (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military."
The Opinion purports to be narrow, but reading some of the reasserted First Amendment principles embedded in it, one (me) cannot but wonder whether or not this opinion will later be used as a basis to overcome that terribly misguided prosecution that is ongoing in New York that I blogged about a few days ago (jury tampering for passing out pamphlets that inform jurors of their power to nullify).
"Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding West-boro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. “[S]peechon ‘matters of public concern’ . . . is ‘at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.’” Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 758–759 (1985) (opinion of Powell, J.) (quoting First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776 (1978)). The First Amend-ment reflects “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). That is because “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74–75 (1964). Accordingly, “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145 (1983) (internalquotation marks omitted).
Alito dissented. He characterized the speech as an assault: "In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents’ well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention,"and then went on to note his trouble with the fact that the church members "far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyderbecause (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military."
Lawyers are LESS trained than interior designers!
The Eleventh Circuit just published an opinion that I found facinating. Not for the legal issues which were "the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses," rather, for the light it shines on the licencing requirements for interior designers in Florida:
"Florida law requires interior designers practicing in nonresidential, commercial settings within the state to obtain a state license. Fla. Stat. §§ 481.209(2), 81.213. Florida statute § 481.223(1)(b) provides that “[a] person may not knowingly . . . [p]ractice interior design unless the person is a registered interior designer unless otherwise exempted herein.” A designer must complete a combined total of six years of interior design education and internship experience with a licensed interior designer to qualify for a Florida license. See Fla. Stat.§ 481.209(2); Fla. Admin. Code r. 61-G1-22.001(1). The designer must also pass an examination administered by the National Council of Interior Design Qualifications (“NCIDQ”). Fla. Stat. §§ 481.209 and 481.207."
Good to know next time you want somebody to help you pick out your office furnishings.
"Florida law requires interior designers practicing in nonresidential, commercial settings within the state to obtain a state license. Fla. Stat. §§ 481.209(2), 81.213. Florida statute § 481.223(1)(b) provides that “[a] person may not knowingly . . . [p]ractice interior design unless the person is a registered interior designer unless otherwise exempted herein.” A designer must complete a combined total of six years of interior design education and internship experience with a licensed interior designer to qualify for a Florida license. See Fla. Stat.§ 481.209(2); Fla. Admin. Code r. 61-G1-22.001(1). The designer must also pass an examination administered by the National Council of Interior Design Qualifications (“NCIDQ”). Fla. Stat. §§ 481.209 and 481.207."
Good to know next time you want somebody to help you pick out your office furnishings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)