In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.
Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.
A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here
As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.
I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.
Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.
I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.
I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.
Hattip: Huffington Post
Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
Of Regan, Kennedy, and Rockwell: TIme To Reflect On Being An American Not a Republicat or Demorican
A very interesting exhibit opened at the Smithsonian Art Museum In Washington DC. this Fourth of July weekend. It is a retrospective of the works of Norman Rockwell, as seen through the eyes of two of America's greatest living movie directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Each has lent parts of their extensive Rockwell collections to the exhibit.
Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."
Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.
In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.
He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.
Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.
Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.
Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.
To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.
I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.
I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.
I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??
I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.
I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?
I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??
I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)
If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.
If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!
I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys
Hattip: NY Times
Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."
Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.
In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.
He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.
Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.
Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.
Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.
To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.
I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.
I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.
I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??
I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.
I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?
I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??
I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)
If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.
If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!
I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys
Hattip: NY Times
We Are Not The Land Of The Free Until We Stop The Nanny State Bull Hockey
I don't have the time for a long post today. I love America. I believe in its promise. I get frustrated however when I see that we refuse to trust our people with their own money and their own bodies. There are natural consequences from every act, but legal consequences must not be based on someone Else's subjective test of right and wrong.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
Response to the Ridiculous: A Measured Rant in Resonse to an Idiotic Argument Against the DREAM ACT
The DREAM ACT was reintroduced last month followed by President Barack Obama stating his intention to begin debating true immigration reform.
A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.
Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.
You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.
1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:
"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."
There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.
Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.
3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.
Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.
A twitter tweet lead me to this ridiculous commentary by a blogger on "BloggerBase.com" I would normally just leave a comment there but the idiot who wrote the piece didn't want anonymous comments (which is OK by me, I sign my work) and the site won't let you use your name unless you join. I do not see the reason to join, at least for now. So here Mr.J Malmberg is my response to your drivel. Your sad and embarrassing post on what is "wrong" with the DREAM ACT.
Sadly this is a ridiculous response to a real problem. Your arguments are no more than a dismissal of the Dream Act proponent's position. You offer nothing.
You misstate the facts. A kid can't just "come here at 15" & stay. He must be here for years before he qualifies. He must arrive before he is 15.
1. Kids do not come on their own. You suggest the reason this argument doesn't hold water is that it "rewards the parent who broke the law." WRONG. This law doesn't punish the child who is here through no fault of their own. The parent's wish is of no consequence. We do not punish children for the sins of their parents.
Which leads us to straw dog argument number 2:
"When people commit crimes the family is often hurt as much as their direct victims."
There is no US law that punishes a child for a parent's crime. What we do have is a situation where a kid may be the only one punished. That's right, mom and dad may be citizens but the kid might not be & will be sent back to a country where he knows no one & may not speak the language. The child will have no home or any way to survive there.
Your cavalier attitude shows a complete lack of understanding of law or compassion. In America, when we act in child cases, even juvenile crime cases, courts must always consider the best interest of the child. The DREAM act codifies that theory for immigration law as well.
3. Your final argument is a tautology. DREAM ACT kids will be offered in-state tuition in the states in which they reside. It is no different than it is for everyone else. Thousands are not being turned away. Nearly no one who wants to go to college is being kept out because of money. Cite a reputable study for gosh sakes.
Your xenophobic attitude towards these kids is an embarrassment. Your lack of candor is worse. We gave you your stupid fence. It isn't working. Now give us a workable immigration policy that secures our borders, guarantees our security & our economy too. PASS THE DREAM ACT.
Public Hypocrite #1: Sen.Arlen Spector Wants a Attorney General Who Can Say No To The President.
This is rich. Arlen Spector, Republican Senator from Pa. and former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has announced that although Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder has excellent academic and professional credentials he is "concerned" that Holder may not be able to say no to the President.
IS HE KIDDING???? This is the man who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Alberto Gonzalez as AG. Now I understand that Holder told President Clinton he had "no problem" with Clinton pardoning Marc Rich, but Gonzalez not only had no problem with Rendition, and torture, he actually approved of them with written memos. He approved the firing of US Attorneys because they wouldn't do Karl Rove's bidding.
Hey Arlen, can you say "I am a Hypocrite??" Probably not, politicians are just not that honest.
Around the Blogosphere the Week of 12/14/08-12/20/08: Part III- In and Around NY and Long Island
IN part III of this trip around the Blogosphere I found myself looking at some of the things happening in legal life around "here." ("Here" is Long Island and the five boroughs of NYC)
1. In the News on Long Island; Freaky Driving stories:
A. From Newsday (off twitter feed): A Long Island woman jumps from a moving SUV because the driver didn't want to take her to a bar. He wanted to eat dinner. She died. I heard of dying for a drink, but this one is ridiculous.
B. Also from Newsday Suffolk County Cops taze a 62 year old driver who is experiencing bleeding on the brain. He refused to follow orders of cops, they pull him over, he won't get out of car, they taze him, have to then take him to the hospital and wind up saving his life... Now that is making Lemonade from lemons.
