Saturday, April 2, 2011
Richard Goldstone Recants Goldstone Report Against Israel
In an extraordinary article in the Washington Post, Richard Goldstone has now admitted that his infamous report was wrong saying "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document." Melanie Phillips analyzes this tardy mea culpa here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6836830/richard-goldstone-recants-what-price-the-israel-witchhunt-now.thtml Tweet
Florida Pastor Burns Koran, Mob Of Thousands Of Afghan Muslims Storm UN Compound And Kill 12
CNN reports that "twelve people were killed Friday in an attack on a U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan that followed a demonstration against the reported burning last month of a Quran in Florida, authorities said. The fatalities comprised seven U.N. workers and five demonstrators, officials said. Another 24 people were wounded, said Abdul Rauof Taj, security director of Balkh province." Tweet
Friday, April 1, 2011
Does Supreme Court Precedent Or The Constitution Prohibit A State From Banning Sex Toys? Analysis Of Courts Of Appeals That Have Split On The Issue
In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court case that invalidated Texas’s sodomy law, Justice Antonin Scalia cites the 11th Circuit case of William v. Pryor (2001) which upheld Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality…indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny.” Scalia lists this ruling as one of “[c]ountless judicial decisions and legislative enactments” that “have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is ‘immoral and unacceptable’ constitutes a rational basis for regulation.” He then warned that legislation and rulings like this and many others were now to be wrongly “called into question” due to the Supreme Court’s erroneous ruling. As subsequent sex toys cases at the federal appellate level demonstrate, Scalia was right. Lawrence was very quickly extended to new areas, calling into question the validity of statutes that prior to Lawrence were rightfully never considered unconstitutional.
The 11th Circuit in William v. Attorney General of Alabama (2004) reconsidered bans on sex toys but was able to still weasel out of striking down the law by applying the Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) analysis for determining whether something should be constitutionally protected as a new “fundamental right,” instead of relying chiefly on Lawrence. Lawrence was at the very least an incoherent Supreme Court decision in that it was intentionally vague regarding the reasoning being used. Was the sodomy law overturned because sodomy is a “fundamental right” or did the ban have no “rational basis”? Not answering this question clearly enough left an opening for this appellate court to essentially ignore Lawrence by saying it did not overrule Glucksberg's fundamental rights analysis “by implication.” The 11th Circuit then proceeded to apply Glucksberg and uphold the law by reasoning no fundamental right was implicated by the Alabama statute relating to sex toys. Meanwhile, the 5th Circuit in Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earl (2008) relied on Lawrence and overturned a Texas sex toys statute.
One important lesson that can be gleamed from this is that amateur poetry and philosophy the likes of which is seen in the opinions of Justice Kennedy in cases like Lawrence or Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1993) does not amount to legal rules or principles. It provides not guidance to lower courts. The Supreme Court should be in the business of announcing clear legal rules, and those rules should be in accord with the Constitution. When the Supreme Court fails to do so they leave the door open to lower courts applying or twisting precedent to reach the result they desire.
Which appellate ruling is ultimately correct? In terms of application of precedent, Lawrence in combination with other privacy cases does indeed provide a very strong basis for overturning the sex toys law. Though I agree in principle with the 11th Circuit that such laws are not unconstitutional, it is an unfortunate state of affairs that legal acrobatics through precedent is needed to reach what I consider the more Constitutional outcome.
Looking to Reliable Consultants, Texas’s asserted interests in the sex toys ban included “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.” It also asserted as an interest the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” I still find it completely astounding to believe the Constitution itself somehow declares these interests per se invalid. These interests may be disagreeable to some, though they were obviously not disagreeable to the State of Texas that was fighting to keep the law. All the 5th Circuit needs to do, however, is declare that “interests in ‘public morality’ cannot constitutionally sustain the statute after Lawrence” and the law disappears. The fact is that the Constitution simply does not protect the right to sell or use sex toys. No Constitutional provision remotely implies such a right, only fallacious Supreme Court precedent does.
