August 25, 2008
Tom Delay COULD get off on a technicality
According to the Statesman, there is a very real possibility that Delay could walk on corruption and money laundering charges due to a technicality. Apparently, the law has been narrowly applied by an all Republican Appeals Court (no, I'm not making this up) to only cash transactions.
Delay and Co. used checks. So you can obviously see how that's different and all. I guess if they'd used wire transfers it would have added still another wrinkle to this convoluted bullshit. What's most irritating about this is DeGuerin.
Money-laundering charges against former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two indicted co-conspirators may be dismissed because the 2002 campaign finance case involved checks and not cash, a lawyer for DeLay said Sunday night."We win," said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's lawyer, "because there's nothing but checks in the case."
Yes. You win. Because of a technicality created by how an appeals court looked at the law. Much like... actually, exactly like a drug dealer whose conviction is overturned because there wasn't probably cause for the traffic stop that resulted in his original arrest (where they discovered his 'distribution business and inventory'). Should feel good, Dick. You've worked hard to make sure a demon remains free to roam the Earth.
DA Earle is not a happy monkey as one might expect...
Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said the check-versus-cash argument is absurd: "The court's reasoning is like saying that you can get away with murder if you pay the hit man with a check."Prosecutors can file a motion for a rehearing before the appellate court.
But there's still more dick. Kind of like in a porno...
"If this is how it ends," DeGuerin said, "it means every crime Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for was not a crime."
No, it means you helped him dodge his criminality based on a technical issue. And a partisan court bought the argument.
Of course, all of this is largely irrelevant. Delay's seat is gone. He's gone as a political force. He's a washed up loser who will be stepped on every time he pops his crooked head up. So, if that's all... then no big deal.
And thank you, Ronnie Earle for having the stones to take this on.
Posted by mcblogger at 09:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 28, 2008
Thanks, Justice Stevens. No. Really. Thanks a lot.
Well, our Supreme Court has decided that Jim Crow is A-OK...
The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification when it holds its statewide primary next week. It also will give most state legislatures time to revise their voter laws for the November elections.This was perhaps the biggest voter rights case taken up by the justices since the 2000 dispute over Florida's ballots, in which George W. Bush prevailed to gain the presidency.
At issue was whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud end up disenfranchising large numbers of Americans who might lack proper documents to prove their voting eligibility. The case raised important constitutional questions, but also involved race and partisan politics.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said any political issues considered by the state were mitigated by its desire to stop voter fraud.
"The state interests identified as justifications for [the law] are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject" the lawsuit, he wrote.
But in a toughly worded dissent, Justice David Souter said "Indiana has made no such justification" for the statute "and as to some aspects of its law, it hardly even tried."
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has conceded the state has never presented a case of "voter impersonation," which the law was designed to safeguard against. The 2005 Indiana law requires that a valid photo identification be presented by a person casting a ballot at a polling stations. Previously, most citizens needed only to sign a poll book to vote.
So, though there is no need for it, and in spite of it's cost which makes it a de facto poll tax, voter ID is good idea?
So much for this idea that the Republicans don't like activist judges. All the R appointees were in the majority along with old Justice Stevens. Seriously, man, why couldn't you have retired when Clinton was in office?
At this point, I don't want to hear another goddamn word from anyone about NOT voting for the Democrat in November, regardless of who that person is. Seriously, I'm ready to lose friends over this, mostly because I'm sick of your shit. If I can suck it up, so can you.
It's time y'all realize there's more than some petty soundbite at stake and stop playing the 'I don't like Obama/Hillary' song.
Posted by mcblogger at 01:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 22, 2008
SC wimps out on wiretapping...
This is SOOO surprising considering the makeup of Bush's Court. One wonders if they'll even address the legality of it when it's finally shoved down their throats.
The Supreme Court yesterday declined without comment to hear the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge of the Bush administration's domestic spying program.