2. The Agitator has this post on the indictment of a NYC Police Officer who attacked a guy on a bike, then arrested the guy for running into him!! The officer probably would have succeeded in getting the bicyclist busted on Felony charges had there not been somebody there with a camera phone taking a movie of the incident. The camera man gave his recording to reporters and the cop is now the first cop to be indicted for "Testilying" in as long as I can remember. Radley of course uses the indictment as a teaching opportunity. He scolds Pennsylvania prosecutors for using an old privacy law to allow cops to prosecute people who take photos of them while they "fail" to do their jobs.
3.NYS Governor David Patterson will be appointing a new Jr. Senator from NY to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the new Secy of State. So far we have Caroline Kennedy and Fran "The Nanny" Dresher. I would love to throw my hat in the ring too, as it seems the only qualification you need is that you have no qualification...
Ok you have to be at least Thirty years old.
Anyway, Kennedy is campaigning for the job (Dresher was on Larry King but she has a snowball chance in hell of getting the job unless she runs for it and gets a voice coach) Now here is the thing
In this story Caroline says she is a "Clinton Democrat". Now that does nothing for me but assuming it does something for a democrat, How can she call herself a Clinton Democrat when she supported Barack Obama against Clinton for President??? (Maybe Caroline is more qualified for the US Senate than we think, she clearly already knows doublespeak.)
Then I notice her voting record in general elections is "spotty". That means sometimes she doesn't chose to vote. Now while it is popular to say that it is everyone's duty to vote, I for one do not agree. I refuse to vote when I think that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is usually how I feel when I vote for President and sometimes Governor but at least there are lesser offices I might care about. I also do not vote when I don't know anything about the candidates or their opinions. I see nothing wrong with that. (About not voting, not knowing positions is a different post entirely, sometimes that is not my fault.)
Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg is not unqualified to be a Senator from NY because she has missed votes, nor because she has never held nor run for public office. She is unqualified because she knows nothing of the needs of New Yorkers and we do not need another celebrity senator coming from this state when there are a number of people who do know what they are talking about and what to do about the issues. Unfortunately none of them are even in Congress right now.
Finally there is this interesting choice for US Senator, one that the Governor should really think about, one who has served our state very well over the last 20+ years and who is well aware of the needs of the people of our state. I think Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog is on to something when he recommends Chief Judge Judith Kaye who retire in 2 weeks to be our new Junior Senator. The only qualm I have with Eric's post is that he compares Ms. Kennedy with Pres. G.W. Bush. I am sorry Eric, there is no comparison. Caroline was an excellent student and a very good child. She has always been thoughtful and concerned about others while she guarded her privacy. Comparing her to Bush is like comparing the Pope to Saddam Hussein. Still I think Judge Kaye would make a great democrat possibility for US Senate.
4. Finally, The New York State Bar Association has a general Practice committee. It has a blog. The blog written by Leonard Sienko has a lot of important stuff on it. You don't have to be a member of the State Bar to read the Blog. So READ THE BLOG!!
Two important posts:
A. NY has finally adopted the Model Rules for Professional Conduct. It goes into effect in March 2009. I will be blogging on that I imagine a lot in the next few months.
and
B. The IRS is willing to help struggling homeowners refi and sell their homes by allowing Federal Tax liens to take a secondary position to some mortgages. It's a start anyway.
5. Over at the Divorce hotline, Janine Barbera (aka MatMaven) has a post about the way some judges just lord over a court, forgetting the people that use the court are not there to serve them so much as to be served by them. The post is short on facts but that is fair, Janine wants to be able to continue to practice law. Besides if any judge she appeared before in the last couple of days sees himself, then he should CHANGE HIS WAYS!!!
Q: In the meantime here is a quiz... What is the shortest time span known to man??
A: The period of time it takes for a newly minted judge to forget he was ever a practicing lawyer...
Ok that is a generalization, but sadly it is true way too often. Maybe it is something they should address in judge's school.
OK so much for Part III.
1. In the News on Long Island; Freaky Driving stories:
A. From Newsday (off twitter feed): A Long Island woman jumps from a moving SUV because the driver didn't want to take her to a bar. He wanted to eat dinner. She died. I heard of dying for a drink, but this one is ridiculous.
B. Also from Newsday Suffolk County Cops taze a 62 year old driver who is experiencing bleeding on the brain. He refused to follow orders of cops, they pull him over, he won't get out of car, they taze him, have to then take him to the hospital and wind up saving his life... Now that is making Lemonade from lemons.
2. The Agitator has this post on the indictment of a NYC Police Officer who attacked a guy on a bike, then arrested the guy for running into him!! The officer probably would have succeeded in getting the bicyclist busted on Felony charges had there not been somebody there with a camera phone taking a movie of the incident. The camera man gave his recording to reporters and the cop is now the first cop to be indicted for "Testilying" in as long as I can remember. Radley of course uses the indictment as a teaching opportunity. He scolds Pennsylvania prosecutors for using an old privacy law to allow cops to prosecute people who take photos of them while they "fail" to do their jobs.