Further, by defining the rights at such a level of generality (quoting Lawrence: as “a right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding ‘the most private human contact, sexual behavior’”) federal judges are given free reign to extend Lawrence to strike down laws they happen to dislike (sex toys bans, Proposition 8, etc.). One wonders whether judges would arbitrarily draw the line in the sand that is this general right and still uphold bans they favor (laws against bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, bestiality, obscenity, etc.), or whether the right in question would suddenly narrow? The fact remains that judges can easily shoehorn what they please into a judicially-created right when the right is stated in its most general terms. In effect, it becomes a right so general only a judge can apply it and declare its limits. But when judges state the right so generally one should take notice that they simply fail to take the very general right they created to its logical conclusion and lift all sexual bans and prohibitions on private human conduct. This is demonstrative of how unprincipled the judiciary then becomes, with the application of the right becoming a matter of raw judicial power and blatant judicial activism. The statutes at hand are about sex toys like dildos and fake vaginas, and the right in question is the right to use or purchase dildos or fake vaginas. As the Supreme Court stated in Michael H v. Gerald D (1989), the “level of generality” selected should “refer to the most specific level at which a relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right can be identified… Because such general traditions provide such imprecise guidance, they permit judges to dictate, rather than discern, the society's views. The need, if arbitrary decisionmaking is to be avoided, to adopt the most specific tradition as the point of reference… [A] rule of law that binds neither by text nor by any particular, identifiable tradition is no rule of law at all.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was therefore correct in 1985 when it correctly ruled there was no constitutional right to “stimulate...genitals with an object designed or marketed as useful primarily for that purpose.”
A most judicious point that I wholeheartedly agree with and worth reading was made by the 11th Circuit when it declared: “Hunting expeditions that seek trophy game in the fundamental-rights forest must heed the maxim ‘look before you shoot.’ Such excursions, if embarked upon recklessly, endanger the very ecosystem in which such liberties thrive-our republican democracy. Once elevated to constitutional status, a right is effectively removed from the hands of the people and placed into the guardianship of unelected judges. We are particularly mindful of this fact in the delicate area of morals legislation. One of the virtues of the democratic process is that, unlike the judicial process, it need not take matters to their logical conclusion. If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter. On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases-including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like.”
Tweet
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Slate's William Saletan: "Incest Repellent? If Gay Sex Is Private, Why Isn't Incest?"
The following article was written in the fairly liberal online Slate magazine. The article was written before the 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas in which the Supreme Court declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. Before that decision was handed down, then Senator Rick Santorum argued, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."
The author of the article, who himself is a socially liberal and in favor of gay marriage, was curious as to whether the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights organization, could actually explain why Santorum was wrong. He explains his contact and interviews with people at the top of the Human Rights Campaign and how their attempts to explain their position was rather lacking in consistency and basic reasoning. It's an old article, but still worth reading at http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/
Tweet
Senator Hatch Proposes Balanced Budget Amendmnet Which Entire Republican Senate Conference Backs
Hatch spearheaded negotiations for the proposed amendment which brings together major components of an amendment introduced earlier this year by Hatch and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and a proposal by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). S.J. Res. 10 has garnered the support of the entire Senate Republican Conference, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, John Cornyn (R-Texas.), and Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, John Thune (R-S.D.).
“Under the Obama Administration, federal spending has reached 25 percent of our nation’s economic output. We are spending at a level not seen since World War II and it is clear we cannot afford to sustain this White House’s big-spending, tax-hiking, debt-increasing agenda,” said Hatch. “Hard-working families across the country have tightened their belts, balanced their budgets, and lived within their means, and the federal government ought to do the same. Regrettably, Washington has proven it won’t solve this crisis on its own. A Balanced Budget Amendment will be the shot in the arm Washington needs to effectively hold down spending.”
Today, the national debt stands at more than $14 trillion. And, according to Congress’s non-partisan budget score-keeper, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nation’s debt could reach an astonishing 90 percent of GDP in less than a decade with the government spending almost $1 trillion on interest payments alone. A longtime champion of a Balanced Budget Amendment, Hatch has introduced similar proposals five times throughout his tenure in Congress and has supported or cosponsored proposals more than 20 times. The Senate came within one vote of approving a similar amendment put forward by Hatch in 1997.
In addition to 47 Republican cosponsors the Hatch Amendment has garnered the support of Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Limited Government, Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment, 60 Plus Association, National Tax Limitation Committee, National Taxpayers Union, American Council for Health Reform, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Grassroot Voices, EndingSpending.com and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. Click here to see their letters of support.
Specifically, S.J. Res. 10, the Balanced Budget Amendment:
- Mandates that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues.
- Caps federal spending at 18 percent of GDP.
- Requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year.
- Requires a two-thirds supermajority for any new tax, any increase in tax rates, or any bill that is a net revenue raiser. Requires a supermajority to raise the debt limit.
- Allows for waiver of limits if there is a formal declaration of war, if the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security, or if two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve.