In other news, the NSA totally heard that convo between you and your friend about that skanque you banged last night. They'd really like to talk to her.
Posted by mcblogger at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 03, 2008
This week in Gay
"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," said Joyce Kauffman, a Boston divorce lawyer who has handled a dozen same-sex divorce cases. "But for a lot of couples, that benefit is very complicated and very costly in ways that heterosexual couples would never have to experience."In the case of the doctor, she and her spouse each gave birth to a boy fathered by the same sperm donor. They then adopted one another's sons. Biologically, their children are half-siblings; legally, they are full brothers.
"Up to now, I've been lucky with the court," said the doctor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to prejudice her court case. "Giving birth to one of our children has given me leeway because judges often show a preference toward a biological mother. I've spoken to other lesbian women who were in a similar situation, except that they were not the biological mothers of their children, and, in my opinion, they were not treated as fairly by the court."
While the parties are litigating, a family court in Boston has come up with a Solomonic ruling, saying that each of the women can spend half the week alone in the family home with the children.
For same-sex couples, divorce can be financially ruinous. Heterosexual couples claim a tax deduction for alimony payments, but that benefit is not available to gay and lesbian spouses because the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize their marriages.
Divorce lawyers say that, while gay people making alimony payments are hurt the most by the IRS policy, their ex-spouses are also affected, because a tax deduction often provides an incentive for larger payments.
"In a straight context, alimony is an income stream from one person to another and tax-deductible to the person who is paying it," said David W. Eppley, a divorce lawyer with lesbian clients. "But in a gay divorce, there aren't two parties, there are three, and that third party is Uncle Sam."
GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't know whether people are born that way. People who are gay say that they're born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior
I don't know nothing about no science or genetics, but I do know that if you suck dick it's because you make a choice to suck dick. In other words, even if you are 'that way' you should refuse yourself any love or affection. So as to keep biblically pure and clean (at least according to Mike Huckabee).
-- but the important issue that I want to address, because I think when you bring up the faith question, Tim, I've been asked more about my faith than any person running for president. I'm OK with that. I hope I've answered these questions very candidly and very honestly. I think it's important for us to talk about it. But the most important thing is to find out, does our faith influence our public policy and how? I've never tried to rewrite science textbooks. I've never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution. I've never done that. (The Advocate)
No, you haven't tried to rewrite science textbooks... you just tried to buy the ones that represented your belief system, not scientific reality. As for not "imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution", that's a matter pf perspective and interpretation of the Constitution. I'm partial to the one that has been upheld for centuries by the Federal Courts, that there is a wall separating Church and State. You don't believe that, Mike. You think the US is a Christian Republic, like France or Germany. That ain't the case, hermano.
Have a good'un!
Posted by mcblogger at 02:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 10, 2007
Stop Sharon Keller. No, really, STOP.
Next Friday some folks are going to help deliver a complaint demanding the removal from the bench of Sharon Keller.
I might go, I might not. That'll depend on my real job. However, don't let my absence make you think I'm not interested in getting this bitch out of the judiciary.
Posted by mcblogger at 12:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 16, 2007
Deal Keller
If ever there was a damn good reason to replace every single Republican on the Texas Supreme Court with Democrats, Sharon Keller's irresponsible action would have to be it. Here's what's been said over the last few days...
Sharon, don't go away mad... just go away.
Posted by mcblogger at 08:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 13, 2007
Nightmare Factory
While well-adjusted people have disturbing dreams about falling, being nude in public, or exes, I, on the other hand, have nightmares about the U.S. Supreme Court.
A junior high lunch cafeteria was the setting. Everything, including the lunch lady, was covered in corporate logos, much like you would find at a NASCAR race. Sitting at a table in the far right corner wearing “Hello I’m ____” tags were Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. Thomas’ tag said “Stupid”, Scalia’s “I’m with stupid”, Robert’s and Alito’s “Slimy” and “Sleazy”. I don’t remember which was which. They had Kennedy – “Confused”- cornered and questioning his manhood.