3.NYS Governor David Patterson will be appointing a new Jr. Senator from NY to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the new Secy of State. So far we have Caroline Kennedy and Fran "The Nanny" Dresher. I would love to throw my hat in the ring too, as it seems the only qualification you need is that you have no qualification...
Ok you have to be at least Thirty years old.
Anyway, Kennedy is campaigning for the job (Dresher was on Larry King but she has a snowball chance in hell of getting the job unless she runs for it and gets a voice coach) Now here is the thing
In this story Caroline says she is a "Clinton Democrat". Now that does nothing for me but assuming it does something for a democrat, How can she call herself a Clinton Democrat when she supported Barack Obama against Clinton for President??? (Maybe Caroline is more qualified for the US Senate than we think, she clearly already knows doublespeak.)
Then I notice her voting record in general elections is "spotty". That means sometimes she doesn't chose to vote. Now while it is popular to say that it is everyone's duty to vote, I for one do not agree. I refuse to vote when I think that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is usually how I feel when I vote for President and sometimes Governor but at least there are lesser offices I might care about. I also do not vote when I don't know anything about the candidates or their opinions. I see nothing wrong with that. (About not voting, not knowing positions is a different post entirely, sometimes that is not my fault.)
Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg is not unqualified to be a Senator from NY because she has missed votes, nor because she has never held nor run for public office. She is unqualified because she knows nothing of the needs of New Yorkers and we do not need another celebrity senator coming from this state when there are a number of people who do know what they are talking about and what to do about the issues. Unfortunately none of them are even in Congress right now.
Finally there is this interesting choice for US Senator, one that the Governor should really think about, one who has served our state very well over the last 20+ years and who is well aware of the needs of the people of our state. I think Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog is on to something when he recommends Chief Judge Judith Kaye who retire in 2 weeks to be our new Junior Senator. The only qualm I have with Eric's post is that he compares Ms. Kennedy with Pres. G.W. Bush. I am sorry Eric, there is no comparison. Caroline was an excellent student and a very good child. She has always been thoughtful and concerned about others while she guarded her privacy. Comparing her to Bush is like comparing the Pope to Saddam Hussein. Still I think Judge Kaye would make a great democrat possibility for US Senate.
4. Finally, The New York State Bar Association has a general Practice committee. It has a blog. The blog written by Leonard Sienko has a lot of important stuff on it. You don't have to be a member of the State Bar to read the Blog. So READ THE BLOG!!
Two important posts:
A. NY has finally adopted the Model Rules for Professional Conduct. It goes into effect in March 2009. I will be blogging on that I imagine a lot in the next few months.
and
B. The IRS is willing to help struggling homeowners refi and sell their homes by allowing Federal Tax liens to take a secondary position to some mortgages. It's a start anyway.
5. Over at the Divorce hotline, Janine Barbera (aka MatMaven) has a post about the way some judges just lord over a court, forgetting the people that use the court are not there to serve them so much as to be served by them. The post is short on facts but that is fair, Janine wants to be able to continue to practice law. Besides if any judge she appeared before in the last couple of days sees himself, then he should CHANGE HIS WAYS!!!
Q: In the meantime here is a quiz... What is the shortest time span known to man??
A: The period of time it takes for a newly minted judge to forget he was ever a practicing lawyer...
Ok that is a generalization, but sadly it is true way too often. Maybe it is something they should address in judge's school.
OK so much for Part III.
BREAKING NEWS SDNY US ATTORNEY MICHAEL GARCIA RESIGNS
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY REPORTS BREAKING NEWS: SDNY US ATTORNEY MICHAEL GARCIA RESIGNS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1ST 2008.
Garcia's anticipated resignation came today at 5:30. He is leaving after just 3 years as the lead prosecutor and US Attorney in Manhattan to join a law firm (rumored to be Kirkland and Ellis )
Garcia has presided over the investigation into the Prostitution ring that brought down NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and the corruption case of Former NYS Assemblyman and AFL/CIO leader Brian McLaughlin. Thereafter, McLaughlin rolled on Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio who was also indicted.
Two weeks ago, Garcia announced that he would not indict Elliot Spitzer. It was rumored that such an agreement was secretly reached with Spitzer in order to assure he resigned as Governor.
If Hillary Clinton were to be appointed Secretary of State, Garcia would be considered a leading Republican candidate for NYS jr. Senator.
Garcia's anticipated resignation came today at 5:30. He is leaving after just 3 years as the lead prosecutor and US Attorney in Manhattan to join a law firm (rumored to be Kirkland and Ellis )
Garcia has presided over the investigation into the Prostitution ring that brought down NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and the corruption case of Former NYS Assemblyman and AFL/CIO leader Brian McLaughlin. Thereafter, McLaughlin rolled on Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio who was also indicted.
Two weeks ago, Garcia announced that he would not indict Elliot Spitzer. It was rumored that such an agreement was secretly reached with Spitzer in order to assure he resigned as Governor.
If Hillary Clinton were to be appointed Secretary of State, Garcia would be considered a leading Republican candidate for NYS jr. Senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)