Tragic Irony: Former British National Health Service Director Dies After Operation Is Cancelled Four Times At Her Own Hospital
The Daily Mail reports that a "former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation - at her own hospital. Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex. But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery. Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust - the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors." He said: "I don't really know why she died. I did not get a reason from the hospital. We all want to know for closure. She got weaker and weaker as she waited and operations were put off."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371861/nhs-director-dies-operation-cancelled-times-hospital.html#ixzz1IDCuzbXf
Tweet
Classic Comedy: Kids Say The Darndest Things
Classic, cute, and hilarious. You know how you know something is filmed in the 1950s? First, when a California kid says he is thankful to be an American. Second, when the host discusses Bible stories with children on "coast to coast" television without having to worry about offending anyone.
Tweet
War On Easter? Ohio Town Changing Its "Easter Egg Hunt" To "Spring Egg Hunt"
Eggs for WHAT?! I am thoroughly hurt by that vile "E" word being associated with what is clearly and obviously a spring tradition. Thank you Munson, Ohio for leading the way in not having the name of a Christian holiday be said aloud for fear of having the feelings of a very sensitive and easily offended Jew like me be devastated!
Please make sure that you note the comment above this video was dripping with sarcasm.
Tweet
Montana Lawmaker Favors Decriminalizing Drunk Driving Because DUI Laws "Destroy" Small Businesses And "A Way Of Life"
Turns out Rep. Hale is himself a bar owner.
Tweet
Donald Trump Interviewed By Bill O'Reilly, Asked About The Obama Birth Certificate, Immigration, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Ground Zero Mosque, And More
Dennis Miller responds to the O'Reilly interview with Trump:
Tweet
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
House Passes DC Voucher Bill To Reinstate Funds Cut Off By Obama Administration
The Washingtoon Post reported that the "the House is expected to approve a bill Wednesday afternoon that would revive and expand the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, as President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) stake out opposing sides on the school choice plan. Under the program, which began in 2004, low-income District students are given federal money to help pay for private school tuition. Democrats closed the program to new entrants in 2009. But Boehner’s bill – known as the SOAR Act – would reopen it, offering $20 million annually for five years for new scholarships, along with another $20 million apiece for D.C. charter schools and traditional D.C. public schools."
The House Speaker took the unusual step of sponsoring this local D.C. voucher bill himself, and he was right to do so. The bill has passed, with just one Democrat voting yes, and a handful of Republicans voting no.
Tweet
"Freelance" Jihadists Joining Libyan Rebels, Al Qaeda Leader Says Revolts In Arab Countries Good For "Our Mujahideen Brothers"
The Washington Times reports that "a former leader of Libya’s al Qaeda affiliate says he thinks 'freelance jihadists' have joined the rebel forces, as NATO’s commander told Congress on Tuesday that intelligence indicates some al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists are fighting Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya."
On Capitol Hill, Adm. James Stavridis, the NATO commander, when asked about the presence of al Qaeda terrorists among the rebels, said the leadership of the opposition is made up of “responsible men and women.” “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah,” the four-star admiral said. “We’ve seen different things. But at this point, I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there’s a significant al Qaeda presence, or any other terrorist presence, in and among these folks.”
Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that "al-Awlaki, who has been linked to a series of terrorist plots, said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars were now freer to discuss and organise."
"Our mujahideen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation," he wrote, using a term that refers generally to Islamic guerrilla groups or holy warriors.
"For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahideen", wrote Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in Southern Yemen.
Tweet
Donald Rumsfeld Says Afghanistan "Kill Team" Photos Are "Much Worse" Than Abu Ghraib, Yet The Media Is Silent
When it came to Abu Ghraib the New York Times called on Donal Rumsfeld to resign: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3D8133EF935A1575BC0A9629C8B63 Does anyone notice the New York Times silence as far as calling for the resignation of Robert Gates?
Tweet
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
AP’s Fact Check Hammers Obama’s Libya Speech
To read the text version of this fact check by the Associated Press visit http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_LIBYA_FACT_CHECK?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Tweet
President Obama's Libya War Speech, And Senator Rand Paul's Response
President Obama:
Senator Rand Paul's response:
Tweet
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Culture Continues Sinking With Push-Up Bikinis For Grade-Schoolers Being Marketed By Abercrombie & Fitch
Sexualizing grade-school girls by any company selling or any parent buying padded bikinis is obscene at its core, nothing less than an indication to pedophiles that little girls are sex objects, and a sign of the decrepit state of the culture at large:
Tweet
John Yoo On How An "Antiwar Senator" Has Become A "War-Powers President"
Berkeley Law School Professor John Yoo writes that "like all of his predecessors, this president has realized why the Constitution vested certain powers in the executive branch: Only it can act with dispatch." To read his Wall Street Journal article visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218540505216146.html. Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)