“Cool guys don’t hang out with tree-huggers,” said Scalia.
“Yeah, “said Thomas, who was sitting on Scalia’s lap like a ventriloquist’s dummy. He had pubic hair glued to his lip.
Occasionally, Ruthie, a little girl with thick glasses and an attitude walked by the table and threatened to kick them in the balls. Apparently, she had done this before because every time she came close, they would cover their crotch.
Then I was transported to a Wal-Mart parking lot. Clergy were selling dispensations to people who wanted to be forgiven for shopping at other stores. There was a carnival atmosphere with Justices Breyer and Souter inside dunking booths.
After blinking, I found myself in a mega-church. All the men were wearing gray-flannel suits and the women were members of the state Eagle Forum contact list. On the altar were posters with slogans - “Debt is Prosperity” and “Consumerism is Salvation”. At the lectern, John Hagee was preaching from the Book of Hedge Funds. (For those that might have forgotten, the book was found in the secret archives of Aleister Crowley who had swindled it from an antique dealer in Cairo. The dealer had discovered the writings in a partially collapsed Jerusalem catacomb that sits under land now owned by Bibi Netanyahu)
I turned around and found myself in the chambers of the court. With the strains of Pizzetti filling the air, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute had set up information booths in the aisles. Lawyers from the Carlyle Group were arguing the case that since corporations were now considered to have the same rights as individuals, that affirmative action should be afforded them. Strangely, only the conservative justices were sitting. For an instance, I saw Justice Stevens in a holding cell guarded by “security specialists”.
What finally woke me up was the unfurling of the American flag covered with skulls, presented by John Cornyn.
Shitake mushrooms have that effect on me.
Nah, I made up the Cornyn thing
Posted by Captain Kroc at 10:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 07, 2007
Deadlines are a Keller
Much has been made out of Justice Sharon Keller's decision not to wait for the appeal of Michael Richards (not THAT Michael Richards) because she wanted to close the court at 5:00 sharp (here, here, here and here). Which is apparently the usual time they close, even when a man is set to be executed. I sometimes have to work until 10 or 11 at night and I keep my staff at the office until everything is wrapped up, especially at the end of the month. So, while I don't have a lot of sympathy for a judge who is soooo anal about closing shop on time, the whole this has started me thinking about two things
1) I shouldn't worry too much about my job and staying late. I mean, come on... if a Judge thinks a person's life is less important than getting out of work on time, then maybe I'm taking the whole 'underwriting and closing loans so people can buy houses on time' thing too seriously.
2) Maybe Sharon had something important she needed to get to.
It's the second one that really brought it home for me. Maybe there WAS an important reason Sharon had to leave on time. Maybe we've all been a little too critical and we should look at what could have been going on with Sharon. Which leaves me wondering, what could Sharon have been running off to?
Oh, hell, there are any number of excuses we can think up to cover for Sharon. However, none of them are as good as the one reason she should have kept the court open... it was the right thing to do. Regardless of guilt or innocence, you don't refuse to hear an appeal in a death penalty case. EVER.
Posted by mcblogger at 01:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 29, 2007
The SC overturns deseg plans
What's the practical effect of the SC decision overturning racial quotas as a basis for desegregation plans? It will dramatically alter the racial profiles of schools across the country. It may also be the one thing that saves public education in this country.
Yeah, I'm not entirely sold on this being a bad thing.
For one, deseg orders were part of an era when populations were willfully separated. To this day, I still see restrictive covenants on title to real property prohibiting it's sale to 'negros', 'asians' and almost every other ethnic group. I've even seen one that covers 'those who exhibit moral turpitude'. Not exactly enlightened times. That era was also known for a practice in lending called redlining, not to mention willfully discriminating against those deemed undesirable on the basis of race, a practice that is now a violation of federal law. Those restrictive covenants are thoroughly unenforceable.
On the other side, the Constitution is now officially colorblind in all matters. To quote our learned Chief Justice...
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said. His side of the debate, the chief justice said, was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown,” the landmark 1954 decision that declared school segregation unconstitutional.
No, really, John, you're an idiot. Seriously, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Fucktard.
The conservatives (AKA, the stupidiots), think that they have struck a blow against discrimination. By banning all discrimination based on race, no matter how well intentioned. Clarence Thomas seems especially proud of himself. Kennedy, who voted with the majority, provides the limiting guidance on the majority...
In a separate opinion that could shape the practical implications of the decision and provide school districts with guidelines for how to create systems that can pass muster with the court, Justice Kennedy said achieving racial diversity, “avoiding racial isolation” and addressing “the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling” were “compelling interests” that a school district could constitutionally pursue as long as it did so through programs that were sufficiently “narrowly tailored.”
Though the NYT doesn't read this as a slap down of the majority, it very much is. These cases were about individual children. What Kennedy is doing with his separate opinion is giving guidance on integration plans that won't be based on individuals but will, instead, be based on a broader communities.
Among the measures that Justice Kennedy said would be acceptable were the drawing of school attendance zones, “strategic site selection of new schools,” and directing resources to special programs. These would be permissible even if adopted with a consciousness of racial demographics, Justice Kennedy said, because in avoiding the labeling and sorting of individual children by race they would satisfy the “narrow tailoring” required to meet the equal protection demands of the 14th Amendment.
I wrote earlier that this may be the decision that saves public schools and I think it will be because for one thing it will force school districts to focus on overall demographics of a school population, not as much on individual students. This will hopefully keep kids in schools closer to their homes, increasing parent involvement and student achievement while maintaining racial diversity. It's a hell of a lot better than bussing little Johnny and Jenny across town because of the color of their skin.
Further, one can hope it will also force those who care about schools to get more involved in making sure that all schools are well maintained for all students. Which was the goal of Brown in the first place.
Posted by mcblogger at 03:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 28, 2007
The Court swings right
Thanks a lot, Joe Lieberman...
The Supreme Court yesterday limited students' speech and shielded the White House faith-based program from legal challenge in 5-4 rulings that, along with a similar split in the campaign-finance case, pointed up the court's shift to the right.President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote the main opinions in those decisions, including the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free-speech case, as well as another ruling the administration and business groups had sought in an environmental case.
Here's the one that really pisses me off...
Alito wrote the court's opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion, saying that ordinary taxpayers could not challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.The decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics who object to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.
Bush called the decision "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."
Alito said the taxpayers set out "a parade of horribles" that they contended could happen. None did, he wrote, and "in the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in."
In dissent, Souter said the court should have let the taxpayer challenge proceed. The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," he wrote. "I see no basis for this distinction."
REGARDLESS, Federal money should not be going to religious organizations, no matter how well intentioned.
Posted by mcblogger at 02:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Court swings right
Thanks a lot, Joe Lieberman...
The Supreme Court yesterday limited students' speech and shielded the White House faith-based program from legal challenge in 5-4 rulings that, along with a similar split in the campaign-finance case, pointed up the court's shift to the right.President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote the main opinions in those decisions, including the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" free-speech case, as well as another ruling the administration and business groups had sought in an environmental case.
Here's the one that really pisses me off...
Alito wrote the court's opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion, saying that ordinary taxpayers could not challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money.The decision blocks a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics who object to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.
Bush called the decision "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."
Alito said the taxpayers set out "a parade of horribles" that they contended could happen. None did, he wrote, and "in the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in."
In dissent, Souter said the court should have let the taxpayer challenge proceed. The majority "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury," he wrote. "I see no basis for this distinction."
REGARDLESS, Federal money should not be going to religious organizations, no matter how well intentioned.
Posted by mcblogger at 02:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
